Wow, the Left really turning on Obama

[Bfgrn]

I suppose Bush is responsible for Barry's inept leadership when it comes to fighting ISIS? The "reset" with Russia?

I suppose Bush is responsible for the Fast & Furious scandal? The Benghazi debacle? The IRS abuses? The wiretaps on American journalists? The total lack of transparency of the Obama White House?

Who KNEW that the man you liberals derided for all those years as the "village idiot" was actually a political MASTERMIND who somehow manages to control the US government from his ranch in Crawford, Texas!

Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country? Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

So what should Obama have done? If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

Q: Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

A: Who else would he be referring to?

Q: Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country?

A: No Bush did. Obama invited a far greater threat into that country by refusing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement; he had a chance to stem the tide.

Statement: Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

Response: Saddam committed genocide. I grant you he would have seen them as a benefit, not a liability.

Q: So what should Obama have done?

A: His job.

Q: If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon(s) ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

A: He has already armed Syrian rebels, and yes, our weapons are in the hands of ISIS. Anything else you wish to know? What you call 'whining' is a legitimate concern.

Q: Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

A: Yes he is. His administration has played a direct role in just about all of them. Now there are revelations that Valerie Jarrett was involved in the IRS scandal. So, who are we to blame? Republicans? The only reason 'faux news' reports it is because the excuses for news you watch on CNN or MSNBC don't even touch the issue.

Do you live under a rock? This one is ALL Bush...

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.


Army Sgt. John Bruhns

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them."

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

If the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

 

[Statistikhengst]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Really? What Democrat just used that quote?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

You have to understand. Mac wants to say that Obama is getting this cult following he has imagined......because he is black.

But Mac is worried that someone will intimidate him or issue "consequences" if he says what he really wants to say. He is a victim of the PC police on this anonymous message board.

It's hard being Mac.

Earmuffs!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I suppose Bush is responsible for Barry's inept leadership when it comes to fighting ISIS? The "reset" with Russia?

I suppose Bush is responsible for the Fast & Furious scandal? The Benghazi debacle? The IRS abuses? The wiretaps on American journalists? The total lack of transparency of the Obama White House?

Who KNEW that the man you liberals derided for all those years as the "village idiot" was actually a political MASTERMIND who somehow manages to control the US government from his ranch in Crawford, Texas!

Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country? Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

So what should Obama have done? If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

Q: Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

A: Who else would he be referring to?

Q: Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country?

A: No Bush did. Obama invited a far greater threat into that country by refusing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement; he had a chance to stem the tide.

Statement: Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

Response: Saddam committed genocide. I grant you he would have seen them as a benefit, not a liability.

Q: So what should Obama have done?

A: His job.

Q: If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon(s) ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

A: He has already armed Syrian rebels, and yes, our weapons are in the hands of ISIS. Anything else you wish to know? What you call 'whining' is a legitimate concern.

Q: Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

A: Yes he is. His administration has played a direct role in just about all of them. Now there are revelations that Valerie Jarrett was involved in the IRS scandal. So, who are we to blame? Republicans? The only reason 'faux news' reports it is because the excuses for news you watch on CNN or MSNBC don't even touch the issue.

Do you live under a rock? This one is ALL Bush...

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.


Army Sgt. John Bruhns

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them."

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

If the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

All that typing and for nothing:

"Mr. Obama sought to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed United States troops to stay in Iraq after 2011. Initially, the Obama administration was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, the Obama administration lowered the figure to about 5,000 troops - some 3,500 of which would be continuously based in the country while the remainder would periodically be rotated through. The role of the American forces would be to train Iraqi troops, patrol Iraq's skies and help Iraqi commandos fight Al Qaeda." (Michael Gordon and Scott Shane, "Fact Check: A Status Of Forces Agreement?" The New York Times, 10/22/12)

He had actually succeeded in negotiating the agreement, then he pulled defeat from the ashes of victory.

"Obama was suggesting that he had never favored keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the December 2011 withdrawal deadline that the Bush administration had negotiated with the Iraqi government. Actually, the Obama administration tried for many months to win Iraqi agreement to keeping several thousand American troops there beyond 2011 to continue training and advising the Iraqi armed forces. The talks broke down over a disagreement on legal immunity for U.S. troops." (Calvin Woodward, "FACT CHECK: Missteps In Final Presidential Debate," The Associated Press , 10/22/12)

So, you can spin this all you like, but facts are facts.

 

[Mac1958]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I suppose Bush is responsible for Barry's inept leadership when it comes to fighting ISIS? The "reset" with Russia?

I suppose Bush is responsible for the Fast & Furious scandal? The Benghazi debacle? The IRS abuses? The wiretaps on American journalists? The total lack of transparency of the Obama White House?

Who KNEW that the man you liberals derided for all those years as the "village idiot" was actually a political MASTERMIND who somehow manages to control the US government from his ranch in Crawford, Texas!

Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country? Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

So what should Obama have done? If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

Q: Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

A: Who else would he be referring to?

Q: Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country?

A: No Bush did. Obama invited a far greater threat into that country by refusing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement; he had a chance to stem the tide.

Statement: Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

Response: Saddam committed genocide. I grant you he would have seen them as a benefit, not a liability.

Q: So what should Obama have done?

A: His job.

Q: If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon(s) ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

A: He has already armed Syrian rebels, and yes, our weapons are in the hands of ISIS. Anything else you wish to know? What you call 'whining' is a legitimate concern.

Q: Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

A: Yes he is. His administration has played a direct role in just about all of them. Now there are revelations that Valerie Jarrett was involved in the IRS scandal. So, who are we to blame? Republicans? The only reason 'faux news' reports it is because the excuses for news you watch on CNN or MSNBC don't even touch the issue.

Do you live under a rock? This one is ALL Bush...

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.


Army Sgt. John Bruhns

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them."

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

If the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

All that typing and for nothing:

"Mr. Obama sought to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed United States troops to stay in Iraq after 2011. Initially, the Obama administration was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, the Obama administration lowered the figure to about 5,000 troops - some 3,500 of which would be continuously based in the country while the remainder would periodically be rotated through. The role of the American forces would be to train Iraqi troops, patrol Iraq's skies and help Iraqi commandos fight Al Qaeda." (Michael Gordon and Scott Shane, "Fact Check: A Status Of Forces Agreement?" The New York Times, 10/22/12)

He had actually succeeded in negotiating the agreement, then he pulled defeat from the ashes of victory.

Your link does not substantiate your allegation.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I suppose Bush is responsible for Barry's inept leadership when it comes to fighting ISIS? The "reset" with Russia?

I suppose Bush is responsible for the Fast & Furious scandal? The Benghazi debacle? The IRS abuses? The wiretaps on American journalists? The total lack of transparency of the Obama White House?

Who KNEW that the man you liberals derided for all those years as the "village idiot" was actually a political MASTERMIND who somehow manages to control the US government from his ranch in Crawford, Texas!

Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country? Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

So what should Obama have done? If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

Q: Who is 'Barry"? Do you mean the President of the United States?

A: Who else would he be referring to?

Q: Did Obama remove the government in Iraq that kept terrorists OUT of that country?

A: No Bush did. Obama invited a far greater threat into that country by refusing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement; he had a chance to stem the tide.

Statement: Saddam was no angel, but he had no use for al Qaeda or terrorist cells in his country.

Response: Saddam committed genocide. I grant you he would have seen them as a benefit, not a liability.

Q: So what should Obama have done?

A: His job.

Q: If he had armed the Syrian rebels, and those weapon(s) ended up in the hands of ISIS, WHAT would you be whining about today old man?

A: He has already armed Syrian rebels, and yes, our weapons are in the hands of ISIS. Anything else you wish to know? What you call 'whining' is a legitimate concern.

Q: Is Obama responsible for a bunch of phony scandals, debacles and abuses trumped up by 24/7 faux news propaganda?

A: Yes he is. His administration has played a direct role in just about all of them. Now there are revelations that Valerie Jarrett was involved in the IRS scandal. So, who are we to blame? Republicans? The only reason 'faux news' reports it is because the excuses for news you watch on CNN or MSNBC don't even touch the issue.

Do you live under a rock? This one is ALL Bush...

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.


Army Sgt. John Bruhns

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them."

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

If the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

All that typing and for nothing:

"Mr. Obama sought to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed United States troops to stay in Iraq after 2011. Initially, the Obama administration was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, the Obama administration lowered the figure to about 5,000 troops - some 3,500 of which would be continuously based in the country while the remainder would periodically be rotated through. The role of the American forces would be to train Iraqi troops, patrol Iraq's skies and help Iraqi commandos fight Al Qaeda." (Michael Gordon and Scott Shane, "Fact Check: A Status Of Forces Agreement?" The New York Times, 10/22/12)

He had actually succeeded in negotiating the agreement, then he pulled defeat from the ashes of victory.

Your link does not substantiate your allegation.

Oh, details, details.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[TemplarKormac]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

If you thought that was bad, you should have heard Gweneth Paltrow gushing over Obama.

 

[Mac1958]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

If you thought that was bad, you should have heard Gweneth Paltrow gushing over Obama.

Yeah, I kind of assumed we were past that.



.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

If you thought that was bad, you should have heard Gweneth Paltrow gushing over Obama.

Oh, the horror of it all.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

Obama had the potential for becoming a great leader. The reality turned out to be different. Partly it was the obstruction on the right and partly it was Obama's failure to rise to meet that challenge. He never used his office to inspire the people to push for his agenda. Had he done so I am reasonably certain he could have got a whole more accomplished than he did.

Either way he just doesn't have the same "cult" following as Reagan does in my opinion.

PS there have been any number of attempts on the right to place Obama on a pedestal just so that they can subsequently tear him down. I have never seen anyone on the left call Obama "the Messiah" or "god-like" so I dismiss that as just partisan rabble rousing.

 

[Mac1958]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

Obama had the potential for becoming a great leader. The reality turned out to be different. Partly it was the obstruction on the right and partly it was Obama's failure to rise to meet that challenge. He never used his office to inspire the people to push for his agenda. Had he done so I am reasonably certain he could have got a whole more accomplished than he did.

Either way he just doesn't have the same "cult" following as Reagan does in my opinion.

PS there have been any number of attempts on the right to place Obama on a pedestal just so that they can subsequently tear him down. I have never seen anyone on the left call Obama "the Messiah" or "god-like" so I dismiss that as just partisan rabble rousing.

It was Evan Thomas, Editor of Newsweek, who said "in a way, Obama is standing above the country, above the world, he's sort of God".

Editor of Newsweek.

Reagan's contemporary following is very intense, indeed. But from an independent perspective, it's apples and oranges, and the love Obama had from his followers was more profound, and remains so to this day. And in the clip, Thomas says pretty much what I said above, that Reagan was about America, Obama is above that.

Source:



.

 

[ChrisL]

rich republicans tend to be rich despite the government
rich democrats tend to be rich because of the government

I don't really trust either of them. Both scummy, IMO.

It all depends what you classify as scummy.

Is helping people 'scummy'?

or

Is throwing people in the river to sink or swim 'scummy'?

Are they both the SAME Chris?

I don't think either party cares about us, TBH.

OK, I understand...

Helping people and throwing them in the river to sink or swim IS the same.


Kroft: Do you feel the government has any obligation to the poor or the elderly or the unemployed?

Norquist: Yeah. It should stop stepping on them, kicking them and making their lives more difficult.

I really don't think democrats "help people" anymore than the republicans. Lol. This is typical of you partisans though. Your party loyalty never ceases to boggle my mind. How can anyone agree with either party on ALL or even MOST issues, I don't know.

 

[ChrisL]

What are you democrats going to do when you run out of other people's money anyway? There must be a limit to your greed. With the economy hurting, people taking pay cuts, where do you think all of this money is going to come from? And just where does this taxation stop? How much MORE of a percentage of my income do you want to take?

 

[TemplarKormac]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

If you thought that was bad, you should have heard Gweneth Paltrow gushing over Obama.

Yeah, I kind of assumed we were past that.



.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

Obama had the potential for becoming a great leader. The reality turned out to be different. Partly it was the obstruction on the right and partly it was Obama's failure to rise to meet that challenge. He never used his office to inspire the people to push for his agenda. Had he done so I am reasonably certain he could have got a whole more accomplished than he did.

Either way he just doesn't have the same "cult" following as Reagan does in my opinion.

PS there have been any number of attempts on the right to place Obama on a pedestal just so that they can subsequently tear him down. I have never seen anyone on the left call Obama "the Messiah" or "god-like" so I dismiss that as just partisan rabble rousing.

Good summary.

Obama was ( and still is ) wildly popular internationally. He is, rightfully, seen as a pragmatic leader by those outside of our ridiculous entertainment news media's reach.

He isn't worshipped by those who voted for him. He is admired. Huge difference.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

If you thought that was bad, you should have heard Gweneth Paltrow gushing over Obama.

Yeah, I kind of assumed we were past that.



.

Isn't that sweet! TK thinks he's got a friend.

 

[ChrisL]

This quote is what Democrats are now feeling regarding Obama.

"Nothing turns to hate so bitter as what once was love."

-Laurell K. Hamilton

Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see the post-mortems on this presidency once the dust has settled. I have no doubt that Obama knew that hopes and dreams and expectations could not be met fully. Or, who knows, maybe he thought it was possible that Democrats could take over Congress, too, and that would have made a big difference. It'll be a fascinating story one day, the first true Cult of Personality presidency.

.

the first true Cult of Personality presidency

JFK?

Reagan?

If anything there is way more of a cult like following for Reagan than there is for Obama.

Granted it will take until the "dust settles" to see if a similar "Reagan reverence" develops on the left for Obama in the coming decades but I don't see the signs of that anywhere.

Yeah, I thought about Kennedy and Reagan. Well, more Reagan. But this was more than about a man and his policies, this was taken to a whole new level. Even a member of the media (I forget his name) calling Obama "god-like". The list goes on and on.

Put another way, Reagan inspired an increased love of America, Obama inspired an intense love of Obama.

Reagan's flaws became more clear with time. I'm less interested in Obama's flaws than I am about the atmosphere around him during those first couple of years, what he and his people thought of the intense global adulation, and how it affected his decision-making.

.

Obama had the potential for becoming a great leader. The reality turned out to be different. Partly it was the obstruction on the right and partly it was Obama's failure to rise to meet that challenge. He never used his office to inspire the people to push for his agenda. Had he done so I am reasonably certain he could have got a whole more accomplished than he did.

Either way he just doesn't have the same "cult" following as Reagan does in my opinion.

PS there have been any number of attempts on the right to place Obama on a pedestal just so that they can subsequently tear him down. I have never seen anyone on the left call Obama "the Messiah" or "god-like" so I dismiss that as just partisan rabble rousing.

Good summary.

Obama was ( and still is ) wildly popular internationally. He is, rightfully, seen as a pragmatic leader by those outside of our ridiculous entertainment news media's reach.

He isn't worshipped by those who voted for him. He is admired. Huge difference.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What are you democrats going to do when you run out of other people's money anyway? There must be a limit to your greed. With the economy hurting, people taking pay cuts, where do you think all of this money is going to come from? And just where does this taxation stop? How much MORE of a percentage of my income do you want to take?

Are you lost? What thread are you responding to?

Your income taxes aren't higher now than they were in 2009. Are they?