Will an Obama Presidency be just as divisive between the right & left?

[Gem]

I don't believe that Obama has provided any evidence that he plans to be bipartisan for the first time in his political career, has he? Aside from hinting that he might throw Colin Powell in somewhere to appeal to the moderate undecideds...I think that we can really only go on past history to make a determination in this case.

Obama has never shown an interest in reaching across the aisle to work with people who have differing opinions. McCain, for better or worse, has worked with Democrats frequently and has given no reason for anyone to think that he would stop if elected.

 

[jillian]

And you think McCain is still the person who used to be bi-partisan after he voted with Bush 90% of the time and chose someone as extreme as Palin?

 

[Jon]

And you think McCain is still the person who used to be bi-partisan after he voted with Bush 90% of the time and chose someone as extreme as Palin?

Yeah, Palin's pretty extreme. But, Obama didn't have to pick an extreme VP. It doesn't get much more extreme than he is.

 

[elvis]

They created the bailout? If you mean took bush's plan to hand paulson $700 bill no questions asked and made it swallable, then yes they created the plan where we might someday get our money back. Fat chance, but at least it wasn't just a bank robbery.

And it was bush, delay, boehner, abramoff, hastert, chaney, vetter, rove, scooter, foley, craig, stevens, gramm and lieberman that deregulated, sent jobs oversea and let big oil gouge us. 6 yrs in power did this. Not the last 2 and not carter or clinton

But nice try.

Say, why isn't iraq oil paying for the war yet? Bush and exxon want you to pay but don't have the balls to answer that question. Neither do you. Chaney lied when he said iraq oil would pay. You didn't care because you are brainwashed. $10 bill x 12 mo x 10 yrs. Yikes! Vote for mccain and it'll be 12 or 16 if you elect him 2 times. What's 16 yrs times $120 billion a yr?

No wonder powell endorsed obama.

here's another link.

read the paragraph about forcing banks to make money available.

Clinton signs banking overhaul measure - November 12, 1999 - 27k -

 

[jillian]

That's the rumor... not borne out by anything in particular, of course.

i'm still waiting for someone to tell me what he supports that Clinton didn't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And you think McCain is still the person who used to be bi-partisan after he voted with Bush 90% of the time and chose someone as extreme as Palin?

And you think Obama will suddenly do what he has never done before? Get real. Use some of that brain that hasn't dribbled out of your nose and ears for once.

 

[sealybobo]

As opposed to the witch hunt the left wants on Bush, Cheney and his administration? Give me a break. All AFTER they leave office. I remind you again, carry out the witch hunt and actually concocted reasons to arrest a former President and you will see civil unrest that will lead to civil war.

They weren't witch hunts. I'll give you three.

1. They deleted emails. Illegal.

2. Politicized the justice dept.

3. They lied us into a war.

4. Neglegabe amounts of money have been stolen, lost in iraq. People should be in jail.

5. Privates served time for torture. We now know it was approved by the top. That's bush, chaney, rummy, condy, wolfowitz,

The only reason bush isn't guilty is because they wrote in a signing statement that they are above the law. Look how chaney wasn't a part of the executive branch.

I hope you enjoy the democrats having the same power. I hope obama freezes all the assets of chaney and the blackwater guy and all the robber oil and energy barons. And you are nothing to these people. They lie for your vote. They are not all the same. The current gop is corrupt to the core. They need to leave politics. They won't change washington. Mccain is washington.

 

[Gem]

jillian wrote:

And you think McCain is still the person who used to be bi-partisan after he voted with Bush 90% of the time and chose someone as extreme as Palin?

Yes, I think that McCain is still bi-partisan. And his record, even with his "support of Bush," still holds up a lot better than Obama's.

Bottom line, Obama has never shown the slightest interest in working with Republicans on anything. And to believe that once elected, with a Democratic majority in Congress he suddenly is going to see the merit in working hand in hand with the Republicans...well, that takes a whole new level of optimism...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

jillian wrote:


Yes, I think that McCain is still bi-partisan. And his record, even with his "support of Bush," still holds up a lot better than Obama's.

Bottom line, Obama has never shown the slightest interest in working with Republicans on anything. And to believe that once elected, with a Democratic majority in Congress he suddenly is going to see the merit in working hand in hand with the Republicans...well, that takes a whole new level of optimism...

Jillian has glasses for that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They weren't witch hunts. I'll give you three.

1. They deleted emails. Illegal.

2. Politicized the justice dept.

3. They lied us into a war.

4. Neglegabe amounts of money have been stolen, lost in iraq. People should be in jail.

5. Privates served time for torture. We now know it was approved by the top. That's bush, chaney, rummy, condy, wolfowitz,

The only reason bush isn't guilty is because they wrote in a signing statement that they are above the law. Look how chaney wasn't a part of the executive branch.

I hope you enjoy the democrats having the same power. I hope obama freezes all the assets of chaney and the blackwater guy and all the robber oil and energy barons. And you are nothing to these people. They lie for your vote. They are not all the same. The current gop is corrupt to the core. They need to leave politics. They won't change washington. Mccain is washington.

1, 2 and 3 are all lies. as for 4, money was lost but has nothing to do with the President. 5 is a joke, provide a link to prove your claim.

 

[elvis]

jillian wrote:


Yes, I think that McCain is still bi-partisan. And his record, even with his "support of Bush," still holds up a lot better than Obama's.

Bottom line, Obama has never shown the slightest interest in working with Republicans on anything. And to believe that once elected, with a Democratic majority in Congress he suddenly is going to see the merit in working hand in hand with the Republicans...well, that takes a whole new level of optimism...

That may be difficult to measure. He may not have to work with republicans if the dem's get more than 60 Senate seats.

 

[Red Dawn]

jillian wrote:


Yes, I think that McCain is still bi-partisan. And his record, even with his "support of Bush," still holds up a lot better than Obama's.

Bottom line, Obama has never shown the slightest interest in working with Republicans on anything. And to believe that once elected, with a Democratic majority in Congress he suddenly is going to see the merit in working hand in hand with the Republicans...well, that takes a whole new level of optimism...

It depends on the election results.

If the voters give the white house to obama, give a 100 seat majority to the Dems in the House, and a fillibuster proof majority in the senate (all of which are in the realm of possibility), then voters will have sent a clear message to reject any and all things republican. It will be a historic repudiation of republican policies of the last 7 years.

If those are the results, I think you'd have to go back to the 1930s to see one party given that much of a majority.

Why would Obama want to meet republicans "half way" in that environment? The intent of the voters will have been made clear - they don't want bipartisanship. They would want a complete repudiation of the party of George Bush, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Tom Delay, and John McCain.

On the other hand, if democrats only win a narrow victory, and republicans avoid any significant loses in congress, Obama will have to meet the GOP half way.

 

[DavidS]

Man oh man oh man. You are one angry guy, Sarge.

 

[I Missthe North]

1, 2 and 3 are all lies. as for 4, money was lost but has nothing to do with the President. 5 is a joke, provide a link to prove your claim.

1, 2, 3 are simple facts. 4, Bush should feel responsible to find out where that money went since we would not be there in the first place without him. 5, you were in the military, did you higher ups really have no clue what was going on most of the time? If that is the case, that seems like gross negligence to me, which is also illegal and deserving of jail time. People higher then the rank of private clearly turned their heads the other way while this was going on which is just as bad as actually committing the act. How would it work otherwise? You were in the military, maybe you have an explanation to explain how that could happen.

 

[sealybobo]

Hey, on john stewart Daily Show he said, referring to palin's "real" america comments, that bin ladin is mad that he didn't hit "real" america when he bombed ny. lol.

 

[elvis]

1, 2, 3 are simple facts. 4, Bush should feel responsible to find out where that money went since we would not be there in the first place without him. 5, you were in the military, did you higher ups really have no clue what was going on most of the time? If that is the case, that seems like gross negligence to me, which is also illegal and deserving of jail time. People higher then the rank of private clearly turned their heads the other way while this was going on which is just as bad as actually committing the act. How would it work otherwise? You were in the military, maybe you have an explanation to explain how that could happen.

Will you admit, then, that Bill Clinton also lied? He said there were WMD's before Bush did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1, 2, 3 are simple facts. 4, Bush should feel responsible to find out where that money went since we would not be there in the first place without him. 5, you were in the military, did you higher ups really have no clue what was going on most of the time? If that is the case, that seems like gross negligence to me, which is also illegal and deserving of jail time. People higher then the rank of private clearly turned their heads the other way while this was going on which is just as bad as actually committing the act. How would it work otherwise? You were in the military, maybe you have an explanation to explain how that could happen.

Yes as a matter of fact in circumstances like those guards were in I bet officers did not show up late at night to check on SHIT. If orders were given why is not one of them made the claim? Why weren't any other guards doing it? Why just that one small group of guards?

If they had been ordered there would be evidence. The Col got hammered because of the failure of the Command to police itself and provide proper leadership.

Except night exersizes at night you never found any officer doing much of anything and in the field the Division staff Major and above did not even COME to the exersizes. The single Officer on dury at Battalion or Division never left his office to check on shit.

At night officers go home , to bed or to party. They do not show up at a prison ward to check on the night shift.

 

[Navy1960]

However much some wish to persue the Bush Administration after he leaves office , I would not hold out hope on this for many reasons. One is that political powers are intelligent enough to realize that the reigns of power are fleeting and one way to surely charge up a base of support against them is to persue some sort of retro active investigation of the outgoing administration. The other thing that comes to mind, if it is persued then what of a congress that authorized the use of force in Iraq? Are they then complicit in this both democrat and republican. I see nothing comming out of these charges other than to soothe a portion of the electorate. The new president would never in the interest of the country ever put a former president on trial. So again I would not count on this happening.

 

[sealybobo]

Will you admit, then, that Bill Clinton also lied? He said there were WMD's before Bush did.

Maybe there where. That's why UN weapons inspectors were there. They didn't have wmd's when bush invaded. Are you still suggesting they sent them to syria?

And Clinton didn't invade, bush did. Without a plan I might add.

I actually go one step further and suggest the whole thing went according to plan. They didn't finish the job in tora bora and spread us thin. That way they could bring in blackwater and haloburton, all at the taxpayers expense.

Chaney made a speech yrs ago telling exactly what would happen if we invaded. Yet he said the exact opposite when he was selling us un going in. Then said they didn't know it would be so tough.

Then they showed signs of fucking up progress almost so it would prolong the occupation. Why would they want to end that cash cow?

But i'm just a conspiracy theorist.

Meanwhile they are conspiring against us.

 

[I Missthe North]

Yes as a matter of fact in circumstances like those guards were in I bet officers did not show up late at night to check on SHIT. If orders were given why is not one of them made the claim? Why weren't any other guards doing it? Why just that one small group of guards?

If they had been ordered there would be evidence. The Col got hammered because of the failure of the Command to police itself and provide proper leadership.

Except night exersizes at night you never found any officer doing much of anything and in the field the Division staff Major and above did not even COME to the exersizes. The single Officer on dury at Battalion or Division never left his office to check on shit.

At night officers go home , to bed or to party. They do not show up at a prison ward to check on the night shift.

I personally don't buy into the conspiracy theory that torture goes all the way to the Bush administration, but I do think there was a serious lack of monitoring on the part of the US military and there should be punishments handed out to people other then the privates who directly partook in the action. You mentioned the colonel got hammered? What exactly do you mean by that? Was he court marshaled or just chastised? I just think the military did a poor job of handling the situation and there we others that deserved to be blamed to the actions that took place.