President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

You give your two cents like it's a fact, but everyone else isn't allowed too.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like your opinion, man.

You attack the source but never the points in the story.

Is that so? Hmm. Funny, I'm still waiting for you to address the issue of Southern Democratic delegates walking out of the party en mass in 1948 when the party adopted civil rights as part of its platform. Where did those politicians go? The Green Party? Lyndon LaRouche? That was how many pages ago? Ten? Twelve? I'm pretty sure I addressed many of the points you raised. In fact, it was either Monker or me who had to point out that all of your Iraq WMDs "news" stories were referencing a dated CIA report. A fact that went unnoticed by you, because you don't bother to read past the sensational click-bait headline!

I simply do the same with you, and it pisses you off.

No, you post spam emails from frightened grandmas, press releases from scandal-ridden Christian pseudo-historians, or disreputable "news" sources like Inquistr. You've even admitted that your get your history and facts from Glenn Beck, who is about to lose his ass in a multi-million dollar defamation suit. Worse yet, you routinely post articles without any links at all.

Besides, you are a liar. Pure and simple. Not worth anyones time really. If nothing else, I've exposed that to everyone. Your a liar! Not worth the time.

In your lifetime, you've only exposed two things. 1) Your genitals to innocent bystanders on crowded streets and 2) just how empty the collective brain-pan of the Republican party is. If I was head of the RNC, I would send you a stipend check monthly to keep your fucking toothless meth mouth SHUT.

[Boomchild]

Networks fail to report reason for Holder resignation

http://www.examiner.com/article/network ... esignation

Wonder if Holder's computer is going to crash causing his emails to be "lost". Only to be recovered months later after there has been time to clean them up.

[Monker]

So I Just received some renewal information for my health insurance. The premium has gone up, the co-pays have gone up, the coinsurance has gone up and now there's coinsurance on things that didn't have it in the past. I thought the idea of the "Affordable Health Care Act" was to reduce costs for healthcare in addition to providing access to those that did not have it before. When the rubber meets the road all I am seeing is the same old story. This just reaffirms for me that Obamacare has done nothing more then force people to pay for those that aren't paying for coverage.

And, you were already paying for it by the Republican plan of "if you don't have insurance, go to the emergency room." Then they never pay, and the cost of providing health care goes up, which is passed on to everybody.

That's my point. Nothing has changed except moving the shells around to make you think there will be a better result. As far as who was or is going to emergency room for non urgent care, the last report from the Dept. of Health showed that the vast majority were those with Medicaid and not the uninsured. So whether they are going to the emergency room or a doctor's office, their still not paying for it. All that's changed is the subsidized pool has gotten larger.

Except the FACT that people can get health care. The FACT that they can choose preventative care before things progress and they have to go the emergency room The FACT that NONE of the doom and gloom predictions that Republicans have predicted have come true.

I doubt that you can prove your increases in your cost for insurance have anything to do with Obamacare. It seems to me that you are just guessing...and because of that, you are probably wrong.

[Monker]

I discredited his source. I don't have to address anything else.

Sure ya don't. I could make it easy for ya, and lob nothing but argumentative softablls (ex. the world is flat, bloodletting is a miracle cure, electricity is witchcraft) and STILL, your only rebuttal would be a roll-call of liberal boogeyman: "Alinsky!", "Ayers!", "Soros!" You are so fucking bad at debating, that when you try to break it to your children that Santa Claus doesn't exist, you end up walking away questioning your own beliefs and leaving a plate of warm cookies on the mantle just in case.

You are such a whiney baby. If you think you have made some goofy point, whatever. I guess you need SOMETHING to prop up your meager ego. You really haven't done shit...except prove you can act like a preteen boy.

[Boomchild]

Except the FACT that people can get health care. The FACT that they can choose preventative care before things progress and they have to go the emergency room The FACT that NONE of the doom and gloom predictions that Republicans have predicted have come true.

I doubt that you can prove your increases in your cost for insurance have anything to do with Obamacare. It seems to me that you are just guessing...and because of that, you are probably wrong.

As I pointed out above, according to the Department of Health those going to the emergency room for non urgent care had Medicaid coverage. Last I checked, Medicaid covers doctor office visits and preventive care. So according to the Department of Health is it not the non insured responsible for the bulk of non urgent visits to the ER. So just by giving people access to healthcare doesn't mean that they will be proactive or preventive when it comes to their health or that they will stop going to the ER for non urgent care. The fact that people can get healthcare coverage doesn't mean that they are paying for it. Obamacare has increased the number of people getting subsidized healthcare. As far as the doom and gloom, it's still too early to tell the full effect Obamacare will have. If I understand it correctly even the Congressional Budget Office and\or the IRS has stated that it's possible Obamacare is not sustainable. I am pointing out that we were told one of the benefits of Obamacare was lower costs of healthcare for everyone. Now it seems those in favor of Obamacare want to blame something else for that not occurring. If it is so easy to explain that the increase I am seeing is due to something else please provide the details.

[Monker]

Obamacare report card from the New York Post.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/28/on-its-one ... gets-an-f/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/opini ... .html?_r=0

[Monker]

As I pointed out above, according to the Department of Health those going to the emergency room for non urgent care had Medicaid coverage. Last I checked, Medicaid covers doctor office visits and preventive care. So according to the Department of Health is it not the non insured responsible for the bulk of non urgent visits to the ER.

Sorry, but the indisputable FACT is that more people have health insurance now then prior to Obamacare. As I said, the FACT is they can choose preventative care.

As far as the doom and gloom, it's still too early to tell the full effect Obamacare will have.

'
In one hand you hold arguments to prove Obamacare is failing. In the other you hold an argument that we don't know the full affects. Make up your mind which hand you are going to play your games with, please.
'

If it is so easy to explain that the increase I am seeing is due to something else please provide the details.

I do not know anything about your insurance. I am simply saying YOU don't know the specifics and are just guessing. Thank you for essentially admitting I am correct by trying to pass the burden of proving your argument to me.

[Monker]

Could be your as stupid as TNC, I always thought you were a LITTLE bit smarter. I've said it before, I post to the posters level. You don't see me posting like this to Boomchild, or others. you two don't like it when your treated like you treat others. Very typical of liberal socialist.

Oh, please...you post what your conservative religion tells you is the truth. When someone peels your self-imposed illusion away to show you the truth, you just whine like a baby. You probably STILL believe that dude from months ago is a "leading historian". Come down to our level? Why don't you move up to Boomchild's? At least he can speak to the topics he chooses.

[Monker]

Monker, If ACA is so GREAT, why did Obama hold up about 70% of it until AFTER THE ELECTION?

When you decide to face the current reality of the facts, instead of pointing to stuff that happened years ago, please let me know.

While I'm here, here is a little something about another Monker,TNC idol. By the way, your lib crap is horseshit, you just chose to believe. Most of the country coming around to YOUR brand of how it should be as a failure. I can't help it if you wish to remain blind and run to your Socialist sided websites. Your about to lose, and lose big. I can't wait!

Is your first language English? The above makes hardly any sense at all.

From what I can tell you are trying to make some point about Socialist websites (which I don't read) and the Democrats losing the coming mid-term elections? Then you post an unrelated link about Holder. You make no sense at all.

Have you not read my posts that say I don't care who controls congress - they don't do anything anyway.

And, I wouldn't be so confident. It seems to me that I remember some cocky people here expecting a Republican win in the last Presidential election...funny how it was the exact opposite happened, in a big way.

[Monker]

Oh, and Monker, as far as your New York Times link, Try to find a source that doesn't present fiction as fact.

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/ ... index.html

You are so predictable. I replied to your NY Post article with a NY Times article for a reason. You're hilarious.

[Boomchild]

Sorry, but the indisputable FACT is that more people have health insurance now then prior to Obamacare. As I said, the FACT is they can choose preventative care.

I didn't say more people didn't have healthcare then before. That doesn't mean they are paying for it. The Fact is through Obamacare more people are getting subsidized healthcare. Again, as the DOH showed, people that had access to preventive care through Medicaid but still chose to use the ER for non urgent care. When someone else is paying for your healthcare it easy not to care what the cost are.

In one hand you hold arguments to prove Obamacare is failing. In the other you hold an argument that we don't know the full affects. Make up your mind which hand you are going to play your games with, please.

That's right, I said it's to soon to see the FULL effects. I did not say that we can't see ANY of the effects. One of them was posted in this thread not long ago where a major insurer was pulling out in a state insurance exchange. That insurer offered the lower or lowest cost plan. Those that were enrolled in it will have to choose a higher cost plan from the one that are left.

I do not know anything about your insurance. I am simply saying YOU don't know the specifics and are just guessing. Thank you for essentially admitting I am correct by trying to pass the burden of proving your argument to me.

As you said you don't know anything about my insurance so your viewpoint holds no more weight then mine. Your just making the guess that it isn't the result of Obamacare. Since you can't provide specifics to an alternate reason you hardly correct in anything. Again, Obamacare was to reduce healthcare costs for everyone. If that's the case then why are many people including myself seeing increases in the costs of coverage? Maybe it's because the costs of all the new subsidized healthcare is being passed onto those that actually pay for their healthcare.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Just playing YOUR stupid game. It took ten seconds.

You've been posting garbage links since you first joined this thread. If anything, Monker has been playing YOUR game, matching every discredited link of yours with something from Wikipedia or a partisan op-ed. Of course, you are too dim to even realize when you are being mocked.

[Boomchild]

The Obama bus. It goes on,and on,and on, and on.

http://www.examiner.com/article/preside ... -over-isis

It's rule #1 in B.O.'s and his administrations operations manual. Blame someone or something else. Which they can and seem they will do till the end. Some see through it and others don't. I am sure this something that all politicians learn very early in their careers. I would not doubt that B.O. lends little credence to intelligence information and lends more to the talking heads in his administration.

[Monker]

TNC, always has it backwards. Like I care what an idiot thinks.

Polls for the day.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/weekend-u ... 11135.html

Seriously, you are much better off if you stop playing games. You are such an amateur...you are not even a challenge.

[Monker]

The Obama bus. It goes on,and on,and on, and on.

http://www.examiner.com/article/preside ... -over-isis

It's rule #1 in B.O.'s and his administrations operations manual. Blame someone or something else. Which they can and seem they will do till the end. Some see through it and others don't. I am sure this something that all politicians learn very early in their careers. I would not doubt that B.O. lends little credence to intelligence information and lends more to the talking heads in his administration.

Prove it. What intel existed prior to ISIS going on their rampage suggested they were a regional threat? What intel existed that said the Iraqi army were a bunch of pussies who would desert at the first sign of a real conflict? Show me some piece of evidence dated prior to ISIS conquering the middle east that actually proves your point...and I don't mean some stupid article dated in the last few weeks that you mindless zealots read to convince you your opinion is a fact.

I doubt anybody in this forum had even heard of ISIS prior to this latest fiasco.

IMO, Obama is simply stating the obvious. But, obviously even the obvious is somehow a lie and part of a grand conspiracy.

[slucero]

ISIS, ISIL and Khorasan are inventions of the US government (both Republican and Democrat led) to perpetuate the U.S. continued involvement in the Middle East...

As Americans grow wearier of war, the threat and the enemy continually has to be made to be more dangerous to justify continued intervention.

[Monker]

I didn't say more people didn't have healthcare then before.

Yes you did. You said "nothing has changed...". So, unless you think that more people having health insurance is not a change, you implied that more people do not have health insurance.

The Fact is through Obamacare more people are getting subsidized healthcare. Again, as the DOH showed, people that had access to preventive care through Medicaid but still chose to use the ER for non urgent care. When someone else is paying for your healthcare it easy not to care what the cost are.

You are debating an old argument.

That's right, I said it's to soon to see the FULL effects. I did not say that we can't see ANY of the effects. One of them was posted in this thread not long ago where a major insurer was pulling out in a state insurance exchange. That insurer offered the lower or lowest cost plan. Those that were enrolled in it will have to choose a higher cost plan from the one that are left.

Seems funny that conservatives are whining about competition driving the prices. The fact is that Republicans predicted that premiums would skyrocket out of control. Hasn't happened..the only thing this represents in an insurance company doesn't know how to do their business.

As you said you don't know anything about my insurance so your viewpoint holds no more weight then mine.

Yes it does because I am not making an assumption that I DO KNOW. You are. You have no clue. You are just guessing based on your political bias.

Your just making the guess that it isn't the result of Obamacare.

Yeah, so? You are the one making the claim in this thread that your insurance premium rose because of Obamacare. I said that you are just guessing - and I'm right. I accept your apology.

Since you can't provide specifics to an alternate reason you hardly correct in anything.

Dude, YOU are the one making the claim. YOU need to prove it.

Ok, your insurance may be scared of a zombie apocalypse and raised their premiums as a proactive measure for the coming surge in claims of both victims of zombie attacks and the zombies themselves seeing dermatologists.

That's my wild guess...and it has as much basis in reality as yours.

Again, Obamacare was to reduce healthcare costs for everyone.

And, as YOU said, we haven't seen the full affect. Give it time for the market to adjust.

If that's the case then why are many people including myself seeing increases in the costs of coverage? Maybe it's because the costs of all the new subsidized healthcare is being passed onto those that actually pay for their healthcare.

Or, maybe it's inflation. Or, maybe a premium hike was needed anyway...and it's less than what it would be without Obamacare. Or, maybe it's the Zombie thing. But, in the end, it's probably Steve Perry's fault.

If Perry would have just had that surgery sooner, he wouldn't have had so much rehab, all of our health insurance would then be cheaper, there would be more titanium so the cost of medical devices would be cheaper. And, all those nurses would have had to find other patients to flirt with so the cost of a hospital stay would be less. And...it's all Steve Perry's fault. I knew it.

[Boomchild]

Yes you did. You said "nothing has changed...". So, unless you think that more people having health insurance is not a change, you implied that more people do not have health insurance.

I need to clarify, when I said nothing has changed I was talking about how the rising costs haven't changed since the implementation of Obamacare.

You are debating an old argument.

You brought up that since more people are now insured and now can choose preventive care, they won't be going to the ER for non urgent care. Again, according to DOH it was not the uninsured that were responsible for that it was those with Medicaid. Medicaid is coverage right? They can get non urgent and preventive care at a doctors office correct?

Seems funny that conservatives are whining about competition driving the prices. The fact is that Republicans predicted that premiums would skyrocket out of control. Hasn't happened..the only thing this represents in an insurance company doesn't know how to do their business.

I see. So now it's totally impossible that due to the way Obamacare has restructured the healthcare market that it is losing proposition for insurance companies to offer coverage. Sorry no buying it.

Or, maybe it's inflation. Or, maybe a premium hike was needed anyway...and it's less than what it would be without Obamacare. Or, maybe it's the Zombie thing. But, in the end, it's probably Steve Perry's fault.

Obamacare is now "law of the land" and it's suppose to provide coverage for everyone and reduce the cost of healthcare for everyone at the same time. Except now we're supposed to believe that any short comings of the law is due to some other factor other then Obamacare. Well if these other factors can so easily derail the purpose of Obamacare then it doesn't say much for it. Except for enlarging the pool of those getting subsidized healthcare coverage.

[Boomchild]

Prove it. What intel existed prior to ISIS going on their rampage suggested they were a regional threat? What intel existed that said the Iraqi army were a bunch of pussies who would desert at the first sign of a real conflict? Show me some piece of evidence dated prior to ISIS conquering the middle east that actually proves your point...and I don't mean some stupid article dated in the last few weeks that you mindless zealots read to convince you your opinion is a fact.

I doubt anybody in this forum had even heard of ISIS prior to this latest fiasco.

IMO, Obama is simply stating the obvious. But, obviously even the obvious is somehow a lie and part of a grand conspiracy.

From the article in this post:

An unnamed “senior Pentagon official” is quoted as saying, ““Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s b---s------.” A number of intelligence officials are on record as warning about the rise of ISIS as early as January and February in testimony before the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Around the same time, Obama was sneering that ISIS was the Al Qaeda “junior varsity team.”

This is an indication that he was being warned about the possible impact of ISIS in region but he chose not to agree with the intelligence being supplied. So he chose to down play the threat. It wasn't those supplying the intelligence. Now B.O. wants to pretend that it was lack of intel. Sorry not buying it. But I am sure for some this is just an impossibility. Another example of blaming someone or something else is Benghazi. What was that again, not terrorism but a uprising over some YT video about Islam. We all know that was bogus.

[The_Noble_Cause]

At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, President Bush declared:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”


Say it with me slow Monker, "Bush was right" , "Bush was right" , "Bush was right".

Bush left office in 2009, not 2007, and by then, his administration had already signed SOFA, which set a timetable for withdrawal of troops. By your deranged Dr. Strangelove logic, if we sent more troops, maybe Saigon wouldn't have fallen to the Commies.

[Monker]

Prove it. What intel existed prior to ISIS going on their rampage suggested they were a regional threat? What intel existed that said the Iraqi army were a bunch of pussies who would desert at the first sign of a real conflict? Show me some piece of evidence dated prior to ISIS conquering the middle east that actually proves your point...and I don't mean some stupid article dated in the last few weeks that you mindless zealots read to convince you your opinion is a fact.

I doubt anybody in this forum had even heard of ISIS prior to this latest fiasco.

IMO, Obama is simply stating the obvious. But, obviously even the obvious is somehow a lie and part of a grand conspiracy.

From the article in this post:

An unnamed “senior Pentagon official” is quoted as saying, ““Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s b---s------.” A number of intelligence officials are on record as warning about the rise of ISIS as early as January and February in testimony before the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Around the same time, Obama was sneering that ISIS was the Al Qaeda “junior varsity team.”

This is an indication that he was being warned about the possible impact of ISIS in region but he chose not to agree with the intelligence being supplied. So he chose to down play the threat. It wasn't those supplying the intelligence. Now B.O. wants to pretend that it was lack of intel. Sorry not buying it. But I am sure for some this is just an impossibility. Another example of blaming someone or something else is Benghazi. What was that again, not terrorism but a uprising over some YT video about Islam. We all know that was bogus.

That is hearsay...and is not even what I asked for.

Again, quote me something from BEFORE this all came down. I absolutely do not believe you will find anything.

[Monker]

Here you go boomchild, although I'm sure they are all bad sources.

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/09/03 ... egy-video/

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/o ... n-4478391/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09 ... -for-year/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/politics/ ... index.html

There are MANY more.

Why are you people so stupid? I don't even have to read the articles because the dates are in the links. QUOTE SOMETHING DATED *BEFORE* THIS ALL STARTED. This is all hindsight. Where is all of this evidence from before ISIS started cutting off people's heads? According to all of these sources, there is a LOT of it...so where is it? In your imaginations? That's what it seems like to me. Some bullshitter says some imaginary evidence and you all just fall in line and believe it.

[Monker]

Prove it. What intel existed prior to ISIS going on their rampage suggested they were a regional threat? What intel existed that said the Iraqi army were a bunch of pussies who would desert at the first sign of a real conflict? Show me some piece of evidence dated prior to ISIS conquering the middle east that actually proves your point...and I don't mean some stupid article dated in the last few weeks that you mindless zealots read to convince you your opinion is a fact.

I doubt anybody in this forum had even heard of ISIS prior to this latest fiasco.

IMO, Obama is simply stating the obvious. But, obviously even the obvious is somehow a lie and part of a grand conspiracy.

At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, President Bush declared:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”


Say it with me slow Monker, "Bush was right" , "Bush was right" , "Bush was right".

Yes, W was right when he negotiated our withdrawal and Iraq insisted they did not want us there any longer.

But, even if W didn't set the timetable, why does the US have to be the Iraqi army? That is plain stupidity. I don't care if ISIS takes over Iraq and half of Syria. The arab world needs to put up THEIR resources to solve the issue, not the US.

You all bitch about the budget, but then want to spend trillions on wars we can not win. Hypocritical idiots is what you are.

[Boomchild]

Why are you people so stupid? I don't even have to read the articles because the dates are in the links. QUOTE SOMETHING DATED *BEFORE* THIS ALL STARTED. This is all hindsight. Where is all of this evidence from before ISIS started cutting off people's heads? According to all of these sources, there is a LOT of it...so where is it? In your imaginations? That's what it seems like to me. Some bullshitter says some imaginary evidence and you all just fall in line and believe it.

"President Barack Obama's intelligence briefings have provided him with specific information since before he won re-election in 2012 about the growing threat of the terror group now known alternatively as ISIS and ISIL, an administration insider told MailOnline on Monday."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sider.html

"President Barack Obama has missed more than half of his daily intelligence briefings since he came into power, a new report shows."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama- ... id/451438/

I think it's pretty clear B.O. was given information prior to their recent build up but chose to disagree with the intel. Add to that that he was not present at many intel briefings. Since he would get those briefings in written reports who knows how much he paid attention to them or if he paid any attention at all. The good news for him is no one can testify he was told in person by intel personnel.

[Boomchild]

You all bitch about the budget, but then want to spend trillions on wars we can not win. Hypocritical idiots is what you are.

Sorry but that theory doesn't fly. I have said that we cannot resolve the problems in the Middle East and I am against funding wars in that region and putting our soldiers at risk for a no win situation.

[JBlake]

Yes, W was right when he negotiated our withdrawal and Iraq insisted they did not want us there any longer.

But, even if W didn't set the timetable, why does the US have to be the Iraqi army? That is plain stupidity. I don't care if ISIS takes over Iraq and half of Syria. The arab world needs to put up THEIR resources to solve the issue, not the US.

You all bitch about the budget, but then want to spend trillions on wars we can not win. Hypocritical idiots is what you are.

It's all about build-up. You leave these fucks unchecked for too long they build up numbers, strength and ambition and then make their move. It comes down to two choices, deal with them now or deal with them later. Pick your choice. I personally want to deal with them now, cause leave them alone and they might just be powerful enough to successfully overrun the soil they despise.

[Boomchild]

So you found a new way to dismiss things so you don't have to address them. Yes the dates are Sept 2014. They also address the fact that Obama was indeed informed for the last year and dismissed it. Today our intel is fighting back and standing up to this liar. Good for them. Rush Limbaugh brought up a good point on his show last Wednesday. When Bush bombed Iraq, you saw photos of the damage, then hospitals full of injured women and children. Of course all you libs screaming "War Criminal". All you see with Obama is missles taking off, and what appears to be empty buildings being bombed. Obama must have precision aim, because NOT ONE CIVILIAN has been injured by him. Obama seems to be so great, he ONLY hits his target with no other damage. Of course Bush was not kind enough to give them a three week warning to get everything out before we bombed, so maybe those cities are empty? The Press is so in the Democratic Party's Ass it's sickening.

On CBS news this evening a reporter was interviewing a leader from one of the moderate rebel forces that the U.S. is supporting and expecting to handle the ground offensive on ISIS. In addition to asking him about how long he felt it would take for them to be ready to effectively take on ISIS, she mentioned B.O.'s latest claim of the failure of intel information on ISIS. His response to that was all he knows is that long before the recent activity by ISIS he was informing U.S. intel operatives that ISIS was a threat that needed to be addressed. That ISIS was gaining ground quickly at that time. ISIS was surpassing the number of fighters as well as arms compared to his rebel group. So I think it's pretty clear the same type of information is coming from multiple sources which does not support B.O.'s claim of lack of intel.

[steveo777]

I have a friend running for congress. He is running on repealing obamacare. He primaried his opponent. His name is Clint Didier and he's a local farmer. He is also a former Washington Redskin and superbowl champ. I like him! But Dan Newhouse has Monsanto money and the NRA backing him.

[Monker]

Yes, W was right when he negotiated our withdrawal and Iraq insisted they did not want us there any longer.

But, even if W didn't set the timetable, why does the US have to be the Iraqi army? That is plain stupidity. I don't care if ISIS takes over Iraq and half of Syria. The arab world needs to put up THEIR resources to solve the issue, not the US.

You all bitch about the budget, but then want to spend trillions on wars we can not win. Hypocritical idiots is what you are.

It's all about build-up. You leave these fucks unchecked for too long they build up numbers, strength and ambition and then make their move. It comes down to two choices, deal with them now or deal with them later. Pick your choice. I personally want to deal with them now, cause leave them alone and they might just be powerful enough to successfully overrun the soil they despise.

There is a third choice...not to deal with them at all - because it's NOT OUR PROBLEM. Funny that seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend.

[Boomchild]

Can you imagine the press on this if Bush was President?

http://prijom.com/posts/why-is-obama-ai ... n-iraq.php

It maybe that since at this point we are only doing air strikes on ISIS targets some don't feel we are "at war" and haven't protested like they did when Bush was in office. If this changes from air strikes to U.S. troops on the ground, the lack of rumblings may change. But it is quite possible that much won't be criticized because it's "their guy" doing it.