George W. Bush outpolls Barack Obama

[red states rule]

Oh this will cause the heads of Obama lovers to explode. You do not appreciate someone until they are gone




<header>George W. Bush outpolls Barack Obama

</header><footer class="meta">By Nick Gass (http://www.politico.com/reporters/NickGass.html)
<time datetime="2015-06-03T06:57-05:00">6/3/15 6:57 AM EDT</time>
Updated <time datetime="2015-06-03T08:41-05:00">6/3/15 8:41 AM EDT

</time>
</footer>

Americans now have a more favorable view of former President George W. Bush than they do of President Barack Obama.


It is the first time in more than a decade that Americans have expressed a favorable view of Bush, at least according to a new CNN/ORC poll (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/02/obama,.economy.poll.pdf) released Wednesday.

Bush is seen in a favorable light by 52 percent of those surveyed, compared with 43 percent who still view the 43rd president unfavorably. Americans are split on Obama, with 49 percent responding favorably and unfavorably.


The last time Bush polled in positive territory was in early April 2005, close to three months into his second term.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-george-w-bush-popularity-obama-popularity-118576.html

[sundaydriver]

Oh this will cause the heads of Obama lovers to explode. You do not appreciate someone until they are gone

That is a true statement as peoples memories fade. Just about every Presidents approval ratings improve once they are out of office over time.

The true comparison is time in office during the same time period. Where BO is at 43%, Bush was in the low 30's.

Don't worry red, even BO's numbers will rise after he is out of office a few years.

[Jeff]

Well I can honestly say that the night Obama was elected I was posting pictures of GW saying YA MISS ME NOW, as GW had a smirk on his face.

[Perianne]

What amazes me is that ANY American would give approval to Obama.

[Drummond]

That is a true statement as peoples memories fade. Just about every Presidents approval ratings improve once they are out of office over time.

The true comparison is time in office during the same time period. Where BO is at 43%, Bush was in the low 30's.

Don't worry red, even BO's numbers will rise after he is out of office a few years.

George W Bush had his terms in Office.

Obama is close to equalling that same timespan in Office.

The REAL comparison to be made is the one where two virtually equally long periods can be compared against each other. And we see what result that brings.

GW Bush went to great lengths to combat terrorist aggressors, in defence of your country and the civilised world.

Obama's record, by comparison, is woefully 'inadequate' (something of an understatement). He's shown zero interest in maintaining the momentum against America's enemies. He even HELPED them by announcing troop withdrawals, YEARS before arranging them (and ISIS, I'm sure, is most appreciative ?).

I find it understandable that a President who proves himself far more willing to defend the American people, gets greater approval from them !!!

[red states rule]

That is a true statement as peoples memories fade. Just about every Presidents approval ratings improve once they are out of office over time.

The true comparison is time in office during the same time period. Where BO is at 43%, Bush was in the low 30's.

Don't worry red, even BO's numbers will rise after he is out of office a few years.

I am sure the libs in the Professor's lounge at Harvard will hold Obama in high esteem

But if you look at his actual record SD - there is not much there to praise

A record number of Americans on food stamps

An additional $10 trillion added to the nations debt - and growing every second

The classic lies like if you like your plan and doctor you can keep them

ISIS which Obama dismissed as a jay vee team

The nations first credit down grade

The lie where illegals will pay taxes. The IRS has confirmed illegals will be able to file past tax returns and get the Earned Income tax credit

His flagrant breachs of the US Constitution by changing existing laws via Executive Order. Over 40 changes to Obamacre which we have been told ovr and over is the "law of the land" and amnesty for illegals

Russia, Iran, and Syria are the result of Obama's inexperience and stupidity

NOw I am sure you have an excuse for all of them and you will probably blame Bush. BUt these are all on Obama's resume, and it will be ignored by the left

[sundaydriver]

Well rsr, I see you are still trying the only way you can to win a debate is by putting your words in other peoples mouths to try to make them wrong.;) Instead of saying that I was making excuses for BO, you should have acknowledged that yes what you were trying to do with your copy/paste article was to measure apples to oranges to create the wrong impression that at present BO is CURRENTLY doing worse than Bush which is not true.

I showed where Bush's numbers were 6 1/2 years as to BO's at the same time period and Bush's were even lower than BO's at the current time in office. We can again match them up again when BO is out of office for the same time periods as Bush. That is the only fair way to measure.

I'm not saying one POTUS is better than the other because they both have screwed up plenty, only in different ways.

[red states rule]

Well rsr, I see you are still trying the only way you can to win a debate is by putting your words in other peoples mouths to try to make them wrong.;) Instead of saying that I was making excuses for BO, you should have acknowledged that yes what you were trying to do with your copy/paste article was to measure apples to oranges to create the wrong impression that at present BO is CURRENTLY doing worse than Bush which is not true.

I showed where Bush's numbers were 6 1/2 years as to BO's at the same time period and Bush's were even lower than BO's at the current time in office. We can again match them up again when BO is out of office for the same time periods as Bush. That is the only fair way to measure.

I'm not saying one POTUS is better than the other because they both have screwed up plenty, only in different ways.

I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. I did say you were making excuses for Obama - but you would be if you addressed the partial list of his accomplishments I posted. The bottom line is, more and more people are seeing the REAL Obama and they do not like him

We are told we are in a recovery - but where is it?

The economy contracted last quarter and what was the excuse? Wel it was cold and it snowed during the winter

Obama no longer needs the voyers, the unions, and campaign cash and we are seeing what he actually believes in. And people are not liking it

[sundaydriver]

I am sure the libs in the Professor's lounge at Harvard will hold Obama in high esteem

But if you look at his actual record SD - there is not much there to praise

A record number of Americans on food stamps

An additional $10 trillion added to the nations debt - and growing every second

The classic lies like if you like your plan and doctor you can keep them

ISIS which Obama dismissed as a jay vee team

The nations first credit down grade

The lie where illegals will pay taxes. The IRS has confirmed illegals will be able to file past tax returns and get the Earned Income tax credit

His flagrant breachs of the US Constitution by changing existing laws via Executive Order. Over 40 changes to Obamacre which we have been told ovr and over is the "law of the land" and amnesty for illegals

Russia, Iran, and Syria are the result of Obama's inexperience and stupidity

NOw I am sure you have an excuse for all of them and you will probably blame Bush. BUt these are all on Obama's resume, and it will be ignored by the left

Atta boy. Deflect everything. Please post some more memorized rhetoric for a reply.

[red states rule]

Atta boy. Deflect everything. Please post some more memorized rhetoric for a reply.

Deflect - no. You refuse to even try to tell us how good we have it under his rule

Poeple like Bush more then Obama for some reason and I gave you a partial list why

[sundaydriver]

Just as expected. More deflection instead of an actual reply.:laugh:

[red states rule]

Just as expected. More deflection instead of an actual reply.:laugh:

Keep ignoring the real world SD. Libs are happier there anyway.

I have replied it is just you refuse to accept the truth. The "messiah" turned out to be a total disaster. But it is karma the people who supported him the most are the ones suffering the most under his rule

[sundaydriver]

Keep ignoring the real world SD. Libs are happier there anyway.

I have replied it is just you refuse to accept the truth. The "messiah" turned out to be a total disaster. But it is karma the people who supported him the most are the ones suffering the most under his rule

I compared numbers because science was my career and numbers were only important if used correctly when gathering and comparing data. Not apples to oranges as your posted article did. All you can do is reply with more & more deflection and memorized rhetoric and what no cartoons yet?

[red states rule]

I compared numbers because science was my career and numbers were only important if used correctly when gathering and comparing data. Not apples to oranges as your posted article did. All you can do is reply with more & more deflection and memorized rhetoric and what no cartoons yet?

So why do think Obama's number will go up? What has he done to earn a favorable legacy?

I is not apples to oranges to point out the list of Obama's failures. It is giving him the credit he deserves

[sundaydriver]

So why do think Obama's number will go up? What has he done to earn a favorable legacy?

I is not apples to oranges to point out the list of Obama's failures. It is giving him the credit he deserves

For the same reason Bush's and others rose. Memories fade and rewriting of history.

[red states rule]

For the same reason Bush's and others rose. Memories fade and rewriting of history.

Let me try again.

What are the accomplishments Obama has now that will impact the future; that will cause folks to have a more favorable opinion of him later?

[sundaydriver]

Let me try again.

What are the accomplishments Obama has now that will impact the future; that will cause folks to have a more favorable opinion of him later?

Killed Bin Laden with his bare hands!

[Jeff]

Killed Bin Laden with his bare hands!

That is funny as hell but so sadly true, what else did he do ? That will be his claim to fame, he got Bin Laden, and truth be told he didn't do squat.

[revelarts]

Both are/we're unconstitutional criminals and should be in jail.
2 big thumbs down.

But OK, more people like Bush now, seems folks haven't gotten any wiser in 8 years.

But one odd thing i see missing in this thread.
Is it OK to bring Bush up in a favorable light? Where are the posters rushing into this thread outraged and saying
"Bush is out of office now so why are you bringing him up...?" ?
seems to be pretty standard response when he's brought up in a negative light or others comparisons.

or is it mostly just a piss poor argument in general to say that "...well Bush is out of office..."?
So it does in fact make sense to bring him up in areas where it's clearly relevant. (like in a popularity contest here:rolleyes:)
Just as it's relevant to bring up Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Hoover, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon or Reagan in various current context on certain issues and comparisons. right?

[Jeff]

Both are/we're unconstitutional criminals and should be in jail.
2 big thumbs down.

But OK, more people like Bush now, seems folks haven't gotten any wiser in 8 years.

But one odd thing i see missing in this thread.
Is it OK to bring Bush up in a favorable light? Where are the posters rushing into this thread outraged and saying
"Bush is out of office now so why are you bringing him up...?" ?
seems to be pretty standard response when he's brought up in a negative light or others comparisons.

or is it mostly just a piss poor argument in general to say that "...well Bush is out of office..."?
So it does in fact make sense to bring him up in areas where it's clearly relevant. (like in a popularity contest here:rolleyes:)
Just as it's relevant to bring up Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Hoover, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon or Reagan in various current context on certain issues and comparisons. right?

I think people say hey he has been out of office for how ever long after hearing how the new administration isn't at fault it is all the old president's fault, even years after the new one has been in office.

[revelarts]

I think people say hey he has been out of office for how ever long after hearing how the new administration isn't at fault it is all the old president's fault, even years after the new one has been in office.

sure some on the left might use it as an blind excuse. But I've seen the 'Bush is Gone...! ' reply used more than in response to those type of comments.

Iraq issues - mention Bush -'Bush is Gone...! '
Spying on citizens - mention Bush -'Bush is Gone...! '
Terrorism - mention Bush -'Bush is Gone...!'
National Debt - mention Bush -'Bush is Gone...! '
It often seems to imply that it's ALL Obama's fault when any objective assessment will concede that Bush Started some of those and they share the blame to various degrees on various issues. And that Bush and Obama have the SAME policies on many issues.

Bush had nothing to do with ObamaCare or invading Libya, or benghazi, or the iRS scandal, or the fumbling in Syria and Iran, or several other things

But we should give Bush credit where credit/blame is due.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What amazes me is that ANY American would give approval to Obama.

A large segment of our population vote dem by a 90+% every election(blacks) then another large group (socialists) vote dem at a very high rate.
There are other anti-american groups doing same but those two groups combined. aided by media lying and covering for the bamboy give the obama a much higher approval rating than he deserves.
If not for all of that and many other reasons not listed the obama would have a less than 10% approval rating IMHO.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

sure some on the left might use it as an blind excuse. But I've seen the 'Bush is Gone...! ' reply used more than in response to those type of comments.

Iraq issues - mention Bush -'Bush is Gone...! '
Spying on citizens - mention Bush -'Bush is Gone...! '
Terrorism - mention Bush -'Bush is Gone...!'
National Debt - mention Bush -'Bush is Gone...! '
It often seems to imply that it's ALL Obama's fault when any objective assessment will concede that Bush Started some of those and they share the blame to various degrees on various issues. And that Bush and Obama have the SAME policies on many issues.

Bush had nothing to do with ObamaCare or invading Libya, or benghazi, or the iRS scandal, or the fumbling in Syria and Iran, or several other things

But we should give Bush credit where credit/blame is due.

Rev do you blame the guy that laid the house's foundation for the shitty job the roofers did?
Certainly appears that you do.
Obama should be judged on his actions but not keep getting the excuse but its Bush's fault.
When they praise him why isnt Bush given credit there?
No sir, the guy is a liar, a fraud , a shyster, a muslim in hiding, a traitor and a sorry excuse for a human..
None of your pandering or feeble attempts at justification of his bad policies cut the mustard IMHO. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Rev do you blame the guy that laid the house's foundation for the shitty job the roofers did?
Certainly appears that you do.
If the whole foundation was put on the wrong lot on the edge of a cliff. and someone starts crying about the roof as if that's the ONLY real problem. then yes i'll bring up that the house is on the WRONG freakin' lot on the edge of cliff too. and that the original guy should have been fired in the !ST PLACE and the crap roofer who KNEW it was on the wrong lot should NEVER have been HIRED.
Both are idiots!!
so, Yes i do.



Obama should be judged on his actions but not keep getting the excuse but its Bush's fault.
When they praise him why isnt Bush given credit there?
No sir, the guy is a liar, a fraud , a shyster, a muslim in hiding, a traitor and a sorry excuse for a human..
None of your pandering or feeble attempts at justification of his bad policies cut the mustard IMHO. -Tyr

Tyr if you make wild scatters shot comments about the Presidents humanity and the like and cannot even even honestly admit that I have objectively criticized Obama but you some how read its only as "attempts at justification" then there's little reason t try and explain it to you.

because your not rational on this issue Tyr. sorry.

If I say Obama is a liar. He lied about Gitmo, and repealing NSA Spying, and "Keep your dr", and backing off whistle blowers, and unconstitutionally went to Libya, and was a supplying AQ in Syria and Libya and that ObamaCare is crap. and etc etc..
but you think that those comments are "attempts at justification".

then Tyr your not rational here. And it seems i'm the only one here that will tell you strait.

If someone says Bush was COMPLETELY wrong and lied about EVERYTHING and is "a fraud, a shyster, a NAZI in hiding, a traitor and a sorry excuse for a human."
I'd say that person has LOST all rational judgement on there assessment of Bush as well.
IMO both Bush and Obama are factual war criminals and constitution destroyers. though each may in fact be pleasant over a root beer.
to say one is HUGELY and horribly 1000 times worse than the other is BS.

Hyperbole is one thing but based on what you've written elsewhere it' goes beyond that Tyr.
maybe i'm wrong here but i I don't think I'm far off base.

[Voted4Reagan]

http://rlv.zcache.com.au/anti_obama_george_bush_miss_me_now_bumper_sticker-ra1eaee229a3e42489a6de9179b6dcb6a_v9wht_8byvr_512. jpg

[jimnyc]

But one odd thing i see missing in this thread.
Is it OK to bring Bush up in a favorable light? Where are the posters rushing into this thread outraged and saying
"Bush is out of office now so why are you bringing him up...?" ?
seems to be pretty standard response when he's brought up in a negative light or others comparisons.

The time others say the bold is when people bring up Bush - in a thread that had nothing to do with him. Now - look at the title of this thread. Now tell me how this is the same as others bringing up Bush in threads that had ZILCH to do with him?

If someone runs into a thread about Obama, to bring up Bush instead - in a favorable light, in a thread that has zilch to do with Bush, then I agree with you 100%. But in this case, it's simply not the same as pointing out when someone Like Gabby brings up "Bush did it" in every other thread that has nothing to do with it.

[aboutime]

http://icansayit.com/images/bushmissme.jpgrev. Once again. You could save all of us lots of time on this thread if you simply stepped forward, like an honest man, and told us YOU HATE BUSH.

Asking questions as you do, to change the context of the original topic is just Sooooooo Liberally, Racist of you.

[revelarts]

The time others say the bold is when people bring up Bush - in a thread that had nothing to do with him. Now - look at the title of this thread. Now tell me how this is the same as others bringing up Bush in threads that had ZILCH to do with him?

If someone runs into a thread about Obama, to bring up Bush instead - in a favorable light, in a thread that has zilch to do with Bush, then I agree with you 100%. But in this case, it's simply not the same as pointing out when someone Like Gabby brings up "Bush did it" in every other thread that has nothing to do with it.

Ok so Jim does the same go for Obama?
look at this thread. A story of @% years worth of local corruption. Nothing about Obama but there and "Obvious" connection...
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49903-Wow-An-Argument-For-Rev


Here one from the quote thread

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by About timehttp://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=737314#post737314)
Prophetic Warning: Senator Frank Church –
who chaired the famous “Church Committee” into the unlawful FBI Cointel program, and who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – said in 1975:
“Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.“
Glad to finally see you admit how OBAMA has become our Dictator. Thanks to Frank Church. Now, maybe you can tell us HOW to fight back when Obama ignores his Oath, and our Constitution to please our enemies, and build his Legacy as the WORST Dictator, President in History.
I go on to point point out BOTH Bush and Obama issues with Spying and I'm called an Obama lover.
But the fact IS that BUSH is the one that authorized the 1st BIG leap into what the the Church Commission warned about Obama has just illegally continued it.

It's an IDIOTIC LIE to claim it's all OBAMA. that's just a fact.


i just weary of the willing blindness. and uberpartisan BS that some try to pass off as "truth".
So i comment on it ALONE with no one honest enough to say the same.

so be it.

[aboutime]

Ok so Jim does the same go for Obama?
look at this thread. A story of @% years worth of local corruption. Nothing about Obama but there and "Obvious" connection...
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49903-Wow-An-Argument-For-Rev


Here one from the quote thread

I go on to point point out BOTH Bush and Obama issues with Spying and I'm called an Obama lover.
But the fact IS that BUSH is the one that authorized the 1st BIG leap into what the the Church Commission warned about Obama has just illegally continued it.

It's an IDIOTIC LIE to claim it's all OBAMA. that's just a fact.


i just weary of the willing blindness. and uberpartisan BS that some try to pass off as "truth".
So i comment on it ALONE with no one honest enough to say the same.

so be it.



rev. Once again. You avoided, or didn't take the opportunity to simply tell us. YOU HATE BUSH.
You can dredge up all the words from the past you like. But you could save us all the time by those 3 words.

[Abbey Marie]

For the same reason Bush's and others rose. Memories fade and rewriting of history.

Not always. I think Carter is still looked upon as possibly the most incompetent President we've had.

[Drummond]

Killed Bin Laden with his bare hands!

... sorry, but I'm still reeling from this one.

WITH HIS BARE HANDS, you say ?

An example, quite an absurd one, of a Leftie rewriting history ?

I look forward to your proof of that claim. And don't you think that the individual who REALLY killed bin Laden deserves some credit ??

[sundaydriver]

For the same reason Bush's and others rose. Memories fade and rewriting of history.


Not always. I think Carter is still looked upon as possibly the most incompetent President we've had.

Correct, but Carter's approval rating also rose after a few beers & time out of office.

http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo302/rover27/cfclvezwek23sld0f8aoja_zpsc85lzjod.gif (http://s386.photobucket.com/user/rover27/media/cfclvezwek23sld0f8aoja_zpsc85lzjod.gif.html)

[Voted4Reagan]

Not always. I think Carter is still looked upon as possibly the most incompetent President we've had.

Carter was a good Humanitarian President. I honestly believe he cares that much for people. He is a good man.

He was a Horrible President

Obama isn't even a good humanitarian President.

[Jeff]

Carter was a good Humanitarian President. I honestly believe he cares that much for people. He is a good man.

He was a Horrible President

Obama isn't even a good humanitarian President.

Carter was a Putz, :laugh: he has a believe that all folks are good.

[Drummond]

Carter was a good Humanitarian President. I honestly believe he cares that much for people. He is a good man.

He was a Horrible President

Obama isn't even a good humanitarian President.

Carter was a deranged fanatic when it came to humanitarian stances. Why, he EVEN thought it appropriate to apply humanitarianism to terrorists !!

One might as well try to sell humanitarianism to an anthill.

In fact .. an anthill would be more deserving. Since when did one launch a terrorist atrocity against America ?

[aboutime]

Carter was a Putz, :laugh: he has a believe that all folks are good.


Carter also still believes those who wanted to kill him were just as kind as he was, while in office.

I remember, and will never forgive Jimmy for this http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/05/the-desert-one-debacle/304803/

This is what our present FAILURE in office is doing...With ISIS. Too little, Too Late.

For the same reasons I will never forgive Hanoi Jane, or John (The war Hero) Now Broken Leg Kerry.

[red states rule]

Killed Bin Laden with his bare hands!

The Seal Team did kill OBL on Obama's order AFTER we obtained the intell by water boarding (thanks to GWB)

Funny how Obama spikes the football over OBL, but dismisses, ignores, and tries to pas the buck when it comes to Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and ISIS.

However it is much easier for you SD to list the positive things Obama has accomplished. The list is so damn short they are easy to remember

[red states rule]

Carter was a deranged fanatic when it came to humanitarian stances. Why, he EVEN thought it appropriate to apply humanitarianism to terrorists !!

One might as well try to sell humanitarianism to an anthill.

In fact .. an anthill would be more deserving. Since when did one launch a terrorist atrocity against America ?

Obama is Carter on steroids. Carter is delighted with Obama however. Jimmy was happy to hand over the Worst President title to Obama. He has worked damn hard and deserves it

[Jeff]

The Seal Team did kill OBL on Obama's order AFTER we obtained the intell by water boarding (thanks to GWB)

Funny how Obama spikes the football over OBL, but dismisses, ignores, and tries to pas the buck when it comes to Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and ISIS.

However it is much easier for you SD to list the positive things Obama has accomplished. The list is so damn short they are easy to remember

Hell as for killing OBL yes a seal did it on Obama's order, the order that was all ready in effect thanks to GW, yes I will give Obama this credit, he said carry on and do the deed. But had he been responsible to make the call in the first place who knows what he would of done with one of his comrades.

[red states rule]

Hell as for killing OBL yes a seal did it on Obama's order, the order that was all ready in effect thanks to GW, yes I will give Obama this credit, he said carry on and do the deed. But had he been responsible to make the call in the first place who knows what he would of done with one of his comrades.

It is also amazing to watch Obama make nice with terrorists, downplay their wins, talk about getting along, and working out the differences they have with America

While at the same time he slanders his political opponents, refers to them as enemies, blames Fox News for all his failures, and plays the race card every chance he gets

It is clear Obama has more hate toward his fellow Americans who have a different opinion on the role and size of government then those who want to destroy America and kill us (or convert us to Islam)

[Jeff]

It is also amazing to watch Obama make nice with terrorists, downplay their wins, talk about getting along, and working out the differences they have with America

While at the same time he slanders his political opponents, refers to them as enemies, blames Fox News for all his failures, and plays the race card every chance he gets

It is clear Obama has more hate toward his fellow Americans who have a different opinion on the role and size of government then those who want to destroy America and kill us (or convert us to Islam)

******* Off Topic Alert ******

Obama came into office to punish white America for something that happened before any of us where born, he feels as though during his posh life he was looked down upon because of his color, man I know a lot of folks that wish they would of been able to go to the Ivy League schools this guy went to, I don't believe him or the Mooch have ever experience racism, except the racism they where throwing off.

Now you hear all the time that the world is populated with 2/3 thirds or better of people of color, let's face it, they are all Obama's Bro's, as long as they aren't white they are a friend of the Obama's.

[red states rule]

******* Off Topic Alert ******

Obama came into office to punish white America for something that happened before any of us where born, he feels as though during his posh life he was looked down upon because of his color, man I know a lot of folks that wish they would of been able to go to the Ivy League schools this guy went to, I don't believe him or the Mooch have ever experience racism, except the racism they where throwing off.

Now you hear all the time that the world is populated with 2/3 thirds or better of people of color, let's face it, they are all Obama's Bro's, as long as they aren't white they are a friend of the Obama's.

It is funny to watch Obama lovers brag "he got OBL"

What they want to ignore is..................


http://www.moonbattery.com/vindication.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2F2720457%2Fposts&ei=z-lyVa3EOJDIsATx34L4Cw&bvm=bv.95039771,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNF17g2RQiuT49ek9H2vIvFTXprv3g&ust=1433680675093832)

[Elessar]

It is funny to watch Obama lovers brag "he got OBL"

What they want to ignore is..................


http://www.moonbattery.com/vindication.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2F2720457%2Fposts&ei=z-lyVa3EOJDIsATx34L4Cw&bvm=bv.95039771,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNF17g2RQiuT49ek9H2vIvFTXprv3g&ust=1433680675093832)

What many BDS Patients and other deniers do not realize is that prior to 9/11, each of the agencies responsible for Intel gathering, both foreign and
domestic, danced to their own drum.

After 9/11 it was discovered that the FBI knew 'something', the CIA knew 'something', NSA knew 'something', and when pieced together painted
a scenario that should have been halted.

These separate Intel Empires were not the fault of any one administration, as they had existed for decades.

GWB put a stop to those Empires and put everything in one folder with the purpose of sharing information and data, thus creating a better
mechanism for National Security.

Obama benefitted from this retooled Intel community with the Bin Laden affair, but has fallen on his face with other problems - Benghazi, ISIS,
and more.

[red states rule]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b8/c4/53/b8c453d8e7795939915f43e502ebff44.jpg (http://www.debatepolicy.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F568579 521680610394%2F&ei=gBRzVcqWL6q1sAT4yYLYBQ&bvm=bv.95039771,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNHmLOcYONsblneK_3YVN9McGy6eLA&ust=1433690056415698)

[aboutime]

******* Off Topic Alert ******

Obama came into office to punish white America for something that happened before any of us where born, he feels as though during his posh life he was looked down upon because of his color, man I know a lot of folks that wish they would of been able to go to the Ivy League schools this guy went to, I don't believe him or the Mooch have ever experience racism, except the racism they where throwing off.

Now you hear all the time that the world is populated with 2/3 thirds or better of people of color, let's face it, they are all Obama's Bro's, as long as they aren't white they are a friend of the Obama's.


Jeff. I fully understand what you are saying above, and agree technically. BUT...I am not, and never have been a WHITE person. My skin has always been PINK. Which, in ARCHIE BUNKER language, would make me a Commie Pinko...which, I am also Not even close to being.
So. Whenever anyone asks me if I am White. I must be honest and say NO!:laugh:
Just thought I'd throw that in today.
By the way. On another topic.
I think we can take all of the ANGER, and HATRED out of our language across the board by....

Making the use of the 'F-BOMB' just another word. Since everyone uses it. Why not make it PROPER to say in any, and all circumstances?

Look at how all of us constantly react when we hear that WORD being used, almost everywhere we go.

So, instead of making a BIG DEAL out of it, and complaining about EVERYTHING these days.
Let's just use the F-BOMB all the time. Then we can wonder what the REPLACEMENT will be that doesn't OFFEND everyone????

Any thoughts?

[red states rule]

The Obama legacy is so easy and yet such a disaster

http://woody.typepad.com/files/bush_obama_comparison.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpinitgallery.com%2Fpages%2Fo%2Fob ama-funny-jokes%2F&ei=aCJzVa7VJ4O1sATKs4Jo&bvm=bv.95039771,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNEw_ta03VeYMePZwkzHAkIcgxYZuA&ust=1433695203999992)

[jimnyc]

Ok so Jim does the same go for Obama?
look at this thread. A story of @% years worth of local corruption. Nothing about Obama but there and "Obvious" connection...
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49903-Wow-An-Argument-For-Rev

I don't care about that thread, unless of course you're saying the thread was about BOTH Obama and Bush. This thread has NOTHING to do with that one. You read THIS thread and made those comments, which I then replied to and explained why that comment did NOT fit into the context of what is being discussed in THIS thread. It's dumb to forever hang onto other threads and then continually bring things up that are out of context. You made a comment, I replied - THEN you suddenly went back to a different thread. Makes no sense. If someone brought up positive Bush stuff in an Obama thread, which had nothing to do with Bush, then swing for the fences with this connection and have at it. Unfortunately, that is NOT what was stated in this thread when you made you comments. Here is what you said:


"Bush is out of office now so why are you bringing him up...?"

Yes, folks have stated such many times, like to Gabby for example, for bring things like that up when the thread had NOTHING to do with him. Now you're trying to turn it around and wonder why it's not the same in this case. Well, I don't recall seeing anyone discussing just one, and then someone bringing in the other out of context. This thread IS about both presidents, therefore it would be retarded for someone to make that comment, when the answer is right in the thread title.



Here one from the quote thread

I go on to point point out BOTH Bush and Obama issues with Spying and I'm called an Obama lover.
But the fact IS that BUSH is the one that authorized the 1st BIG leap into what the the Church Commission warned about Obama has just illegally continued it.

Totally different thread, totally different subject. "Bush is the one..." So because of what was said in THAT thread - folks shouldn't bring up Bush in a thread that is about Bush and Obama? That's rather odd.


It's an IDIOTIC LIE to claim it's all OBAMA. that's just a fact.

And that has WHAT to do with comparing poll numbers between the 2? NOTHING, it's idiotic, and THAT'S a fact. Absolutely nothing to do with this thread, different subjects, and your bold comment doesn't apply at all.


i just weary of the willing blindness. and uberpartisan BS that some try to pass off as "truth".
So i comment on it ALONE with no one honest enough to say the same.

so be it.

And I get weary of some bring subjects between threads, and somehow thinking that what was said in one thread on one subject somehow applies 100% across the board.

Thread 100% about Obama. Someone brings up Bush in order to deflect the topic away from Obama. THAT'S retarded, and that's when people jump on folks like Gabby who continued to do so, with the comment you quoted THIS thread is about both, and polls, and to state that Bush is out of office, and that somehow the same should be said in this thread, that is said to others for bringing up Bush, well, is retarded. AT LEAST make such comments when someone tosses out Bush/Obama to deflect the other, in a thread that has nothing to do with the other.

AAAAANNNNNNDDDD - IF you truly do feel that way - care to link us to the endless times you stated this when it was folks bringing up Bush from the past? Because SURELY if you feel this way, then SURELY you've continued on the same path and did so in the many threads on all subjects.

So be it.

[jimnyc]

The Obama legacy is so easy and yet such a disaster

http://woody.typepad.com/files/bush_obama_comparison.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpinitgallery.com%2Fpages%2Fo%2Fob ama-funny-jokes%2F&ei=aCJzVa7VJ4O1sATKs4Jo&bvm=bv.95039771,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNEw_ta03VeYMePZwkzHAkIcgxYZuA&ust=1433695203999992)

This racist idiot is only leaving behind racial tensions and shit around the world. He stokes racial tension at every corner, and yet the black community around the nation is mostly tight lipped about it, and the others are labeled "uncle tom".

[Jeff]

Jeff. I fully understand what you are saying above, and agree technically. BUT...I am not, and never have been a WHITE person. My skin has always been PINK. Which, in ARCHIE BUNKER language, would make me a Commie Pinko...which, I am also Not even close to being.
So. Whenever anyone asks me if I am White. I must be honest and say NO!:laugh:
Just thought I'd throw that in today.
By the way. On another topic.
I think we can take all of the ANGER, and HATRED out of our language across the board by....

Making the use of the 'F-BOMB' just another word. Since everyone uses it. Why not make it PROPER to say in any, and all circumstances?

Look at how all of us constantly react when we hear that WORD being used, almost everywhere we go.

So, instead of making a BIG DEAL out of it, and complaining about EVERYTHING these days.
Let's just use the F-BOMB all the time. Then we can wonder what the REPLACEMENT will be that doesn't OFFEND everyone????

Any thoughts?

I understand 100 % , it's just like when I hear a black person called colored, hell I am colored ( with all the tattoo's I have ) :laugh:

[revelarts]

I don't care about that thread, unless of course you're saying the thread was about BOTH Obama and Bush. This thread has NOTHING to do with that one....

Thread 100% about Obama. Someone brings up Bush in order to deflect the topic away from Obama. THAT'S retarded,...
you don't care about that thread yep. that's part of my point. You come rushing in to correct me here but don't care when similar is done elsewhere.
that's all i'm saying Jim.

why are you so interested when I make point you consider out of context but when others do it you "don't care"?!

Bush was mentioned in this thread.... And I mentioned Bush. In a way you didn't like.
Obama WASN'T mention in the other thread at all, but he was brought up and YOU "DON"T CARE".
Obama was brought "in order to deflect the topic away from"...?
But that's NOT retarded?

:dunno:


concerning all your other blah blah
--i pointed out one place where Bush was relevant and i got the very response i mentioned but you don't really care. you just want to correct me for some reason.

My point at 1st was a simple DIG.
A POKE at those who never like to bring Bush up as responsible in anyway, in any percentage for ANYTHING negative past, present or future on planet earth.
So I'm just WONDERING why anyone would Bring BUSH up at all in any other context today. he's gone.

It's as if they think that Bush's real influence ended completely the day he left. So we shall never speak of him again.
AND that if there were any lasting effects it's ONLY a trail of light and rainbows, stars and stripes.

But hey sorry if you don't like my comments jim.
I stand by them. Even if you miss the point and "don't care".

[red states rule]

Rev I have read your posts and I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Given how you think Pres Bush needs to sitting in a jail cell, would you have wanted President Lincoln to be tossed in a cell as well?

Bush did what he had to do to protect the nation. Lincoln did what he had to keep the Union intact

Both were leaders not dictators

You seem to be more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists then keeping your fellow Americas safe. So please explain if I am missing something

As far as the rights of terrorists, the only right they have is to a bullet in the head. But alas, many on the left (and a few on the right) are worried about them being "violated" or "harassed"


https://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/22512cartoon.jpg?w=702&h=405

[indago]

Bush did what he had to do to protect the nation

Bush At War

http://oi17.tinypic.com/2ilopqx.jpg

[red states rule]

Folks can continue to take the cheap shots at GWB but the bottom line is more and more people would rather have him back then the current idiot who will not even admit there is a problem with Islamic extremists

Obama is too busy pushing climate change as the biggest threat to America

[jimnyc]

you don't care about that thread yep. that's part of my point. You come rushing in to correct me here but don't care when similar is done elsewhere.
that's all i'm saying Jim.

I didn't know about the other thread until you posted it. But was that thread about BOTH presidents? Did someone then come in there and then make a similar comment as you did in this thread? You're saying the same thing happened in that thread, to what I corrected you here for? I'm going to have to call BS on ya, Rev. I don't think that other thread is the same as this one, where the subject was about both presidents.


why are you so interested when I make point you consider out of context but when others do it you "don't care"?!

Because I am one that has spoken out many, many times before when folks have done that. It irritated me when Gabby would come into threads and bring up things that had nothing to do with the thread, just so she could deflect and avoid questions. But really, do I need to have a reason to point out that you are 100% incorrect?


Bush was mentioned in this thread.... And I mentioned Bush. In a way you didn't like.
Obama WASN'T mention in the other thread at all, but he was brought up and YOU "DON"T CARE".
Obama was brought "in order to deflect the topic away from"...?
But that's NOT retarded?

:dunno:

OF COURSE Bush was mentioned in this thread, look at the title of the thread!!!!!!! In a way I didn't like? I replied based on your bold comment, about folks who brought up Bush in threads, or vice versa about Obama, in threads where they weren't discussed. Here, a refresher, what you wrote: "Bush is out of office now so why are you bringing him up...?"



concerning all your other blah blah
--i pointed out one place where Bush was relevant and i got the very response i mentioned but you don't really care. you just want to correct me for some reason.

My point at 1st was a simple DIG.
A POKE at those who never like to bring Bush up as responsible in anyway, in any percentage for ANYTHING negative past, present or future on planet earth.
So I'm just WONDERING why anyone would Bring BUSH up at all in any other context today. he's gone.

It's as if they think that Bush's real influence ended completely the day he left. So we shall never speak of him again.
AND that if there were any lasting effects it's ONLY a trail of light and rainbows, stars and stripes.

But hey sorry if you don't like my comments jim.
I stand by them. Even if you miss the point and "don't care".

I can't even read that rambling mess of words, seriously. Paragraphs, sentences and such are your friends.

This was NOT about Bush or Obama or their politics. YOU posted what you did, wondering why people didn't jump in and use a similar comment as you used in bold, saying they did so in other threads that were about Obama/Bush, so therefore they should do here. BUT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT BOTH.

Let me make this into cliff's notes, or book for dummies:

Thread #1
Thread title - Obama Policy
member a "Obama latest policy sucks"
member b "Obama killing economy"
member c "Obama killing foreign policy"
member d "BOOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHH did it"
member e "why bring up Bush over and over so many years later?

Thread #2
Thread title Bush outpolls Obama
member a "polls show Bush outpolling Obama
member b "wait until he is out of office too"
member c "Obama's will be lower
member d "Bush is out of office now so why bring him up" <---- member says this, as in "why" doesn't someone say this, because they said similar in other threads in response to folks bringing up Bush when it had NOTHING to do with the thread at hand
member e "Ummmm.......Ummmmm....Errrrrr....... because maybe someone out there wrote an article, which was posted here, and THAT's what is being discussed, and no one went off topic, as others did when the comments you want to mimick were stated?

But you go ahead and stand by your comments, Rev, even if they were out of nowhere, out of context for this thread. Your points may have been valid - but your bold sarcasm comment, which is what I replied to, WAS NOT. But if you want to stand by your mistake, and your off topic comments, which highlights you veerring off topic - have at it!! But be prepared to ramble more words in the future, because I'll point out this crap each and every time.

Or, I have a REAL novel idea for you!!! How about, the next time someone writes something great about Bush in a thread that is something bad about Obama - you write your whining crap about what others don't do in there, where it might make sense?

But if you think it's about me protecting Bush, you're dead wrong. I'm protecting my words, or similar to what I wrote in the past, from a raving person using comments incorrectly.

You're welcome, for being corrected for the thousandth time.

[jimnyc]

I just noticed this amongst the rest of the mush in the background. I rest my case.

Judge: "Jury, have you reached a verdict?"
Jury Foreman: Yes your honor, we have"
Judge: "What say ye all?"
Jury Foreman: "On the sole count, or writing crap in bold letters, we the jury find the accused, Revelarts, of trolling with his bold comment"

Gavel slams down

NEXT!

[revelarts]

Or, I have a REAL novel idea for you!!! How about, the next time someone writes something great about Bush in a thread that is something bad about Obama - you write your whining crap about what others don't do in there, where it might make sense?


Jim sorry you only have the ability to see analogies in your own very narrow sense.
I'm sure a few other DO understand what i said even if you don't.

But Jim how about this?
YOU define how you want to reply about a thread on anything the way you want.
And I'll do the same.

[red states rule]

Rev, We had an election on what you are saying. You seem to be in step with John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) who was opposed to the war, defended the rights of terrorists, and sort of implied America brought 9-11 on itself

The people listened to both candidates and made a decision

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/ElectoralCollege2004.svg/349px-ElectoralCollege2004.svg.png (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUnited_ States_presidential_election%2C_2004&ei=Rz10VaqkOPfLsATY05T4AQ&bvm=bv.95039771,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNHhj8SDQuvJUO_ZNXaRhhch0rMUjA&ust=1433767611625769)

[jimnyc]

Jim sorry you only have the ability to see analogies in your own very narrow sense.
I'm sure a few other DO understand what i said even if you don't.

No, it's not narrow. Your bold statement DID NOT make sense in this thread. Not at all, and I proved why.


But Jim how about this?
YOU define how you want to reply about a thread on anything the way you want.
And I'll do the same.

How about I'll reply how I see fit? And if you make incorrect statements, I will call you out on it, just as I do when others make incorrect statements that I disagree with. I made it VERY clear what I was replying to, even cleared out the rest of your reply but the bold comment. You just don't like being corrected, or proven wrong. Your comment made no sense for this thread and I showed why. You don't want to accept it and now want to say "you reply your way and I'll reply mine" - which is cool with me, but doesn't change the fact that your statement is/was wrong for this thread.

If this were a different thread, about Obama screwing something up, and someone brought something up, off topic, about Bush in order to deflect.... Then the bottom would apply:

Or, I have a REAL novel idea for you!!! How about, the next time someone writes something great about Bush in a thread that is something bad about Obama - you write your whining crap about what others don't do in there, where it might make sense?

[revelarts]

Rev I have read your posts and I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Given how you think Pres Bush needs to sitting in a jail cell, would you have wanted President Lincoln to be tossed in a cell as well?
Bush did what he had to do to protect the nation. Lincoln did what he had to keep the Union intact
Both were leaders not dictators
You seem to be more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists then keeping your fellow Americas safe. So please explain if I am missing something
As far as the rights of terrorists, the only right they have is to a bullet in the head. But alas, many on the left (and a few on the right) are worried about them being "violated" or "harassed"



Here's the thing that you and others never seem to understand.
that to stop or get the terrorist or ANYONE ELSE we did NOT NEEED, and still DO NOT NEED to use unconstitutional measures.
period end of story.

The Constitutional judicial and law enforcement system and military laws like the Nuremberg treaty and Geneva conventions, and the UCMJ were MORE than sufficient to do the job. So Bush didn't "HAVE to" do what he did.

There are folks from the FBI, NSA, DIA, and the Military who've confirmed this fact over and over since 911.
PLUS it's been admitted by various investigations that NONE of the Unconstitutional tactics have produced any new or better intel.

And It's not about "protecting the rights of terrorist". It's about protecting the freedoms we say the terrorist hate.

"....Americans are asking ``Why do they hate us?''
They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other....."
GW BUSH

But he specifically left out.
Our freedom from the gov't spying on all citizens and looking at our private papers and homes without warrents.
our freedom from cruel and unusually punishment,
our freedom from being put in jail indefinitely without trial,
and Obama who leave off, freedom from not to be killed by the gov't without trial or due process.

As far as Lincoln goes. sure he busted the crap out of the constitution... during a time of CIVIL WAR. In my book it's still not a valid reason however it's FAR MORE understandable than Bush's unconstitutional overreach.
A few hundred or a a few 1000 foreign terrorist DO NOT make valid excuse to chuck the constitution in the toilet. Especially in the light that we were MORE than capable of reply within the bounds of the constitution.

[red states rule]

Here's the thing that you and others never seem to understand.
that to stop or get the terrorist or ANYONE ELSE we did NOT NEEED, and still DO NOT NEED to use unconstitutional measures.
period end of story.

The Constitutional judicial and law enforcement system and military laws like the Nuremberg treaty and Geneva conventions, and the UCMJ were MORE than sufficient to do the job. So Bush didn't "HAVE to" do what he did.

There are folks from the FBI, NSA, DIA, and the Military who've confirmed this fact over and over since 911.
PLUS it's been admitted by various investigations that NONE of the Unconstitutional tactics have produced any new or better intel.

And It's not about "protecting the rights of terrorist". It's about protecting the freedoms we say the terrorist hate.

"....Americans are asking ``Why do they hate us?''
They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other....."
GW BUSH

But he specifically left out.
Our freedom from the gov't spying on all citizens and looking at our private papers and homes without warrents.
our freedom from cruel and unusually punishment,
our freedom from being put in jail indefinitely without trial,
and Obama who leave off, freedom from not to be killed by the gov't without trial or due process.

As far as Lincoln goes. sure he busted the crap out of the constitution... during a time of CIVIL WAR. In my book it's still not a valid reason however it's FAR MORE understandable than Bush's unconstitutional overreach.
A few hundred or a a few 1000 foreign terrorist DO NOT make valid excuse to chuck the constitution in the toilet. Especially in the light that we were MORE than capable of reply within the bounds of the constitution.

Yea Rev - I can see many Muslim terrorists who left their family to wage war because the US was spying on people. The only thing they could do was to murder 3,000 people on 9/11

So I gues in oyur world, our troops must carry a copy of the Miranda rights. When they capture a terrorist they have to seal off the area with crime scene tape and let the terrorist's lawyer walk through and examine the crime scene

The only right the bastards have Rev is a bullet in the head and to be buried with a box of Jimmy Dean sausage

[jimnyc]

As far as Lincoln goes. sure he busted the crap out of the constitution... during a time of CIVIL WAR. In my book it's still not a valid reason however it's FAR MORE understandable than Bush's unconstitutional overreach.
A few hundred or a a few 1000 foreign terrorist DO NOT make valid excuse to chuck the constitution in the toilet. Especially in the light that we were MORE than capable of reply within the bounds of the constitution.

Sure, it's "understandable" to you why a sitting president violates the constitution, and not when another does. Just like it's understandable to you when folks riot and act like savages. Funny how stances change based on who is involved or what the cause is. I wonder if it would have been understandable if Bush made that decision. One is a mass murderer, One is "understandable". That's kinda cute. :rolleyes:

[Elessar]

Rev I have read your posts and I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Given how you think Pres Bush needs to sitting in a jail cell, would you have wanted President Lincoln to be tossed in a cell as well?

Bush did what he had to do to protect the nation. Lincoln did what he had to keep the Union intact

Both were leaders not dictators

You seem to be more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists then keeping your fellow Americas safe. So please explain if I am missing something

As far as the rights of terrorists, the only right they have is to a bullet in the head. But alas, many on the left (and a few on the right) are worried about them being "violated" or "harassed"


https://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/22512cartoon.jpg?w=702&h=405

You rather hit that nail squarely on the head.

[red states rule]

One must also consider who votes Democrat http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/4c/4c3b762de87d37e15ccd175634124a4c8cf24f7ed83d27748e 32e34690895472.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2FCollege-Liberal%2Fpage%2F38%2F&ei=nnR0VcjrKaLIsQSrn4DQBA&bvm=bv.95039771,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNGKUBvXJi20l9vKZNXQb7H5-4JjdQ&ust=1433781732361574)

[revelarts]

Sure, it's "understandable" to you why a sitting president violates the constitution, and not when another does. Just like it's understandable to you when folks riot and act like savages. Funny how stances change based on who is involved or what the cause is. I wonder if it would have been understandable if Bush made that decision. One is a mass murderer, One is "understandable". That's kinda cute. :rolleyes:

yeah i'd say Civil War is worse than a few hundred foreign terrorist in caves.
And makes it more understandable to me why he'd imagine that breaking the constitution was needed.
But i say it was still wrong.

And i'd say that I understand that after years of BS police abuses put up with and never protested except via the courts. That if a sudden protest breaks out over another seeming offense i under stand it and approve it. But not rioting, it's always stupid, criminal and is always wrong. as i've said several times.

---But wait a minute!!!
I shouldn't even be seeing any comments from you about "rioting" here. That's from another thread. and I've been told, BY YOU, that NO ONE should bring in information from OTHER unrelated threads. But then if they must bring them in they should only be as EXACT in context quotes with links. If not, well, they are are just wrong as wrong can be. ---

but hey whatever jim.

At least I don't make excuses and try to TWIST the meaning of the constitution to INCLUDE spying, indefinite detentions, warrentless searches, airport pat downs etc.. if a president "i miss" likes it, and says it's "good for america".
At least I don't suddenly think it OK to torture if at least 3 lawyers and can make a case against 200 years of law, cases, statements by president including Washington, treaties and the obvious meaning of "cruel and unusual".
And at least I don't get more upset with the people who want to defend the constitution rather than those who've obviously broken it again and again.

thats not cute or completely honest.
Seems to me its more partisan than principal based at best.
And lawless unconstitutional mob "justice" sprinkled with legalese at worse.

[aboutime]

Sure, it's "understandable" to you why a sitting president violates the constitution, and not when another does. Just like it's understandable to you when folks riot and act like savages. Funny how stances change based on who is involved or what the cause is. I wonder if it would have been understandable if Bush made that decision. One is a mass murderer, One is "understandable". That's kinda cute. :rolleyes:


How comical is rev? Still insisting Bush ignored the Constitution, and that he lied. But nary a hint of his defense of Obama for IGNORING everything...then being applauded because...as rev said...he did the same thing???

You can roll your eyes all day rev. But you CANNOT, and NEVER WILL change the TRUTH. Now, will you just admit you HATE COPS, and BUSH?

[jimnyc]

but hey whatever jim.

Rev, seriously, go fuck yourself. That's honestly the best I can do for you. I truly have held back MANY MANY times on you, ask Jeff or John if you don't believe me. I don't want to pummel the guy who can't write a complete sentence or a paragraph, I would feel like I'm picking on the handicapped. I DO have issues with stupid people, and this is where I drop off your radar. I'd rather just place you back on ignore than make a couple of posts highlighting your stupidity.

[jimnyc]

How comical is rev? Still insisting Bush ignored the Constitution, and that he lied. But nary a hint of his defense of Obama for IGNORING everything...then being applauded because...as rev said...he did the same thing???

You can roll your eyes all day rev. But you CANNOT, and NEVER WILL change the TRUTH. Now, will you just admit you HATE COPS, and BUSH?

It's not only cops and Bush - I'll give you a hint, think "black and white". Why does Lincoln get a slight pass, what did he do that a black person may want to give him a pass?

[aboutime]

It's not only cops and Bush - I'll give you a hint, think "black and white". Why does Lincoln get a slight pass, what did he do that a black person may want to give him a pass?


Jim. I have been convinced, since almost my first day here on DP. That rev is more of a blower of smoke, and convinced he is the next Jesse, or Al. Hiding behind the Bible, or the church to profess a Superior, Unchallenged power over others is almost as sickening as listening to Obama brag about his friendship with Rev. Wright.

rev may have other members here fooled, and he may hope to convince them how NICE of a GUY he is. But, I have never accepted that at all. IMO.

[Elessar]

Well rsr, I see you are still trying the only way you can to win a debate is by putting your words in other peoples mouths to try to make them wrong.;) Instead of saying that I was making excuses for BO, you should have acknowledged that yes what you were trying to do with your copy/paste article was to measure apples to oranges to create the wrong impression that at present BO is CURRENTLY doing worse than Bush which is not true.

I showed where Bush's numbers were 6 1/2 years as to BO's at the same time period and Bush's were even lower than BO's at the current time in office. We can again match them up again when BO is out of office for the same time periods as Bush. That is the only fair way to measure.

I'm not saying one POTUS is better than the other because they both have screwed up plenty, only in different ways.

You simply cannot deny what RSR wrote.

Sliding into such comparisons as yours just demonstrates denial that Obama is a weak, racist, ineffective leader.
He should not have been appointed garbage collector, let alone his ineffective short terms in the Illinois Legisltature
and his mostly absent term as a junior Senator....spent 2/3rds of his term absent....voted "present" in both the Senate and
Ill legislature 97% of the time.

I guess that is your ideal for a representative...

GWB had faults, all humans do, but NONE of them are as bad as this racist, lazy, non-committal POST TURTLE, who is Obama.

When you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get up there by himself. He doesn't belong there; he can't get anything done while he's up there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down."

[Elessar]

Jim. I have been convinced, since almost my first day here on DP. That rev is more of a blower of smoke, and convinced he is the next Jesse, or Al. Hiding behind the Bible, or the church to profess a Superior, Unchallenged power over others is almost as sickening as listening to Obama brag about his friendship with Rev. Wright.

rev may have other members here fooled, and he may hope to convince them how NICE of a GUY he is. But, I have never accepted that at all. IMO.

Nice guy, but too verbose....likes to preach and refuses to listen to anyone else. Typical Lib....Big mouth and small ears.

[Voted4Reagan]

lazy, non-committal POST TURTLE,


http://www.crossbownation.com/forum/uploads/monthly_08_2010/post-1356-128214632987.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Jim. I have been convinced, since almost my first day here on DP. That rev is more of a blower of smoke, and convinced he is the next Jesse, or Al. Hiding behind the Bible, or the church to profess a Superior, Unchallenged power over others is almost as sickening as listening to Obama brag about his friendship with Rev. Wright.

rev may have other members here fooled, and he may hope to convince them how NICE of a GUY he is. But, I have never accepted that at all. IMO.

I completely disagree. I believe Rev is sincere in his beliefs, and is far from blowing smoke.
I also think whether we agree with him or not, he writes thoughtfully.

[aboutime]

I completely disagree. I believe Rev is sincere in his beliefs, and is far from blowing smoke.
I also think whether we agree with him or not, he writes thoughtfully.


Abbey. I appreciate your opinion. But, I must stick to my impressions. It would be nice if I was wrong. Yet I have a personal suspicion, and I usually stick to my experience in life. As the saying goes. I wasn't born yesterday. Thanks.

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey. I appreciate your opinion. But, I must stick to my impressions. It would be nice if I was wrong. Yet I have a personal suspicion, and I usually stick to my experience in life. As the saying goes. I wasn't born yesterday. Thanks.

We shall agree to disagree.

[Gunny]

you don't care about that thread yep. that's part of my point. You come rushing in to correct me here but don't care when similar is done elsewhere.
that's all i'm saying Jim.

why are you so interested when I make point you consider out of context but when others do it you "don't care"?!

Bush was mentioned in this thread.... And I mentioned Bush. In a way you didn't like.
Obama WASN'T mention in the other thread at all, but he was brought up and YOU "DON"T CARE".
Obama was brought "in order to deflect the topic away from"...?
But that's NOT retarded?

:dunno:


concerning all your other blah blah
--i pointed out one place where Bush was relevant and i got the very response i mentioned but you don't really care. you just want to correct me for some reason.

My point at 1st was a simple DIG.
A POKE at those who never like to bring Bush up as responsible in anyway, in any percentage for ANYTHING negative past, present or future on planet earth.
So I'm just WONDERING why anyone would Bring BUSH up at all in any other context today. he's gone.

It's as if they think that Bush's real influence ended completely the day he left. So we shall never speak of him again.
AND that if there were any lasting effects it's ONLY a trail of light and rainbows, stars and stripes.

But hey sorry if you don't like my comments jim.
I stand by them. Even if you miss the point and "don't care".

The only "point" you've made is, yes, you're STILL in la-la land.

[Gunny]

Here's the thing that you and others never seem to understand.
that to stop or get the terrorist or ANYONE ELSE we did NOT NEEED, and still DO NOT NEED to use unconstitutional measures.
period end of story.

The Constitutional judicial and law enforcement system and military laws like the Nuremberg treaty and Geneva conventions, and the UCMJ were MORE than sufficient to do the job. So Bush didn't "HAVE to" do what he did.

There are folks from the FBI, NSA, DIA, and the Military who've confirmed this fact over and over since 911.
PLUS it's been admitted by various investigations that NONE of the Unconstitutional tactics have produced any new or better intel.

And It's not about "protecting the rights of terrorist". It's about protecting the freedoms we say the terrorist hate.

"....Americans are asking ``Why do they hate us?''
They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other....."
GW BUSH

But he specifically left out.
Our freedom from the gov't spying on all citizens and looking at our private papers and homes without warrents.
our freedom from cruel and unusually punishment,
our freedom from being put in jail indefinitely without trial,
and Obama who leave off, freedom from not to be killed by the gov't without trial or due process.

As far as Lincoln goes. sure he busted the crap out of the constitution... during a time of CIVIL WAR. In my book it's still not a valid reason however it's FAR MORE understandable than Bush's unconstitutional overreach.
A few hundred or a a few 1000 foreign terrorist DO NOT make valid excuse to chuck the constitution in the toilet. Especially in the light that we were MORE than capable of reply within the bounds of the constitution.

Why is it no one else seems to understand but you and Ivan? Nobody else knows WTF they're talking about but you two. You ever wonder when everyone else is saying the same thing and your screwball a$$ is saying something different that YOU might be WRONG? Or is that too heavy a concept for you?

[revelarts]

Why is it no one else seems to understand but you and Ivan? Nobody else knows WTF they're talking about but you two. You ever wonder when everyone else is saying the same thing and your screwball a$$ is saying something different that YOU might be WRONG? Or is that too heavy a concept for you?

Soo majority opinion makes it true? If the majority opinion makes it true then Obama is the right man for the Job... twice.. right?
Do you bleive that? I don't.

Sure I could be wrong.
I have been many times in the past and I've changed my position radically after i've considered new information.
Have you ever done that?

[sundaydriver]

You simply cannot deny what RSR wrote.

Sliding into such comparisons as yours just demonstrates denial that Obama is a weak, racist, ineffective leader.
He should not have been appointed garbage collector, let alone his ineffective short terms in the Illinois Legisltature
and his mostly absent term as a junior Senator....spent 2/3rds of his term absent....voted "present" in both the Senate and
Ill legislature 97% of the time.

I guess that is your ideal for a representative...

GWB had faults, all humans do, but NONE of them are as bad as this racist, lazy, non-committal POST TURTLE, who is Obama.

As I said' they both suck. I don't know how you got all of this by my remarking on a representative corrolation of numbers as being the true measurement?

[Gunny]

Soo majority opinion makes it true? If the majority opinion makes it true then Obama is the right man for the Job... twice.. right?
Do you bleive that? I don't.

Sure I could be wrong.
I have been many times in the past and I've changed my position radically after i've considered new information.
Have you ever done that?

Obama wasn't elected by a majority opinion, so you might want to try that one again. In reality, he was elected as much by the right that withheld their votes for whiney-ass reasons as he was the lemming left.

And you can find on this board over the years where I've admitted I was wrong, so you can sell that one down the road too.

When basic, common knowledge, common sense and logic out-weigh your screwball theories, then YOU are wrong.

[Gunny]

As I said' they both suck. I don't know how you got all of this by my remarking on a representative corrolation of numbers as being the true measurement?

Who is "both"? You'd have to suck pretty hard to out-do Obama. He's a walking violation of the Constitution.