President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

Oh, like, wow. This is so shocking, and stuff. Perhaps they should investigate it again and subpoena Hillary to testify before congress on live prime-time TV. That will REALLY put her in her place and make the Republicans look good. They should keep doing that over, and over, and over again until election day - because the Republicans have nothing better to do. They can barely elect a Speaker or even agree how to debate each other...so at least this is "something".

Well monker, since you are an idiot iberal, I can see where this wouldn't bother you. Had this been Bush or Nixon, you would be screaming like a little bitch for impeachment. Nixon was almost impeached for far less, like Clinton was. Obama's video lie, and his lie about having no idea Clinton had her own server less then two weeks ago to the American public to cover his ass for the sake of winning elections is more then enough. Of course you, and the Media will give it a pass.[/quote]

Oh, I don't mind it at all...go for it. You are just making Republicans look ridiculous.

As for me, I never constantly jumped on W for being AWOL, or an alcoholic, or a member of "Skull and Bones", or avoiding Vietnam by entering the National Guard, or whatever. That is essentially what YOU are doing with Clinton. There is NOTHING to this Bengazi thing. Even REPUBLICANS know and admit it is now just a political maneuver.

You LOST on this issue.

But, whatever, go ahead...keep trying. All it does is HELP Clinton now.

Again, why don't you advocate cleaning up the mess that is the Republican party? Are you too embarrassed to even mention it? Why anybody would vote for that circus is a mystery to me. They have NOTHING to offer, except Clinton insults, insults again foreigners, insults against minorities, and insults against women. Good luck with that.

[Monker]

Polls out today. As per A.M. Radio.

AM Radio? Yeah, that's not biased at all.

Clinton/ Carson. Carson wins.
Clinton/Rubio. Rubio wins.
Clinton/Feorina. Tie.

These are from Quinnipiac....and if you follow it, they are almost as conservative biased as FOX.

If you look at the NBC poll, also released today, it shows:

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ Clinton 50, Trump 42 Clinton +8
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ Carson 47, Clinton 47 Tie
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ Clinton 47, Rubio 44 Clinton +3
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ Bush 43, Clinton 47 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ Sanders 50, Trump 41 Sanders +9
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ Rubio 41, Sanders 46 Sanders +5

So, whatever. The first poll of the election showing a Democrat losing. Of course conservative talk radio is going to ignore whatever else is out there and push their agenda.

Winner last night in Kentucky, Tea Party. Polls said Republicans didn't stand a chance. How did your beloved Sherriff in San Fran do? Canned! Voted out.
Rough night for liberals. Republicans dominated.

Meh, whatever. I don't care. I've said since the Obama reelection that Republicans know how to win local races but are clueless nationally. They are in the same rut the Democrats were in in the 80's.

[Monker]

I guess Monker missed this. I'll repost it.

Rory Cooper @rorycooper
Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy.
8:01 AM - 4 Nov 2015

Meh, whatever. I don't care. I've said since the Obama reelection that Republicans know how to win local races but are clueless nationally. They are in the same rut the Democrats were in in the 80's.

[Monker]

Yeah, just keep harping on the same crap that gets you nowhere. Again, you Republicans should look at the nuts you are about to nominate. And, Carson is proving himself to be completely nutty.

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 56, Trump 41 Clinton +15
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Carson 48, Clinton 50 Clinton +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 50, Rubio 45 Clinton +5
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 52, Bush 44 Clinton +8
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 53, Cruz 43 Clinton +10
General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 53, Fiorina 43 Clinton +10
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 53, Trump 41 Sanders +12
General Election: Carson vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Carson 47, Sanders 45 Carson +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Rubio 45, Sanders 48 Sanders +3
General Election: Bush vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 51, Bush 41 Sanders +10
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 51, Cruz 39 Sanders +12
General Election: Fiorina vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 53, Fiorina 39 Sanders +14

[Monker]

Just like the polls in Kentucky. Liberal media makes it look so bad republicans might as well stay home, right monker? Sanders won't be there. The DNC won't allow it. Lets see how your queen looks in March.

LOL...you are so out of touch with reality.

That is NOT a "media" poll...and I pulled it from RealClearPolitics.com, which is not a biased site and posts ALL polls. This is the latest national poll. I know, you prefer your invented reality. And, if Republicans stay home on election day, that's fine with me.

I really don't care about Sanders. If you read my posts, I don't think he can win the Presidency and I don't believe he'll be nominated. Sanders popularity peaked a while back. The first debate, the Benghazi hearing that backfired against Republicans, and the fact that Biden isn't running - all of that pushed Clinton further ahead and Sanders dropped slightly. In some polls he is 30pts behind nationally. Sanders simply can't get enough support to win the nomination...but he'll stay in to consolidate his power for the convention and future.

If you actually LOOK at the numbers, Clinton does better against the Republicans anyway! Maybe it's because people really are tired of hearing about her damn Emails and Benghazi, but idiots like you keep going back to it. Y'all really need to get something else because it is now HELPING Clinton every time you harp on it.

Then you get Trump, who I think is probably going to be the Republican nominee, who is the WORST candidate against Clinton. It's like Republicans WANT to lose so they vote to nominate someone who can't win....and Carson really isn't much better - worse in some ways.

The Republicans really are a party of self-destruction. It's humorous to watch.

[Monker]

"Realclearpolitics is not bias". Now that's funny. What do socialists do if Hillary isn't there?

http://americans.org/2015/08/24/federal ... l-scandal/

Here's a bit of advice. When you post such links in implied reply to a post discussing the results of the polls following the Bengazi hearing that you at least point to an article written AFTER THE HEARING.

Again, realclearpolitics.com isn't biased. It posts ALL POLLS. In fact, it posts ALL TYPES of articles. Again, you just reject reality and substitute your own.

[Monker]

"Realclearpolitics is not bias". Now that's funny. What do socialists do if Hillary isn't there?

http://americans.org/2015/08/24/federal ... l-scandal/

Here's a bit of advice. When you post such links in implied reply to a post discussing the results of the polls following the Bengazi hearing that you at least point to an article written AFTER THE HEARING.

Again, realclearpolitics.com isn't biased. It posts ALL POLLS. In fact, it posts ALL TYPES of articles. Again, you just reject reality and substitute your own.

Pot meet kettle.

What are you talking about? I am not the one commenting on recent happenings by posting articles that are MONTHS old. I am not the one who comes on here posting links to some of the most politically biased sites on the internet. I am not the one who in one post points to one poll to prove some argument without looking at what ALL polls are saying, and in another post calls polls "media biased" because they don't agree with me. YOU ARE THE ONE DOING ALL THE ABOVE.

And, the debate. Trump did well, Carson flopped, Ted Cruz can't count, the rest did OK but not good enough to improve their situation. In other words, IMO, Carson will lose points to Trump and the rest will hardly move at all.

[Boomchild]

Go FBI go. Drop the hammer around april.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... ign=buffer

Come on now. Do you really think she's going to be charged with anything??? She's to far up the food chain in our corrupt system of government.

[Monker]

Go FBI go. Drop the hammer around april.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... ign=buffer

Come on now. Do you really think she's going to be charged with anything??? She's to far up the food chain in our corrupt system of government.

She's too big to jail...

So was Nixon.

Regardless of how the election turns out, Obama should issue a pardon for Clinton for the entire time she was Secretary of State, and force all these ridiculous investigation to stop...and end this incredible waste of time and taxpayer money.

[Boomchild]

What Monker is saying is Hillary is guilty as hell and even though Nixon's career was ruined, along with all his history, over Watergate, where nobody died, Hillary should get a pass from Obama so democrats have something to put in the White House as our PRESIDENT. Typical lib. Maybe they can pardon some other felons to run also.

It seems to me that this situation stems from those in our government, including the POTUS choose to selectively enforce our laws. This has gone on for such a long time that some accept it as the norm. This is not the first administration nor the last to operate in this manner. This is just another point that proves to me that the party's over. It's just a short period of time before we implode. So no need to worry about terrorists from afar bringing us down. We have managed to do it all by ourselves.

[Monker]

Carson needs to have his own brain operated on. The pyramids were built to store grain? A person who believes that should not be running for President...and a party that has him as one of the top candidates should not exist.

The guy is an absolute moron.

:lol:

image.jpg

[Monker]

What Monker is saying is Hillary is guilty as hell and even though Nixon's career was ruined, along with all his history, over Watergate, where nobody died, Hillary should get a pass from Obama so democrats have something to put in the White House as our PRESIDENT. Typical lib. Maybe they can pardon some other felons to run also.

It seems to me that this situation stems from those in our government, including the POTUS choose to selectively enforce our laws. This has gone on for such a long time that some accept it as the norm. This is not the first administration nor the last to operate in this manner. This is just another point that proves to me that the party's over. It's just a short period of time before we implode. So no need to worry about terrorists from afar bringing us down. We have managed to do it all by ourselves.

No, it comes from politics. From Reagan onward, every President - Republican and Democrat - has had a special counsel investigate their administration. All it is being used for is to dig up bullshit to use in the election cycles to win votes. It doesn't matter what the truth is...what matters is what they can get the public to take seriously and help shape their opinion.

Even O'Reilly recognizes it. I was watching him talk to some pundit and this guy brought up that the FBI is expanding the investigation. O'Reilly asked who said it. He received a blank stare for an answer. Then he said is this another anonymous source. He acknowledged it and started to go on and O'Reilly stopped him and said his "Killing Reagan" book contained no anonymous sources, that he refused to go on some program to discuss some issue because it was all based on anonymous sources. Essentially he said if you can't put your name and reputation out there when you say this crap then you shouldn't be saying it at all...and it shouldn't be reported as "fact".

This shit that FF and KC are posting are essentially rumors and gossip. But, it is put out there as fact so people take it as such. Even TNC was caught up in it...wonder if he still is. Giving credit to this is taking "he said, she said" as fact when you don't even know the he or the she and can't see that it's gossip.

If you watched ANY significant amount of the Benghazi hearing, you could see for yourself that it was all political. You could see that Clinton was getting questions that she had already been asked in the past and was simply repeating what she already testified to months ago. You could then see the Republicans getting all pissy and demanding she give the answer phrased how they wanted instead of how she wanted. You could see they were BS'ing and wasting time and saved certain questions for prime time hours thinking they would get the best of her on live TV.

The entire Benghazi/Email thing is politics. To believe it is anything more is to buy into the Republican political agenda - not the facts and reality of the situation. We have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars and spent far too much time on this. THAT is why I think Obama should issue a pardon when he leaves office - to end this huge waste of time and money.

[Monker]

So then monker, tell your bullshit story to the FBI. Let them know that monker said they are wasting their time. I'm sure that will go along way. What a joke!

Oh, I'm sure they already know since the NSA already tracks and stores all electronic communication and has for over 50yrs. So, all of these posts and any Emails I have sent are on some NSA server somewhere so if the FBI wants to read everything I have ever said to anybody, all they have to do is ask the NSA. I'm sure the FBI already knows this...hint, hint.

You are a naïve dumbass. A few days ago I saw some reporter talking about this "expanded FBI investigation" on CNN. One thing that was said is that other "unnamed sources" were saying the FBI was asking for additional information but it had nothing to do with Clinton or Benghazi so it is irrelevant to the Benghazi investigation.

So, WHATEVER. The bottom line is you are believing a bunch of rumors and gossip and political bullshit. Nothing is going to come of it. If there was anything to find, it would have been found a VERY LONG TIME AGO.

But, to stop spending money on MORE investigations, or impeachment proceedings, or whatever else Republicans can pull out of their ass, Obama should just pardon her. And, when he does he should explicitly say how fucking retarded this process has become and "special prosecutors" and congressional investigating committees are now nothing more than a political tool that are not interested in justice or truth, but politics and getting their party elected.

[Monker]

LOL...now that is funny:

http://raygunsite.com/collections/mens- ... ts/red-cup

[Boomchild]

Obama: ISIS not growing, but not 'decapitated'

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama said that the U.S. strategy against ISIS has "contained them," but not yet succeeded in its effort to "decapitate" ISIS leadership.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/politics/ ... -abc-news/

The Latest: Top officials heading to Paris concert hall

A French police official says top government officials including President Francois Hollande were headed to the Bataclan concert hall where hostages were taken.

Another official said at least 100 people died inside the hall. A police assault on the venue finished early Saturday, leaving at least two attackers dead, officials said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingn ... li=AAa0dzB

Something tells me Barry doesn't have the right facts concerning ISIS. Oops.

[Monker]

Obama: ISIS not growing, but not 'decapitated'

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama said that the U.S. strategy against ISIS has "contained them," but not yet succeeded in its effort to "decapitate" ISIS leadership.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/politics/ ... -abc-news/

The Latest: Top officials heading to Paris concert hall

A French police official says top government officials including President Francois Hollande were headed to the Bataclan concert hall where hostages were taken.

Another official said at least 100 people died inside the hall. A police assault on the venue finished early Saturday, leaving at least two attackers dead, officials said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingn ... li=AAa0dzB

Something tells me Barry doesn't have the right facts concerning ISIS. Oops.

Well, since he is talking about the ISIS "war" and this article is talking about a random terrorist attack that may or may not be ISIS, I would say that you are the one who doesn't have the right facts.

[Boomchild]

Obama: ISIS not growing, but not 'decapitated'

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama said that the U.S. strategy against ISIS has "contained them," but not yet succeeded in its effort to "decapitate" ISIS leadership.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/politics/ ... -abc-news/

The Latest: Top officials heading to Paris concert hall

A French police official says top government officials including President Francois Hollande were headed to the Bataclan concert hall where hostages were taken.

Another official said at least 100 people died inside the hall. A police assault on the venue finished early Saturday, leaving at least two attackers dead, officials said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingn ... li=AAa0dzB

Something tells me Barry doesn't have the right facts concerning ISIS. Oops.

Well, since he is talking about the ISIS "war" and this article is talking about a random terrorist attack that may or may not be ISIS, I would say that you are the one who doesn't have the right facts.

Random LOL

[Boomchild]

Well since he is talking about the ISIS "war" and this article is talking about a random terrorist attack that may or may not be ISIS, I would say that you are the one who doesn't have the right facts.

I see "war" doesn't include terrorist acts on foreign soil. Random act LOL

ISIS 'claims responsibility' for Paris attacks after hundreds killed across French city

THE Islamic State terror group has reportedly claimed responsibility for the co-ordinated shootings and bombings across Paris.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619 ... is-attacks

[Monker]

Huff Post story no less.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mog ... lp00000592

It's not a "Huff Post story". It's a blogger, dumbass. And, the person who wrote it an idiot.

[Monker]

Well since he is talking about the ISIS "war" and this article is talking about a random terrorist attack that may or may not be ISIS, I would say that you are the one who doesn't have the right facts.

I see "war" doesn't include terrorist acts on foreign soil. Random act LOL

ISIS 'claims responsibility' for Paris attacks after hundreds killed across French city

THE Islamic State terror group has reportedly claimed responsibility for the co-ordinated shootings and bombings across Paris.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619 ... is-attacks

You know EXACTLY what I am saying. Obama was commenting on the war in Iraq against ISIS. He did NOT say they had "contained" terrorism. It's not so hard to know the difference. Don't limit your brain power the way KC does.

When I wrote that post, the only connection to ISIS was a rumor that people at the concert said the terrorists mentioned ISIS. There was no official word that ISIS had claimed responsibility. I haven't read much today so maybe they did by now, but the DID NOT when you wrote your original post, or when I wrote my post. You were ASSUMING they were responsible based on rumors.

Also, YOU are the one who argues that we shouldn't be over there anyway. So, have you changed your mind and now believe that we should be there? IMO, this incident proves that go over there and attacking them does NOT make us safer. Any idiot with a death-wish can strap a bomb to themself, claim to be from ISIS, and blow something up.

[RPM]

I find it shocking that people are shocked by this attack. The President of France says they will fight and be "Ruthless"
To which I reply "What have you been waiting for?" Did you think they were Joking? Obama Famously called them the J.V. team.
Tony Blair recently Said Bush and Himself have to bare some responsibility for the uprising of isis. Sad but true. Not only were
they given incorrect information, but it seems parts of this world are better off with ruthless dictators than without.
Diane Feinstein who I disagree with on everything, got it right when she said "we will fight them now, or fight them later"
Can Obama show some balls and lead NATO along with Russia to destroy isis ?

[Boomchild]

Also, YOU are the one who argues that we shouldn't be over there anyway. So, have you changed your mind and now believe that we should be there? IMO, this incident proves that go over there and attacking them does NOT make us safer. Any idiot with a death-wish can strap a bomb to themself, claim to be from ISIS, and blow something up.

B.O. is trying to give a false sense of containing ISIS' activities. He merely wants to present a picture that somehow we have it under control and are about to "decapitate" as he would put it, the group. Because their type of warfare is not conventional and they strike in a random manner, I doubt that this administration nor our military has a clue as to the strength and status of ISIS as a whole. Also, no I haven't changed my mind on whether we should or shouldn't be involved in these conflicts in the Middle East. Just because I comment or question statements made about it doesn't change my opinion. I still assert that we should divest ourselves from it and after that if they continue to provoke or attack the U.S. then give them both barrels. Dispense with the PC military approach and bomb the affected regions into the stone age.

[Boomchild]

I find it shocking that people are shocked by this attack. The President of France says they will fight and be "Ruthless"
To which I reply "What have you been waiting for?" Did you think they were Joking? Obama Famously called them the J.V. team.
Tony Blair recently Said Bush and Himself have to bare some responsibility for the uprising of isis. Sad but true. Not only were
they given incorrect information, but it seems parts of this world are better off with ruthless dictators than without.
Diane Feinstein who I disagree with on everything, got it right when she said "we will fight them now, or fight them later"
Can Obama show some balls and lead NATO along with Russia to destroy isis ?

None of the allies including the U.S. have the stomach to be "ruthless". Because they are worried about being politically correct in their military operations. They can't face the collateral damage that occurs to get the job done.

[RPM]

I find it shocking that people are shocked by this attack. The President of France says they will fight and be "Ruthless"
To which I reply "What have you been waiting for?" Did you think they were Joking? Obama Famously called them the J.V. team.
Tony Blair recently Said Bush and Himself have to bare some responsibility for the uprising of isis. Sad but true. Not only were
they given incorrect information, but it seems parts of this world are better off with ruthless dictators than without.
Diane Feinstein who I disagree with on everything, got it right when she said "we will fight them now, or fight them later"
Can Obama show some balls and lead NATO along with Russia to destroy isis ?

None of the allies including the U.S. have the stomach to be "ruthless". Because they are worried about being politically correct in their military operations. They can't face the collateral damage that occurs to get the job done.

I agree. maybe it will take another Ruthless dictator (Putin) to get the Job done. These people seem to have no care who they piss off. Moniker says anyone can strap on a bomb which is true, but these idiots are recruiting and encouraging lone wolf
attacks and need to be eliminated.

[Monker]

B.O. is trying to give a false sense of containing ISIS' activities. He merely wants to present a picture that somehow we have it under control and are about to "decapitate" as he would put it, the group.

That is simply NOT TRUE. You are taking his words out of context and applying meaning that was not intended.

Because their type of warfare is not conventional and they strike in a random manner, I doubt that this administration nor our military has a clue as to the strength and status of ISIS as a whole.

I think they all know a hell of a lot than you can ever imagine...and that is they way they want it.

[Monker]

I find it shocking that people are shocked by this attack. The President of France says they will fight and be "Ruthless"
To which I reply "What have you been waiting for?" Did you think they were Joking? Obama Famously called them the J.V. team.
Tony Blair recently Said Bush and Himself have to bare some responsibility for the uprising of isis. Sad but true. Not only were
they given incorrect information, but it seems parts of this world are better off with ruthless dictators than without.
Diane Feinstein who I disagree with on everything, got it right when she said "we will fight them now, or fight them later"
Can Obama show some balls and lead NATO along with Russia to destroy isis ?

None of the allies including the U.S. have the stomach to be "ruthless". Because they are worried about being politically correct in their military operations. They can't face the collateral damage that occurs to get the job done.

They should not have to. The Islamic nations should do this with our backing.

[Monker]

I find it shocking that people are shocked by this attack. The President of France says they will fight and be "Ruthless"
To which I reply "What have you been waiting for?" Did you think they were Joking? Obama Famously called them the J.V. team.
Tony Blair recently Said Bush and Himself have to bare some responsibility for the uprising of isis. Sad but true. Not only were
they given incorrect information, but it seems parts of this world are better off with ruthless dictators than without.
Diane Feinstein who I disagree with on everything, got it right when she said "we will fight them now, or fight them later"
Can Obama show some balls and lead NATO along with Russia to destroy isis ?

None of the allies including the U.S. have the stomach to be "ruthless". Because they are worried about being politically correct in their military operations. They can't face the collateral damage that occurs to get the job done.

I agree. maybe it will take another Ruthless dictator (Putin) to get the Job done. These people seem to have no care who they piss off. Moniker says anyone can strap on a bomb which is true, but these idiots are recruiting and encouraging lone wolf
attacks and need to be eliminated.

My point is: Just a few years ago you would be making this EXACT SAME STATEMENT about Al Qeada. Now they have moved mostly out of the picture and ISIS has taken their place. If the US and/or Putin blow up ISIS, something else will take its place. Blowing up the organized idiots does not stop the idiots from reorganizing under a different leadership and name. Nothing will change until the region itself changes and pushes these radical ideas out of the norm.

But, even that does not stop the disconnected and disturbed Islamic radicals from blowing themselves up outside of the middle east.

[Monker]

They should not have to. The Islamic nations should do this with our backing.

So, what do you want? You want the US to be in a continuous state of war in the middle east. You want to spend trillions of dollars in the region with no end in sight.

We tried that with W and it most retarded foreign policy this nation has ever seen. No wonder you support it.

The region must take care of its own issues.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Sanders and O'Malley ran a train on Hillary's lying ass tonight. And then she pulled a Gulliani and said she takes unlimited $$$ from Wall St. because of 9-11. What a shameless dyke.

[Monker]

Sanders and O'Malley ran a train on Hillary's lying ass tonight. And then she pulled a Gulliani and said she takes unlimited $$$ from Wall St. because of 9-11. What a shameless dyke.

Good luck with that.

I think O'Malley did the best. Sanders did mediocre at best. He fumbled a couple question and sometimes just seemed to ramble. He's not as bad as Carson though. Clinton did OK but not as well as O'Malley.

Overall, I think O'Malley may rise a bit in the polls after this...probably pulling support from both Clinton and Sanders, but mostly Sanders.
------------------------------

Also, the questions were great. Much better then any of the Republican debates I've seen.