Jump to content



Photo

'I've Had Enough': When Democrats Quit on Obama


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#31 Anibal P

Anibal P

    Neowinian

  • 4,281 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 02
  • Location: Waterbury CT
  • OS: Win 8.1
  • Phone: Android

Posted 10 June 2014 - 03:00

Yeah, people still forgot that Clinton left the country with a surplus and Bush left his administration in a country bankrupted, highest unemployment ever plus more than 10 trillions added to the deficit and yet... They want Obama to fix all these mess in two terms. It will require 5 or 6 presidents at two terms to fix it. Assuming not more war is projected and fully dedicated to resolve the inflation.

 

What surplus? You mean the fake paper surplus the Democrats went and spent before Billy left office? Yeah, I''m old enough and not naive to remember those days and the truth. 

 

 

As for Obama being a total failure, anyone with half a brain knew it was going to happen, all you had to do was look past the thw whole "Hope and Change" slogan to see there was nothing there of any real substance, just a bunch of Marxist rhetoric the Democrats and the Press ate up like idiots, and here we are now, economy still crap, healthcare is an actual mess now, and we're trading high level terrorists for a deserter. 




#32 Dinggus

Dinggus

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,783 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 05

Posted 10 June 2014 - 08:14

We have this thing called "Due Process" that won't be left to the mob mentality you've accepted.  And speaking of the VA, this is what happens when you send off soldiers to a fake war (Iraq) and don't give the VA the funding it needs to take care of all these broken soldiers we got back.  But that's the GOP for ya, claiming to love the soldiers yet not giving them everything they need to get back on their feet.  GOP frauds.

 

Sorry, last time I checked, soldiers (me included) don't die or come back broken from fake wars. Fake wars is what we called the field, training for war and learning from our mistakes before we actually go. I lost a teenagehood friend over there, along with more teenagehood friends cooping with PTSD and trying to have a normal life not worrying about if they were going to be blown up by a suicide bomber while shopping at a fresh market.

 

The VA has had these issues long before Iraq and Afghanistan.



#33 Fresh

Fresh

    It's always best Fresh!

  • 9,322 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 03
  • Location: United States

Posted 10 June 2014 - 15:30

We have this thing called "Due Process" that won't be left to the mob mentality you've accepted.  And speaking of the VA, this is what happens when you send off soldiers to a fake war (Iraq) and don't give the VA the funding it needs to take care of all these broken soldiers we got back.  But that's the GOP for ya, claiming to love the soldiers yet not giving them everything they need to get back on their feet.  GOP frauds.

 

 

^ precisely, and die process has started with a military investigation.

Not being a court others don't have to be limited by due process, and I choose to believe those who he served with - they are up I arms over this travesty. Given that those who serve together stick together this indicates more than smoke is involved here.

 

Funding? Really? You think more money will fix the VA issue? Really?



#34 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,788 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 10 June 2014 - 16:10

But as to VA funding, it's problems are akin to those of Obamacare - it's an organizational nightmare that tries to do too much. Worse, the 'VA Hospital' model is now unworkable because they're too few and too far apart. Their functions need to be decentralized.

VA should be split into 2 parts;

1) a general health care benefit via regular insurance card usable at any hospital or doctors office (takes care of the accessibility issue, especially in rural regions)

2) a specialty care benefit that covers physical rehabilitation, prosthetics and psychiatric care, with special Govt. facilities only where private ones aren't available. This comes down to rural outreach.

And PLEASE let professionals integrate 1 & 2, no more Govt. amateurs winging it as with Obamacare.

#35 xrobwx

xrobwx

    Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

  • 983 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 03
  • Location: Panama City Beach, FL USA
  • OS: Win 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note II

Posted 10 June 2014 - 18:07

Yeah, people still forgot that Clinton left the country with a surplus and Bush left his administration in a country bankrupted, highest unemployment ever plus more than 10 trillions added to the deficit and yet... They want Obama to fix all these mess in two terms. It will require 5 or 6 presidents at two terms to fix it. Assuming not more war is projected and fully dedicated to resolve the inflation.

You might want to read this: Stay away from MSNBC.

http://www.factcheck...ebt-deceptions/



#36 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,815 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:02

Yawn. :sleep: Conservatives are trying to turn this into the next Benghazi, yet they can't seem to decide what the issue is. Some take issue because he's an alleged deserter; others because his father is an alleged Muslim sympathiser, for having a beard and learning about another culture; others because the trade might endanger the lives of American soldiers; others because of the legality of it; others because it's something to attack Obama for. So, let's break it down.

 

1) It doesn't matter whether he's a deserter, as he's an American citizen.

2) It doesn't matter whether his father is a Muslim sympathiser, as he is entitled to believe in what he wants.

3) Keeping prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is already endangering the lives of American soldiers.

4) Not informing Congress is irrelevant, as Congress could not have prevented the exchange from occurring.

 

If a GOP president had done the same thing conservatives would be applauding, claiming it was a bold move by a strong leader. It's completely hypocritical. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise Obama—his illegal assassination of US citizens (and non-nationals) via drone strikes; his broken promise to close Guantanamo Bay; his refusal to go after those responsible for the economic collapse; his response to the NSA surveillance scandal—without wasting political capital on nonsense like this. We saw the GOP try the same thing with the Cliven Bundy debacle.

 

There is never a reasoned, proportional response from conservatives - it's just hype, hype, hype until something sticks. We saw it is ObamaCare, with HealthCare.gov, with Benghazi, with Cliven Bundy, with the IRS, etc.

 

As for Democrats jumping ship, Obama can't win any more terms and the mid-terms are coming up. It would be understandable for those with vulnerable seats will try to distance themselves from him in order to improve their chances of reelection, while others may try to use it to align themselves with the next Democratic administration. That said, this is about a Democratic consultant, so it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Please - even Democrats (among them no less than Senators Barbara Boxer AND Dianne Feinstein - last I heard, both were not only Democrats, but have zero love for either the CIA or military) are horked off over the trade, and not because of Bergdahl.  The majority of Congress that is horked off over the trade is because of who we let out of Gitmo - period.

  The anger over the deal has squat to do with Bergdahl directly at all.



#37 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,444 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:56

The anger over the deal has squat to do with Bergdahl directly at all.

It's simply an excuse to bash Obama. As I pointed out, the criticism is all over the place - the only common theme is that Obama is to blame. There is legitimate concern about exchanging prisoners but we're not seeing an intellectually honest debate about that. Over 500 prisoners from Guantanamo Bay were released under Bush, including one implicated in the Benghazi attack that conservatives care so deeply about, yet now people are complaining about the release of just five in exchange for a US POW. It's just not proportionate or reasonable.

 

At the end of the day it all comes down to semantics. If you remove the word 'terrorists'—which is a politically motivated and loaded term—then what you have is a POW exchange, something that occurs regularly throughout the world. It's a fake controversy.



#38 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,815 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 18 June 2014 - 21:19

It's simply an excuse to bash Obama. As I pointed out, the criticism is all over the place - the only common theme is that Obama is to blame. There is legitimate concern about exchanging prisoners but we're not seeing an intellectually honest debate about that. Over 500 prisoners from Guantanamo Bay were released under Bush, including one implicated in the Benghazi attack that conservatives care so deeply about, yet now people are complaining about the release of just five in exchange for a US POW. It's just not proportionate or reasonable.

 

At the end of the day it all comes down to semantics. If you remove the word 'terrorists'—which is a politically motivated and loaded term—then what you have is a POW exchange, something that occurs regularly throughout the world. It's a fake controversy.

 

It's simply an excuse to bash Obama. As I pointed out, the criticism is all over the place - the only common theme is that Obama is to blame. There is legitimate concern about exchanging prisoners but we're not seeing an intellectually honest debate about that. Over 500 prisoners from Guantanamo Bay were released under Bush, including one implicated in the Benghazi attack that conservatives care so deeply about, yet now people are complaining about the release of just five in exchange for a US POW. It's just not proportionate or reasonable.

 

At the end of the day it all comes down to semantics. If you remove the word 'terrorists'—which is a politically motivated and loaded term—then what you have is a POW exchange, something that occurs regularly throughout the world. It's a fake controversy.

The primary criticism - from both sides - is that he violated the Congressional notification provision of the law having to do with Gitmo detainees.

Second, what national military do the detainees - any of them - represent?  According to international law, prisoners of war are members of a nation's military, captured on the battlefield, while in aggressive action for that nation's interest.  (Such law explicitly does NOT apply to intelligence officers (of any nation - this is why CIA intelligence officers, and especially NOC officers - get hives; since the meltdown of the Soviet Union, even Russia's intelligence agencies have similar issues).  Why it matters in the case of Gitmo - while taken captive on the battlefield, the detainees all fall into that gray area of international law.)  You call it "politically motivated" when it is no such thing.  The status of the detainees is important from a straightforward LEGAL standpoint - exactly what IS the status of groups such as al-Queda or the Taliban under international law? If ANY the groups are claimed by a national government, then the POW argument holds up - for example, when the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan, their military wing DID have standing, and their troopers captured on the battlefield were properly POWs (and treated as such).  That is no longer the case - they are NOT the government of Afghanistan - or any other nation - and thus their troopers captured on the battlefield - anywhere, and by any nation - are NOT POWs.

 

Why Bergdahl's status is irrelevant - Bergdahl, even if he deserted, was still a member of the United States Army captured on the battlefield.  HIS POW status is valid - which means that it falls on the group that captured him to respect it 9and his rights under the International Convention for Treatment of Prisoners of War.  If the group is complaining, because of their status as "nationless fighters" - unrecognized by any nation - that the law does not apply to them, then it cuts both ways - members of their side held by any nation (not alone the United States) are NOT bound by the same convention when handling their detainees.  That's the real issue - legal (both US law AND international law) - not political except in a geopolitical sense).  You are trying to get by executive action what you are unlikely to get by either law OR treaty - treatment of these nationless fighting bodies as the equivalent to national armies.



#39 thejohnnyq

thejohnnyq

    Neowinian

  • 1,050 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 03
  • Location: North of Cincy, to the Left

Posted 18 June 2014 - 21:52

We have this thing called "Due Process" that won't be left to the mob mentality you've accepted.  And speaking of the VA, this is what happens when you send off soldiers to a fake war (Iraq) and don't give the VA the funding it needs to take care of all these broken soldiers we got back.  But that's the GOP for ya, claiming to love the soldiers yet not giving them everything they need to get back on their feet.  GOP frauds.

 

This is more like the comments of someone with out any knowledge.    The VA has seen it's budget go up 300% since 2006, personal I am getting tired of the 'fake ware' line, it shows your lack of knowledge, there were weapons of mass destruction, (they were sent to Syria)(well documented by British Newspapers and the one Iraqi General that ended up working for the US during the invasion), and the links to terrorism were there, and even Time Magazine ran stories before the war about the 'practice drills' that was videotaped at the Baghdad airport.  The GOP only blocked junk bills, and you forget that the democrats blocked changes to the VA at every turn.   



#40 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,788 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 19 June 2014 - 00:49

A new Washington Post/NVC News poll came out and it's a disaster for Obama. NBC's analyst Chuck Todd said on MSNBC,

Sorry, but the poll is behind a paywall.

"This poll is a disaster for the president....You look at the presidency here: Lowest job rating, tied for the lowest; lowest on foreign policy. His administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration, post-Katrina....Essentially the public is saying your presidency is over,"



#41 x-scratch

x-scratch

    whaaaaaaaat

  • 2,846 posts
  • Joined: 19-November 03
  • Location: gnome panel

Posted 19 June 2014 - 00:54

'I've Had Enough' of topics like these

#42 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,788 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 19 June 2014 - 00:55

Then why are you reading them?