President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Boomchild]

Fine maybe the nukes are slowed. What benefit does anyone really get when radical Islam will now thrive with the lifting of sanctions?

I think it's naive to think that an agreement or piece of paper is enough to stop any country that wishes to develop nuclear weapons. Hello, Neville Chamberlain! Reality is that the only way to stop it is by force. With respect to Iran, the question is which country or nation should be the one to address the threat. Not the U.S. in my opinion. Have they made a direct threat to nuke the U.S.? Not that I have heard. It's Israel that has been threatened. I say let them address it. No nation or country outside the Middle East is going to solve these radical Islamic movements. The countries of of the Middle East need to do it for themselves. Then and only then will it be stamped out. We (the U.S.) have put ourselves in a mindset that we can police the world. This mindset only makes the world a more dangerous place. We need to change that mindset because it is utterly unrealistic and the events unfolding around the globe prove it.

[Boomchild]

I agree with you most of the time, but we have agreements with Israel. Of course with this "leader", who knows. This "agreement" with Iran is a joke and soon, possibly by the end of the day, Obama will once again look like an idiot to the world. Iran will do as Iran pleases.

When you say agreements, I assume that you mean we are allies with Israel. An alley means we support you or "we got your back" so to speak. It doesn't mean we fight your battles for you. Also, isn't it a bit hypocritical for any country or nation that has nuclear weapons to dictate to another that they have no right to have them? Is that position even realistic if a country or nation is hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities? I think history tells a different story. Look at Germany. Post WWI they were supposed to have a small standing military defense. We all know how that ended. Officially no agreement has been signed with Iran. It doesn't exist. All B.O. is talking about is a "framework" for an agreement. In other words, he is pulling a "Chamberlain" without the signed paper. Since it's pretty clear to me that military force would be the only way to stop Iran, are you willing to have American lives lost to accomplish such a result. I for one am not. I believe it is up to Israel and other countries in that region that are against it to put their lives on the line. Besides we can no longer win such military engagements. It's not possible. Between the reduction of our armed forces and our military resources being stretched thin due to existing operations elsewhere. Add to that, the vast majority of the American public can't stomach the collateral damage that would happen to make such operations successful.

[Boomchild]

I would say to you that Iran has been the snakes head for decades and needs to be cut off. american lives have been lost already because of Iraan, one way or another. I just scanned this morning about a story about to break out of New York, where a Democrat is about to charge Iran, amoung others about being responsible for 9/11.

I have no doubt that Iran has been a sponsor\supporter of terrorism against those they think are "evil" or sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong. I agree that they need to be dealt with. I just don't support the notion that it is our country's responsibility to do it. Even when talking about the talks that have been going on. It should have been the U.N. that should have stepped up. American lives have been lost in the Middle East for many reasons. They were wasted because the situation is just the same or worse in some cases. We need to be asking ourselves why that is the case. It's my opinion that it is due to the fact that those actually living in the Middle East haven't committed themselves to the cause of destroying these radical Islamic factions. We need to be asking ourselves why is that? Could it be that they are just too afraid of the radical factions to stand up against them? Could it be that more people in the Middle East actually agree with these radical factions but wouldn't show it or say it in public? Could it be that they would rather let the U.S. waste their money, resources and lives then their own? All I know is no one is calling them out on their lack of a unified effort to destroy these radical Islamic factions. I don't know how the rest of the world thinks it is even possible when the different Islamic sects can't even get along with each other. Also keep in mind that some are expecting our corrupt government which no longer even cares about doing the right things for it's citizens is supposed to do the right thing when comes to foreign relations and conflicts. Good luck with that one. I'm sure you can find decent support for a U.S. military response to Iran. After all, it's good business for the military contractors that build the weapons and equipment for war.

[Boomchild]

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-iran-shares-responsibility-9-11-terror-192626879.html;_ylt=AwrBT9Rq7R5VB1AA3RhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

So what is the next step? Is the federal judge going to subpoena the top leaders of Iran for a trial? Levy some kind of fine against Iran? If so good luck with that.

[Boomchild]

LAUSANNE, Switzerland – Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country's leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry -- and release of an administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions -- Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.

This really sounds like people willing to negotiate now doesn't it? The B.O. administration and anyone else can claim anything they want. But, the reality is Iran has no plans to stop their progress towards obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities. As soon as they do, you can kiss Israel goodbye.

[JBlake]

Monker,

The amount of politics you discuss proves you've never really blown a good load in a hot chick. How old are you anyway? Jesus Christ or Allah (since I guess you love our president) Go get a hooker. Do something fun.

Stop being a crotchety old c-u-n-t. Live a little.

We all believe what we believe but are generally puppets with no control.

We've all been around here FOREVER and your sense of humor remains at sub zero.

I'm starting to think Monker is simply an inmate in a prison somewhere who's only connection to the outside world is via the cell phone that was butthole smuggled into the facility.

[Boomchild]

(Tobias Schwarz/Reuters file)
There’s nothing fun about being on welfare, and a new Kansas bill aims to keep it that way.

If House Bill 2258 is signed into law by Gov. Sam Brownback (R) this week, Kansas families receiving government assistance will no longer be able to use those funds to visit swimming pools, see movies, go gambling or get tattoos on the state’s dime.

Those are just a few of the restrictions contained within the measure that promises to tighten regulations on how poor families spend their government aid.

To me it's crazy that these type of restrictions were not in place from the start. Public assistance should only be good for housing, food, clothing, utilities and medical services. In other words, the basics to help sustain life. Not for entertainment and gambling.

[Boomchild]

And none of it from outside countries.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) – the first Republican hopeful to put his name forward – has long maintained that only by mobilizing the conservative grassroots can the GOP hope to reclaim the White House in 2016. He has explicitly said that primary-goers looking for a candidate that will toe the party line, and buckle to the whims of the establishment, should look elsewhere. As a result, he has pledged not to fund his campaign with funds obtained from lobbyists or crony capitalists, and therefore must tap into the generosity and support of ordinary Americans to get his campaign off the ground.

Seems to me he is going to have a very hard time with this. Especially when working within our corrupt election system.

[Monker]

(Tobias Schwarz/Reuters file)
There’s nothing fun about being on welfare, and a new Kansas bill aims to keep it that way.

If House Bill 2258 is signed into law by Gov. Sam Brownback (R) this week, Kansas families receiving government assistance will no longer be able to use those funds to visit swimming pools, see movies, go gambling or get tattoos on the state’s dime.

Those are just a few of the restrictions contained within the measure that promises to tighten regulations on how poor families spend their government aid.

To me it's crazy that these type of restrictions were not in place from the start. Public assistance should only be good for housing, food, clothing, utilities and medical services. In other words, the basics to help sustain life. Not for entertainment and gambling.

It's solving a problem that simply doesn't exist. There is no real evidence that "government assistance" is being spent in any significant way on such items. It's nothing but politics and a waste of time bringing it up.

[Monker]

And none of it from outside countries.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) – the first Republican hopeful to put his name forward – has long maintained that only by mobilizing the conservative grassroots can the GOP hope to reclaim the White House in 2016. He has explicitly said that primary-goers looking for a candidate that will toe the party line, and buckle to the whims of the establishment, should look elsewhere. As a result, he has pledged not to fund his campaign with funds obtained from lobbyists or crony capitalists, and therefore must tap into the generosity and support of ordinary Americans to get his campaign off the ground.

Seems to me he is going to have a very hard time with this. Especially when working within our corrupt election system.

It can work as long as Republicans think he has a chance. If that changes, the donations will go elsewhere,...and he'll be forced to drop out or fund the campaign another way.

[Boomchild]

It's solving a problem that simply doesn't exist. There is no real evidence that "government assistance" is being spent in any significant way on such items. It's nothing but politics and a waste of time bringing it up.

That's like saying that people who receive EBT cards don't try to exchange the use of those cards for cash. They do and I personally have been approached by people asking if I wanted to get in on it.

[Boomchild]

No problem here, right Monker?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-more ... _container

She hasn't even officially entered the race yet. I say wait and see. Keep in mind that the Clinton spin machine has yet to start. Besides do you really think that things will be better if a Republocan wins the presidency? I don't. If a Republican wins do you really think he\she will repeal things such as Obamacare? I don't. I don't think I am even going to bother voting in the next election. We're screwed either way in my opinion.

[slucero]

you still need to vote.. if just to be able to refute the finger pointers who will tell you to stfu since you don't vote..

[Monker]

No problem here, right Monker?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-more ... _container

Nope...none at all. The election is 18months away. What is polled right now won't matter then. But, if you insist at looking at polls, Clinton is ahead of EVERY Republican in EVERY poll.

And, again, the Republicans have no clear person to run against her. Who is it going to be? Ted "I refuse to raise the debt ceiling because I want a world wide economic meltdown" Cruz? Scott "nobody knows me so I'm safe" Walker? Jeb "not another one..." Bush? Rick "I wear glasses so I'm now smart" Perry? Rick "butt juice" Santorum? Chris "I spend more time in Iowa than New Jersey" Christy?

They are all a bunch of clowns and none of them are electable. I predict a repeat of four years ago where the "front runner" bumps around to everybody and you end up nominating Jeb Bush because he's "safe" and not too loopy like the others.

[Monker]

No problem here, right Monker?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-more ... _container

She hasn't even officially entered the race yet. I say wait and see. Keep in mind that the Clinton spin machine has yet to start. Besides do you really think that things will be better if a Republocan wins the presidency? I don't. If a Republican wins do you really think he\she will repeal things such as Obamacare? I don't. I don't think I am even going to bother voting in the next election. We're screwed either way in my opinion.

James the pit bull Carvalle has been out spinning this for weeks. Failing at it, but spinning it just the same.

And, I said it a month or so ago. The truth is the truth.

[Monker]

It's solving a problem that simply doesn't exist. There is no real evidence that "government assistance" is being spent in any significant way on such items. It's nothing but politics and a waste of time bringing it up.

That's like saying that people who receive EBT cards don't try to exchange the use of those cards for cash. They do and I personally have been approached by people asking if I wanted to get in on it.

No it's not. Someone selling their card for cash for whatever is not the same as saying these people are buying swimming pools and cruises. That is a riduculouse statement and it SHOULD require some type of data to back it up. And, I'm not meaning some loony toon showing up on FOX saying he bought this and that...but some actual DATA showing how many people are misusing their benefits.

Also, I find it extremely ironic that "conservatives" who want government out of our lives are supporting government intervening in our lives and telling us how to spend money. Yes, the poor shouldn't be buying swimming pools. Well, the obese shouldn't be buying candy bars, tall people shouldn't be driving mini's, single people shouldn't be buying mansions, hearing impared shouldn't be going to rock concerts. So, conservatives are only truly "conservative" when it advances their political agenda.

Let people spend money how they want...I don't give a damn how they got it. Just think of all of those people they are helping employ who have to manufacture, deliver, and install those swimming pools. Guess that's trickle up economincs.

[Boomchild]

Also, I find it extremely ironic that "conservatives" who want government out of our lives are supporting government intervening in our lives and telling us how to spend money. Yes, the poor shouldn't be buying swimming pools. Well, the obese shouldn't be buying candy bars, tall people shouldn't be driving mini's, single people shouldn't be buying mansions, hearing impared shouldn't be going to rock concerts. So, conservatives are only truly "conservative" when it advances their political agenda.

Is it really "conservatives" telling people how to spend their own money? I think not. If it's money obtained through a government support program, it's not that persons money. It's the government's money. So I would say they would have a right to place restrictions on it's use. So that it is used for what it is intended for. Things like food, shelter and clothing. I don't think the program was set up so people could entertain themselves or use it for things that are not necessities. As far as government telling people what to do with their lives, the left, liberal and progressive Democrats are far more guilty of it then conservatives are.

Let people spend money how they want...I don't give a damn how they got it.

This is the reason that the fraud and abuse in the system exists. Wasted on people and things that don't help people get out of their need for financial support. Add to that, keeping some of it from people who actually do need the help.

[Boomchild]

you still need to vote.. if just to be able to refute the finger pointers who will tell you to stfu since you don't vote..

Well I guess you could vote using a write in, such as Mickey Mouse.

[Monker]

Right. ONE democrat is polling above 10 Republicans, until there is one.

You are such a ditto-head that you have NO IDEA what you are even talking about. You go about saying this and that about polls and Clinton is losing and blah, blah, blah...and now you post something like the above which is so clueless that all you do is prove how ignorant you truly are.

These are not "Who would you vote for given these dozen options" type polls. These are "Who would you vote for between Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz" type polls. In EVERY poll against ANY Republican, Clinton is ahead.

If it were any different, Fart Finder would be on here with links to proudly show off.

[Monker]

Teed Cruz is ahead of her in two of the three states polled. Sorry your too stupid to see my point. Your also wrong about me being a ditto head, but of course, your often wrong. I get to listen to Rush about one hour a week on Wednesdays. Unlike liberals, I have to work.

You are such an idiot. First, you can't spell "Ted Cruz". Then, you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're". Finally, you think Rush somehow has ownership of the term "ditto-head". If you do work, it is obviously not a job that requires you to use proper English or much brain power.

Clinton is ahead in EVERY national poll (which, I guess I now need to clarify for you), against ANY Republican
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html

There is no reason to worry. You are just repeating the propaganda that you enjoy reading. Big deal.

[Monker]

Funny how they leave off Cruz and Walker but,

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... tays-high/

You know I thought the other thread about you was tastless and wrong. You got me there. I understand their point completely. And "Ditto Head" is a Limbaugh term,dumbass.

OMG, what in the world are you trying to prove by linking to an article that is almost TWO YEARS OLD? I gave you a link that shows the latest poll numbers for ABC...Clinton is ahead of Walker by 14pts, and Cruz by 17pts. Again, seems to me that there is nothing Clinton has to worry about.

I know Limbaugh nerds are called ditto-heads...but that doesn't mean he OWNS THE TERM. Do I really have to explain this? You basically post your propaganda without even understanding what is in the article. You don't care. If it seems negative towards Democrats, ditto, ditto, ditto is all you care about. The true facts don't matter...and if you spent just five minutes researching it, you would find that most of it is bullshit.

[Monker]

[
It was dated last week.

It is dated June 26, 2013. The PDF that it links to is also dated for release after June 26, 2013.

This is why I called you a ditto-head. You either don't read, or don't comprehend, what you are posting. All you see is a headline that says their popularity dropped, so you post it.

if you want to know what the poll numbers are for how Clinton is doing against specific Republicans, go to RealClearPolitics.com and look it up. They show every poll available. There is no ridiculous spin, just the facts. All you are doing is looking for spin and propaganda to prove your opinion of what you want reality to be...so you simply reject reality and substitute one of your own liking. Sorry, but that only works on Mythbusters, not real life.

[steveo777]

I, at least, want a female candidate who can still get moist, not some washed up, failed, sand in the clam grandma. I haven't even gotten into her accomplishments yet! Don't blink, or you'll miss them. The idiots out there who think she's the "one", are going to be sadly disappointed. Get it - we don't need any more Clintons, Bush's, or Obama's in the White House. The country needs an enema......fresh blood, not old pendeja's. (Woman who's husband fucked around) If she can't do a decent job of riding cock and keeping a man happy, what good could she possibly do for the country?

[Boomchild]

If she can't do a decent job of riding cock and keeping a man happy, what good could she possibly do for the country?

Someone who is running against her has got to use this one!

[Monker]

So they were polling Cruz, Walker and clinton in 2013? Idiot.

YOU said, "I don't know why they didn't include Cruz and Walker but,"

Neither the article nor the PDF it links to mentioned either of them

And, you call me an idiot? You are now making arguments against your own past comments. Quit making an ass out of yourself

Watch ANY news show, Hillarys numbers are slipping and other Democrats are coming out against her. Don't believe the truth? What do I care what a seed salesman has to say.

Why would I want to watch what a salesman has to say when I can simply LOOK UP THE FACTS for myself. Clinton is not losing...you are simply WRONG.

[Monker]

Time for the PROGRESSIVE Movment to die. That's for sure. Two Bush's, one Clinton, and Obama. No more.

NEITHER Bush was a "Progressive". They were both REPUBLICAN moderates...but still conservative in the larger political picture. In today's definitions from REPUBLICANS, not even Ronald Reagan would be considered a "conservative" and would be bashed as a liberal.

Enough! The old hag is getting bashed for coming out on Facebook so she doesn't have to answer any questions.

LOL...hardly anybody that matters cares how she announced it. Again, by time she gives her acceptance speech for the nomination, nobody is even going to remember.

And, I think it's smart anyway...because right now, Republicans are starting to look and sound like assholes by demanding this and that from her and that she act in specific ways. Let them keep whining because it only hurts them and helps her in the long term.

Gowdy will derail her for sure

Uh, huh, someone no Democrat cares about is going to derail her...sure. Are you high?

three Democrats have come out against her.

Three Democrats out of the millions across the country. Wow, I'm like shocked and stuff like that.

The truth is, this is the most united I have seen the Democratic party. Not even Obama had the party so united for him. Sure, a few stragglers will argue about her due to her Iraq war vote, or whatever, but overall the Democrats are incredibly united.

I watch Elzabeth Warren on the NIghtly Show a few days ago. Jon Stewart gave her many opportunities to take jabs at her but she didn't and promoted her own ideas rather then take shots at Clinton. That is smart party politics and I think most mature Democrats will act the same way...because they know she will be the nominee they need to show support for in the long term.

[Monker]

If she can't do a decent job of riding cock and keeping a man happy, what good could she possibly do for the country?

Someone who is running against her has got to use this one!

the only Republican likely to say something like that would be Rush Limbaugh.

[Boomchild]

the only Republican likely to say something like that would be Rush Limbaugh.

Well maybe he should enter the race for 2016. Funny that a guy with "Talent on loan from GOD!" hasn't done so in the past. If God has his back then he should be a shoe in!

[The_Noble_Cause]

I won't vote for Hillary. Jim Webb is still my guy.

[The_Noble_Cause]

KC, the hype around Hillary reminds me of the buzz and nonstop promotion around Paris Hilton's album. The media hyped it breathlessly and when it was finally released, there were no sales. That may be a crude analogy. But with Hillary, I truly feel there's no 'there', there. Obama could at least feign human warmth. Hillary is garbage. She can't connect.