Why don't you dumbass liberals WAIT until Trump actually takes office before you say he's reneging

[therightsideofhistory]

so you're saying that the history of his campaign means nothing? his recent proclamations and vocal rolling back on his (always vague) policies mean nothing? that we just shouldn't listen until something is already in place after he has taken office? i for one listen and take what he said seriously because they are serious; it should not be treated with a laissez faire interpretation (which is foolish in my opinion). what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?

"....what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?"


To whom are your addressing this?

Did you take what Obama said, and promised, and then did the very opposite, as something to learn from????

Like this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Is that what you mean?

i assume you are referring to the iran deal. you do realize that many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right? that the iran deal ensures that iran does not employ R+D into enriching uranium (a necessary component to nuclear weapons) for a number of years, allows them to have a stake in the international markets and allowing for an economic reason not to invest in nuclear development?

"many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right?"

Pleeeezzzzze!

You believe that hogwash?

The sanctions were strangling them.

1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...
"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow) | Brookings Institution



2. To give context to your understanding.....name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.

Take your time.



Oh....btw.....welcome to the board and the battles.

thanks for the welcome i'm glad we can debate like this and discuss.

now then, i believe that a country under that kind of severe sanctions that trickled down to the individual level would have eventually exploded when they were backed into a corner. and in terms of Obama standing up for islam it's because that is one of the primary ways one battles homegrown terrorism, look at the example of france. they isolate their muslim population, they are relegated to slums, and so radical uprising become a reality. the answer is to assimilate, to separate radical islam from islam all together because when people hear "radical islam" they lose the radical part, and yell at muslim's in the street, telling them to go back where they came from (when they were born and raised in the US).

Now that we're buds, I should appraise you of the slant shown in your choice of avi....
"The Right Side of History"....

1. Know who made that phrase infamojus?
One who not only lacks any understanding of history, and botches it when he tries to insert himself therein, can pretend he in an influence in same.

... this dunce, Obama, who has seen his policies and ideas fail literally dozens of times....and I mean 'literally' literally....actually mouths predictions about history, and how future events will support his backside, bankrupt blather.

a. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history,..." President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address


b."... the U.S. response to protests in Egypt that forced President Hosni Mubarak from power last Friday. Critics have faulted the U.S. for being too cautious in offering support to protesters in Cairo. The administration now appears to be placing itself on the side of those in the streets. "History will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history," Obama said." Obama: U.S. Is 'On Right Side Of History' In Mideast [He said this gleefully anticipating the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

c. And, as Gaddafi was about to be pushed out....“I believe that Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now. We are going to be in contact with the opposition, ..."
Obama, Gaddafi, and the ‘wrong side of history’ [September 11, 2012, attack of a United States outpost inBenghazi, Libya, that left four Americans killed,....]

d. "Speaking more broadly about the then still young “Arab Spring” he said, “I think that the region will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history.” When Vladimir Putin started carving up Ukraine, the president insisted that America wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but fear not -- because Putin is on the wrong side of history.The “long moral arc of the universe” -- another of Obama’s favorite phrases -- will “bend toward justice.”




2. "It’s a phrase Obama loves: He’s used it 15 times, in debates; at synagogues; in weekly radio addresses; at fundraisers. Obama is almost as fond of its converse, “the wrong side of history,” which he has used 13 times; staffers and press secretaries have invoked it a further 16." The Wrong Side of 'the Right Side of History'


"....telling someone they are on “the wrong side of history” means “You’re going to lose eventually, so why don’t you give up now?”



Another dunce tried it in this form: "The debate is over!"

dude, the whole reason the country moves forward socially is because of progressive ideas. always throughout history, progressive ideas have won. look at recent history, gay marriage, weed, raising the minimum wage, those are not conservative ideas at all. now in reference to what you've quoted:

1. i chose this name because i really couldn't think of anything else (but there is truth to it nonetheless)
2. in terms of social issues, this is very true.
3. in terms of foreign policy, it is so complicated and there are so many interests at play that both republicans and democrats have had lousy policies abroad (i mean if you want to talk about really lousy foreign policy, look at bush and the invasion of iraq which was done by lying to the american people no less).

 

[PoliticalChic]

And your stupid Trump line about there being 30 million illegal immigrants (that PC thinks are all eligible to vote! ) is another pile of her rotting manure lies. As usual.



The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is "30 million, it could be 34 million."
— Donald Trump on Friday, July 24th, 2015 in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Donald Trump wrongly says the number of illegal immigrants is 30 million or higher

"There are, to my knowledge, no credible, research-based estimates of 30 million," said Jeffrey Passel, an expert on Hispanic immigration at the Pew Research Center. "The 11-12 million range is broadly accepted by almost all researchers and immigration advocates (regardless of perspective).
...
The Department of Homeland Security says the number of illegal immigrants was about 11.4 million as of January 2012. Other independent groups that research illegal immigration put the number between 11 and 12 million. We found no compelling evidence that the number could as high as Trump said.

Trump has provided no proof that the number of illegal immigrants is triple the widespread consensus. We rate this claim Pants on Fire."

"... 30 million illegal immigrants (that PC thinks are all eligible to vote!..."

See....now I've reduced you to lying.

I said just the opposite....they are not eligible to vote.....but do.

And with the imprimatur of Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him).


They vote....as you admitted earlier.....and do so in numbers that obviate any Clinton popular vote victory.


Wait....didn't you claim earlier that a post was invalid because it came from a Rightwing site?????

But you're claiming that MSNBC and PolitFact are legit?????


Gads, you're a fool.

PolitiFact.org,
This bias is evident in:
1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate
PolitiFact examination;2
2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;
and
3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis
and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.
http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf


Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.
All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans


PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".PolitiFact.com - Wikipedia

The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. PolitiFact Bias: About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ

"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.
Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." PolitiFact Parent Tampa Bay Times Scores ‘Pants on Fire’ for Partisan Bias - Media Trackers


PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate) | RedState



Some people,like you, lack the ability to laugh at themselves...that's where I come in.

Don't ever change.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?"


To whom are your addressing this?

Did you take what Obama said, and promised, and then did the very opposite, as something to learn from????

Like this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Is that what you mean?

i assume you are referring to the iran deal. you do realize that many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right? that the iran deal ensures that iran does not employ R+D into enriching uranium (a necessary component to nuclear weapons) for a number of years, allows them to have a stake in the international markets and allowing for an economic reason not to invest in nuclear development?

"many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right?"

Pleeeezzzzze!

You believe that hogwash?

The sanctions were strangling them.

1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...
"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow) | Brookings Institution



2. To give context to your understanding.....name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.

Take your time.



Oh....btw.....welcome to the board and the battles.

thanks for the welcome i'm glad we can debate like this and discuss.

now then, i believe that a country under that kind of severe sanctions that trickled down to the individual level would have eventually exploded when they were backed into a corner. and in terms of Obama standing up for islam it's because that is one of the primary ways one battles homegrown terrorism, look at the example of france. they isolate their muslim population, they are relegated to slums, and so radical uprising become a reality. the answer is to assimilate, to separate radical islam from islam all together because when people hear "radical islam" they lose the radical part, and yell at muslim's in the street, telling them to go back where they came from (when they were born and raised in the US).

Now that we're buds, I should appraise you of the slant shown in your choice of avi....
"The Right Side of History"....

1. Know who made that phrase infamojus?
One who not only lacks any understanding of history, and botches it when he tries to insert himself therein, can pretend he in an influence in same.

... this dunce, Obama, who has seen his policies and ideas fail literally dozens of times....and I mean 'literally' literally....actually mouths predictions about history, and how future events will support his backside, bankrupt blather.

a. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history,..." President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address


b."... the U.S. response to protests in Egypt that forced President Hosni Mubarak from power last Friday. Critics have faulted the U.S. for being too cautious in offering support to protesters in Cairo. The administration now appears to be placing itself on the side of those in the streets. "History will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history," Obama said." Obama: U.S. Is 'On Right Side Of History' In Mideast [He said this gleefully anticipating the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

c. And, as Gaddafi was about to be pushed out....“I believe that Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now. We are going to be in contact with the opposition, ..."
Obama, Gaddafi, and the ‘wrong side of history’ [September 11, 2012, attack of a United States outpost inBenghazi, Libya, that left four Americans killed,....]

d. "Speaking more broadly about the then still young “Arab Spring” he said, “I think that the region will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history.” When Vladimir Putin started carving up Ukraine, the president insisted that America wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but fear not -- because Putin is on the wrong side of history.The “long moral arc of the universe” -- another of Obama’s favorite phrases -- will “bend toward justice.”




2. "It’s a phrase Obama loves: He’s used it 15 times, in debates; at synagogues; in weekly radio addresses; at fundraisers. Obama is almost as fond of its converse, “the wrong side of history,” which he has used 13 times; staffers and press secretaries have invoked it a further 16." The Wrong Side of 'the Right Side of History'


"....telling someone they are on “the wrong side of history” means “You’re going to lose eventually, so why don’t you give up now?”



Another dunce tried it in this form: "The debate is over!"

dude, the whole reason the country moves forward socially is because of progressive ideas. always throughout history, progressive ideas have won. look at recent history, gay marriage, weed, raising the minimum wage, those are not conservative ideas at all. now in reference to what you've quoted:

1. i chose this name because i really couldn't think of anything else (but there is truth to it nonetheless)
2. in terms of social issues, this is very true.
3. in terms of foreign policy, it is so complicated and there are so many interests at play that both republicans and democrats have had lousy policies abroad (i mean if you want to talk about really lousy foreign policy, look at bush and the invasion of iraq which was done by lying to the american people no less).

1. Here are the conservative ideas on which this nation was built, you dunce:
Individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.

You must be a government school grad, huh?

2. Bet you're an Obama voter. I say that because he has an unbroken record of failure in both domestic and in foreign policy.

3. Tuesday's election was about rejecting liberal policies, and choosing the conservative vision for our country—a vision that pushes prosperity and freedom.

4. Good thing you joined the board...and not a moment too soon! You have sooooo much to learn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

More PC Puss: "That means more than the 200,000 votes that CNN stated that Bill's wife won the popular vote by......"

No. Idiot. You have serious logic mechanisms broken..

And Clinton won the popular vote by more than a half million, and is likely to win by a couple more million.

I just destroyed.....eviscerated your post based on MSNBC and PoliFact.....


Wanna admit that?


And...just as I destroyed your attempt to award Bill's wife with the popular vote win....

Aren't we having fun?

 

[PoliticalChic]

More PC Puss: "That means more than the 200,000 votes that CNN stated that Bill's wife won the popular vote by......"

No. Idiot. You have serious logic mechanisms broken..

And Clinton won the popular vote by more than a half million, and is likely to win by a couple more million.

"Illegal Voters Uncovered in Philly Are ‘Tip of the Iceberg’
Law firm uncovers illegal immigrants, convicted felons on rolls — and some have voted in crucial swing state
He said there is no way to know how many non-citizens might be registered to vote in Philadelphia, let alone in the rest of politically crucial Pennsylvania.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows how many are on and don’t ask to be taken off?”

“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “Who knows how many are on and don’t ask to be taken off?”

Illegal Voters Uncovered in Philly Are ‘Tip of the Iceberg’



All over the country.....thanks to Democrats.

 

[therightsideofhistory]

i assume you are referring to the iran deal. you do realize that many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right? that the iran deal ensures that iran does not employ R+D into enriching uranium (a necessary component to nuclear weapons) for a number of years, allows them to have a stake in the international markets and allowing for an economic reason not to invest in nuclear development?

"many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right?"

Pleeeezzzzze!

You believe that hogwash?

The sanctions were strangling them.

1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...
"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow) | Brookings Institution



2. To give context to your understanding.....name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.

Take your time.



Oh....btw.....welcome to the board and the battles.

thanks for the welcome i'm glad we can debate like this and discuss.

now then, i believe that a country under that kind of severe sanctions that trickled down to the individual level would have eventually exploded when they were backed into a corner. and in terms of Obama standing up for islam it's because that is one of the primary ways one battles homegrown terrorism, look at the example of france. they isolate their muslim population, they are relegated to slums, and so radical uprising become a reality. the answer is to assimilate, to separate radical islam from islam all together because when people hear "radical islam" they lose the radical part, and yell at muslim's in the street, telling them to go back where they came from (when they were born and raised in the US).

Now that we're buds, I should appraise you of the slant shown in your choice of avi....
"The Right Side of History"....

1. Know who made that phrase infamojus?
One who not only lacks any understanding of history, and botches it when he tries to insert himself therein, can pretend he in an influence in same.

... this dunce, Obama, who has seen his policies and ideas fail literally dozens of times....and I mean 'literally' literally....actually mouths predictions about history, and how future events will support his backside, bankrupt blather.

a. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history,..." President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address


b."... the U.S. response to protests in Egypt that forced President Hosni Mubarak from power last Friday. Critics have faulted the U.S. for being too cautious in offering support to protesters in Cairo. The administration now appears to be placing itself on the side of those in the streets. "History will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history," Obama said." Obama: U.S. Is 'On Right Side Of History' In Mideast [He said this gleefully anticipating the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

c. And, as Gaddafi was about to be pushed out....“I believe that Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now. We are going to be in contact with the opposition, ..."
Obama, Gaddafi, and the ‘wrong side of history’ [September 11, 2012, attack of a United States outpost inBenghazi, Libya, that left four Americans killed,....]

d. "Speaking more broadly about the then still young “Arab Spring” he said, “I think that the region will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history.” When Vladimir Putin started carving up Ukraine, the president insisted that America wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but fear not -- because Putin is on the wrong side of history.The “long moral arc of the universe” -- another of Obama’s favorite phrases -- will “bend toward justice.”




2. "It’s a phrase Obama loves: He’s used it 15 times, in debates; at synagogues; in weekly radio addresses; at fundraisers. Obama is almost as fond of its converse, “the wrong side of history,” which he has used 13 times; staffers and press secretaries have invoked it a further 16." The Wrong Side of 'the Right Side of History'


"....telling someone they are on “the wrong side of history” means “You’re going to lose eventually, so why don’t you give up now?”



Another dunce tried it in this form: "The debate is over!"

dude, the whole reason the country moves forward socially is because of progressive ideas. always throughout history, progressive ideas have won. look at recent history, gay marriage, weed, raising the minimum wage, those are not conservative ideas at all. now in reference to what you've quoted:

1. i chose this name because i really couldn't think of anything else (but there is truth to it nonetheless)
2. in terms of social issues, this is very true.
3. in terms of foreign policy, it is so complicated and there are so many interests at play that both republicans and democrats have had lousy policies abroad (i mean if you want to talk about really lousy foreign policy, look at bush and the invasion of iraq which was done by lying to the american people no less).

1. Here are the conservative ideas on which this nation was built, you dunce:
Individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.

You must be a government school grad, huh?

2. Bet you're an Obama voter. I say that because he has an unbroken record of failure in both domestic and in foreign policy.

3. Tuesday's election was about rejecting liberal policies, and choosing the conservative vision for our country—a vision that pushes prosperity and freedom.

4. Good thing you joined the board...and not a moment too soon! You have sooooo much to learn.

i will admit that i have things to learn because i am humble and open and always seeking for the truth (unlike you apparently). i also won't devolve this to name-calling which is perhaps a trait you've picked up from your venerable leader DT. and i am an obama voter, and sure he's had some failures in foreign policy but at least it didn't result in a complete invasion of a country for there to be a realization that mistakes have been made--i much rather prefer a steady hand and caution when it comes to a situation that could lead to boots on the ground war. and in terms of an "unbroken record of failure in both domestic and foreign policy" that is obviously not true i mean it's clear that you need to read more (for example, ISIS numbers are falling--is that a failure? how do you think it should have been handled, by a complete invasion of the region or perhaps a complete bombing of the area as trump once voiced during one of his campaign speeches). and if you want to get technical about it, a majority of the US voted for liberal ideas, hillary is projected to win the popular vote by over a million votes. and it's interesting how you suggest that the conservative vision of the country is one of "freedom and prosperity" when the very platform (albeit shaky platform) DT was elected on was not so free and not so prosperous for some groups of people.

i'd like to note that i am legitimately listening to you, looking for anything potentially good you have to say to change my mind, because that is how a person grows. i would suggest you try and do the same because that's how you learn something.

and yes i did go to a state university. where did you go?

 

[paperview]

And your stupid Trump line about there being 30 million illegal immigrants (that PC thinks are all eligible to vote! ) is another pile of her rotting manure lies. As usual.



The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is "30 million, it could be 34 million."
— Donald Trump on Friday, July 24th, 2015 in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Donald Trump wrongly says the number of illegal immigrants is 30 million or higher

"There are, to my knowledge, no credible, research-based estimates of 30 million," said Jeffrey Passel, an expert on Hispanic immigration at the Pew Research Center. "The 11-12 million range is broadly accepted by almost all researchers and immigration advocates (regardless of perspective).
...
The Department of Homeland Security says the number of illegal immigrants was about 11.4 million as of January 2012. Other independent groups that research illegal immigration put the number between 11 and 12 million. We found no compelling evidence that the number could as high as Trump said.

Trump has provided no proof that the number of illegal immigrants is triple the widespread consensus. We rate this claim Pants on Fire."

"... 30 million illegal immigrants (that PC thinks are all eligible to vote!..."

See....now I've reduced you to lying.

I said just the opposite....they are not eligible to vote.....but do.

And with the imprimatur of Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him).


They vote....as you admitted earlier.....and do so in numbers that obviate any Clinton popular vote victory.


Wait....didn't you claim earlier that a post was invalid because it came from a Rightwing site?????

But you're claiming that MSNBC and PolitFact are legit?????


Gads, you're a fool.

PolitiFact.org,
This bias is evident in:
1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate
PolitiFact examination;2
2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;
and
3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis
and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.
http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf


Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.
All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans


PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".PolitiFact.com - Wikipedia

The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. PolitiFact Bias: About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ

"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.
Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." PolitiFact Parent Tampa Bay Times Scores ‘Pants on Fire’ for Partisan Bias - Media Trackers


PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate) | RedState



Some people,like you, lack the ability to laugh at themselves...that's where I come in.

Don't ever change.

"I said just the opposite....they are not eligible to vote.....but do."

No, they don't. And there's been no proof illegals do, except in rare cases.

I inartfully said eligible to your fake 30 million number - as it regards the full population, meaning even if we accept your phony baloney 30 million number, (which is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy off by all reputable sources,) that would mean all those illegals are of voting age. Which is stupid on a stick.

And you can deny reality all you want, pretend facts are not real, and hold up your thorny crown of pretend bravado and WINNING! Charlie Sheen style for all I care.

The intelligent, logical ones reading here can decide for themselves where the truth resides.

Ta ta.

 

[sealybobo]

You protest
You vandalize businesses
You destroy private property
You call for chaos
You call for assassination
You block traffic
You make innocent people scared

And now you're claiming that Trump has reneged BEFORE he's even assumed the office officially.

It is all FUCKING RETARDED, ALL OF IT. I understand your assholes are sore and the buttcream isn't working but get a damn grip on yourselves.

Exactly. We already judged trumps words in the election. We get another chance in 4 years.

But it does suck hillary got 2 million more votes. At least after all the votes in California and Washington are counted.

Sorry, it still hurts but I'm coming to grips

Yeah...and the saddest thing is that the goddam lying Republicans are saying they have a mandate. I guess they think they got a mandate in 2000 when the Bushes stole the election from Al Gore.

He was elected based on his proposals so what are you expecting? Elections have consequences no?

He was elected because every redneck in the southern U S voted for his dumb ass.

And in Florida, PA, mi, oh, WI.

 

[sealybobo]

"many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right?"

Pleeeezzzzze!

You believe that hogwash?

The sanctions were strangling them.

1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...
"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow) | Brookings Institution



2. To give context to your understanding.....name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.

Take your time.



Oh....btw.....welcome to the board and the battles.

thanks for the welcome i'm glad we can debate like this and discuss.

now then, i believe that a country under that kind of severe sanctions that trickled down to the individual level would have eventually exploded when they were backed into a corner. and in terms of Obama standing up for islam it's because that is one of the primary ways one battles homegrown terrorism, look at the example of france. they isolate their muslim population, they are relegated to slums, and so radical uprising become a reality. the answer is to assimilate, to separate radical islam from islam all together because when people hear "radical islam" they lose the radical part, and yell at muslim's in the street, telling them to go back where they came from (when they were born and raised in the US).

Now that we're buds, I should appraise you of the slant shown in your choice of avi....
"The Right Side of History"....

1. Know who made that phrase infamojus?
One who not only lacks any understanding of history, and botches it when he tries to insert himself therein, can pretend he in an influence in same.

... this dunce, Obama, who has seen his policies and ideas fail literally dozens of times....and I mean 'literally' literally....actually mouths predictions about history, and how future events will support his backside, bankrupt blather.

a. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history,..." President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address


b."... the U.S. response to protests in Egypt that forced President Hosni Mubarak from power last Friday. Critics have faulted the U.S. for being too cautious in offering support to protesters in Cairo. The administration now appears to be placing itself on the side of those in the streets. "History will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history," Obama said." Obama: U.S. Is 'On Right Side Of History' In Mideast [He said this gleefully anticipating the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

c. And, as Gaddafi was about to be pushed out....“I believe that Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now. We are going to be in contact with the opposition, ..."
Obama, Gaddafi, and the ‘wrong side of history’ [September 11, 2012, attack of a United States outpost inBenghazi, Libya, that left four Americans killed,....]

d. "Speaking more broadly about the then still young “Arab Spring” he said, “I think that the region will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history.” When Vladimir Putin started carving up Ukraine, the president insisted that America wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but fear not -- because Putin is on the wrong side of history.The “long moral arc of the universe” -- another of Obama’s favorite phrases -- will “bend toward justice.”




2. "It’s a phrase Obama loves: He’s used it 15 times, in debates; at synagogues; in weekly radio addresses; at fundraisers. Obama is almost as fond of its converse, “the wrong side of history,” which he has used 13 times; staffers and press secretaries have invoked it a further 16." The Wrong Side of 'the Right Side of History'


"....telling someone they are on “the wrong side of history” means “You’re going to lose eventually, so why don’t you give up now?”



Another dunce tried it in this form: "The debate is over!"

dude, the whole reason the country moves forward socially is because of progressive ideas. always throughout history, progressive ideas have won. look at recent history, gay marriage, weed, raising the minimum wage, those are not conservative ideas at all. now in reference to what you've quoted:

1. i chose this name because i really couldn't think of anything else (but there is truth to it nonetheless)
2. in terms of social issues, this is very true.
3. in terms of foreign policy, it is so complicated and there are so many interests at play that both republicans and democrats have had lousy policies abroad (i mean if you want to talk about really lousy foreign policy, look at bush and the invasion of iraq which was done by lying to the american people no less).

1. Here are the conservative ideas on which this nation was built, you dunce:
Individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.

You must be a government school grad, huh?

2. Bet you're an Obama voter. I say that because he has an unbroken record of failure in both domestic and in foreign policy.

3. Tuesday's election was about rejecting liberal policies, and choosing the conservative vision for our country—a vision that pushes prosperity and freedom.

4. Good thing you joined the board...and not a moment too soon! You have sooooo much to learn.

i will admit that i have things to learn because i am humble and open and always seeking for the truth (unlike you apparently). i also won't devolve this to name-calling which is perhaps a trait you've picked up from your venerable leader DT. and i am an obama voter, and sure he's had some failures in foreign policy but at least it didn't result in a complete invasion of a country for there to be a realization that mistakes have been made--i much rather prefer a steady hand and caution when it comes to a situation that could lead to boots on the ground war. and in terms of an "unbroken record of failure in both domestic and foreign policy" that is obviously not true i mean it's clear that you need to read more (for example, ISIS numbers are falling--is that a failure? how do you think it should have been handled, by a complete invasion of the region or perhaps a complete bombing of the area as trump once voiced during one of his campaign speeches). and if you want to get technical about it, a majority of the US voted for liberal ideas, hillary is projected to win the popular vote by over a million votes. and it's interesting how you suggest that the conservative vision of the country is one of "freedom and prosperity" when the very platform (albeit shaky platform) DT was elected on was not so free and not so prosperous for some groups of people.

i'd like to note that i am legitimately listening to you, looking for anything potentially good you have to say to change my mind, because that is how a person grows. i would suggest you try and do the same because that's how you learn something.

and yes i did go to a state university. where did you go?

More important than what they say are results. Let's see how republicanism works.

Privatize social security

 

[ninja007]

And now you're claiming that Trump has reneged BEFORE he's even assumed the office officially.

Probably because they are observing his prospective cabinet choices for when he does assume office. He might as well of invited the circus to serve in his administration.

1. you see Obamas corrupt cabinet? 2. Trumps cabinet is full of winners and doers.

 

[strollingbones]

butthurt over the fact that president elect trump (happy there gramps) has done a 180 on two issues....and hell it is not even dec?

180 on aca and now on locking up hrc

President-Elect Trump Says He Hasn’t Given ‘Much Thought’ to Plans to Prosecute Hillary

 

[PoliticalChic]

"many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right?"

Pleeeezzzzze!

You believe that hogwash?

The sanctions were strangling them.

1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...
"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow) | Brookings Institution



2. To give context to your understanding.....name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.

Take your time.



Oh....btw.....welcome to the board and the battles.

thanks for the welcome i'm glad we can debate like this and discuss.

now then, i believe that a country under that kind of severe sanctions that trickled down to the individual level would have eventually exploded when they were backed into a corner. and in terms of Obama standing up for islam it's because that is one of the primary ways one battles homegrown terrorism, look at the example of france. they isolate their muslim population, they are relegated to slums, and so radical uprising become a reality. the answer is to assimilate, to separate radical islam from islam all together because when people hear "radical islam" they lose the radical part, and yell at muslim's in the street, telling them to go back where they came from (when they were born and raised in the US).

Now that we're buds, I should appraise you of the slant shown in your choice of avi....
"The Right Side of History"....

1. Know who made that phrase infamojus?
One who not only lacks any understanding of history, and botches it when he tries to insert himself therein, can pretend he in an influence in same.

... this dunce, Obama, who has seen his policies and ideas fail literally dozens of times....and I mean 'literally' literally....actually mouths predictions about history, and how future events will support his backside, bankrupt blather.

a. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history,..." President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address


b."... the U.S. response to protests in Egypt that forced President Hosni Mubarak from power last Friday. Critics have faulted the U.S. for being too cautious in offering support to protesters in Cairo. The administration now appears to be placing itself on the side of those in the streets. "History will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history," Obama said." Obama: U.S. Is 'On Right Side Of History' In Mideast [He said this gleefully anticipating the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

c. And, as Gaddafi was about to be pushed out....“I believe that Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now. We are going to be in contact with the opposition, ..."
Obama, Gaddafi, and the ‘wrong side of history’ [September 11, 2012, attack of a United States outpost inBenghazi, Libya, that left four Americans killed,....]

d. "Speaking more broadly about the then still young “Arab Spring” he said, “I think that the region will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history.” When Vladimir Putin started carving up Ukraine, the president insisted that America wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but fear not -- because Putin is on the wrong side of history.The “long moral arc of the universe” -- another of Obama’s favorite phrases -- will “bend toward justice.”




2. "It’s a phrase Obama loves: He’s used it 15 times, in debates; at synagogues; in weekly radio addresses; at fundraisers. Obama is almost as fond of its converse, “the wrong side of history,” which he has used 13 times; staffers and press secretaries have invoked it a further 16." The Wrong Side of 'the Right Side of History'


"....telling someone they are on “the wrong side of history” means “You’re going to lose eventually, so why don’t you give up now?”



Another dunce tried it in this form: "The debate is over!"

dude, the whole reason the country moves forward socially is because of progressive ideas. always throughout history, progressive ideas have won. look at recent history, gay marriage, weed, raising the minimum wage, those are not conservative ideas at all. now in reference to what you've quoted:

1. i chose this name because i really couldn't think of anything else (but there is truth to it nonetheless)
2. in terms of social issues, this is very true.
3. in terms of foreign policy, it is so complicated and there are so many interests at play that both republicans and democrats have had lousy policies abroad (i mean if you want to talk about really lousy foreign policy, look at bush and the invasion of iraq which was done by lying to the american people no less).

1. Here are the conservative ideas on which this nation was built, you dunce:
Individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.

You must be a government school grad, huh?

2. Bet you're an Obama voter. I say that because he has an unbroken record of failure in both domestic and in foreign policy.

3. Tuesday's election was about rejecting liberal policies, and choosing the conservative vision for our country—a vision that pushes prosperity and freedom.

4. Good thing you joined the board...and not a moment too soon! You have sooooo much to learn.

i will admit that i have things to learn because i am humble and open and always seeking for the truth (unlike you apparently). i also won't devolve this to name-calling which is perhaps a trait you've picked up from your venerable leader DT. and i am an obama voter, and sure he's had some failures in foreign policy but at least it didn't result in a complete invasion of a country for there to be a realization that mistakes have been made--i much rather prefer a steady hand and caution when it comes to a situation that could lead to boots on the ground war. and in terms of an "unbroken record of failure in both domestic and foreign policy" that is obviously not true i mean it's clear that you need to read more (for example, ISIS numbers are falling--is that a failure? how do you think it should have been handled, by a complete invasion of the region or perhaps a complete bombing of the area as trump once voiced during one of his campaign speeches). and if you want to get technical about it, a majority of the US voted for liberal ideas, hillary is projected to win the popular vote by over a million votes. and it's interesting how you suggest that the conservative vision of the country is one of "freedom and prosperity" when the very platform (albeit shaky platform) DT was elected on was not so free and not so prosperous for some groups of people.

i'd like to note that i am legitimately listening to you, looking for anything potentially good you have to say to change my mind, because that is how a person grows. i would suggest you try and do the same because that's how you learn something.

and yes i did go to a state university. where did you go?

1. "i will admit that i have things to learn because i am humble and open and always seeking for the truth (unlike you apparently)."
I am not a fake, hence never 'humble'....probably related to the fact that I'm never wrong.
I not only seek truth...I incorporate it in my posts, and provide it to folks like you.

2. "...a majority of the US voted for liberal ideas,..."
You should stop misusing the term Liberals until you understand it....It is the name communist John Dewey stole, and used for the Socialist Party.
The Liberals/Democrat Party of today stands for exactly the same things that the post war CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA) did.
That means you.

3." i did go to a state university. where did you go?"
I went to the school with the best fight song in the nation:

 

[PoliticalChic]

"many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right?"

Pleeeezzzzze!

You believe that hogwash?

The sanctions were strangling them.

1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...
"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow) | Brookings Institution



2. To give context to your understanding.....name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.

Take your time.



Oh....btw.....welcome to the board and the battles.

thanks for the welcome i'm glad we can debate like this and discuss.

now then, i believe that a country under that kind of severe sanctions that trickled down to the individual level would have eventually exploded when they were backed into a corner. and in terms of Obama standing up for islam it's because that is one of the primary ways one battles homegrown terrorism, look at the example of france. they isolate their muslim population, they are relegated to slums, and so radical uprising become a reality. the answer is to assimilate, to separate radical islam from islam all together because when people hear "radical islam" they lose the radical part, and yell at muslim's in the street, telling them to go back where they came from (when they were born and raised in the US).

Now that we're buds, I should appraise you of the slant shown in your choice of avi....
"The Right Side of History"....

1. Know who made that phrase infamojus?
One who not only lacks any understanding of history, and botches it when he tries to insert himself therein, can pretend he in an influence in same.

... this dunce, Obama, who has seen his policies and ideas fail literally dozens of times....and I mean 'literally' literally....actually mouths predictions about history, and how future events will support his backside, bankrupt blather.

a. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history,..." President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address


b."... the U.S. response to protests in Egypt that forced President Hosni Mubarak from power last Friday. Critics have faulted the U.S. for being too cautious in offering support to protesters in Cairo. The administration now appears to be placing itself on the side of those in the streets. "History will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history," Obama said." Obama: U.S. Is 'On Right Side Of History' In Mideast [He said this gleefully anticipating the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

c. And, as Gaddafi was about to be pushed out....“I believe that Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now. We are going to be in contact with the opposition, ..."
Obama, Gaddafi, and the ‘wrong side of history’ [September 11, 2012, attack of a United States outpost inBenghazi, Libya, that left four Americans killed,....]

d. "Speaking more broadly about the then still young “Arab Spring” he said, “I think that the region will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history.” When Vladimir Putin started carving up Ukraine, the president insisted that America wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but fear not -- because Putin is on the wrong side of history.The “long moral arc of the universe” -- another of Obama’s favorite phrases -- will “bend toward justice.”




2. "It’s a phrase Obama loves: He’s used it 15 times, in debates; at synagogues; in weekly radio addresses; at fundraisers. Obama is almost as fond of its converse, “the wrong side of history,” which he has used 13 times; staffers and press secretaries have invoked it a further 16." The Wrong Side of 'the Right Side of History'


"....telling someone they are on “the wrong side of history” means “You’re going to lose eventually, so why don’t you give up now?”



Another dunce tried it in this form: "The debate is over!"

dude, the whole reason the country moves forward socially is because of progressive ideas. always throughout history, progressive ideas have won. look at recent history, gay marriage, weed, raising the minimum wage, those are not conservative ideas at all. now in reference to what you've quoted:

1. i chose this name because i really couldn't think of anything else (but there is truth to it nonetheless)
2. in terms of social issues, this is very true.
3. in terms of foreign policy, it is so complicated and there are so many interests at play that both republicans and democrats have had lousy policies abroad (i mean if you want to talk about really lousy foreign policy, look at bush and the invasion of iraq which was done by lying to the american people no less).

1. Here are the conservative ideas on which this nation was built, you dunce:
Individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.

You must be a government school grad, huh?

2. Bet you're an Obama voter. I say that because he has an unbroken record of failure in both domestic and in foreign policy.

3. Tuesday's election was about rejecting liberal policies, and choosing the conservative vision for our country—a vision that pushes prosperity and freedom.

4. Good thing you joined the board...and not a moment too soon! You have sooooo much to learn.

i will admit that i have things to learn because i am humble and open and always seeking for the truth (unlike you apparently). i also won't devolve this to name-calling which is perhaps a trait you've picked up from your venerable leader DT. and i am an obama voter, and sure he's had some failures in foreign policy but at least it didn't result in a complete invasion of a country for there to be a realization that mistakes have been made--i much rather prefer a steady hand and caution when it comes to a situation that could lead to boots on the ground war. and in terms of an "unbroken record of failure in both domestic and foreign policy" that is obviously not true i mean it's clear that you need to read more (for example, ISIS numbers are falling--is that a failure? how do you think it should have been handled, by a complete invasion of the region or perhaps a complete bombing of the area as trump once voiced during one of his campaign speeches). and if you want to get technical about it, a majority of the US voted for liberal ideas, hillary is projected to win the popular vote by over a million votes. and it's interesting how you suggest that the conservative vision of the country is one of "freedom and prosperity" when the very platform (albeit shaky platform) DT was elected on was not so free and not so prosperous for some groups of people.

i'd like to note that i am legitimately listening to you, looking for anything potentially good you have to say to change my mind, because that is how a person grows. i would suggest you try and do the same because that's how you learn something.

and yes i did go to a state university. where did you go?

"i am an obama voter, and sure he's had some failures in foreign policy..."

OMG!!!!!

Big picture time.

President Reagan freed countless millions from the Evil Empire, and defeated same without firing a shot.


Then there's this:

Obama's Foreign Policy Hit Parade!


1. "(CNSNews.com) – White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday the Obama administration’s foreign policies in a number of areas have enhanced the world’s “tranquility” – a word that raised eyebrows as reporters pointed to situations in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine and the South China Sea."WH We ve Substantially Improved the Tranquility of the Global Community CNS News


2. "Leaders ofthe five BRICS nations plan to create a development bank in a direct challenge to theWorld Bankthat they accuse of Western bias. The bank would use $50 billion of seed capital shared equally between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa but would undoubtedly be dominated by China. It would be the first institution of the informal forum started in 2009 amid the economic meltdown to chart a new and more equitable world economic order."
Watch Out World Bank Here Comes the BRICS Bank

a. "WhenBarackObamatook office, he pledgeda new overture to the world’s emerging powers. Today each of the Brics – Brazil, Russia, India,Chinaand South Africa – is at loggerheads with America, or worse."How Obama lost friends and influence in the Brics - FT.com



3. [August 18, 2011].... [Obama} called Thursday for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resign, after months of his violent crackdown on protesters. The rhetorical escalation was backed bynew U.S. sanctions designed to undermine Assad’sability to finance his military operation..... culminatedmonths of calibrated diplomacythat has included three rounds of sanctionsand a gradual policy shift toward regime change in a nation long at odds with U.S. policy in the Middle East."Assad must go Obama says - The Washington Post

4."Russia 'to reopen Cold WarCuban listening post used to spy on America' Moscow-based daily Kommersant claimedRussia and Cuba have struck a deal'in principle' after President Vladimir Putin visited the island last week.

Citing several sources within Russian authorities, the respected daily wrote: 'The agreements were finalised while President Vladimir Putin visited Havana last Friday."
Russia 'to reopen Cold War Cuban listening post'


5. When the Egyptian people declined to be governed by the 7th century savages, the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama had a fit:
"The U.S. government has decided privately to act as if the military takeover of Egypt was a coup, temporarily suspending most forms of military aid, despite deciding not to announce publicly a coup determination one way or the other, according to a leading U.S. senator.
In the latest example of its poorly understood Egypt policy, the Obama administrationhas decided to temporarily suspend the disbursement of most direct military aid, the delivery of weapons to the Egyptian military, and some forms of economic aid to the Egyptiangovernment while it conducts a broad review of the relationship."
Senator: Obama Administration Secretly Suspended Military Aid to Egypt - The Daily Beast



6. "Putin Poised to Retaliate Against Obama by Trashing Iran Deal
Now that the U.S.-Russia relationship hasbroken down,Moscow could throw a wrench into the teetering nuclear negotiations with Iran.

But if Putin decides that retaliating against the U.S. and ruining Obama’s foreign policy legacy is more important than sealing a pact with Iran, the whole thing could unravel....Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. .... We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.."Putin Poised to Retaliate Against Obama by Trashing Iran Deal - The Daily Beast



7. "ANKARA, Turkey (AP) —Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said he no longer holds "direct" telephone conversations with U.S. President Barak Obama,suggesting a rift between the leaders who were once close."Turkish PM says he Obama no longer talk directly - Yahoo News

8. Underestimated the "Islamic State, IS" "The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is ifa jayvee teamputs on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,”Obama told the New Yorker, referring to ISIS.
“I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”


9. Obama made another huge mistake inrefusing to negotiate an agreement to leave US troops in Iraq.
This is the source of the problem with ISIS: they're there because we weren't.
"Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA:That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY:Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean

Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard

a. "This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote inPolitico Magazinethat in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”

Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.




10. "Turkey will refuse to allow a US-led coalition to attack jihadistsin neighbouring Iraq and Syria from its air bases, nor will it take part in combat operations against militants, a government official told AFP" Thursdayhttp://Breaking TURKEY REFUSES OBAMA REQUEST to Use Its Airbases to Fight ISIS The Gateway Pundit



11. "First and foremost, I want the American people to know that our experts, here at the CDC and across our government, agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low. We’ve been taking the necessary precautions, including working with countries in West Africa to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn’t get on a plane for the United States.In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we’ve taken new measures so that we’re prepared here at home. " Obama, Two Weeks Ago: 'Chances of an Ebola Outbreak Here ... Extremely Low'

a. "U.S. Nurses Say They Are Unprepared To Handle Ebola Patients" U.S. Nurses Say They Are Unprepared To Handle Ebola Patients
b. "After first Ebola case, red flags emerge that U.S. unprepared for pandemic"After first Ebola case, fears turn to U.S. pandemic preparedness

12. “Obama is the weakest of U.S. presidents, he had humiliating defeats in the region. Under him the Islamic awakening happened,” Younesisaidin a Farsi language interview with Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency. “Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama’s era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran,” Younesi said.

The criticism of Obama echoes comments made recently byotherworld leaders and even former members of the president’s own staff,such asFormer Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Top Iranian Official: Obama is ‘The Weakest of U.S. Presidents’

13. "Shock U.S. Army admission: Obama freed Taliban ‘psychopath’ in Bergdahl trade"The Obama administration released Fazl and four other Taliban commanders May 31 from the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl,
Taliban prisoner traded for Bowe Bergdahl a dangerous psychopath: Army colonel

"Breaking: Bowe Bergdahl To Be Charged With Desertion…Update: Attorney Has Received Charges But WH Delaying Notice To Public…Update: Senior Defense Officials Confirm">Breaking:Bowe Bergdahl To Be Charged With Desertion…Update:Attorney Has Received Charges But WH Delaying Notice To Public…Update:Senior Defense Officials Confirm" Breaking: Bowe Bergdahl To Be Charged With Desertion…Update: Attorney Has Received Charges But WH Delaying Notice To Public…Update: Senior Defense Officials Confirm | Weasel Zippers

14. "GUMMING UP THE WORKS: Obama blasted for chewing gum during visit with Indian prime minister
Obama, who has been caught before munching on gum during high-profile political events, was taken to task by the country’s largest newspaper after he was spotted taking a piece out of his mouth during the annual Republic Day parade."
Obama blasted for chewing gum during visit with Indian PM


15. "Obama White House Declares Muslim Brotherhood Is Not a Terrorist OrganizationObama White House Declares Muslim Brotherhood Is Not a Terrorist Organization | CBN.com (beta)
a. "The Muslim Brotherhood called for “a long, uncompromising jihad” in Egypt just days after a delegation of the Islamist group’s key leaders and allies met with the State Department, according to an official statement released this week.

Just days after a delegation that included two top Brotherhood leaders washosted at the State Department, the organization released an official statement calling on its supporters to “prepare” for jihad, according to an independent translation of thestatementfirst posted on Tuesday." http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ting-with-muslim-brotherhood-aligned-leaders/


16. "The threat from radical Islam has at least doubled in the past decade while Washington refuses to even admit the enemy exists, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said Sunday.

Pointing to a map showing the spread of violent Islamic extremism stretching across the Middle East and northern Africa, Flynn said, "Ten years ago I was drawing that map and there's only two or three dots on it. Today, what you're seeing on a map like that is a doubling of the enemy … a doubling or more."
Gen. Michael Flynn: Radical Islamic Enemy Has Doubled in 10 Years


17."Irran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President BarackObama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity”for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord."
Khamenei calls 'Death to America' as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal | The Times of Israelhttp://www.timesofisrael.com/khamen...ry-hails-progress-on-nuke-deal/#ixzz3V9SRGder


18. "Not since the 1960s — and perhaps going back even further — has there been a time when so many Arab states and factions were engaged in so many wars, in quite such confusing configurations, said Frederic Wehrey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It’s so dangerous,” he said."http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...4e7b5c-d417-11e4-8b1e-274d670aa9c9_story.html

19. "It would be one thing had the president brought in a successful test anywhere. But his — and Secretary of State Clinton’s — “reset” with Russia has been greeted with aggression from President Putin and his camarilla. The “pivot” to Asia has turned into a palsied pirouette and been unmasked as cover for fading from the Middle East. The redlines in Syria have been erased. Libya, Yemen, Venezuela are wrecks. Afghanistan is teetering to the Taliban, while Mr. Obama’s withdrawal has left Iraq at the mercy of Iran and the Islamic State."The Obama Doctrine - The New York Sun
20. There is now no discernible U.S. strategy in Iraq.The administration claims to support the Baghdad government of Haider al-Abadi, who replaced Maliki, but it gives al-Abadi practically no support. It won’t commit ground forces or mount a serious aerial offensive and is reduced to encouraging Iran to chase ISIS into Syria.


This policy can only lead to greater bloodshed in Syria, while delivering all Iraq apart from Kurdistan to the militant Islamic and soon to be nuclear-armed theocracy of Iran.... Obama rounded up some allies to fight ISIS but has essentially handed the war off to Iran, America’s and the West’s greatest enemy in the Middle East."
Incredulity Among Allies Greets U.S. Policy After Years of Folly - The New York Sun

21. WASHINGTON—In reaching a historic agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program, President Barack Obama effectively shredded the foreign-policy playbook that had guided the U.S. for three decades....Obama also may have created a more unstable Middle East and, in the process, torn apart longtime U.S. ties with traditional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Obama’s Iran Deal Breaks From Past

22." The president has convinced himself that the open-ended appeasement of Iran will replicate the Nixon-Kissinger triumph with China. But they made no concessions to the Chinese: They agreed that there was one China but that Taiwan would not be reunited with the mainland by force, and it has not been.

Mr.Obama is handing Iraq to Iran ashe gives Iran a green light to nuclear weapons,at the latest in ten years, as he unblocks $150 billion that has been frozen,without even getting a reduction in rhetorical abusefrom Tehran. Tom Friedman of theNew York Timesinfamously called it a “doctrine,” in the sense of the Stimson or Truman or Nixon doctrines.

But insipidity, irresolution, and obfuscation do not constitute a doctrine.

America’s traditional allies havelost all respect for [Obama's] foreign-policy-making...


As the U.S. cranks up to another presidential election, and rhetoric echoes loudly around the country about “the greatest nation in human history” (certainly a fair description in many respects),Americans should be aware of how the country is perceived by foreigners. .... it has almost become, as President Nixon warned,“a pitiful, helpless giant.”
Incredulity Among Allies Greets U.S. Policy After Years of Folly - The New York Sun


"...insipidity, irresolution, and obfuscation do not constitute a doctrine."



And theObama legacy: America as “a pitiful, helpless giant.”



And....after the above list ofObama's gaffes, flubs, missteps, and outright incompetence......


23. "Russia and Nato 'actively preparing for war'
Rival war games by Russian armed forces and Nato represent greatest build up of military tension in Europe since Cold War, warns think tank"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ssia-and-Nato-actively-preparing-for-war.html


24.." Five Chinese navy ships are currently operating in the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska, Pentagon officials said Wednesday, marking the first time the U.S. military has seen them in the area.

The officials have been tracking the movements in recent days of three Chinese combat ships, a replenishment vessel and an amphibious landing ship after observing them moving toward the Aleutian Islands, which are split between U.S. and Russian control.

.... the Chinese naval movements, which came as PresidentBarack Obamawas visiting Alaska and the Arctic region on a three-day trip toaddress climate change."Five Chinese Navy Ships Are Operating in Bering Sea off Alaska

25. "Remember Obama Mocking Romney Over Russia Concerns? ‘The 1980s Are Now Calling to Ask for Their Foreign Policy Back... First Sarah Palin wasproven rightabout her Russia-invading-Ukraine prediction she made — and got mocked for — in 2008.

Now it’s Mitt Romney’s turn to take a bow for having “clear eyes” on Russia’s future threat potential." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...calling-to-ask-for-their-foreign-policy-back/

26. This was published the day after the ISIS attack on Paris:
"Kevin (not only is this) an ISIS attack, but its coordinated at a level to take a large loss of life. This is the nightmare scenario we are constantly having to be prepared for from radicalized Islam… But we knew ISIS was a threat a year before the president ever called them the JV team. And we have to kill them before they kill us.”

Run the tape back to that morning on a nationally televised morning show, President Obama, “ISIL has been contained.” Run the tape back to President Obama’s statement immediately following the attacks in Paris, “We must stop those who do these crimes.” (You know… crimes… like the cat-burglars.)

Was there any reason why the president never mentioned Islam in his statement following the Paris attacks?

The president couldn’t wait to gloat over the kill shot of bin Laden (who was really mostly out of the picture by the time we finally got him.) He couldn’t wait to golf when Jihadi John had beheaded an American journalist. He couldn’t wait to goof on the families of our service men who lost their lives in Benghazi. And he was back to gloating when they believed they got the jihadi beheader this week."http://townhall.com/columnists/kevi...5/how-obama-contained-isis-n2080961/page/full


27. "America is about to accept9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predictedto increase each year.
There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted.

...the Department of State is adhering with all the rigidity of a Soviet era bureaucracy to the rule that only people at risk from massacres launched by the regime qualify for refugee status.The rapes of Christian women and the butchery of Christianchildren do not count. " No room in America for Christian refugees


28. "It is clearly evident that President Barack Obama and his administration care little about reality but will push ahead with their ideological agenda.

Here we are just days after a horrific Islamic terror attack in Paris and what is the Obama administration response? They release five Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United Arab Emirates."http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/complete-madness-as-paris-mourns-obama-just-did-the-unthinkable/


29. "Not radical Muslim terrorism, not an unsecured border, not an ever-growing federal debt that now exceeds $18 trillion, not the fact that 109 million live in households on federal welfare programs. These are not the greatest threats facing us today."

"No challenge--no challenge--poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," President Obama declared in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night.


30. "Ex-Guantanamo detainee now an al Qaeda leader in Yemen His personal relationship with Osama bin Laden and time in American detention make him an especially high-profile spokesman. A leaked Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO)threat assessmentand other declassified files documented Qosi’s extensive al Qaeda dossier. In the threat assessment, dated Nov. 15, 2007, US intelligence analysts described Qosi as a “high” risk to the US and its allies."http://www.longwarjournal.org/archi...-detainee-now-an-al-qaeda-leader-in-yemen.php

31. "A House Armed Services Committee report set to be released Thursday accuses the Obama administration of misleading Congress and violating federal law during a controversial prisoner exchange.The report compiled by the GOP majority charges that the administration did so when it bypassed Congress in negotiating the exchange of five Taliban prisoners for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was being held in Afghanistan. They suggested that the White House had put politics and expediency ahead of proper procedure in making the deal."https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/1...a-violated-federal-law-with-bergdahl-exchange

32. "Obama Campaign Team Arrives in Israel to Defeat Netanyahu in March ElectionsJust days after the Obama White House accused House Speaker John Boehner of “breaking protocol” by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, a team of up to five Obama campaign operatives has reportedly arrived in Israel to lead a campaign to defeat the Israeli Prime Minister in upcoming national elections scheduled for March 17, 2015" Obama Campaign Team Arrives in Israel to Defeat Netanyahu in March Elections - Breitbart

33. September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon

a. "Obama's Unforgivable Betrayal The president's nuclear accommodation of radical Islamist theocrats threatens Israel's survival." http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...ar-deal-is-an-unforgivable-betrayal-of-israel
34. . "When you look at the diplomatic insults and the hatred the Obama administration has poured on Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when you look at the pressure this administration has put on Israel to negotiate with people who use terrorism, and when you look at how openly it has enabled Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, ...
".... in ending economic sanctions as part of the [Iran] nuclear deal, the Obama administration just gave over $100 billion to Iran, the top terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world—by far! Iran is famous for sponsoring some of the most violent terrorists on Earth, terrorists who continually attack Jews.
Iran has promised to wipe Israel off the map.
It supports Islamic terrorists who want to do the same.
And they want to wipe President Obama’s own nation off the map as well!
They call America the “big Satan” and the Jewish state the “little Satan.”
What Inspires President Obama's Relationship With Israel?

35. "US-backed militia groups now fighting each other in Syria
President Barack Obama's confused strategy in Syria means towns are now being fought over by different US-backed groups
If anywhere can show the consequences of American foreign policy under President Barack Obama, it may be the small town of Marea, north of Aleppo.
Analysts – and many American diplomats who have left the administration, some in disgust – say that the mess is a consequence of President Obama’s decision to support the rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad, but only half-heartedly." US-backed militia groups now fighting each other in Syria

36. "Sept. 25, 2015 6:00 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—China’s PresidentXi Jinpingmade a public commitment for the first time on Friday not to “militarize” artificial islands that Beijing has been building in the disputed South China Sea."
China’s President Pledges No Militarization in Disputed Islands
To show the depth of their respect for Barack Hussein Obama....this is how China kept its promise:
March 4, 2016
"China has stationed surface-to-air missiles on a contested island in the South China Sea and is expanding its footprint in the waterway through energetic island-building. New runways allow Chinese fighter jets to land on disputed turf, ..." China to U.S.: It's Not Us Who's Militarizing, It's You
37. "... at the end of September 2015, Vladimir Putin suddenly started moving Russian aircraft, tanks and troops into Syria. At the time, President Obama predicted the Russian intervention would fail.... Obama tries to wave away what Putin has done in Syria and Ukraine: "The fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn't suddenly make him a player. You don't see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there's not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important."... from the narrow vantage point of Russian self-interest, Putin has pulled off another coup and shown that he is a more adept international poker player than his counterpart in Washington." How a monstrous Putin beat the U.S. in Syria
38. No Respect: Obama removes restrictions on Cuba, gets nothing in return. And....he visits, but Raul Castro couldn't be bothered to be at the airport: " As the plane landed at a rainy Jose Marti International Airport, Mr Obama tweeted: "What's up Cuba? Just touched down here, looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from the Cuban people." The president was greeted by foreign minister Bruno Rodriguez - not president Raul Castro. Instead he will hold talks with his Cuban counterpart on Monday." http://news.sky.com/story/1663608/obama-arrives-in-cuba-for-historic-visit
39. “Literally the entire national security team recommended unanimously handling Mubarak differently than we did,” Gates said. “And the president took the advice of three junior backbenchers in terms of how to treat Mubarak.” Obama was so avid to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, he went against the advice of his national security team. The Egyptian people complained that he was supporting terrorism. And they were right." Gates: Obama Went Against ‘Entire National Security Team’ on Egypt Coup - The Geller Report "The president supported the protestors and forced Mubarak out of power, causing the Muslim Brotherhood to soon take control of the country with Islamist president Mohamed Morsi..... Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Fox News that President Barack Obama ignored the advice of his “entire national security team” during the Egyptian coup in 2011 that ousted Hosni Mubarak, the country’s former president." http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...-entire-national-security-team-on-egypt-coup/
40. Not satisfied with supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Obama endrosed the group, here: " President Obama and his administration continue to support the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State. The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11. The directive was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, according to officials familiar with the classified study." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-muslim-brotherhood-has-obamas-secr/?page=all
a. "The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act now hasbipartisan support and over 50 members of Congress are cosponsors and/or have voted in favor it. It passed the Judiciary Committee in February and directly calls out the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a Brotherhood front with links to Hamas.... the bill would state that Congress believes that the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria of a Foreign Terrorist Organization..." https://www.clarionproject.org/news/bill-designate-brotherhood-terror-org-gaining-support

41. "U.S. Taxpayers Are Funding Iran's Military Expansion One of the unexpected results of President Barack Obama's new opening to Iran is that U.S. taxpayers are now funding both sides of the Middle East's arms race. The U.S. is deliberately subsidizing defense spending for allies like Egypt and Israel. Now the U.S. is inadvertently paying for some of Iran's military expenditures as well. It all starts with $1.7 billion the U.S. Treasury transferred to Iran's Central Bank in January, during a delicate prisoner swap and the implementation of last summer's nuclear deal to resolve a long-standing dispute about Iran's arms purchases before the revolution of 1979." http://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...xpayers-are-funding-iran-s-military-expansion

42. "U.S. nuclear arms inspectors recently discovered that Russia is violating the New START arms treaty by improperly eliminating SS-25 mobile missiles, American defense officials said. Disclosure of the New START treaty violations is a further setback for the Obama administration’s arms control agenda. The administration has made arms agreements with Russian aimed at cutting nuclear forces a priority. Arms talks have been suspended since Moscow militarily annexed Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014.
The Obama administration’s record for responding to arms cheating by Russia is weak. The State Department, which is in charge of monitoring treaty compliance, hid Moscow’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty for several years to avoid upsetting its arms control agenda.
On Capitol Hill, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry said the potential New START verification problem highlights the larger issue of the Obama administration’s poor record in pressing Russia to abide by its treaty obligations." http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russians-violating-new-start-arms-treaty/


43. "VILNIUS (Reuters) - Leaders in the Baltic countries and Poland fear the force NATO plans to deploy on their territory is too small and symbolic to deter an attack by Russia, whose 2014 annexation of Crimea is fresh in the memories of the former Soviet-bloc states. They will this week press other ministers of the western military alliance to help them build an air defense system against Russian aircraft and missiles. But that would be a highly sensitive step, likely to be condemned by Moscow as yet more evidence of a NATO strategy threatening its borders." https://www.yahoo.com/news/nervous-baltics-war-footing-nato-tries-deter-russia-070308435.html?ref=gs
a. "President Barack Obama mocked Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign for calling Russia "our No. 1 geopolitical foe."... "For instance, you reconsider putting in our missile defense system back into the Czech Republic and Poland, as we once planned," Romney said of steps he’d take if he were in the White House. "And as you recall, we pulled that out as a gift to Russia." http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-obama-stopped-missile-defense-shield-gift-r/
44. "WOW! Obama THREATENS Great Britain with Trade Penalties if They Exit EU"
WOW! Obama THREATENS Great Britain with Trade Penalties if They Exit EU (VIDEO)
45. "Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.
Some $350,000 was sent....
.... regularly deleted emails with large attachments — a striking violation of open-records laws for a department already reeling from former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s handling of official government records." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/

46. Obama backs down:
"...July 6, President Barack Obama announced he would keep 8,400 troops in Afghanistan past the end of his presidency. Then, he announced on July 11 that he would send 560 additional troops to Iraq, adopting a strategy of U.S. engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan his critics have been advocating since he took office in 2008.. ....the Taliban merely waited out the U.S. 18 month deadline. Obama pivoted away from active U.S. engagement in Afghanistan towards a reduced presence that focused on drone strikes....In Iraq, exactly what his critics said would happen ended up happening."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/16/o...ign-policy-critics-in-one-week/#ixzz4EhbAMj4D"
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/16/o...ign-policy-critics-in-one-week/#ixzz4EhZOHXjJ

47. China underscores disrespect for Obama during his visit: "...Obama downplayed dust-ups involving the U.S. delegation and Chinese security officials during the opening hours of his trip to Hangzhou for the G-20 summit, .... The early hours of Obama’s trip were marred by confrontations involving Chinese security officials,.... When Air Force One touched down at the Hangzhou airport, Obama was not greeted, as is customary, by a staircase, but had to deplane from the lower level of his 747 jet. Reporters and U.S. officials were kept away from the welcoming ceremony by a rope line.... When the president’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, and her deputy, Ben Rhodes, attempted to pass under the barricade, they were confronted by a Chinese security official "They did things that weren’t anticipated," Rice later told reporters..." http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...an-t-mask-lingering-tensions-between-obama-xi



Obama...as good at leading America in world events as you are in picking a leader.

 

[PoliticalChic]

thanks for the welcome i'm glad we can debate like this and discuss.

now then, i believe that a country under that kind of severe sanctions that trickled down to the individual level would have eventually exploded when they were backed into a corner. and in terms of Obama standing up for islam it's because that is one of the primary ways one battles homegrown terrorism, look at the example of france. they isolate their muslim population, they are relegated to slums, and so radical uprising become a reality. the answer is to assimilate, to separate radical islam from islam all together because when people hear "radical islam" they lose the radical part, and yell at muslim's in the street, telling them to go back where they came from (when they were born and raised in the US).

Now that we're buds, I should appraise you of the slant shown in your choice of avi....
"The Right Side of History"....

1. Know who made that phrase infamojus?
One who not only lacks any understanding of history, and botches it when he tries to insert himself therein, can pretend he in an influence in same.

... this dunce, Obama, who has seen his policies and ideas fail literally dozens of times....and I mean 'literally' literally....actually mouths predictions about history, and how future events will support his backside, bankrupt blather.

a. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history,..." President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address


b."... the U.S. response to protests in Egypt that forced President Hosni Mubarak from power last Friday. Critics have faulted the U.S. for being too cautious in offering support to protesters in Cairo. The administration now appears to be placing itself on the side of those in the streets. "History will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history," Obama said." Obama: U.S. Is 'On Right Side Of History' In Mideast [He said this gleefully anticipating the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

c. And, as Gaddafi was about to be pushed out....“I believe that Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now. We are going to be in contact with the opposition, ..."
Obama, Gaddafi, and the ‘wrong side of history’ [September 11, 2012, attack of a United States outpost inBenghazi, Libya, that left four Americans killed,....]

d. "Speaking more broadly about the then still young “Arab Spring” he said, “I think that the region will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history.” When Vladimir Putin started carving up Ukraine, the president insisted that America wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but fear not -- because Putin is on the wrong side of history.The “long moral arc of the universe” -- another of Obama’s favorite phrases -- will “bend toward justice.”




2. "It’s a phrase Obama loves: He’s used it 15 times, in debates; at synagogues; in weekly radio addresses; at fundraisers. Obama is almost as fond of its converse, “the wrong side of history,” which he has used 13 times; staffers and press secretaries have invoked it a further 16." The Wrong Side of 'the Right Side of History'


"....telling someone they are on “the wrong side of history” means “You’re going to lose eventually, so why don’t you give up now?”



Another dunce tried it in this form: "The debate is over!"

dude, the whole reason the country moves forward socially is because of progressive ideas. always throughout history, progressive ideas have won. look at recent history, gay marriage, weed, raising the minimum wage, those are not conservative ideas at all. now in reference to what you've quoted:

1. i chose this name because i really couldn't think of anything else (but there is truth to it nonetheless)
2. in terms of social issues, this is very true.
3. in terms of foreign policy, it is so complicated and there are so many interests at play that both republicans and democrats have had lousy policies abroad (i mean if you want to talk about really lousy foreign policy, look at bush and the invasion of iraq which was done by lying to the american people no less).

1. Here are the conservative ideas on which this nation was built, you dunce:
Individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.

You must be a government school grad, huh?

2. Bet you're an Obama voter. I say that because he has an unbroken record of failure in both domestic and in foreign policy.

3. Tuesday's election was about rejecting liberal policies, and choosing the conservative vision for our country—a vision that pushes prosperity and freedom.

4. Good thing you joined the board...and not a moment too soon! You have sooooo much to learn.

i will admit that i have things to learn because i am humble and open and always seeking for the truth (unlike you apparently). i also won't devolve this to name-calling which is perhaps a trait you've picked up from your venerable leader DT. and i am an obama voter, and sure he's had some failures in foreign policy but at least it didn't result in a complete invasion of a country for there to be a realization that mistakes have been made--i much rather prefer a steady hand and caution when it comes to a situation that could lead to boots on the ground war. and in terms of an "unbroken record of failure in both domestic and foreign policy" that is obviously not true i mean it's clear that you need to read more (for example, ISIS numbers are falling--is that a failure? how do you think it should have been handled, by a complete invasion of the region or perhaps a complete bombing of the area as trump once voiced during one of his campaign speeches). and if you want to get technical about it, a majority of the US voted for liberal ideas, hillary is projected to win the popular vote by over a million votes. and it's interesting how you suggest that the conservative vision of the country is one of "freedom and prosperity" when the very platform (albeit shaky platform) DT was elected on was not so free and not so prosperous for some groups of people.

i'd like to note that i am legitimately listening to you, looking for anything potentially good you have to say to change my mind, because that is how a person grows. i would suggest you try and do the same because that's how you learn something.

and yes i did go to a state university. where did you go?

More important than what they say are results. Let's see how republicanism works.

Privatize social security

"...results. Let's see how republicanism works."

I actually agree with you.

I'm planning a review post- after 100 days in office.



Wanna keep score? Here's the list:

The Supreme Court,

Obamacare,

the debt,

rebuilding the military,

the Second Amendment,

school choice,

abortion,

reforming the tax code,

reexamining regulation,

energy exploration and production,

illegal immigration,

sanctuary cities,

Iran nuclear deal

 

[miketx]

You protest
You vandalize businesses
You destroy private property
You call for chaos
You call for assassination
You block traffic
You make innocent people scared

And now you're claiming that Trump has reneged BEFORE he's even assumed the office officially.

It is all FUCKING RETARDED, ALL OF IT. I understand your assholes are sore and the buttcream isn't working but get a damn grip on yourselves.

It's only retarded to racists such as yourself. I don't give a fuck whether he's taken office yet or not. I don't want a racist and misogynist bully like Trump to be president. You have no moral decency, so it obviously doesn't matter to you.

5 names called in one paragraph! You are the shit eating king! I say you are!

 

[PoliticalChic]

And your stupid Trump line about there being 30 million illegal immigrants (that PC thinks are all eligible to vote! ) is another pile of her rotting manure lies. As usual.



The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is "30 million, it could be 34 million."
— Donald Trump on Friday, July 24th, 2015 in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Donald Trump wrongly says the number of illegal immigrants is 30 million or higher

"There are, to my knowledge, no credible, research-based estimates of 30 million," said Jeffrey Passel, an expert on Hispanic immigration at the Pew Research Center. "The 11-12 million range is broadly accepted by almost all researchers and immigration advocates (regardless of perspective).
...
The Department of Homeland Security says the number of illegal immigrants was about 11.4 million as of January 2012. Other independent groups that research illegal immigration put the number between 11 and 12 million. We found no compelling evidence that the number could as high as Trump said.

Trump has provided no proof that the number of illegal immigrants is triple the widespread consensus. We rate this claim Pants on Fire."

"... 30 million illegal immigrants (that PC thinks are all eligible to vote!..."

See....now I've reduced you to lying.

I said just the opposite....they are not eligible to vote.....but do.

And with the imprimatur of Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him).


They vote....as you admitted earlier.....and do so in numbers that obviate any Clinton popular vote victory.


Wait....didn't you claim earlier that a post was invalid because it came from a Rightwing site?????

But you're claiming that MSNBC and PolitFact are legit?????


Gads, you're a fool.

PolitiFact.org,
This bias is evident in:
1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate
PolitiFact examination;2
2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;
and
3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis
and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.
http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf


Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.
All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans


PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".PolitiFact.com - Wikipedia

The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. PolitiFact Bias: About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ

"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.
Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." PolitiFact Parent Tampa Bay Times Scores ‘Pants on Fire’ for Partisan Bias - Media Trackers


PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate) | RedState



Some people,like you, lack the ability to laugh at themselves...that's where I come in.

Don't ever change.

"I said just the opposite....they are not eligible to vote.....but do."

No, they don't. And there's been no proof illegals do, except in rare cases.

I inartfully said eligible to your fake 30 million number - as it regards the full population, meaning even if we accept your phony baloney 30 million number, (which is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy off by all reputable sources,) that would mean all those illegals are of voting age. Which is stupid on a stick.

And you can deny reality all you want, pretend facts are not real, and hold up your thorny crown of pretend bravado and WINNING! Charlie Sheen style for all I care.

The intelligent, logical ones reading here can decide for themselves where the truth resides.

Ta ta.

"And there's been no proof illegals do, except in rare cases."

Wanna parse that sentence and review it for any trace of logic?

"no proof illegals do,...."

....except...(when they do)'


Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

 

[SwimExpert]

Gramps, the only one here "so shallow that you're easily triggered by words" is you. Trump is being criticized for his policy proposals (post election) against his promises (before election). You might have missed the memo, but that's pretty much the most common form of political discussion. Why you're so sensitive about it, I really can't understand. Perhaps you'd like someone to reserve you a safe space?

To try to create a supposed difference between pre-election and post-election rhetoric simply illustrates how little you listened to Trump's proposal prior to the election. Instead, you relied on twisted and perverted summations of what the MSM thought would upset you.

You been had.

Right. Because who needs to think about whether politicians keep their promises after they get elected. That's just crazy talk!

You know, I have sat here and watched you and other liberals rant and rave without providing a single example, or basis for your whining. Frankly, it's childish and boring. So, now we'll challenge you.

I challenge you to show a single example - SINGLE EXAMPLE - where Trump's statements/actions since the election have not been in accordance with campaign claims. I don't want to hear about what you think you heard, or where the MSM claimed he said something. Give us something concrete. Show me a single example where he has gone back on his proposed policy.

It's simple --- put up or shut up.

Well, there's the whole "repeal Obamacare" promise, which now is turning into "we'll just scale it back a bit and see what happens."

See? The prime example of being duped by the Democrat propaganda machine.

Trump has consistently said, as early as last February, that there were elements of ACA that made sense and would be carried forward. He specifically mentioned the "pre-existing conditions" area and the "children at home until 26" area. Repealing the ACA and incorporating some of its characteristics into a new healthcare approach has been a staple of his proposals from the beginning.

But, because it was "inconvenient" to detail Trump's approach, the Dem propaganda machine tried to portray his approach as a "slash and burn" exercise, when nothing was further from the truth. So, they told you he was going to repeal Obamacare (he is), but failed to tell you that some elements would be incorporated into his new proposal. You've been duped.

Next time, do your research.

What's your next SINGLE EXAMPLE?

Well you do have a point that his campaign promises themselves were often inconsistent, contradictory, and all over the place. That doesn't help his case any, though.

 

[SwimExpert]

And that's not true. It's repeal and replace while two items might be kept.

That's not "repeal and replace." We've seen this time and again with Trump. He starts off saying something very specific, he slides around to rephrase it in softer terms, then ends up saying something 100% flagrantly in contradiction of his original stance. But you drumpfodder guzzle his semen like it's sugar water.

He said he would repeal the whole entire thing. Every last shred. Now he's saying "except a few things." Before long he'll say "repeal half of it." By this time next year, the only thing he's going to repeal and replace will be the title "Obamacare" in favor of the title "Trumpcare." And you morons will eat it up with a spoon.

 

[SwimExpert]

I have heard him say on several occasions that he would consider keeping parts of it that were good for Americans.

And I have heard him say on several occasions that he would get rid of the whole damn thing. EVERY. LAST. FUCKING. SHRED.

 

[Papageorgio]

butthurt over the fact that president elect trump (happy there gramps) has done a 180 on two issues....and hell it is not even dec?

180 on aca and now on locking up hrc

President-Elect Trump Says He Hasn’t Given ‘Much Thought’ to Plans to Prosecute Hillary

So liberals are upset because Trump hasn't given much thought to prosecuting Clinton?