Well Done, Mr. President

[JamesInFlorida]

I said invading Iraq is what initially started people to push away from him

Yes... and -I- asked why people started pulling away from him in September of 01, as evidenced by his popularity immediately dropping.

-That's- what you need to explain - and since Iraq wasn't an issue until 2002, Iraq does't cover it.

Never before (except Lincoln) has a president been so ridiculed, mocked, and eviscerated by the media, and then the public polled to produce media events to constantly analyze his imputed fall from grace. They hated him so much because they believed Gore should've been there and not him, and because he was not of them.

In all fairness under Bush we entered a recession. And I guess you don't remember Clinton being impeached for lying about getting a blowjob either, and the field day the media had with that huh? Give me a break-it goes both way. (however the media does go lighter on Obama than Clinton or Bush-I'll give ya that).

This is what I said. Thank you.

I clearly said "I admit I was initially wrong".

And I clearly thanked you.
:shrug:

Thought you were being a smart ass to be honest haha, guess you weren't.

 

[American Horse]

Never before (except Lincoln) has a president been so ridiculed, mocked, and eviscerated by the media, and then the public polled to produce media events to constantly analyze his imputed fall from grace. They hated him so much because they believed Gore should've been there and not him, and because he was not of them.

In all fairness under Bush we entered a recession. And I guess you don't remember Clinton being impeached for lying about getting a blowjob either, and the field day the media had with that huh? Give me a break-it goes both way. (however the media does go lighter on Obama than Clinton or Bush-I'll give ya that).

Clinton was impeached because he lied repeatedly to a federal officer; a federal judge I believe. That kind of criminal offense cannot be ignored. Scooter Libby was imprisoned for lying to a federal officer; FBI agents I believe.

Rule of law and all that.

You are right about the recession, and I'm not sure about the correlation about the recession and his approval ratings, but they were certainly connected.

 

[Truthmatters]

Myth: Clinton committed perjury


Summary

Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath, about something that is important to the case. To prosecute a false statement, the government needs to prove somehow that the witness intended to lie, rather than he was mistaken or confused over the facts. To eliminate ambiguity, confusion and opportunities for lying, lawyers often reject common-sense definitions in favor of legal definitions, which are more carefully defined. A witness who answers a legal definition accurately, in spite of what common sense says, is not committing perjury. The only requirement for a defendant is to answer questions accurately; he is not obligated to help the prosecution bring himself down, and has a constitutional right to fight vigorously in his defense. In Clinton’s case, no accusation of perjury survives these observations.

 

[newpolitics]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztbJmXQDIGA[/ame]

 

[Rinata]

I think it has been a really amazing week so far. There has been a lot of blame going on, but it only seems to be with the pundits. Our elected officials have behaved very well. I am really glad to see that.

 

[Jarhead]

I think it has been a really amazing week so far. There has been a lot of blame going on, but it only seems to be with the pundits. Our elected officials have behaved very well. I am really glad to see that.

You may have missed Dick Durbin and Charlie Rangel.

They cast blame for the deaths on the rhetoric of the right.

 

[Liability]

I think it has been a really amazing week so far. There has been a lot of blame going on, but it only seems to be with the pundits. Our elected officials have behaved very well. I am really glad to see that.

Rinata: due to a personal pledge I made here recently, I cannot use that hideously vile alternative user-name I had for you. So, please fogive me if this comes across as "civil."

Anyway, I think you're mostly right. Pundits like Krugman (and like the AZ. Sheriff) said a lot of stupid stuff. But, by and large, our elected officials did better than they often do in this department.

This recent clamor for "civility" is overwrought PC nonsense for the most part, in my not too humble opinion. But a little more civility from politicians couldn't hurt as long as they don't end up hiding behind it as a cheap excuse to compromise on matters of political PRINCIPLES.

 

[Rinata]

I don't know how long it will last, and maybe it won't. But it's nice for a change and I hope it will calm people down some. It has effected me a lot but I can't say that I will be forever civil. But I'm trying.

 

[American Horse]

Myth: Clinton committed perjury


Summary

Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath, about something that is important to the case. To prosecute a false statement, the government needs to prove somehow that the witness intended to lie, rather than he was mistaken or confused over the facts. To eliminate ambiguity, confusion and opportunities for lying, lawyers often reject common-sense definitions in favor of legal definitions, which are more carefully defined. A witness who answers a legal definition accurately, in spite of what common sense says, is not committing perjury. The only requirement for a defendant is to answer questions accurately; he is not obligated to help the prosecution bring himself down, and has a constitutional right to fight vigorously in his defense. In Clinton’s case, no accusation of perjury survives these observations.

Well if he and his supporters have to justify his answers with semantical tricks, and the judge wasn't willing to accommodate those types of answers, that is his problem.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

A number of you on here seem to take delight in the repetitive rambling over O'buzzards grandstanding and sophistry that he won a Nobel Prize for.... So, I understand your star struck fawning over the Marxist/Fascist progressive Muslime Usurper.... Here are some of Sheik O'buzzards friends...

kagan and sotomayer are both anti-gun, committed Socialists, if not Marxists, like nearly all of Obozo's appointees.

What really galls me is that neither one could ever have gotten in without at least one Republican vote on the Senate Judiciary committee. That vote was supplied by Lindsey Graham, (R, SC) both times. Note that “Republican” Senators also chose to confirm both of them—WHY??? Every once in a while, I go back and read the GOP 2008 platform, which is pretty good reading, for fiction, because not many Republicans treat it as non-fiction.

To think that such a Progressive cap and trade, amnesty-loving loving scum as Graham came from the same state as Jim DeMint is mind-boggling. I used to live down there and my impression is that people there would beat up someone like that. Graham is now running scared, because he will be up for re-election, so watch him feint to the right for a while. Harry Reid will tell him which "safe" bills he can vote against to build up his "Conservative" creds, so the sheeple will forget how badly he betrayed them-- but we will not let them forget.

Kagan, by the way, handled all of Obama's eligibility defense cases, before she was elevated to the Supreme Court. Didn’t read much about that in the "media," huh? Unless you read wnd.com, Canadian Free Press, or Post & email. Yes, the Dept. of “Justice” illegally defended Obama when they should have instead been prosecuting him. These clowns were in federal court, on October 5, 2009, in Santa Ana, CA, doing just that, on our dime-- so we paid for it. Thanks, Elena, Thanks, Barry. Thanks, Lindsey. We shall NOT forget.

People keep voting for party instead of Country.... Another tragedy aiding in the fall of the Republic....

 

[mdn2000]

I don't know how long it will last, and maybe it won't. But it's nice for a change and I hope it will calm people down some. It has effected me a lot but I can't say that I will be forever civil. But I'm trying.

You were not civil prior, I can say I may be harsh of folks for name calling and such but I never saw the use of words as not being civil.

 

[Rinata]

I don't know how long it will last, and maybe it won't. But it's nice for a change and I hope it will calm people down some. It has effected me a lot but I can't say that I will be forever civil. But I'm trying.

You were not civil prior, I can say I may be harsh of folks for name calling and such but I never saw the use of words as not being civil.

What are you talking about?? I don't know you at all. And your post makes no sense. FYI, I am civil to those that are civil to me.

 

[Ozmar]

Wow, a whole fucking page of bullshit about Bush, 911, Clinton, and semantics about civility and perjury. Nice job assholes.


I saw parts of Obama's speech, and I have to say it's the first time in a long time I have been moved by any speech by a political figure. If it had any political undertones, they were incredibly subtle. President Obama was everyone's PRESIDENT for a bried moment today. Everyone who matters. Quite honestly, if you weren't moved even just a little by this speech, I don't believe there is any redeemable quality in you. Period.

 

[mdn2000]

I don't know how long it will last, and maybe it won't. But it's nice for a change and I hope it will calm people down some. It has effected me a lot but I can't say that I will be forever civil. But I'm trying.

You were not civil prior, I can say I may be harsh of folks for name calling and such but I never saw the use of words as not being civil.

What are you talking about?? I don't know you at all. And your post makes no sense. FYI, I am civil to those that are civil to me.

I interpreted your post as you stating you were not civil in the past, your trying to be civil is what you stated, were you not civil in the past. Again, if all you used were words I call that being civil.

Maybe you meant something different, maybe not, I hope you remain civil, you state your trying, me, I am always civil, I was taught stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. I see name calling as being civil. Maybe you do not.

I responded in your defense, You were not civil prior? I should of added the question mark but it was phrased as a question and I meant it as question. You said you were trying to be civil, that to me indicated you were not civil in the past or that you have trouble being civil. I stated I view the use of any speech as civil, that was meant to be interpreted by you as if the only thing your ever did was simple speech regardless of the language I consider you to be civil.

I am also civil to all that are civil to me, I have yet to have anyone do a thing un-civil to me. But I guess that all depends on the definition of civil. For me civility is not resorting to riots, car burning, etc...

I hope that makes better sense. I just responded to how your post read to me from my perspective.

Don't be so harsh on yourself. We can only be civil posting on the internet.

 

[taichiliberal]

A number of you on here seem to take delight in the repetitive rambling over O'buzzards grandstanding and sophistry that he won a Nobel Prize for.... So, I understand your star struck fawning over the Marxist/Fascist progressive Muslime Usurper.... Here are some of Sheik O'buzzards friends...

kagan and sotomayer are both anti-gun, committed Socialists, if not Marxists, like nearly all of Obozo's appointees.

What really galls me is that neither one could ever have gotten in without at least one Republican vote on the Senate Judiciary committee. That vote was supplied by Lindsey Graham, (R, SC) both times. Note that “Republican” Senators also chose to confirm both of them—WHY??? Every once in a while, I go back and read the GOP 2008 platform, which is pretty good reading, for fiction, because not many Republicans treat it as non-fiction.

To think that such a Progressive cap and trade, amnesty-loving loving scum as Graham came from the same state as Jim DeMint is mind-boggling. I used to live down there and my impression is that people there would beat up someone like that. Graham is now running scared, because he will be up for re-election, so watch him feint to the right for a while. Harry Reid will tell him which "safe" bills he can vote against to build up his "Conservative" creds, so the sheeple will forget how badly he betrayed them-- but we will not let them forget.

Kagan, by the way, handled all of Obama's eligibility defense cases, before she was elevated to the Supreme Court. Didn’t read much about that in the "media," huh? Unless you read wnd.com, Canadian Free Press, or Post & email. Yes, the Dept. of “Justice” illegally defended Obama when they should have instead been prosecuting him. These clowns were in federal court, on October 5, 2009, in Santa Ana, CA, doing just that, on our dime-- so we paid for it. Thanks, Elena, Thanks, Barry. Thanks, Lindsey. We shall NOT forget.

People keep voting for party instead of Country.... Another tragedy aiding in the fall of the Repubulic....

And here's a prime example of the insipidly stubborn and irrational hatred of the neocon peanut gallery against Obama.

They just can't stand the FACT that the man did his job as the President and did it well in a time of national tragedy. So, this idiot drops every neocon talking point cliche and uses biased tomes like the World Net Daily to regurgitate birther/oather/teabagger nonsense that has since LONG been disproven.

As Speaker Boehner stated, if the State of Hawaii says Obama is a citizen born, that's good enough for him.

 

[taichiliberal]

Okay, I'm not one for public mourning rituals....and what went on in Arkansas was more like a pep rally of sorts to me.....but hey, I'll respect people for how they handle grief.

As for Obama......seems the Community Organizer just check mated the neocon noise machine. I'll disagree with Obama on several points, but damned if he wasn't MISTER PRESIDENT tonight!

I tip my hat to you, President Obama.

Why can't people leave their politics in aother place I have for this thread.

Because listening to the radio of the neocon cabal shows that haven't changed their mantras one iota...and by the postings on this thread, neither have others. I, who came in late here, am merely responding to tone set by others.

 

[taichiliberal]

Okay, I'm not one for public mourning rituals....and what went on in Arkansas was more like a pep rally of sorts to me.....but hey, I'll respect people for how they handle grief.

As for Obama......seems the Community Organizer just check mated the neocon noise machine. I'll disagree with Obama on several points, but damned if he wasn't MISTER PRESIDENT tonight!

I tip my hat to you, President Obama.

Crap! What happened in Arkansas? Did I miss something again? Turn my TV off too soon. It's 10 minutes after 1am! I don't want to stay up all night tonight... or did you mean Arizona?

Immie

I stand corrected!

 

[zeitgeist2012]

In your dreams wet brained progressive parrots.... sorry to give ya all a tingle in your indoctrinated little talons....

Demand the Media "Tell the Truth!" About Government-Run Health Care

MRC Action

 

[Rinata]

You were not civil prior, I can say I may be harsh of folks for name calling and such but I never saw the use of words as not being civil.

What are you talking about?? I don't know you at all. And your post makes no sense. FYI, I am civil to those that are civil to me.

I interpreted your post as you stating you were not civil in the past, your trying to be civil is what you stated, were you not civil in the past. Again, if all you used were words I call that being civil.

Maybe you meant something different, maybe not, I hope you remain civil, you state your trying, me, I am always civil, I was taught stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. I see name calling as being civil. Maybe you do not.

I responded in your defense, You were not civil prior? I should of added the question mark but it was phrased as a question and I meant it as question. You said you were trying to be civil, that to me indicated you were not civil in the past or that you have trouble being civil. I stated I view the use of any speech as civil, that was meant to be interpreted by you as if the only thing your ever did was simple speech regardless of the language I consider you to be civil.

I am also civil to all that are civil to me, I have yet to have anyone do a thing un-civil to me. But I guess that all depends on the definition of civil. For me civility is not resorting to riots, car burning, etc...

I hope that makes better sense. I just responded to how your post read to me from my perspective.

Don't be so harsh on yourself. We can only be civil posting on the internet.

I appreciate your input. Thank you.

 

[American Horse]

You were not civil prior, I can say I may be harsh of folks for name calling and such but I never saw the use of words as not being civil.

Interesting assertion; I would say I must disagree. We can certainly be uncivil when we use harsh words. I try to conduct myself in a civil manner, judging that anything I say here should parallel what I would say in an ordinary conversation, with a perfect stranger, and in a public place.

I have flown off the handle a few times here when, apropos of nothing, someone has called me a LIAR. From me that gets a reflexive reaction. That last time it happen, it was so vile and unnecessary that I called the person a fool, and said that I had no time for them.