President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

If we had another Roosevelt, it should be a Teddy Roosevelt. Someone who will simply say it like it is without all of this bullshit.

Teddy was a progressive nationalist and most certainly would NOT be in favor of taking in more refugees.

[ohsherrie]

Monker, I agree with a lot of what you said in both posts. I just don't want to take the time to pick out the comments. I also disagree with some that I might have agreed with a few years ago. I think desperate times are upon us and they call for measures that we would have been appalled by before we blew the top off the cauldron that is the Middle East.

Boomchild, some of your comments are too extreme. Extremism is one of our problems.

[Boomchild]

That is ridiculous paranoia and repeating propaganda.

A strong nation is willing to admit it's mistakes. An Orwellian nation is one that tries to remove things like slavery and the constant racism that followed from it's history. An Orwellian nation tries remove the fact of how we took this land from the native people. An Orwellian nation tries to remove the fact that we had Japanese internment camps. A strong nation is able to admit the acts of Abu Grab and rise above that immorality. A strong nation is willing to admit that Gitmo is holding prisoners without trial for years, or even a decade, violating our own sense of law and justice and making us hypocrites.

This is exactly the crap that is being spewed day in and day out by the politicians and the media. That this nation was built upon theft. Bullshit. The natives you speak of were killing each other over the land you speak of long before the first settlers stepped foot on the soil. No one is trying to erase the fact that slavery is part of our history. We also recognize that we addressed it centuries ago and a thing called "civil war" was fought and those in slavery were set free. On the subject of slavery, lets not forget that a black man who was given his freedom had his own plantation with over 60 slaves. He also practiced slave breeding. Something that even the most hardened white slave owners believed was wrong. Sorry but the guilt trip garbage and now I have to somehow give reparations for it doesn't work on me. Spend your time with a more willing subject.

[Boomchild]

Boomchild, some of your comments are too extreme. Extremism is one of our problems.

And which ones are you referring to?

[No Surprize]

TRUMP!

[ohsherrie]

Boomchild, some of your comments are too extreme. Extremism is one of our problems.

And which ones are you referring to?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Who are you saying is intentionally setting citizens against each other?

I believe some fundamental changes are needed in our political system, but this country is going to have to come together to do it.

[Boomchild]

Moniker just suffers with "White Privlidge Syndrome". It generally is caught in institutions of "higher learning". Some people actually pay thousands and thousands of dollars to catch it. Only known cure is relocation to Ferguson, Mo.

Your right about that. That point slipped past me in my response.

[Boomchild]

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Who are you saying is intentionally setting citizens against each other?

I believe some fundamental changes are needed in our political system, but this country is going to have to come together to do it.

It is coming from many sources. The most powerful is our current POTUS and those in his administration. He's the one that stated his mission was to "fundamentally transform America". In order to do that, you have destroy that current one. He is the one driving the polarization. With concepts like our problems stem from "the rich" stealing from everyone else in the U.S.. That racism against black Americans hasn't changed from how it was in our past. That entrepreneurs "didn't build that". So the proceeds from their work and effort is ill gotten gains. B.O. is more like a con man then a politician. Take for example his idea for the federal government to pay for college students tuition. All the while he is making college students "think " they are getting their higher education for "free", he actually is picking their pockets. How is this so? Think about it. Our federal government does not have the financial resources to cover that. Therefore the Fed will have to borrow the funds from foreign sources. Which will raise the national debt and at the same time redistribute wealth to those foreign countries. Who will be paying off that national debt? Those very same college students who are being "tricked" into thinking they are getting the education for free.Then you have those in other parts of our government that share the same beliefs and solutions. Same goes for the major media and the political support groups.

The thing of it is that no system of government or economic system is perfect. To believe that there is, is a utopian pipe dream. That is what B.O. and his ilk are selling. While this country is not perfect, I firmly believe that is the best thing going. I believe that there is no better place in the world for an individual to direct their own destiny and have the most personal freedom and protections under the law. If that is not the case, then I highly doubt people in droves would be looking to come to the U.S. like they are. Why would you want to relocate yourself to such an evil place as some would like us to believe. Nor would people in other countries want the same kind of opportunities, rights and freedoms that people in the U.S. have. If Capitalism is such an evil monster then why are other countries opening up to it's ideals and practices. Countries like China, where they have opened up to some of these practices and it has brought tons of their citizens out of poverty. I would like to know where in the world some people think the opportunities, freedoms, justice and moral compass is superior to the U.S. Then the next question is why are they still here?

[Monker]

[The natives you speak of were killing each other over the land you speak of long before the first settlers stepped foot on the soil.

LOL...so what? Most of the natives did not even have a concept of "owning the land". Yeah, one tribe may have fought over some hunting spot, or whatever, with another tribe...but neither one of them had some type of "ownership" over it.

No one is trying to erase the fact that slavery is part of our history.

Not true. The textbooks in public schools in Texas were rewritten years ago to diminish the emphasis of slavery, and other things.

We also recognize that we addressed it centuries ago and a thing called "civil war" was fought and those in slavery were set free.

Except for the fact that the Civil War was fought to keep the Union of the states. You posted a quote from Lincoln a few posts ago. Perhaps you can look up the words and remind me of what he said about if he could keep the union together and not end slavery, he would do it. Ending slavery was a consequence of the war, but it is not why it was fought.

On the subject of slavery, lets not forget that a black man who was given his freedom had his own plantation with over 60 slaves. He also practiced slave breeding. Something that even the most hardened white slave owners believed was wrong. Sorry but the guilt trip garbage and now I have to somehow give reparations for it doesn't work on me. Spend your time with a more willing subject.

LOL...again, so what. I don't care if a black man owns black slaves, or if a white man is the slave of a black man. The truth is that slavery is wrong and it is still something this country has not come to terms with. Hiding it in textbooks and not teaching it does not help. Your weird factoids that sound misquoted from some book you read don't help either.

It isn't about a "guilt trip". Any guilt or anger you feel is because YOU have an issue with the subject and it is you who has to deal with it. You are responsible for your own reaction and emotions, nobody else is.

I didn't mention reparations. That is something that I doubt will ever happen it is basically used as a wedge issues by both sides of the argument....as you just did.

[Monker]

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Who are you saying is intentionally setting citizens against each other?

I believe some fundamental changes are needed in our political system, but this country is going to have to come together to do it.

It is coming from many sources. The most powerful is our current POTUS and those in his administration. He's the one that stated his mission was to "fundamentally transform America".

Oh, please, that's simply conspiracy theory paranoia.

What you are doing is the same thing people did when old-man Bush made his "New World Order" statement and said the Free Masons or Illuminati were going to take over the world. It's silly nonsense.

Every President ever elected has probably said similar things. I just heard Bernie Sanders say the EXACT SAME THING.

In order to do that, you have destroy that current one. He is the one driving the polarization. With concepts like our problems stem from "the rich" stealing from everyone else in the U.S..

That is NOT the concept. That is the propaganda version.

The truth is that supply side economics did nothing but became trickle up economics. The truth is that when a billionaire gets a 50million dollar tax break, they don't go buy a yacht...because they are already a fucking billionaire and could have bought one anyway. That was the justification for all of this back under Reagan/Bush...and it was bullshit.

We have so much wealth STUCK at the top that is has become evidence of why pure capitalism does NOT work. And, this is where Sherrie is right...greed and corruption KEEP IT STUCK.

So, yes, it takes a fundamental change in America to now convince people that a tax break is not always a good thing, and that raising taxes is not always a bad thing. Reagan led a fundamental change back in 1980...but it has been taken way too far and some of those ideals that have been taken too far need to be rolled back.

That racism against black Americans hasn't changed from how it was in our past.

Again, that's just silly. It may have changed how it manifests itself, but it is still there. Again, it is something this country has never fully dealt with.

That entrepreneurs "didn't build that". So the proceeds from their work and effort is ill gotten gains.

That was a quote that was taken completely out of context and you are just repeating propaganda.

All he was really saying is it takes more than just a bunch of "ideas" to make things happen. People make things happen. You can have an idea to build a railroad from one ocean to the other, but the workers have to do it. The person with the "idea" didn't "do it".

B.O. is more like a con man then a politician. Take for example his idea for the federal government to pay for college students tuition.

Again, this is something you obviously read out of a book or something and just repeating the propaganda. What you said here is just a bunch of pundit guesswork and more propaganda. What Obama proposed was free community college tuition paid for out of a federal fund. Frankly, I think this is a good middle of the road idea, compared to what Bernie Sanders and others want to do and make state colleges tuition free.

The rest of your post is just rambling on about if you don't like this country then you should leave...kinda ironic cuz it is you who seems to not like the direction the country is going. When Hillary Clinton is elected, are you going to leave?

[Monker]

If we had another Roosevelt, it should be a Teddy Roosevelt. Someone who will simply say it like it is without all of this bullshit.

Sounds like Trump to me.

No, Trump doesn't say it like it is without the bullshit. He states only the bullshit that the Wonderland fantasy invents in his deranged mind.

[Boomchild]

LOL...so what? Most of the natives did not even have a concept of "owning the land". Yeah, one tribe may have fought over some hunting spot, or whatever, with another tribe...but neither one of them had some type of "ownership" over it.

So in other words they were more like modern gangs that claim territories. Love your down play of their warring with each other as if these were little disputes over hunting territories. The other point is that they also did not adhere to treaties they signed.

Furthermore, with this viewpoint anyone that owns property (land) in the U.S., they are in receipt of stolen property. According to our justice system that land needs to be seized and returned to the rightful owner. So if you own land in this country when are you planning to deed it over to it's rightful Native American owner?

Not true. The textbooks in public schools in Texas were rewritten years ago to diminish the emphasis of slavery, and other things.

I said erase. Diminish is a different thing. Neither of which is moral. While we are on the subject to rewriting textbooks, look at the Common Core program. Now there is an attempt to rewrite history narratives. Created and sponsored by the progressive liberals. Asserting that The Boston Tea Party was an act of domestic terrorism. That the history about Abraham Lincoln is reduced to one page and chapters are devoted to the greatness and accomplishments of Bill Clinton. I'd rather see schools adopt L Ron Hubbard's\COS "Applied Scholastics Program". A lesser of two evils at best.

Except for the fact that the Civil War was fought to keep the Union of the states. You posted a quote from Lincoln a few posts ago. Perhaps you can look up the words and remind me of what he said about if he could keep the union together and not end slavery, he would do it. Ending slavery was a consequence of the war, but it is not why it was fought.

Again with the semantics. You would like to believe that the pressure to end the legality of slavery was not one of the factors for some of the southern states looking to secede from the union. As if it is a footnote or by-product of the civil war. The reality is that the outcome of the civil war abolished the practice of slavery. Yet some want to keep revisiting it over and over to garner a guilt complex. It just another race batting tactic. Then you have the civil rights movement which yielded equality for black Americans. Even MLK was not trying to "fundamentally transform America". All he was asking for was the rights and privileges set forth by our founding fathers to be given to all Americans including black Americans.

LOL...again, so what. I don't care if a black man owns black slaves, or if a white man is the slave of a black man. The truth is that slavery is wrong and it is still something this country has not come to terms with. Hiding it in textbooks and not teaching it does not help. Your weird factoids that sound misquoted from some book you read don't help either.

It isn't about a "guilt trip". Any guilt or anger you feel is because YOU have an issue with the subject and it is you who has to deal with it. You are responsible for your own reaction and emotions, nobody else is.

I didn't mention reparations. That is something that I doubt will ever happen it is basically used as a wedge issues by both sides of the argument....as you just did.

Of course you would respond with "so what". Likely because it doesn't fit the narrative of it all stems from the suppression by "the white man". Let's have a reality check here. The current race batting, "Black Lives Matter" or whatever people want to label it is not directed at black Americans. It's directed at the "the white man" who some claim is still suppressing black Americans as if slavery still existed and the civil rights movement never happened.

You would be better off using this progressive liberal spin at a Ward Churchhill book club meeting and\or a Saul Alinsky fan club meeting.

[Boomchild]

The rest of your post is just rambling on about if you don't like this country then you should leave...kinda ironic cuz it is you who seems to not like the direction the country is going. When Hillary Clinton is elected, are you going to leave?

That is not what I said. Here it is again:

"I would like to know where in the world some people think the opportunities, freedoms, justice and moral compass is superior to the U.S. Then the next question is why are they still here?"

Of course you deflect it as if I meant "if you don't like this country then you should leave". A typical progressive liberal tactic. So I ask you Monker, what country or nation provides opportunity, the ability for one to steer their own destiny, freedom by providing it's citizens with civil and inalienable rights as well as equal protection under it's laws better then the U.S.? It's basic question which I am sure you can actually answer. So there is no confusion, I am in no way saying that you should go there.

[JBlake]

Former federal prosecutor says Hillary could be indicted in the next 60 days as the FBI compiles 'overwhelming' evidence against her
Republican U.S. attorney believes FBI has reached 'critical mass' in its investigation of Clinton's secret email setup while she was secretary of state
Clinton's front-running Democratic presidential campaign could be immediately imperiled just as the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary loom ahead
Clinton has denied mishandling any classified data over email.

It's not for no reason the Daily Mail is suddenly reporting "Candid Joe Biden says he 'regrets' his decision not to run for president 'every day' as he admits to having second thoughts." Maybe he knows something.

They need to waterboard and anal water torture that bitch but good!

[Monker]

So in other words they were more like modern gangs that claim territories. Love your down play of their warring with each other as if these were little disputes over hunting territories. The other point is that they also did not adhere to treaties they signed.

Furthermore, with this viewpoint anyone that owns property (land) in the U.S., they are in receipt of stolen property. According to our justice system that land needs to be seized and returned to the rightful owner. So if you own land in this country when are you planning to deed it over to it's rightful Native American owner?

Now you are just making shit up.

What I am saying many native Americans had NO CONCEPT of land ownership. To them, it was like claiming to "own" the sir around you or the sky. That is the truth. You are trying to apply it to modern thinking without even considering their perspective on the world.

I was reading about another primitive tribe that had no sense of time. If you tried to ask them how old they were, or what they did "yesterday" or what they planned on for "tomorrow", they did not have the capacity to understand. In fact, those ideas could not even be translated to their language because concepts of time were not part of their language or culture. All they new and understood was "now".

It is the same thing with native Americans and owning the land.

Asserting that The Boston Tea Party was an act of domestic terrorism.

Well, it was! LOL. If today a group Muslims boarded a cargo ship in Boston harbor and dumped the cargo into the ocean, that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD CALL IT.

Didn't the Reagan years teach everybody that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? When Bin Laden was on Reagan/Bush's side and fighting the Soviets, he was a freedom fighter. When that Afghan war was over and he turned against the US, then he became a terrorist.

That the history about Abraham Lincoln is reduced to one page and chapters are devoted to the greatness and accomplishments of Bill Clinton.

Even the TINY bit I know about Common Core tells me that both of your statements are bullshit. It is essentially guidelines for schools to follow when they teach...it is not dictating how textbooks are written.

I'd rather see schools adopt L Ron Hubbard's\COS "Applied Scholastics Program". A lesser of two evils at best.

The very fact that you call it "evil" and compare it to a mildy successful science fiction writer turned religious guru shows how naive and bias you really are.

You would like to believe that the pressure to end the legality of slavery was not one of the factors for some of the southern states looking to secede from the union.

No, I would believe Lincoln who said if he could save the union without ending slavery, he would do it. I mean, you are just writing posts and making stuff up...Lincoln actually managed the war. I think I'll believe him and not you.

As if it is a footnote or by-product of the civil war. The reality is that the outcome of the civil war abolished the practice of slavery.

That's not completely true either. Lincoln freed the slaves during the war, not at the end of it.

You do realize that a state can't actually, "secede", correct? There is no legal process for this. The only way for them to have left the union would be to win the civil war. That is why it was fought...according to Lincoln himself. Also, it is why people are acting like completely ignorant dumb-asses when they "support" their state in seceding....it's not possible, unless they support their state going to war against the US.

Yet some want to keep revisiting it over and over to garner a guilt complex.

You are pretty arrogant to assume somebody elses motives. Again, your reaction tells more about you than the person you are reacting to.

Of course you would respond with "so what". Likely because it doesn't fit the narrative of it all stems from the suppression by "the white man".

Dude, I said "so what" because a slave is a slave regardless of who 'owns' him. Your statement had absolutely no relevant meaning.

Let's have a reality check here. The current race batting, "Black Lives Matter" or whatever people want to label it is not directed at black Americans. It's directed at the "the white man" who some claim is still suppressing black Americans as if slavery still existed and the civil rights movement never happened.

It is directed at ALL Americans because they want a change in attitude. I don't particularly agree with what they are saying and doing but the truth is your statements make it far too complex, and like a conspiracy theory. They see black people being shot and killed needlessly and that is their reaction to it. It's that simple.

You would be better off using this progressive liberal spin at a Ward Churchhill book club meeting and\or a Saul Alinsky fan club meeting.

I'm sure you feel all big and tough now. The truth is, I have no clue who Ward Churchill is and the only place i read about Saul Allinsky is by you wackos in this forum. So, statements like the above really have absolutely no meaning to me at all.

[Monker]

The rest of your post is just rambling on about if you don't like this country then you should leave...kinda ironic cuz it is you who seems to not like the direction the country is going. When Hillary Clinton is elected, are you going to leave?

That is not what I said. Here it is again:

"I would like to know where in the world some people think the opportunities, freedoms, justice and moral compass is superior to the U.S. Then the next question is why are they still here?"

Of course you deflect it as if I meant "if you don't like this country then you should leave". A typical progressive liberal tactic. So I ask you Monker, what country or nation provides opportunity, the ability for one to steer their own destiny, freedom by providing it's citizens with civil and inalienable rights as well as equal protection under it's laws better then the U.S.? It's basic question which I am sure you can actually answer. So there is no confusion, I am in no way saying that you should go there.

I was summing up your paragraphs of lecturing bullshit to just a few words.

Fine, you want people to leave if they feel somewhere else is better. But, why should they leave, you are the one madly protesting and whining.

[Boomchild]

Now you are just making shit up.

What I am saying many native Americans had NO CONCEPT of land ownership. To them, it was like claiming to "own" the sir around you or the sky. That is the truth. You are trying to apply it to modern thinking without even considering their perspective on the world.

I was reading about another primitive tribe that had no sense of time. If you tried to ask them how old they were, or what they did "yesterday" or what they planned on for "tomorrow", they did not have the capacity to understand. In fact, those ideas could not even be translated to their language because concepts of time were not part of their language or culture. All they new and understood was "now".

You were asserting that the land that is now considered the U.S. was stolen from Native Americans. Whether or not they had or didn't have a concept of owning it, the claim is that it was stolen from them. So if that is the total truth then they would still be the rightful owners and by law should be returned to them. Right?

Well, it was! LOL. If today a group Muslims boarded a cargo ship in Boston harbor and dumped the cargo into the ocean, that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD CALL IT.

Didn't the Reagan years teach everybody that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? When Bin Laden was on Reagan/Bush's side and fighting the Soviets, he was a freedom fighter. When that Afghan war was over and he turned against the US, then he became a terrorist.

Oh I see now, those that fought for independence turned from freedom fighters to terrorists.

Even the TINY bit I know about Common Core tells me that both of your statements are bullshit. It is essentially guidelines for schools to follow when they teach...it is not dictating how textbooks are written.

It's not just guidelines it also includes textbooks and materials. Look it up.

The very fact that you call it "evil" and compare it to a mildy successful science fiction writer turned religious guru shows how naive and bias you really are.

Your response shows how misinformed you are as to what COS has and is looking to infiltrate the American school system with their teaching practices and beliefs.

No, I would believe Lincoln who said if he could save the union without ending slavery, he would do it. I mean, you are just writing posts and making stuff up...Lincoln actually managed the war. I think I'll believe him and not you.



That's not completely true either. Lincoln freed the slaves during the war, not at the end of it.

You do realize that a state can't actually, "secede", correct? There is no legal process for this. The only way for them to have left the union would be to win the civil war. That is why it was fought...according to Lincoln himself. Also, it is why people are acting like completely ignorant dumb-asses when they "support" their state in seceding....it's not possible, unless they support their state going to war against the US.

You are pretty arrogant to assume somebody elses motives. Again, your reaction tells more about you than the person you are reacting to.

It clear why people still keep dredging up slavery. It's to pile on the guilt in support of current claims of inequalities and lack of justice for African Americans. It's that simple.

It is directed at ALL Americans because they want a change in attitude. I don't particularly agree with what they are saying and doing but the truth is your statements make it far too complex, and like a conspiracy theory. They see black people being shot and killed needlessly and that is their reaction to it. It's that simple.

It's directed at ALL Americans that are not African Americans. Funny, you don't see the same level of effort and outrage at the Black on Black homicide and crime from the African American communities nor the media.

'm sure you feel all big and tough now.

Sorry, but I do not have an ego to stroke. Based on your response it's clear you do.

The truth is, I have no clue who Ward Churchill is and the only place i read about Saul Allinsky is by you wackos in this forum. So, statements like the above really have absolutely no meaning to me at all.

I thought you would claim to not know who Ward Churchhill is. No one that knows and believes in what he has written about America wants to after his statement about the victims of 9/11. Which was that he believes the victims of 9/11 "got what they deserved". I also don't believe your statement with regards to Alinsky either.

[Boomchild]

I was summing up your paragraphs of lecturing bullshit to just a few words.

Fine, you want people to leave if they feel somewhere else is better. But, why should they leave, you are the one madly protesting and whining.

Just as I thought, deflect from my question and never answer it.

[Monker]

[
You were asserting that the land that is now considered the U.S. was stolen from Native Americans.

That is not what I said. I said it was TAKEN. That COMPLETELY changes the meaning of that one sentence.

The CONTEXT of my statement was also to "assert" that a strong nation can admit its faults of the past.

Whether or not they had or didn't have a concept of owning it, the claim is that it was stolen from them. So if that is the total truth then they would still be the rightful owners and by law should be returned to them. Right?

Like I said, it was TAKEN from them. We essentially told settlers to go west and stake a claim for a homestead and the land was yours. It didn't matter if natives lived there or not, if you wanted to claim it, you owned it.

Well, it was! LOL. If today a group Muslims boarded a cargo ship in Boston harbor and dumped the cargo into the ocean, that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD CALL IT.

Oh I see now, those that fought for independence turned from freedom fighters to terrorists.

You are a "freedom fighter" if you are on the side of those who want to rid themselves of the current government, and you are a terrorist if you are on the side of the current government. All you have to do is open your mind and look at the conflicts that have happened in your lifetime and see it without bias and you will see that I am exactly right. Or, you can be paranoid and believe everybody has some conspiracy they are advancing.

Your response shows how misinformed you are as to what COS has and is looking to infiltrate the American school system with their teaching practices and beliefs.

No, I am uninformed, as I already admitted. And, I really don't care about it. What you are repeating here reads like absolute propaganda bullshit.

It clear why people still keep dredging up slavery. It's to pile on the guilt in support of current claims of inequalities and lack of justice for African Americans. It's that simple.

What are you going to do now, start quoting David Duke? This is ridiculous. You have no idea how you sound. Until you live the life of a black person you do not know what it is like to live the life of a black person....and, again, you are pretty arrogant to speak like you do.

It is directed at ALL Americans because they want a change in attitude. I don't particularly agree with what they are saying and doing but the truth is your statements make it far too complex, and like a conspiracy theory. They see black people being shot and killed needlessly and that is their reaction to it. It's that simple.

It's directed at ALL Americans that are not African Americans.

That is just not true.

Funny, you don't see the same level of effort and outrage at the Black on Black homicide and crime from the African American communities nor the media.

What prompted this was not black cops shooting blacks for no apparent justification. These are people in authority who should be expected by all people to treat everybody exactly the same. So, when there is a bunch of incidents where black cops are shooting or killing blacks for no apparant justification, then you will have a point.

I thought you would claim to not know who Ward Churchhill is. No one that knows and believes in what he has written about America wants to after his statement about the victims of 9/11. Which was that he believes the victims of 9/11 "got what they deserved". I also don't believe your statement with regards to Alinsky either.

[/quote]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps you should stop reading the extreme points of view that are available. They have obviously warped your mind.

[Monker]

You don't know who Saul Alinsky is yet you support his followers (Hillary and berry et al..) and you have the gall to call us whackos?

It is to laugh. YCMTSU

I don't "support" Hillary. I simply say she is going to win. Bernie has no chance of being nominated. And, the Republicans leading the polls are psychotic and are making it impossible for ANY Republican to win.

I also believe Obama has been a much, much better President than anybody is giving him credit for. If people look at where this country was when he took office and where we are today, and do it without bias, he was FAR more successful than many, many of those who came before him. And, the success came while the Republicans in congress had an explicit agenda to categorically oppose anything Obama was supporting.

I call you wacko because you know NOTHING but the extremes of any issue. That is another reason Trump is leading the polls. Moderation is not something Republicans have the ability to comprehend.

[Boomchild]

Like I said, it was TAKEN from them. We essentially told settlers to go west and stake a claim for a homestead and the land was yours. It didn't matter if natives lived there or not, if you wanted to claim it, you owned it.

Whether you want to use the term taken or stolen it doesn't matter. The main narrative is that the Native Americans were the rightful possessors of said land. So again, if that is the total truth then to this day they are the rightful possessors and therefore the land should be handed back over to them.

You are a "freedom fighter" if you are on the side of those who want to rid themselves of the current government, and you are a terrorist if you are on the side of the current government. All you have to do is open your mind and look at the conflicts that have happened in your lifetime and see it without bias and you will see that I am exactly right. Or, you can be paranoid and believe everybody has some conspiracy they are advancing.

Sorry, but it's not that black and white. Your motives and what it is you are trying to accomplish has a lot to do with it. It also involves what actions you are taking. Take ISIS a terrorist org. for example. Their not looking create equality, freedom and tolerance. They want the entire world to adopt their oppressive and controlled society with a "convert or die" approach. In no way can you apply a "freedom fighter" label to them.

No, I am uninformed, as I already admitted. And, I really don't care about it. What you are repeating here reads like absolute propaganda bullshit.

Your reply does not make any logical sense. If you are uninformed then you opinion carries no weight at all.

What are you going to do now, start quoting David Duke? This is ridiculous. You have no idea how you sound. Until you live the life of a black person you do not know what it is like to live the life of a black person....and, again, you are pretty arrogant to speak like you do.

You have no idea what my race, social or economic background is. That makes your above response ridiculous. So if you want to see arrogance take a look in the mirror. It's nothing more then a bull baiting tactic.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry still not buying it.

[Boomchild]

I also believe Obama has been a much, much better President than anybody is giving him credit for. If people look at where this country was when he took office and where we are today, and do it without bias, he was FAR more successful than many, many of those who came before him. And, the success came while the Republicans in congress had an explicit agenda to categorically oppose anything Obama was supporting.

And just what specific results make him a " FAR more successful" President then many, many before him?

[Boomchild]

Since B.O. is out and about expressing his concerns about guns getting into the hands of "bad people", here's a video about what the B.O. administration has been up to abroad with guns and other weaponry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cULKjmpUP9U

[Monker]

Whether you want to use the term taken or stolen it doesn't matter. The main narrative is that the Native Americans were the rightful possessors of said land. So again, if that is the total truth then to this day they are the rightful possessors and therefore the land should be handed back over to them.

So, you are now taking a 'narrative' that I am not making and applying it to me.

You're as nuts as Donald Trump.

Sorry, but it's not that black and white. Your motives and what it is you are trying to accomplish has a lot to do with it. It also involves what actions you are taking. Take ISIS a terrorist org. for example. Their not looking create equality, freedom and tolerance. They want the entire world to adopt their oppressive and controlled society with a "convert or die" approach. In no way can you apply a "freedom fighter" label to them.

You are absolutely wrong. You are buying into propaganda. The people the US government (whoever is leading it) is calling "freedom fighters" are called terrorists by others. And, the people the US government calls terrorists are freedom fighters to others.

Lets take the most extreme example, ISIS. If you are an Islamic fundamentalist and are a minority in the current Iraq government, then ISIS is fighting for what YOU believe in and are therefore "freedom fighters" who are fighting to start their own Islamic state free of Iraqi prejudices and government propped up by the United States.

Your reply does not make any logical sense. If you are uninformed then you opinion carries no weight at all.

Yep, on that topic, you are absolutely right.

What are you going to do now, start quoting David Duke? This is ridiculous. You have no idea how you sound. Until you live the life of a black person you do not know what it is like to live the life of a black person....and, again, you are pretty arrogant to speak like you do.

You have no idea what my race, social or economic background is. That makes your above response ridiculous. So if you want to see arrogance take a look in the mirror. It's nothing more then a bull baiting tactic.

Whatever. You are basically stating factually that people are saying this because of that when you have no idea if it is true or not. You don't know what people's motives are or how they feel. And, no, I don't believe you are black. You are speaking pretty much like a pompous white person who has read and heard too many pundit know-it-alls, who CAN'T know it all. So, now you feel all informed about something when the reality is you don't anything about it and CAN'T know anything about it.

[Boomchild]

So, you are now taking a 'narrative' that I am not making and applying it to me.

You're as nuts as Donald Trump.

If you assert that it was just land being taken from the Native Americans, then shouldn't they be the rightful owners and have it returned to them? Maybe it was just fair to everybody. Redistributing resources so that everybody got a fair share.

You are absolutely wrong. You are buying into propaganda. The people the US government (whoever is leading it) is calling "freedom fighters" are called terrorists by others. And, the people the US government calls terrorists are freedom fighters to others.

Lets take the most extreme example, ISIS. If you are an Islamic fundamentalist and are a minority in the current Iraq government, then ISIS is fighting for what YOU believe in and are therefore "freedom fighters" who are fighting to start their own Islamic state free of Iraqi prejudices and government propped up by the United States.

I see so now ISIS and their ilk are not actually terrorists.

Whatever. You are basically stating factually that people are saying this because of that when you have no idea if it is true or not. You don't know what people's motives are or how they feel. And, no, I don't believe you are black. You are speaking pretty much like a pompous white person who has read and heard too many pundit know-it-alls, who CAN'T know it all. So, now you feel all informed about something when the reality is you don't anything about it and CAN'T know anything about it.

There's no "whatever" about it. You don't know my background. So you are assuming something that you have no actual facts to base it on. Talk about stereo typing. That's a classic example. So look in the mirror before you start throwing out claims of being pompous. I have spoken directly to people involved in supporting the subject at hand so it is not just from reading articles as you assert. That's reality.

[steveo777]

The next President sounding presidential. (new, not a rehash)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmWOOrw ... 0U3U0vDu4L

[Boomchild]

Wow! Hillary has lost Maureen Dowd...that's big!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opini ... .html?_r=0

Also the press has been discussing that Bill has lost his charm and appeal. Since Hillary uses him as a campaign prop, that may also be an issue for her.

Is Bill Clinton Losing His Appeal? | Trifecta on PJTV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4864D8VqLzE

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't "support" Hillary. I simply say she is going to win. Bernie has no chance of being nominated.

Bernie has gone from no chance in hell to surpassing more individual donations than Obama to being within striking distance of Hillary in Iowa (and besting her New Hampshire). What this proves, besides Bernie having cross-over working class appeal, is that Hillary is a very very weak candidate. In a general, she would get majorly shlonged.

[ohsherrie]

You don't know who Saul Alinsky is yet you support his followers (Hillary and berry et al..) and you have the gall to call us whackos?

It is to laugh. YCMTSU

I don't "support" Hillary. I simply say she is going to win. Bernie has no chance of being nominated. And, the Republicans leading the polls are psychotic and are making it impossible for ANY Republican to win.

I also believe Obama has been a much, much better President than anybody is giving him credit for. If people look at where this country was when he took office and where we are today, and do it without bias, he was FAR more successful than many, many of those who came before him. And, the success came while the Republicans in congress had an explicit agenda to categorically oppose anything Obama was supporting.

I call you wacko because you know NOTHING but the extremes of any issue. That is another reason Trump is leading the polls. Moderation is not something Republicans have the ability to comprehend.

Absolutely true as has been most of what you've said. The only thing we seem to disagree on is whether the greed and corruption is worse now than in the past. In your statements about Republicanomics you explained what I believe to be one of the catalysts that made it worse, along with repealing Glass-Steagall and giving tax breaks to corps. who took jobs out of the country.

I also believe Hillary will be elected, I just don't think she'll do anything that really matters. I don't think any of them will. That's why I said Trump would be as good as any, but I won't be voting for him even if he does manage to bully his way into the nomination. I will vote for Hillary simply because I refuse to let the corruption keep me from voting. (Even though our votes don't really make the decision.)

Boomchild, you seem to be way out on the tip of some wing.

[steveo777]

I don't "support" Hillary. I simply say she is going to win. Bernie has no chance of being nominated.

Bernie has gone from no chance in hell to surpassing more individual donations than Obama to being within striking distance of Hillary in Iowa (and besting her New Hampshire). What this proves, besides Bernie having cross-over working class appeal, is that Hillary is a very very weak candidate. In a general, she would get majorly shlonged.

But, this time by an old white guy, instead of the mack daddy she ran against last time.