Syria?

[The Anvil]

Well, here's an idea we could all get behind (Well, everyone except for that one guy who's gotta be contrary to anything posted, of course )

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/

Sounds good to me 

I don't see how anyone could argue with that.

[Daddie O]

Well you all have convinced me, it is all about personal responsibility.  I agree.  This "insurance" business is all of us kicking into a pot in case one or more of us has some sort of catastrophe happen.  That's pure socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad.  I'm sure you are all cancelling your homeowners insurance right away.  I mean if your house burns down, being "personally responsible" I'm sure you will have saved enough for a new home.  I know you wouldn't expect to draw from the same pot that all the socialists with a lack of personal responsibility kicked in to.  Same thing with your auto insurance.  If you got into an accident and did a lot of property damage, or god forbid killed someone, you would pay for it all out of your "personal responsibility" bank account right?  You aren't some commie pinko trying to make the rest of us pay for your accident are you?  Of course if you had a heart attack you would definitely pay for your critical care, your surgeon, and your hospital stay out of pocket.  No way would you ever make me pay for your bad genetics or poor lifestyle, because I know you are personally responsible.  You have a bank account to pay for anything that would happen.  You wouldn't think of letting your wife call an ambulance to take you to the hospital after a heart attack or getting cancer, unless you knew you had several hundred thousand dollars sitting, ready and waiting in your "personal responsibility" account.

The government mandating you join this "socialist" insurance plan is impinging on your freedom to 100% pay for yourself and no one else.  The government is evil by the way, and they are incapable of doing anything good.  Except the military, the military is good.  Oh, and the police and fire department, they are good too.  But really I don't want to pay tax dollars for a military or fire department, because that would be socialism too.  Being forced to kick in for the common good really chaps my hide.  I mean, I have my own guns, and buckets for water to put out a fire.  They are good at water treatment and sewer systems though.  I don't want to pay for their commie, socialist water treatment and delivery though.  I'm gonna dig myself a well.  I won't use the socialist roads to bring the equipment to do it either, cuz I hate to use anything that a group of people had to contribute to.  I will pave my own road with "personal responsibility" asphalt.

[Xtracho]

Here's a hint for you...get some practice at coherent, relevant debate. Poorly parroted sarcasm gets you no where. The proof in the pudding of the dishrag's health care plan is the big players pulling out of the exchanges. Aetna pulls out of Connecticut? Its home state? UHC, Humana, BCBS hot on their heels?

And where's the coalition for POTUS' pending action in Syria?



Your little tirade above addressed nothing other than the satisfaction of you seeing your own words on the screen.

[Daddie O]

As far as debate goes, I can and do run circles around you.  You say my argument is incoherent.  The truth is, it is coherent.  It was an argument about personal responsibility and the government's role in "socialized" mandates via taxes.  The argument was germane to previous posts in this thread as well.  Also, if you knew anything about debate you would realize that you should attack the argument, not the person.

I find it quite amusing that you compare the "coalition" that engaged in the Iraq war to the "coalition" for remote airstrikes in Syria.  You realize that the coalition that was formed to engage in the Iraq war was formed based on false data and out and out lies about weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deploy them.  After those lies, and the heavy cost on us and our allies, you are now perplexed as to why any would be weary of joining a coalition with the same country that lied to them about chemical weapons in the past?  The short list on the right of your graphic is due to the lies of the bespeckled dude on the left of your graphic.  You see if you (as a country) lie to your allies, they are less likely to trust you.  Syria is proof.  Yes we are still working on undoing the damage to our credibility inflicted by Joe "Mission Accomplished" Cool.

[Serk]

As far as debate goes, I can and do run circles around you.  You say my argument is incoherent.  The truth is, it is coherent.  It was an argument about personal responsibility and the government's role in "socialized" mandates via taxes.  The argument was germane to previous posts in this thread as well.  Also, if you knew anything about debate you would realize that you should attack the argument, not the person.

I find it quite amusing that you compare the "coalition" that engaged in the Iraq war to the "coalition" for remote airstrikes in Syria.  You realize that the coalition that was formed to engage in the Iraq war was formed based on false data and out and out lies about weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deploy them.  After those lies, and the heavy cost on us and our allies, you are now perplexed as to why any would be weary of joining a coalition with the same country that lied to them about chemical weapons in the past?  The short list on the right of your graphic is due to the lies of the bespeckled dude on the left of your graphic.  You see if you (as a country) lie to your allies, they are less likely to trust you.  Syria is proof.  Yes we are still working on undoing the damage to our credibility inflicted by Joe "Mission Accomplished" Cool.

tl;dr - It's all Bush's fault. 

[The Anvil]

As far as debate goes, I can and do run circles around you.  You say my argument is incoherent.  The truth is, it is coherent.  It was an argument about personal responsibility and the government's role in "socialized" mandates via taxes.  The argument was germane to previous posts in this thread as well.  Also, if you knew anything about debate you would realize that you should attack the argument, not the person.

I find it quite amusing that you compare the "coalition" that engaged in the Iraq war to the "coalition" for remote airstrikes in Syria.  You realize that the coalition that was formed to engage in the Iraq war was formed based on false data and out and out lies about weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deploy them.  After those lies, and the heavy cost on us and our allies, you are now perplexed as to why any would be weary of joining a coalition with the same country that lied to them about chemical weapons in the past?  The short list on the right of your graphic is due to the lies of the bespeckled dude on the left of your graphic.  You see if you (as a country) lie to your allies, they are less likely to trust you.  Syria is proof.  Yes we are still working on undoing the damage to our credibility inflicted by Joe "Mission Accomplished" Cool.

Exactly. Nobody's gonna get involved this time because the last time (Bush's idea) turned out to be a huge load of crap.

But again, the scope of the actions in Syria and Iraq are worlds apart. We should be involved in neither but you can't directly compare them. You can only use Iraq as an example for not getting involved at all.

[Xtracho]

So, all those nations and not a single one questioned the veracity of the intel on Iraq? Lawsy me, just a bunch of stupid ass countries blindly following a lie into war. Yeah...that seems believable  .

[Robert]

The Iraq war cannot be compared to taking military action in a civil war. Have you forgotten Iraq invaded Kuwait? One civil, one invasion and I might add if Syria had invaded any country it would be the tipping point that the UN and other countries would join in. As of now no country has offered support.
As for Obama care this health care imitative did not have to be a take over of the system. Yes it needed revision but a take over NO. The government has already proved incompetence in taking over and failing at most of what it has taken over. Social Security, ( which someone should be in jail for) Medicare, mortgage companies Freddy and Fanny. Even the Florida turnpike here was supposed to be toll less when paid off, did it happen NO WAY. I would even say to Congress abdicating their authority to print money and take control of the US economy. There is no debate, any president of any corporation that had failed that miserably would be out of a job. So now you want to give and agree that the US can handle health care, this thinking is as faulty as the governments ability to control the programs it starts and should be shown for what it is a SHAM and illogical. Only a liberal would give a failed institution more control in hopes that it would finally without any change be able to control something and make the results come out well. How about first they stick to the Constitution to demonstrate the ability to be a government as a starting point and maybe then we can put some trust into the intent of this government.

[Daddie O]

The Iraq war cannot be compared to taking military action in a civil war. Have you forgotten Iraq invaded Kuwait? One civil, one invasion and I might add if Syria had invaded any country it would be the tipping point that the UN and other countries would join in. As of now no country has offered support.
As for Obama care this health care imitative did not have to be a take over of the system. Yes it needed revision but a take over NO. The government has already proved incompetence in taking over and failing at most of what it has taken over. Social Security, ( which someone should be in jail for) Medicare, mortgage companies Freddy and Fanny. Even the Florida turnpike here was supposed to be toll less when paid off, did it happen NO WAY. I would even say to Congress abdicating their authority to print money and take control of the US economy. There is no debate, any president of any corporation that had failed that miserably would be out of a job. So now you want to give and agree that the US can handle health care, this thinking is as faulty as the governments ability to control the programs it starts and should be shown for what it is a SHAM and illogical. Only a liberal would give a failed institution more control in hopes that it would finally without any change be able to control something and make the results come out well. How about first they stick to the Constitution to demonstrate the ability to be a government as a starting point and maybe then we can put some trust into the intent of this government.

Sigh, where to begin?  The first Iraq war (Desert Storm) was in part to free Kuwait from Iraq's invasion.  The second Iraq war (Iraqi Freedom) was not in response to an invasion, it was supposed to get rid of a dictator (that we previously supported) with chemical weapons and the willingness and means to deploy them (and disperse them to our enemies).  The simile between the second Iraq war, and the proposed military action in Syria is: chemical weapons and the fear of them a) being used against our interests and b) being dispersed to those who would use them against us or our interests.

Secondly, please stop parroting talking points that are not based in reality.  Why do conservatives continue to call Obamacare a "government takeover" of healthcare?  I would really like an answer to that.  Under Obamacare can you go to a government hospital and get seen by a government doctor?  No?  Then wtf are you talking about?  Government tax credits to help someone pay for private insurance administered by a private company IS NOT a government takeover of our health care system.  Please re-read that sentence and let it sink in!

Third, saying someone should go to jail over social security, do you mean George Bush?  Do recall the debates in 2000 between Mr Bush and Mr Gore?  The ones where Gore was saying, "Let's take this surplus money and put it in a lockbox so we keep Social Security solvent till at least 2050."  Mr. Bush was saying, "See he thinks government is the answer to everything and that they know better waht to do with YOUR money than you do."  Instead he sent a $300 check to everyone.  How'd that work out for you?  Social Security is a highly popular government program, and I'm pretty sure you won't find any senior citizens sending their checks back in because they hate the government and feel their life is improved by not having the check.  I doubt anyone on Medicare would prefer to not have insurance at all.  Your arguments lack logic, and any amount of common sense.  As far as sticking to the Constitution, I suppose you know more about that than our President, who was a Constitutional Law professor.  I mean studying the constitution is his passion, and he taught it for a living.

I'm sure you know as well as the President that he doesn't need congresses approval to go into Syria for 60 days with another 30 day extension on top of that.  He already has that power under the war powers act.  So why is he seeking congresses approval first then?  He wants to have Republicans on record supporting the strikes on Syria (or not supporting).  That way we won't have to hear "we wouldn't have done it."  He wants to have them on record voting yes for the spending on it, as part of a larger debate on the budget.

[Bigun]

Yeah you are right there is a big differance this time. Russia and China are sending warships to defend Assad. If we attack we risk an international incident. We may be able to handle Russia but not both of them. Risk war over a terrorist staged event doesnt make sense to me.

[Daddie O]

Russia and China will do nothing.  China's only concern is financial, ie the price of oil going up.  Russia is happy to keep supplying Assad with weaponry, but they will never attack us.  Russian and China spend 256 billion dollars on defense combined.  We spend 682 billion on defense, and we have actively been at war for over 10 years (a bit more practice at it).  That's not even mentioning the negative financial consequences for China should they ever attack us.  You don't honestly think either of them would stick their neck out physically for Syria do you?  They may say "We don't think you should.", or "We will veto any resolution.", but that is the full extent of their power.

[Rams]

The simile between the second Iraq war, and the proposed military action in Syria is: chemical weapons and the fear of them a) being used against our interests and b) being dispersed to those who would use them against us or our interests.

This might be true but then again, it might not be accurate.   This administration has (from the beginning)  hid the truth about so many things, they have lost all credibility.   But, as Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said when asked about Bengazi, What does it really matter?    Credibility has a whole lot to do with it, we or I don't trust him.   And it appears neither do most of the folks on this planet.

Secondly, please stop parroting talking points that are not based in reality.  Why do conservatives continue to call Obamacare a "government takeover" of healthcare?  I would really like an answer to that.  Under Obamacare can you go to a government hospital and get seen by a government doctor?  No?  Then wtf are you talking about?  Government tax credits to help someone pay for private insurance administered by a private company IS NOT a government takeover of our health care system.  Please re-read that sentence and let it sink in!

Not sure where you got your definition of a government takeover but, OK if that's your idea, fine by me.  I can't speak for anyone but myself.    The fact that Obama Care requires me to help pay for other's health care who do not contribute to anything, who may not even be citizens or legal residents is enough reason for me to not support Obama Care.   Just who is paying for those government tax credits?   Those of us who are or have actually contributed to this nation and the system.   I'm tired of loafers who don't and won't pull their own frigg'n weight and/or aren't here legally.   Let's not even get into EBT cards and such.   How many do you want for 50 cents on the dollar?

Third.......As far as sticking to the Constitution, I suppose you know more about that than our President, who was a Constitutional Law professor.  I mean studying the constitution is his passion, and he taught it for a living.

I have no doubt Mr. Obama is very well acquainted with our constitution.   His knowledge is not in question in my mind.  It's his obvious intent to twist that document to be something other than what it was intended to be, his socialist agenda and willingness "redistribute" the wealth.    I'm not among the wealthy, barely in the middle class but, his give away programs have done nothing to promote anything other than a where's my share attitude among those who collect those "entitlements".   I don't believe the Constitution is his "passion", I believe his "passion" lies elsewhere and he uses what he has learned about our constitution as a path to demolish this country and institute a much more socialist agenda.

I'm sure you know as well as the President that he doesn't need congresses approval to go into Syria for 60 days with another 30 day extension on top of that.  He already has that power under the war powers act.  So why is he seeking congresses approval first then?  He wants to have Republicans on record supporting the strikes on Syria (or not supporting).  That way we won't have to hear "we wouldn't have done it."  He wants to have them on record voting yes for the spending on it, as part of a larger debate on the budget.

I agree, Mr. Obama does not need Congresses' approval.   As to why he is, you believe what you want to, personally, I don't trust him any farther than I could throw him.   Putting folks on record also puts many politicians in a position they don't want to be in, they have elections coming up and he doesn't.   I think it's more about sharing blame or, they told me to.   Mr. Obama drew that line in the sand all by himself, the world didn't draw it, Congress didn't draw it, he did.   But, he doesn't have the balls to back up his own words.   I think it was a stupid line to draw but, I wasn't asked.   BTW, just who the hell gives him advice.   Some real winner he has there.    I think he's more worried about his legacy and how he is perceived in the future.   He also doesn't want to piss off the wrong money backers who have supported his socialist agenda previously.   But, as Hillary said, What does it matter now?

Mr. Obama had the opportunity to make a world of difference in this country and on this planet but he chose a more divisive path.   Now we all get to live with the mess he leaves behind.  
No, I would not describe myself as a fan of Mr. Obama.

[Robert]

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions during the previous 12 years resulted in the US-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. Under Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. military operations focused on achieving several specific objectives, to end the regime of Saddam Hussein, eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and to capture and drive out terrorists from Iraq. Coalition forces remained in Iraq, to help restore Iraq's degraded infrastructure, deliver humanitarian support, and to create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government for the Iraqi people. Which again means we had just cause because of non compliance to go into Iraq. Like I said and for some reason you missed it we had just cause. We did not step blindly into a countries civil war.Both desert storm and Iraqi freedom resulted from the invasion of Kuwait and non compliance to resolutions from invading Kuwait. It would be nice to learn your facts and have a consistent thought to put reasoning together.
As for Obama care how is it not a take over of the health care system with the government tax for health care. Mandatory laws, procedures pricing for the medical field to follow. NO ability to opt out, so you are kidding yourself if you try to say anything but. This added to the increase in government staff just to handle it and the tax authorities to make sure you pay for it.
  Your spurious inferences to think that Bush or Gore would be any better or that the problem wasn't there before them. if you go back to the establishment of Social Security the money was supposed to be safe in a fiduciary account untouchable by government and earning interest and would provide for itself. This never happened because the politicians looted Social Security. If you or I did this we would go to jail.
 As to the Constitution just because he may know the Constitution does not mean he follows it and in fact has done a good job of trampling on it. I am really curious though how is it that everyone else sees his blatant disregard for the Constitution and you don't. Its not ignorance it must be koolaid or drugs or some other source that does not allow you to see the truth.
Again you are also wrong in the presidents ability to declare war or attack Syria and if you dont want to believe me then I think 140 members of the House of Representatives should do.
Last week, 140 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter insisting that military action "without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution." But even while seeking congressional permission to use force in Syria, President Barack Obama objected, "I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization." This really shocked me personally, Its a blatant disregard for the laws of the US. Its not the kind of thing you say being the president its quite shocking he would make this statement. It truly boarders on  dictatorship or the mentality of it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-03/can-obama-strike-syria-on-his-own-.html
in this article it gives you Constitutional law to back up that the President does not have the power to do this.
In our society the presidents try to bend the definition of war, but invading another country for no harm to us is war. Just as the attack on the USS Cole should have been deemed a war.
I am sorry but your ideas are not the product of in depth knowledge of a subject but the product of our society as we know it now and not as it truly supposed to be and how it was formed.  This coupled with your love of this current president does not allow you to see the truth that so many others see.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Robert, It's the truth as you see it. If somebody doesn't agree with you then they must be wrong. You only see the truth as you want to see it.

[BF]

Robert, It's the truth as you see it. If somebody doesn't agree with you then they must be wrong. You only see the truth as you want to see it.

You mean like most liberals that blindly follow and approve of everything Obama does and says because of their overwhelming hatred for everything George Bush, conservative, right leaning and republican?   

I see, gotcha. 

[Robert]

Meathead ,About the only personal interpretation I have is we should not invade Syria the rest should be fact, including the justification brought up about Iraq. I try not to color the truth, good or bad it is what it is, I don't care if you disagree or if I find I am wrong but at least bring to the table the facts in truth that are behind the beliefs. Truth is not many ways, its one way that's it.

Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Robert, It's the truth as you see it. If somebody doesn't agree with you then they must be wrong. You only see the truth as you want to see it.

You mean like most liberals that blindly follow and approve of everything Obama does and says because of their overwhelming hatred for everything George Bush, conservative, right leaning and republican?   

I see, gotcha. 

You know there plenty of people that are what you call liberal that don't hate everything bush did or love everything Obama does. Just as there are plenty of conservatives the same way. But it's amazing the amount of people that despises EVERYTHING about Obama.

[Daddie O]

"This might be true but then again, it might not be accurate.   This administration has (from the beginning)  hid the truth about so many things, they have lost all credibility.   But, as Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said when asked about Bengazi, What does it really matter?    Credibility has a whole lot to do with it, we or I don't trust him.   And it appears neither do most of the folks on this planet."

"Not sure where you got your definition of a government takeover but, OK if that's your idea, fine by me.  I can't speak for anyone but myself.    The fact that Obama Care requires me to help pay for other's health care who do not contribute to anything, who may not even be citizens or legal residents is enough reason for me to not support Obama Care.   Just who is paying for those government tax credits?   Those of us who are or have actually contributed to this nation and the system.   I'm tired of loafers who don't and won't pull their own frigg'n weight and/or aren't here legally.   Let's not even get into EBT cards and such.   How many do you want for 50 cents on the dollar?"

"I have no doubt Mr. Obama is very well acquainted with our constitution.   His knowledge is not in question in my mind.  It's his obvious intent to twist that document to be something other than what it was intended to be, his socialist agenda and willingness "redistribute" the wealth.    I'm not among the wealthy, barely in the middle class but, his give away programs have done nothing to promote anything other than a where's my share attitude among those who collect those "entitlements".   I don't believe the Constitution is his "passion", I believe his "passion" lies elsewhere and he uses what he has learned about our constitution as a path to demolish this country and institute a much more socialist agenda."

"I agree, Mr. Obama does not need Congresses' approval.   As to why he is, you believe what you want to, personally, I don't trust him any farther than I could throw him.   Putting folks on record also puts many politicians in a position they don't want to be in, they have elections coming up and he doesn't.   I think it's more about sharing blame or, they told me to.   Mr. Obama drew that line in the sand all by himself, the world didn't draw it, Congress didn't draw it, he did.   But, he doesn't have the balls to back up his own words.   I think it was a stupid line to draw but, I wasn't asked.   BTW, just who the hell gives him advice.   Some real winner he has there.    I think he's more worried about his legacy and how he is perceived in the future.   He also doesn't want to piss off the wrong money backers who have supported his socialist agenda previously.   But, as Hillary said, What does it matter now?"

"Mr. Obama had the opportunity to make a world of difference in this country and on this planet but he chose a more divisive path.   Now we all get to live with the mess he leaves behind.  
No, I would not describe myself as a fan of Mr. Obama."



It's interesting that you think most of the world does not agree with our President.  I'm sure you also believe the same thing about most of our country.  Funny thing is he got re-elected.  How did that happen if "most" people don't agree with him.  The truth is, it is you, and your thinking, that is in the minority.

The government taxing its citizens and regulating something is a government takeover?  Umm, I hardly know what to say to that line of reasoning since it is so far out of the realm of logic.  The government has said if you are an hourly employee you must be paid a minimum wage, and have regular breaks, and be paid overtime if you work over 8 hours a day.  Does that mean the government has taken over all businesses?  No?  Neither does requiring employers to provide health insurance.

You say our President only learned the constitution so he could twist it according to his socialist agenda, in hopes and plans for the destruction of America.  Really, why would he want that?  Care to elaborate?  Give some sort of an example please.  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on matters relating to interpretation of the Constitution, and they have deemed "Obamacare" fully Constitutional, so.....  Obama was re-elected because of his vision of what America is and what it should be.  A majority of Americans agree with him, so that IS what America is by definition.  You may think America is something different, but most people don't agree with you.  

You say Obama drew the line in the sand on chemical weapons use himself huh?  The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on June 17th, 1925 and entered into force on February 8th, 1928.  Do you think he has a time machine and he drew up those documents, and he is the only signatory?

President Obama has made a world of difference in the world and this country, despite united Republican opposition to every single thing he has done.  Let's see, stock market at record highs?  Check.  Home values up?  Check.  Unemployment down?  Check.  Ended war in Iraq, and ending war in Afghanistan?  Check.  Saving of the auto industry, with accompanying record profits?  Check.  

I could go on and on, but as an earlier post pointed out, I pretty much do this for my own amusement at seeing my words on the screen.  I know I can't convince you, because of your blind hatred.  Funny thing is, some people on this forum believe I hate everything conservative, and despise all Republicans.  It's simply not true.  There are people that I love that are very close to me that are conservatives.  As an earlier poster espoused, I do not hate all things Bush did, nor love all things Obama has done.  Too many conservatives view the world through black and white, all or nothing thinking.  With President Obama, many conservatives play the "Heads I win, Tails you lose" game with him.  If he does something he is wrong for doing it, but if he doesn't he is wrong for not doing it.  See if you fit into that box.  Think of the great things Obama has done.

[Robert]

Robert, It's the truth as you see it. If somebody doesn't agree with you then they must be wrong. You only see the truth as you want to see it.

You mean like most liberals that blindly follow and approve of everything Obama does and says because of their overwhelming hatred for everything George Bush, conservative, right leaning and republican?   

I see, gotcha. 

You know there plenty of people that are what you call liberal that don't hate everything bush did or love everything Obama does. Just as there are plenty of conservatives the same way. But it's amazing the amount of people that despises EVERYTHING about Obama.

I dont know Obama personally so I dont know if I would like or dislike him, I only know his decisions and I feel betrayed. I have not seen a president do so much to hurt this country and all it means, in total disregard to the principles and laws that this country was founded on. I was hoping he would have been the good change we desperately needed, not leading us faster to the path of destruction.

[Robert]

It's interesting that you think most of the world does not agree with our President.  I'm sure you also believe the same thing about most of our country.  Funny thing is he got re-elected.  How did that happen if "most" people don't agree with him.  The truth is, it is you, and your thinking, that is in the minority.


As of Noon on Friday,in elections 2012 with nearly all votes in, Obama assuredly will win the popular vote, leading Romney by a count of 61,173,739 or 50.5% to 58,167,260 or 48.0%. At this point, a few final votes are being counted and then all that's left is for the results to be officially certified.) In the Real Clear Politics average of nine recent polls, Obama's approval rating languishes at a putrid 43.3% seven months into his second term. His average disapproval rating is 51.1%, for a net negative of 7.7.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-gallup-fall-down-2013-8#ixzz2eGgJEt8U

you had better rethink this statement.

[Daddie O]

If I read that article correctly, as well as the link in that article, it would seem our President's disapproval rating is dwarfed by the disapproval rating of Republicans.

"The poll found that 59 percent of respondents view the GOP unfavorably, a record that has only shown up one other time in the poll's results since tracking began in 1992.

The Republican Party's net favorability ratings are down 8 points in the past two months. The amount of respondents viewing the GOP favorably fell from 38 percent to 35 percent, while the number of people who view the party unfavorably climbed five points, up from 54 percent in March."

If Obama's approval rating is at 43.4% and that is "putrid", what adjective would you use to describe the 35% approval rate of the Republicans?  59% of people view Republicans unfavorably!  Wow!

So yeah, seeing as over 52% of Americans that voted, voted for Barack Obama, I can safely say he had the majority of votes.  Seeing as 59% of Americans view Republicans unfavorably, I can safely say that Republican ideology is in the minority.

Who needs to do some rethinking?  

Pro tip:  Read the articles before you link them in support of your argument.  They may not in fact support your argument, and it kind of makes you look silly.  By the way, our president ended up with over 65 million votes (over 51%), while Romney got 47%.  Electoral College results?  Obama 332, Romney 206.  Can you say spanked?  Please stop trying to say that most people agree with Republican ideology, it makes you look either ignorant or dishonest.

[oZ]

Some say "we got to figure out a way to provide healthcare for the people" I say it's not our damn business to stick our noses into others folk's life decisions, healthcare is not a right.

Passing a law making it legal to reach into some hard working person's pocket to pay for someone else's healthcare is repugnant. If YOU want to pay for others healthcare that's your decision but leave me, my family, and my friends out of your social experiments!

If you feel the need to pay for other's healthcare, than do that, don't have your Government Storm Troopers (that'd be the IRS) force it on the rest of the working population.

If you are worried about getting sick buy damn health insurance as you do home and car insurance. IF you can't afford health insurance go on Welfare; another fantastic example of government efficiency and a wonderfully successful program.

Anyone that pulls Social Security out of there back pocket as an example of a working government program or points at the military as a well-oiled machine has just got to have a brain tumor!

The federal and state governments sucks at managing things, I can't think of one thing they do well and if you can you are lying to yourself and again should see your doctor about a possible brain tumor.

Republicans our unpopular, hell yes they are and I hate the Rat Bast%&ds, it reminds me of the Democratic Party. 

Both are corporate or special interest driven and indifferent to the plight of the working class, and by working class I'm not talking about the "working class" in a political way as bantered about by union thugs.  I'm talking about the poor slobs like me that have jobs, show up each day, pay our bills, and try to save a little something.

Whew, I feel better now – bit of a headache though... Think I'll see my doctor; I'm thinking I might have a brain tumor.

[MP]

"You say Obama drew the line in the sand on chemical weapons use himself huh?  The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on June 17th, 1925 and entered into force on February 8th, 1928.  Do you think he has a time machine and he drew up those documents, and he is the only signatory?"

Sorry. Does not work in this case.  Syria is NOT a signatory of this treaty, and ONLY those who are signatories fall under its jurisdiction.  Same as Geneva Convention for treatment of soldiers.  ONLY applies to those who signed.

Before Bush went to war, Senator Obama said he MUST go to Congress for authority.

Before Bush went to war, Senator Biden said that if he did not get Congressional authority, Bush should be impeached, and Joe Biden would lead it.

So, now that President Obama says he does not need Congessional authority, if he goes to war without it, will VP Joe Biden lead the charge to impeach him?

Hyprocricy as its finest.

[Robert]

The truth is, it is you, and your thinking, that is in the minority.
Quote from you daddyo
The numbers are sufficient to show we are not now the minority but the majority and when Obama was reelected supposedly he was at 51 percent popularity. Hardly a landslide or overwhelming majority then that you claim. So now who's spanked? 

[Stanley Steamer]

The truth is, it is you, and your thinking, that is in the minority.
Quote from you daddyo
The numbers are sufficient to show we are not now the minority but the majority and when Obama was reelected supposedly he was at 51 percent popularity. Hardly a landslide or overwhelming majority then that you claim. So now who's spanked? 

If you were to have taken out all the dead folks who voted for him from Chicago......and other large cities......and some of the folks who claimed they voted for him multiple times, there would probably have been a different result.....I guess voting ONCE and only ONCE is not a good enough reason to have to present an ID of some kind??..... ......although you have to show it for almost ANYTHING else these days......

[The emperor has no clothes]

The truth is, it is you, and your thinking, that is in the minority.
Quote from you daddyo
The numbers are sufficient to show we are not now the minority but the majority and when Obama was reelected supposedly he was at 51 percent popularity. Hardly a landslide or overwhelming majority then that you claim. So now who's spanked? 

If you were to have taken out all the dead folks who voted for him from Chicago......and other large cities......and some of the folks who claimed they voted for him multiple times, there would probably have been a different result.....I guess voting ONCE and only ONCE is not a good enough reason to have to present an ID of some kind??..... ......although you have to show it for almost ANYTHING else these days......

Yeah Romney really won, they stole the election.

[Skinhead]

Well you all have convinced me, it is all about personal responsibility.  I agree.  This "insurance" business is all of us kicking into a pot in case one or more of us has some sort of catastrophe happen.  That's pure socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad.  I'm sure you are all cancelling your homeowners insurance right away.  I mean if your house burns down, being "personally responsible" I'm sure you will have saved enough for a new home.  I know you wouldn't expect to draw from the same pot that all the socialists with a lack of personal responsibility kicked in to.  Same thing with your auto insurance.  If you got into an accident and did a lot of property damage, or god forbid killed someone, you would pay for it all out of your "personal responsibility" bank account right?  You aren't some commie pinko trying to make the rest of us pay for your accident are you?  Of course if you had a heart attack you would definitely pay for your critical care, your surgeon, and your hospital stay out of pocket.  No way would you ever make me pay for your bad genetics or poor lifestyle, because I know you are personally responsible.  You have a bank account to pay for anything that would happen.  You wouldn't think of letting your wife call an ambulance to take you to the hospital after a heart attack or getting cancer, unless you knew you had several hundred thousand dollars sitting, ready and waiting in your "personal responsibility" account.

The government mandating you join this "socialist" insurance plan is impinging on your freedom to 100% pay for yourself and no one else.  The government is evil by the way, and they are incapable of doing anything good.  Except the military, the military is good.  Oh, and the police and fire department, they are good too.  But really I don't want to pay tax dollars for a military or fire department, because that would be socialism too.  Being forced to kick in for the common good really chaps my hide.  I mean, I have my own guns, and buckets for water to put out a fire.  They are good at water treatment and sewer systems though.  I don't want to pay for their commie, socialist water treatment and delivery though.  I'm gonna dig myself a well.  I won't use the socialist roads to bring the equipment to do it either, cuz I hate to use anything that a group of people had to contribute to.  I will pave my own road with "personal responsibility" asphalt.

You seem to overlook one crucial point, in all of your sarcastic examples above, each of us pays for our protection and none of it is MANDATED by the federal government.  With the exception of auto insurance, which if you choose not to drive, is not required,  each of the protections you cite are your decision as how much risk you are comfortable with.

[Daddie O]

You pay for your insurance?  You socialist!  Putting money into a pot with other people?  Socialism!  If you take more out of the pot than you put in, that means you are a lazy bum just looking for a handout.  Not taking personal responsibility, and making others pay for you out of their pocket!  You shouldn't be allowed to take out more than you put in right?  Get a savings account then.  Stay out of socialized programs.  

Many of you conservatives seem to run with one major assumption that is flawed in its logic.  That an individual that is in need of public assistance, whether it is housing assistance, food assistance, unemployment, or health care, are in need of it because they are lazy.  You automatically assume that they are taking more from the pot than they have previously put in.  They may have contributed far more than you have to the pot, yet you feel the need to say they shouldn't take from the pot, since you have put into it.  You call it an "entitlement", then say some people feel "entitled" to something that they didn't earn.  A person could've worked at the same company for 30 years, and it shut its doors and moved to China because it's cheaper, and suddenly that worker has real trouble trying to find another job.  What a lazy leecher cashing unemployment checks!  A person works their entire life, paying into SSI, and then has the nerve to feel "entitled" to receive checks from that program!  Dang leeches!  A person that is working a minimum wage job 40 hours a week, who then takes a second 40 an hour week job, makes less than $1600/mo after taxes after working 80 hours a week!  That person would qualify for tax credits to help pay for insurance.  Are they just lazy bums looking to take from your pocket?  No, it's their fault for working for minimum wage right?  All minimum wage workers should up and quit their jobs today, and go find higher paying work right?
 
There are many things that are mandated by the federal government, that you are forced to pay for whether you like it or not.  It is part of the social contract of staying in our society.  Your taxes pay for the roads whether you drive on them or not.  Your taxes pay for the military whether you are anti-war or not.  Your taxes pay for schools, whether you have kids that are going to them or not.  Your taxes pay for water treatment for the town even if you have your own well.  Even in hunter-gatherer societies people pool resources.  Maybe one hunter had a big kill and another caught nothing that week, they share their kill.  They don't have the selfish, well its my kill, let that other hunter get better at hunting or starve mentality.  Societies don't survive that way.

One problem is you don't have a time machine to go back to the glory days of "when America was good".  You don't have the votes to change it back to that imagined ideal either.  If you don't like what America is, you can feel free to find a better country.  Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

[Valkorado]

Russia and China will do nothing.

Guys, can't you see it's futile to even debate with the Great Daddy-o?  It is obvious he is omnipotent and all knowing.

[Xtracho]

Naw....far from omnipotent. Notice nothing about Benghazi, IRS, NSA. This is a person that favors government oversight on all aspects of your lives, whether you're self-sufficient or not. The so-called "greater good" is code for the nanny state people of his ilk seek to create. "Gubmint knows whut's gud fer ya."

[Robert]

The truth is, it is you, and your thinking, that is in the minority.
Quote from you daddyo
The numbers are sufficient to show we are not now the minority but the majority and when Obama was reelected supposedly he was at 51 percent popularity. Hardly a landslide or overwhelming majority then that you claim. So now who's spanked?  

If you were to have taken out all the dead folks who voted for him from Chicago......and other large cities......and some of the folks who claimed they voted for him multiple times, there would probably have been a different result.....I guess voting ONCE and only ONCE is not a good enough reason to have to present an ID of some kind??..... ......although you have to show it for almost ANYTHING else these days......

True but another point I really didn't want to bring up was the known issue with the rigging of the electronic voting machines. This race was exactly what was predicted by security experts testifying in front of Congress. They said a close race would be the outcome from rigging the machines and no code could be detected and no way to trace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E

[Daddie O]

Naw....far from omnipotent. Notice nothing about Benghazi, IRS, NSA. This is a person that favors government oversight on all aspects of your lives, whether you're self-sufficient or not. The so-called "greater good" is code for the nanny state people of his ilk seek to create. "Gubmint knows whut's gud fer ya."

Benghazi- America haters attacked our consulate and people died.  Wasn't the first time, won't be the last.  Nuff said.

IRS- Targeted groups for political reasons on both sides of the isle.  Was not the President's doing.  Nuff said.

NSA-  Big brother is listening in on us?  You don't say....

I do not favor government oversight on every aspect of our lives.  That is what the Republican party stands for.  Republicans demand government oversight on who we marry, and what we do with our own bodies, not Democrats.  It's in the Republican charter!  Don't get it twisted.

We all know the aliens from Area 51 killed JFK, blew up the world trade center, and then rigged the election for Obama. 

[Jeff K]

Well you all have convinced me, it is all about personal responsibility.  I agree.  This "insurance" business is all of us kicking into a pot in case one or more of us has some sort of catastrophe happen.  That's pure socialism, and socialism is communism, and communism is bad.  I'm sure you are all cancelling your homeowners insurance right away.  I mean if your house burns down, being "personally responsible" I'm sure you will have saved enough for a new home.  I know you wouldn't expect to draw from the same pot that all the socialists with a lack of personal responsibility kicked in to.  Same thing with your auto insurance.  If you got into an accident and did a lot of property damage, or god forbid killed someone, you would pay for it all out of your "personal responsibility" bank account right?  You aren't some commie pinko trying to make the rest of us pay for your accident are you?  Of course if you had a heart attack you would definitely pay for your critical care, your surgeon, and your hospital stay out of pocket.  No way would you ever make me pay for your bad genetics or poor lifestyle, because I know you are personally responsible.  You have a bank account to pay for anything that would happen.  You wouldn't think of letting your wife call an ambulance to take you to the hospital after a heart attack or getting cancer, unless you knew you had several hundred thousand dollars sitting, ready and waiting in your "personal responsibility" account.

The government mandating you join this "socialist" insurance plan is impinging on your freedom to 100% pay for yourself and no one else.  The government is evil by the way, and they are incapable of doing anything good.  Except the military, the military is good.  Oh, and the police and fire department, they are good too.  But really I don't want to pay tax dollars for a military or fire department, because that would be socialism too.  Being forced to kick in for the common good really chaps my hide.  I mean, I have my own guns, and buckets for water to put out a fire.  They are good at water treatment and sewer systems though.  I don't want to pay for their commie, socialist water treatment and delivery though.  I'm gonna dig myself a well.  I won't use the socialist roads to bring the equipment to do it either, cuz I hate to use anything that a group of people had to contribute to.  I will pave my own road with "personal responsibility" asphalt.

You seem to overlook one crucial point, in all of your sarcastic examples above, each of us pays for our protection and none of it is MANDATED by the federal government.  With the exception of auto insurance, which if you choose not to drive, is not required,  each of the protections you cite are your decision as how much risk you are comfortable with.

I see this all the time and is it simply not true.
The federal government does NOT require auto insurance.

[Daddie O]

 
[/quote]


I see this all the time and is it simply not true.
The federal government does NOT require auto insurance.
[/quote]

No, each state does though.  Except New Hampshire, but they require you be able to pay for things out of your own pocket if you don't have insurance.

Sure, you can choose not to drive.  You can not choose to never use our medical system.  It is inevitable that you will.

[Robert]

Takes you to a time when reason, honesty ,transparency and following the Constitution and christian values were running this country really good.

Ron Paul Incredible Video Twice Removed from YouTube HQ test2

[Daddie O]

Takes you to a time when reason, honesty ,transparency and following the Constitution and christian values were running this country really good.

Ron Paul Incredible Video Twice Removed from YouTube HQ test2

A time when JFK's faith and loyalty were questioned because he was a Roman Catholic.  Many Republicans said his loyalty would lie not with America, but with the Pope, and that his agenda would be laid out by the Vatican.

Fast forward to now, when many Republicans accuse Barack Obama of being a Muslim with his loyalty lying with the Muslim Brotherhood instead of America.  His mother wasn't muslim, his father wasn't muslim, his step-dad wasn't muslim, but he has a foreign sounding name so that means he is not only Muslim, but his loyalty doesn't like with America right?  Republicans have sure come a long way since JFK...lol

[Trynt]

"


Benghazi- America haters attacked our consulate and people died.  Wasn't the first time, won't be the last.  Nuff said.


The most troubling thing about Benghazi is not the dithering incompetence which may have resulted in the death of four Americans.  It is the fact the administration sent Susan Rice out, on national TV, to spread a deliberate lie about a video and demonstration in an effort to obscure said incompetence and protect Obama.  Although the consulate fell under Hilary's area of responsibility, she was too astute of a politician to tell a provably blatant falsehood on national TV and thus end her political career.  That fell to Rice who was rewarded for her deceit with the National Security Advisorship.

IRS- Targeted groups for political reasons on both sides of the isle.  Was not the President's doing.  Nuff said.

True perhaps, but almost without exception it was only the conservative groups which were stalled and denied tax-exempt status.  Something you conveniently fail to mention.

[Jeff K]

I see this all the time and is it simply not true.
The federal government does NOT require auto insurance.
[/quote]

No, each state does though.  Except New Hampshire, but they require you be able to pay for things out of your own pocket if you don't have insurance.

Sure, you can choose not to drive.  You can not choose to never use our medical system.  It is inevitable that you will.
[/quote]

Again, this is a state issue not a federal issue. You can NOT compare it to car insurance, though I hear that comparison ALL THE TIME! As far as I know Obamacare is the ONLY product or service that is forced on everyone in the country by the Federal Government.

[Novavalker]

Obama torn to shreds by Fox News over Syria. Seriously A Must Watch
This lady rocks!

[solo1]

A lot of debate with a lot of words, makes my brain hurt.

Having live under some thirteen presidents with all of them having problems, being human, I believe that I have the present POTUS figured out.

He is a devious, incompetent, agenda bearing, Chicago politician who had the necessary blather to become the POTUS.

Now that he is in the Big League, he's lost, but is attempting to save face and his blather is becoming ignored.

And No, I won't debate that with the pseudo or real intellectuals on this board.

As Old2Soon says, Ride safe!