Typical rewrite of history
Democrats are saying all those deaths in Afghanistan?

You do know that only 575 soldiers died under Bush their, the rest was under Obama. Obama went back as promised in his campaign to Afghanistan, but the idiots that complained about the war under Bush didn't care. Lying to themselves........

I'm not really a fan of Lindsey Graham nor the huffingtonpost.com as I think it's actually worse than Fox News. However you did back up your numbers from a assumed reliable source being a US Senator whom should have access to that info. I'm still not sure I believe his numbers as no one else is backing it up and it's not like senators haven't lied or exaggerated the facts in the past.

Still most other agencies claim a much lower number so it's only Graham whom says other wise. The numbers I see widely reported from most groups is about 2 to 3 thousand with the reported number as roughly 350 drone strikes. Your second link shows the much lower number of 2k and not 4700.

To reach nearly 5k death you would have to be getting a average of about 13 kills per drone strike and that seems pretty high. This means either the 4700 number is not true or there has been way more than 350 drone strikes or drones are the most accurate killing machine in our arsenal.

What is funny though, is just because I don't agree with your opinion , that you immediately just jump to the you will let democrats slide on anything attitude.

Funny enough I said several times in my post that I don't agree with the usage of drones and how we use them, but I countered your overly broad argument with showing that we aren't just launching attacks with out permission or for no reason.

I'd rather no civilians get killed, but I'm not going to pretend that we can just wish away all the bad guys and just leave them be and they won't do anything bad as it seems you think.

crockett are you pretending to be ignorant.
Okay, since you are the only person on Planet Earth who was unaware of The Pres. and his entire staff spreading the lie of the attack being caused by a "video"...here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3V7Oqe1q-g

I told you what I heard the talking heads saying on CNN a few days ago when a guy from the military was before Congress.

I am also going by what I heard on CBS News radio (they do hourly news updates) where they said that Congress was being told by the CIA people on the ground in Libya that they were told by the White House to stand down.

Do I know the "truth" of what really happened. No. Do you. HELL NO. The White House is still redacting documents to Congress on the whole matter.
If you turn out to be correct then good.

But in the end...the attack went on for hours. The U.S. had forces that could have gotten there and stopped it. They were told not to.

Is this really why you are going on and on.. Honestly? Really I thought there was something more.

Obama clearly said in the that video that the extremist/terrorist used the video as an excuse.

From the Benghazi time line of event over on wikipeda..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Be...n the Compound

Now if you click the [60] on the wiki page for it's source, ironically it goes to mediamaters.org Fox News biggest foe..

From the media matters page..

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05...d-the-b/194073

Honestly, I don't watch much news on TV it's very very rare. I read news on the internet so I'm exposed to very little of the talking heads from the various news shows. I tend to pull my opinion biased on a range of sources.

While I'm not to fond of the Republican hoorah I assumed there had to be at least "something" to the story that gave it some sort of "reasonable" credibility that would give reason to you guys constantly going on and on about Bengazi.

I look at this and I don't care if it was George Bush that was president at the time. I see nothing out of line. You and your Conservibros can't seem to put 2+2 together and figure out that yes they were terrorists and they probably decided to attack at that time due to the movie. In fact this is EXACTLY what the CIA said.

Seriously if this is what you are so up in arms about it's just grasping at straws and just more proof that no matter what you will find an excuse to bitch and moan about Obama now and probably Hillary in a few years.

Now had there been a real chance that the Military could have affected the out come and were told to stand down, then sure that could be cause for alarm and investigation. However I've already proven in this topic that that didn't happen and that the military couldn't have affected the out come in the time they had to respond.

You are just grasping at straws because you wont admit that all the claims you guys have been making based on Fox Facts, have been wrong or over exaggerated.

Here you go again repeating the same thing that I already disproved. You are going right back to claiming there was a stand down order. No amout of proof will even be enough to prove you are wrong..


again...

and..

from my post.. https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=20078120&postcount=131

Bush started a war but you blame the next guy for all the deaths?

Sure that's true. But they take great care to have the facts. John Stewart is a pretty smart guy, and he doesn't go after anyone with made up bullshit. And the Daily Show has always been pretty good about correcting mistakes they make. When has Fox news done that?

Not at all. If anything, I feel bad for you guys. I'm just saying people who are conservative should stop saying they're neutral on politics and be proud they're part of the party who is against everything except rich people having lower taxes.

Here amongst the intelligent, we're not against ALL environmental regulations, just the idiot ones. And taken as a whole, the EPA is a net negative

No, he really isn't

Scum bag, here in America, Americans ALL supported going to war with Afghanistan.
Let's not pretend "Bush started a war"
It makes all the other GFY trolls look bad.

The reason I did that was based on the fact that you didn't actually answer the question that I posed in my post, but instead latched on to a vague example I was giving about difference in coverage and reaction. It seemed as though you were pulling a classic redirect of the question in a way that exactly matched my concerns regarding the "my team always right, their team always wrong" attitude which was the basis of my question regarding some kind of evidence regarding the Benghazi incident. If you re-read my post perhaps you will see what I'm saying regarding the apparent avoidance of the actual question.




.

I'm not trying to "win" here crockett. That's the difference between us in this argument.

I simply don't want my govt. lying to me.

If there wasn't anybody telling them to "stand down", then don't you wonder why nobody told them to "stand up"?

I'm not (and neither are any of us) and expert in military forces and CIA operatives. But as I understand it, we had forces that were close enough to have gotten there in time to make a difference.
And the attack went on for several hours.

Why didn't our guys move to stop it?

Was the Pres. and every member of defense team just simply out of the loop?

I never understood that part. It would only make sense to go in and stop it. To not stop it...doesn't make any sense at all.

As far as Obama lying on national television. I showed you the clip. He is plainly saying it was sparked by the "video" that insulted "the prophet", when he knew damn well that it had nothing to do with a youtube video.
He was covering up the truth (that it was an anti-American terror group who had never even seen that obscure video) to keep his own narrative in the campaign on track.

Politicians pull that kind of shit all the time. You are just totally refusing to acknowledge that Sweet Baby Jesus Obama would do something like that...even though he is right there on national t.v. doing it.

So there you go big boy. I just said that if I'm wrong about a stand down order, so be it.

Now YOU are the one who won't admit they are wrong...even though I just showed you a video clip of Pres. Obama saying it, that you earlier insinuated I was lying about and did not exist.

Well it's simple really, I voted for Obama, but I don't think he's the Jesus god and I'm not happy with things like the NSA spying, the pretty much non existent punishment to the banking industry and essentially carrying on with allowing big business to become too big to fail. ect..ect..

However, I find most of the right wing attacks pretty much petty and of obvious of political agenda. Which also includes 90% of the Obama related topics here on GFY. This topic was to poke fun at how ridiculous it is to have yet another Benghazi investigation.

Yet the same guys that support it here in this topic will ignore every bit of information from all the previous investigations pretty much all of them led by Republicans mind you. Yet they will ignore the results because the result don't say "scandal" so lets try again.

Meanwhile there are actual "real" topics that Republicans could be pressuring Obama on but oh how they are so quiet..

Look at your example.. Drone Strikes. We have targeted and killed three Americans with those drone strikes. That to me seems illegal as shit, specially considering the "second" American was the son of the first.

ie.. The CIA first targeted and killed was Al-Aulaqi the noted American al-Qaeda spokesmen. Now I'll say there is a possibility a case can be argued for targeting him, but by our Constitution he should have been afforded a right to trial unless there was some immanent threat.

However 2 weeks later the CIA targeted and killed his 16 year old son, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen. Now I really can not come up with any reason that the CIA should be able to get away with that.

The CIA has said he was not the target and 9 others died in the same attack included the supposed target. However where is the Republican outrage over stuff like this? Why are they not demanding investigations over this?

Same with the NSA programs that Snowden exposed. Where is the Republican outrage that our freedoms are being taken away? The Right complains endlessly about the 2nd amendment and their Religious rights but I guess the rest of our rights are no worry. Again they just pick stuff that riles up the brain dead masses to create fake drama for the cameras.

There is no outrage because Republicans and Democrats both support the usage of drones in CIA attacks and spying on us all via the NSA.

These so called Republican outrages over things like Bengazi is just useless fluff for the cameras, as it's not about anything more than political gain. It's no different that saying Obama was born in Kenya or Obamacare would cause death committees.

It's just fake drama used to rile us the brain dead masses and it works as we see here in this topic. It doesn't matter if you point by point refute the argument, it gets ignored and the same BS lies are repeated.

Simply put, just because I bash or discredit the meaningless dribble that comes from the right, doesn't mean I agree with everything the left does. It just means the right is much worse. The right to me has become nothing more than chicken little, always claiming the sky is falling but only if it's Democrats fault.. Now I wont say the Democrats don't also play politics, but by and far they are no where near as bad as the Republicans.

Michael, you gonna be around for breakfast next Friday in Miami?
I'll hit you on icq tomorrow if you're free

This is what I find sad, there is no middle-ground anymore.

I agree with some of the things conservatives promote:
Smaller Government
Lower Taxes
Less Governmental Interference
Reduce Dependence on Government Handouts

I also agree with some Liberal points:
Gay Marriage, who the fuck cares?
Abortion, why is it anybody besides the principal's business?
Helping those in need get back on their feet with Education and Job assistance.

I also think that if somebody wants to ruin their life with drugs that's their choice. Good Luck and don't come to me for a handout when your life falls into the shitter.

But because I believe in a few conservative values I'm immediately labeled as a "Evil Bigoted Right Wing Misogynist Warmonger" by the left, and at that point the conversation comes to a screeching halt.

It reminds me of the way people in the 19th century were judged to be black or white.
1/16th black blood... "Congratulations, you're black!"


We are so completely polarized that it's becoming a "no quarter, winner take all" atmosphere, neither side is willing to give an inch.

The far, far left with their dreams of a socialist paradise or the far, far right with their dreams of a "christian" version of sharia law.

I find both of those options equally repugnant.

:2 cents:

That comes from both sides equally..

I'm mostly socially liberal, but I support gun rights..

I'd love smaller govt and less taxes, but I understand that big business needs regulation.

I'm pro military, but I'm against the militarization of our police forces and the way we act around the globe.

I don't do drugs and I rarely drink, but I see no reason to put people in jail because they want to do it.

I don't mind helping people that need help, but I don't agree with endless welfare..That goes for both individuals and big business.

I could list many more, but because I usually defend Obama in these topics I'm a dirty liberal. I side with the left in most cases because IMO the right has drifted too far from the center and most of their current views are incompatible with me.

Added to this my first vote went to Bill Clinton, so I was very happy with that result. Then came Bush and he just ruined any thought of Republicans for me. I voted for Obama, but to me it's been kind of in the middle of Bush & Clinton. Not quite a success but not quite a failure.

Think of it this way..

As a young voter I saw Bill Clinton whom did a pretty damn good job, we had the internet boom and a lot of good stuff, the budget was balanced, but during that entire time the Republicans were more worried about Bill getting a BJ.

We then get Bush.. immediately there was cause for concern about a rigged election. My vote was challenged and thrown out by the Republican party in FL. 9/11 happened which potentially could have been avoided. The spending goes through the roof, wiping away all the gains we made under Clinton.

We go to Afghan and I supported it, but then Bush used 9/11 to send us to Iraq with lies. The patriot Act taking away our freedoms ect.ect.. We have yet another election with more voting issues. Torture in Iraq scandals, the detainees in Cuba.. ect..ect.. and finally the economy cashed.

Now we have Obama.. we had a country that seemed ready to make amends and almost instantly the same attacks start, that happened with Clinton and it's been non stop just like when Clinton was in office. Added to this complete polarization and nothing gets done.

Endless fights over Obamacare yet the Republicans have no real alternative. Endless moaning over Benghazi despite obvious things like the NSA or drone strikes going unquestioned.

I'm sorry but Republicans have done everything possible in my mind to harm this country and quite honestly ruin any chance I could ever vote for them. It's just not even questionable as to which side to support. With have Blue and we have Red but there is no Purple in DC.

The crazy thing is...crockett, your description of yourself sounds like me.

And somehow we are always arguing like cats and dogs

It's the political polarization because in today's America you are either Red or Blue but there is no room for Purple. It doesn't matter if the views are near the same the difference is you don't like anything Obama does and I don't like anything the Republicans do so that creates friction and causes the actual subject matter to be second fiddle.

We were out of Afghanistan pretty much and Obama campaigned on going back, you liberals wanted more war I guess, because the death toll went from 575 to 2000

Jon Stewart and O'Reilly go at it all the time, it's epic when they actually get together.
But the left media has been calling lies is based solely on opinion, if you have had any solid facts, I could probably find a response or an apology. Just like Diane Feinstein saying that funds were cut from the budget, well they weren't, they were cut from the purposed budget and the purposed budget is almost always cut

I think you are a little confused here , conservatives have been more politically active than ever before, or did you miss the whole tea party thing?

I'm all for taxes going up on the rich, but with one condition, first bring the spending under control, other wise, you are just tax and spend and the government needs to be more thrifty in it's spending.

That's not true.

I am critical of all politicians. Obama just happens to be in the White House at the moment. :)

I actually agree with about 90% of what Obama has said he was going to do.

I disagree with about 50% of what he has actually done.

And I'm upset over 100% of the things he said he would do (and then didn't) that gave me some foolish (and naive) notion that he was going to somehow be "different".

In these discussions I'm more interested in the guys who are running things. Not the minority party who hold power in the House..but can't get anything ever past Harry Reid in the Senate...much less get it signed into law by the President.

From where I sit, Pres. Obama is The Man. And when the plans that The Man makes go wrong...it's The Man who I am going to question.

Boehner, Cruz, and the rest of the Republicans? They have no power to do much of anything at all. So why waste my breath on them?

Now come November...if the Republicans take the Senate, we will see a different environment in Washington.

The Republicans will then have power.

Then we can debate their stupidity.
But for the last 5 years...nope. This was Pres. Obama's watch. And for the first couple of years the Dems had full control.
And blew it.

But we'll see.

Who knows? Maybe he will be like Clinton was. And with an opposition party as the majority in the Senate and House... he may finally shine and be the Pres. I had hoped for.

Let's fucking hope so.
To me he's the most disappointing Pres. of my lifetime.

I didn't expect much from the others. And they lived up to that. lol

Clinton was somebody I voted for and then thought I had made a horrible mistake (his first couple of years)...but then he came through (until his last couple of years when the Republicans dragged him down over stupid sex scandals).

So Bill Clinton was the one President of my adult life that I felt kicked ass.

The rest of them? Not so much.

But Obama gets my most disdain. He let me down the hardest. Starting with health care.

Remember when he said that it was going to be "transparent" when they wrote the health care law and be broadcast LIVE every step of the way on CSPAN for all of America to see?
Lied.

And that was just the start.

I think many of us set the bar very high because we believed Obama's campaign speeches.

Maybe he was a victim of his own success at giving speeches?

But whatever the reason...I can't wait for his Presidency to be over.

I really think that it will be just like the end of the Carter Presidency...the economy will finally pick back up once he's out.

I'll be voting Libertarian. But since I know I'll be outnumbered by sheep voting Dem and Repub...I hope that Hillary wins and brings Bill with her. I think that the experience those two have will enable them to get the country rolling again.

And that's all just opinion on my part.

What he said, word for word

Anytime bud. I will be around. Hit me up....







Meanwhile, from the tone of the last few posts.......................

...... We are ALL Libertarians! I would urge you all to get off of the Republican vrs Democrat teat and come over to a party that actually believes in people's right to be free for a change. The other two parties are only interested in growing their own power for themselves and their cronies.




Give it some real thought... And some real research. Break out of the Bullshit molds.





Just my two cents....





.

You bring up something.. You said the minority party can't get anything passed the Senate.. However there are several things that Boner (yes I call him Boner) could have brought to the floor to have a vote but he refused to do so.

One of those things was during the budget arguments. There were several times when it was pretty certain that there were more than enough votes from both Republicans and Democrats to pass the budget but Boner wouldn't bring it to a vote.

You have said many times that it's all Obama's fault that things were not getting passed but what I'm bringing up is a clear example of how the Republicans in the house kept the budget from being passed.

Right now this exact same blocking method is being played out by Boner and the Republicans in the house. A few weeks ago the Senate passed the unemployment extension, Boner has obviously stated he didn't like it "yet" it can still be voted on. However he will not allow it to be brought to the floor for a vote.

Once again, there is a pretty good notion that there is enough Republican support to pass the extension as it is, but the house can not vote on it because Boner is blocking it from going to the floor.

This is nothing but petty politics because he doesn't like the bill and is holding it hostage from a vote. Why hold a bill hostage that other house members would support including many Republicans whom have openly stated they would vote to pass it?

Why because just like with the budget, the Republicans are putting their party over what is good for the country and the economy. At first it was the excuse that the bill wasn't "paid for" ie we would have to borrow money from China.

Ok, that's understandable, but the Senate hashed out a bill that was then paid for with no need to borrow, meeting Boner's demands. Once again that wasn't good enough for Boner, whom decided that it had to contain their "jobs" bill. Their jobs bill mind you is filled to the brim with lobbyist bull shit that hurts unions and caters to big business, which is just once again fucking over the blue collar worker in favor of big business lobbyist. Not to members once again have his demands met and then moving the the line another 50 feet.

This is what so called compromise is with the GOP.. You give them what they want, they say no and want more. This is why I laugh at you when you say Obama fails to compromise with them, because this is the exact thing they have done the last 5 years.

This is the GOP and how they work, so I don't really understand why you put so much blame on Obama, while excusing this kind of BS with House Republicans whom control half of Congress. They don't hold the oval office, but they certainly can affect what the president is able to do, but you act as if they have no power to do anything.

Because he gets paid not to hold it hostage. That face says "my ideology is money".

Why must you call people names?

Yes, we all supported the war in Afghanistan. But once the government was removed and replaced, time to leave. None of this open ended occupation until the end of time - Our military is a military force, not a police force.

The Illusion is Left Vs Right... The reality is Haves vs have nots... we here are ALL have nots... None of us will ever even know a "HAVES" much less be one.

It doesn't matter how much money everyone here has COMBINED... no one holds a candle to the Koch Brothers 40 Billion dollar Empires or the 4 Walton family Members that hold over 140 BILLION dollars and Zuckerburg's and Gates Billions... Folks like that make the rules... they control everything...

The Oil companies and Halliburton's as well as drug makers and MAJOR corporations are the ones that control & own the politicians and judges and such... We get to dance in the streets every couple of years pretending that our votes somehow mattered... They DON'T MATTER!!! Our future has been bought and sold and resold by a bunch of rich assholes that just want it all... and over the last 40 or so years they have done a GREAT job of getting most of it.

I'm not sure what budget you were talking about that "Boner" held up.

The Senate didn't pass a budget for years:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/23/politi...e-budget-bill/

And that's from 2013.

And also from 2013...the President again not submitting a budget:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...dget-deadline/

That's their constitutional responsibility. And it's the President's JOB to make sure that he works with the Senate and The House to get the needed votes and/or meet with the House leaders and Senate leaders to make sure that the budget has the votes AND is brought to the floor.

That's been one of my criticism's of this Pres.
He has not...ever, been able to reach out and get things done.

The answer to that one is always: "Well Mitch McConnell said he was going to make Obama a "one-term" president"

Okay, that's definitely a fair response and a gauntlet thrown down at the Pres.

And that's why it was imperative for Pres. Obama to reach out and fix that shit. But he couldn't and wouldn't.

And as I've said in the past...the Republicans HATED Clinton with a passion. They even impeached him. But he STILL was able to reach out to them and get shit done.

And the Dems HATED G.W. Bush...but lo and behold, he too was able to work with them.

I think that Obama's inability to find a way to heal that shit, and his reported "aloofness" are the single greatest weaknesses to his entire administration.

History is going to love him (and rightfully so) for being the first black Pres.

But in my opinion...if he were just another white President, he would never have survived that last election. And he would be remembered as another Jimmy Carter: A real smart guy who just couldn't work with Congress or the House.

That's my take on it. I'm sure you don't agree. But that's what I think about that situation.

And I do really believe that once he is out of office the economy is going to come back to life. I think Hillary will win and knowing that Bill will be there to lend his wisdom too...businesses will respond with new optimism and start spending and growing again.

But again, that's just my opinion. It doesn't mean that I "hate" Obama or that I'm a religious crazy person "conservative" Koch Brother-loving "gun nut". :1orglaugh

Oh common Robbie, you seriously can not claim you don't remember the BS with the budget..

Even right here on a Fox News article it talks about how Boner knows he can likely pass the bill with the Republican votes he had and the easy to get Democrat votes but he chooses not to allow the vote because he wanted more Republican support.

http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.ht...8&pageNum =-1

and further down..


I mean really even Fox News outside of their talking heads of course reported that Boner wouldn't bring the vote forward even though he knew it might pass. Even Fox News reported that what Boner was doing was catering to the far right and would create a bill that Boner knew Obama wouldn't agree to.

Really man, you are ignoring what happened and trying to rewrite the past and as I mention the exact same thing is happening with the unemployment extension, so you don't even have to look at history he is doing the same thing right now.

One guy, John Boner is keeping the vote from coming to the house floor. It's not Obama, It's not anyone in the Senate, it's the Speaker of the House. This happened with all the budget talks, be it temp extensions or what not. The only person that can bring the vote to the floor is John Boner and because of that he has the power to hold the bills hostage and he does it every single time, just like he's doing right now with the unemployment extension.

I see, you're not talking about a budget. You are referring to the "Continuing Resolution" which Congress has been passing to keep the govt. going because the Pres. hadn't submitted a budget in all those years.

I now understand what you were talking about. I wasn't sure what you meant when you said the "budget". My mistake. :)

And yeah, that's what Boehner did. And yeah...I still say that if Bill Clinton had been President, he would have submitted a budget that was already guaranteed to go through because of his reaching out and working with the other side ahead of time and during the budget process.

Since Pres. Obama didn't even submit any budgets (his constitutional duty), and of course has almost zero contact with Congress 99% of the time...that did not happen.

So you had the Republicans looking to have the give and take compromises on the budget that Bush, Clinton, and every Pres. before them worked out with Congress...but for whatever reasons you want to give: The President (the leader) didn't do his job and get with them.

I'm not Obama-bashing, that's just the way it is. You either bring the opposition to your side, or you fail at that task. And I think that has been the greatest failure of the Obama administration.

As I've already said: He ain't the first President to deal with a VERY hostile opposition party. In the most recent times...Bush and Clinton were freakin' HATED by the opposition.

Compared to that, Pres. Obama isn't on that level of problems with the "other side".
But he just doesn't make it happen.

And in the end...that's what his job is. That's what a good leader does. Getting your own party to follow you is okay. Getting the other side to work with you...THAT is the leadership quality in life. I just don't think he has done that.

Yea when I say budget, I mean all the little spending bills, sequesters, ect..ect.. anything that keeps the govt running and not going into default. All that to me is budget as it's what the govt operates on and it seems no one ever passes a one shot budget anymore it's always lots of drug out spending bills.

What you are forgetting is Bill Clinton didn't have to deal with the Tea Party. The simple fact is, Obama is as right as the Right was under Clinton, however the Right today has drifted way out there. Bill Clinton nor Reagan, nor either Bush would get their budgets past the current Tea Party.

This is the problem, because despite the votes being there from other more moderate Republicans, Boner is scared to go against the Tea Party because the Tea Party has almost unlimited resources from their Kock Bro supporters and will face the brunt of attacks during their campaigns. Boner, already faces a challenge right now in his home state election from the Tea Party.

No, Bill Clinton had to deal with the "Contract With America" and the "new" Republicans. (not to mention being pulled up to Capital Hill and forced to testify, having all his friends thrown in jail by Ken Starr, and in the end...being IMPEACHED)

And it doesn't matter how much to the "right" that you may perceive Pres. Obama to be...that's not what I'm pointing out.

I'm saying that he isn't able to reach across and make things happen.

Even when Newt was the House Speaker and the Republicans were crucifying Pres. Clinton...he STILL got things done with them.

He and Newt even enjoyed taking Newt's classic Mustang out together.

In my mind, if Pres. Obama were a better leader he would easily pull Boehner in line and things would get done.

BUT...the Pres. would have to make concessions in order to get what he wants. That's how it's supposed to work. So that nobody has absolute power.

He hasn't been able to do that. That is his failing.

It's not Boehners place to convince the Pres., it's the President's place to lead the country in the direction HE wants it to go...and to get the support of Congress to do so.

You keep always saying that it's 100% his fault. What I am saying is any agreement is the result of a partnership. A partnership requires "both" sides to work with each other not just "one" side as you imagine.

One person can not be a partnership it takes two. No amount of reaching across the aisle will create a partner ship if the other side is unwilling.

In my quote from the Fox News article, it even said that Boner knew he likely had enough votes to pass the bill yet he wouldn't put it up for a vote. How much more black & white do you need? It specifically said that Boner knew by trying to please the far right, it would cause the bill to be un-passable.

Honestly, this is even FOX news stating this and it's very black and white. They even bring up that the previous bill, where Obama gave them more than they expected. Meaning YES Obama did cross the aisle and gave them more than they thought they would get. Yet you still say he never works with them and that it's all his fault.

It's right there in black in white from a source that is very GOP friendly and even they show it was Boner not allowing it to be passed.

My current example, right now the unemployment extension. Obama isn't keeping it from the floor of the house, the Senate Leaders are not keeping it from the floor of the house.. John Boner is keeping it from the floor of the house.

Despite the bill having majority support with-in the house from BOTH Republicans and Democrats, ONE man is keeping it from being voted on and his name is John Boehner. It's not John Boehners place to decide what the majority want, but he can sure stop the majority from voting their minds by not allowing a vote to take place. How is that Obama's fault?

I blame him for going to back

Correct

So you are blaming the next guy for all the deaths?

Are you confused about your statements on this?

This has some amusing moments that may fit in with the general trend of this thread....

I don't know crockett...everything I've read about the President says that he is very stand-offish and that leaders of Congress rarely see or speak to him...not even on the phone.

And again...yes, if it's two people with the same idea working together they are PARTNERS.

But that is NOT how it works with a LEADER (the President) trying to get the OPPOSITION party to work together.

As I said, this is Pres. Obama's administration. Not John Boehner's.

Boehner has no reason to do anything with Obama. Just like Gingrich had no reason to work with Clinton.

But a good leader finds a way...just like Bill Clinton did.

Pres. Obama has been unsuccessful in doing so.

For whatever reason...he is unable to get a hostile opposition party to work with him.

If you want to blame the opposition for being...the opposition, then so be it.

I look to the leadership.
I admire that Clinton was able to do what he did against a super hostile opposition party.

In contrast, Obama has nowhere near that level of opposition...and still can't figure out how to work with them.

It's like anything. If you are going to be "the boss", you have to take the blame for everything. That's what being "the man" is all about.

In my company, if anything goes wrong...it's my fault. I don't care what it is. It's my fault.

"The Buck Stops Here".

That's just the way I see it.

I do see what you are saying. Believe me, I've heard it over and over again.

Bill Maher likes to say that it's all because Pres. Obama is black. And Republicans are racist.

Maybe that is the case? I don't know. I'm not in Washington D.C.

But when I went and saw the "Lincoln" movie last year, it was amazing how much work Abraham Lincoln had to do to get completely racist Democrats and Republicans in Congress to support the Emancipation Proclamation.

Now THAT was a President who knew how to lead.

Our current one? Not so much.

But that's just my viewpoint. Nothing more, nothing less. :)

First of all we never pulled out of Afghanistan, Bush just ignored it letting all the previous American deaths be for nothing. Just like Bush ignored the hunt for bin Laden. You know that guy that was actually responsible for attacking us on 9/11.

Bush instead focused on a war in Iraq because there was more money for Cheney & Bro's favorite govt contractors. Obama refocused the "War on Terror" on actually fighting terrorism not creating big business contracts at the expense of our soldiers lives.

In doing so he killed bin Laden and shit loads of his 2nd and 3rds in command. Perhaps if Bush hadn't dropped the ball, al Queida. (yea the guys that attacked us) would have been completely dismantled rather than able to rebuild while Bush focused our forces on Iraq.

But hey.. Iraq was going to pay the bill with their oil am I right? They were going to welcome us with open arms, am I right? Saddam had WMD's, am I right?

Robbie, I think if anything Obama because very jaded once he became the President. I think he expected the Republicans to be willing to work with him, which they had no plans to do so.

Add to this Obama had had quite a few death threats including his inauguration in which his family was potentially in jeopardy. Obama actually received death threats before he was nominated as the front runner for the Democratic side. No time in our history has that ever happened, forcing the secret service to provide him protection prior to him being nominated which is the first time this has ever happened.

He has had more death threats than any other president in our country's history and many have been directed at his family.

Seriously do you not think you would also be a bit jaded or maybe stand offish? I think he came into office believing and wanting to change things and he has been met with overwhelming hate from the right.

No one is going to remain unaffected by that.

I find that hard to believe.

And I think perhaps George Wallace would have disagreed about that as well. He wasn't the "front-runner" and got a whole lot more than a "threat"...he got gunned down.

I think Robert F. Kennedy would disagree as well...if he weren't dead after being assassinated during the campaign of 1968.

Dude...crazy fucks make death threats against EVERYBODY. I highly doubt that Pres. Obama was the only candidate to get death threats. Hell, minor celebs get death threats everyday.