Originally Posted by waynet

You aren't be talking about the last President are you? Wow you really do hate Obama don't you?

I dont use terms like HATE as you do so freely and openly...dont like the word.

I have NO respect for Obama..he lies.

I have NO respect for Obama...he is everything that you folks used to call the last President.....I suppose you think that smoking, drinking, doing drugs in your youth, covering your grades, cavorting with radicals, having a mentor for 20 years who is a black activist and big time hater is something we should all aspire to.

All people have faults,and that includes our last President.....but your distaste seems to have a party hue to it. You only responded to part...talk to us about Obama lies...Obama absolutely ignoring having a press conference...Obama attacking...yes he did..attacking a news network..UNHEARD OF....mocking from the White House those who oppose him. You didnt hear that from the last administration or the one before...WAKE UP...forget PARTY..think country !

Originally Posted by Bucco

I dont use terms like HATE as you do so freely and openly...dont like the word.

I have NO respect for Obama..he lies.

I have NO respect for Obama...he is everything that you folks used to call the last President.....I suppose you think that smoking, drinking, doing drugs in your youth, covering your grades, cavorting with radicals, having a mentor for 20 years who is a black activist and big time hater is something we should all aspire to.

All people have faults,and that includes our last President.....but your distaste seems to have a party hue to it. You only responded to part...talk to us about Obama lies...Obama absolutely ignoring having a press conference...Obama attacking...yes he did..attacking a news network..UNHEARD OF....mocking from the White House those who oppose him. You didnt hear that from the last administration or the one before...WAKE UP...forget PARTY..think country !

Bucco, your intense disrespect for Barack Obama has continued unabated since pretty early in his campaign. But he was elected and he will be our President at least until January 20, 2012. That's just a simple fact.

I voted for George Bush for his first term, but as his administration progressed I grew to dislike his political style, the people he surrounded himself with, as well as his abandonment of things he promised while campaigning. I don't think my feelings were quite as intense as yours are for Obama and I'm glad they weren't. I made the decision not to vote for a second Bush term about halfway thru his first. But then I tried to spend my time trying to understand the issues and listening to those that were campaigning to replace him.

I'm glad I did. As you know, my consideration lead me to vote for Barack Obama. I thought he was the best candidate for President at the time I entered the voting booth. My confidence and certainty with my decision was far from 100%, but I had only one choice.

I haven't been at all happy with all that President Obama has done so far, but it's certainly not all bad. I have decided not to vote for him for a second term. But I'm glad I won't be inhibited by intense emotions against him any more than I was for George Bush. While I won't vote for Barack Obama again, I'm glad my emotions will permit me to think about more important issues than those that you cite and recite as you have again above. Bush and Obama were both our Presidents, for better or worse. If nothing else, both occupy an office that all Americans should respect, even if they don't have strong feelings for the person.

I think such intense emotion interferes with the ability to properly assess what is being done by this administration, and maybe more importantly what's not being done. Not everything this administration has done has been bad. But the intense and growing enmity between the Obama partisans and those of his opponents is clearly interfering with the governance of the country. Too much time is being spent on partisan politics and nowhere near enough on addressing the many increasingly critical problems facing the country. We are a country that is in a tailspin in many respects, but those in the cockpit are more interested in winning the wrestling match over the steering wheel than they are in preventing the inevitable crash.

Just think about how our Congress is currently operating. Unless I've missed a vote, in recent months any legislation sponsored by the Democrats or proposed by the President is opposed 100% by the Republicans. They can't even reach some sort of agreement on legislation that the GOP sponsored themselves only a year or so ago! There are no statesmen left, no conciliators, no negotiators. All we have are partisans, and they are growing more and more fractious and recalcitrant. Unless things change, the roles may be reversed if the GOP regains control of one or both houses of Congress. Does anyone think this is good for this country? Does anyone believe that the form of government designed by our founders is what we're seeing in 2010? My answer is a resounding NO! to both those questions.

As I said, Barack Obama will be President for another three years or so. It might be a more productive exercise to simply put Barack Obama aside to a back corner of your mind, and concentrate on really understanding what we need to demand and expect from the next President of the United States and the Congress that will form his administration. To think about and write letters such as quoted above, again and again and again doesn't accomplish a whole lot in my mind. You won't be able to change him for another three years, so why get all upset by your feelings for the man? You and I are both going to vote for someone other than Barack Obama for POTUS in 2012. I'd much rather be discussing the issues that will be facing those candidates than "listening" again to how much you disrespect the current occupant of the office of President.

Sorry for the criticism. It is intended to be constructive.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Bucco, your intense disrespect for Barack Obama has continued unabated since pretty early in his campaign. But he was elected and he will be our President at least until January 20, 2012. That's just a simple fact.

I voted for George Bush for his first term, but as his administration progressed I grew to dislike his political style, the people he surrounded himself with, as well as his abandonment of things he promised while campaigning. I don't think my feelings were quite as intense as yours are for Obama and I'm glad they weren't. I made the decision not to vote for a second Bush term about halfway thru his first. But then I tried to spend my time trying to understand the issues and listening to those that were campaigning to replace him.

I'm glad I did. As you know, my consideration lead me to vote for Barack Obama. I thought he was the best candidate for President at the time I entered the voting booth. My confidence and certainty with my decision was far from 100%, but I had only one choice.

I haven't been at all happy with all that President Obama has done so far, but it's certainly not all bad. I have decided not to vote for him for a second term. But I'm glad I won't be inhibited by intense emotions against him any more than I was for George Bush. While I won't vote for Barack Obama again, I'm glad my emotions will permit me to think about more important issues than those that you cite and recite as you have again above. Bush and Obama were both our Presidents, for better or worse. If nothing else, both occupy an office that all Americans should respect, even if they don't have strong feelings for the person.

I think such intense emotion interferes with the ability to properly assess what is being done by this administration, and maybe more importantly what's not being done. Not everything this administration has done has been bad. But the intense and growing enmity between the Obama partisans and those of his opponents is clearly interfering with the governance of the country. Too much time is being spent on partisan politics and nowhere near enough on addressing the many increasingly critical problems facing the country. We are a country that is in a tailspin in many respects, but those in the cockpit are more interested in winning the wrestling match over the steering wheel than they are in preventing the inevitable crash.

Just think about how our Congress is currently operating. Unless I've missed a vote, in recent months any legislation sponsored by the Democrats or proposed by the President is opposed 100% by the Republicans. They can't even reach some sort of agreement on legislation that the GOP sponsored themselves only a year or so ago! There are no statesmen left, no conciliators, no negotiators. All we have are partisans, and they are growing more and more fractious and recalcitrant. Unless things change, the roles may be reversed if the GOP regains control of one or both houses of Congress. Does anyone think this is good for this country? Does anyone believe that the form of government designed by our founders is what we're seeing in 2010? My answer is a resounding NO! to both those questions.

As I said, Barack Obama will be President for another three years or so. It might be a more productive exercise to simply put Barack Obama aside to a back corner of your mind, and concentrate on really understanding what we need to demand and expect from the next President of the United States and the Congress that will form his administration. To think about and write letters such as quoted above, again and again and again doesn't accomplish a whole lot in my mind. You won't be able to change him for another three years, so why get all upset by your feelings for the man? You and I are both going to vote for someone other than Barack Obama for POTUS in 2012. I'd much rather be discussing the issues that will be facing those candidates than "listening" again to how much you disrespect the current occupant of the office of President.

Sorry for the criticism. It is intended to be constructive.

I received your lecture but want to remind you that my response to you was based on you telling everyone it was "simply wrong" to criticize this President and I still do not understand that statement.

Of course the issues are the most important and of course our congress is dysfunctional but after the last 8 years, and after a campiagn filled with more lies than I have seen in my lifetime,and I could go on again, do not tell me that it is "simply wrong" to criticize this President !

VK, don't shift the focus. You gave a simple example, not one you supported or proposed, just an example to show your point of priorities and how you can be both a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Your example pulled troops from Afghanistan to save the country $200 billion annually. You said,
"interpret what I've said as an example of what government can do. I'm sure you could insert any number of inefficient and ineffective government spending programs instead of the war, as well as other high priority social programs that could be funded with the savings of cutting unneeded spending."

In response to what I'd been reading on this thread about taxes, wasteful spending and priorities, I said, "It's the same thing with the involvement of the government in every aspect of our lives. Government needs to play less a role in individuals lives. I believe in freedom. I understand your example was broad and not an exact example, VK, but for the point of discussion...What is happening to Obama's war? Where is his “a stronger, smarter, more comprehensive strategy” that would build schools, hospitals, roads, and enterprise zones, addressing issues such as energy and trade. Where are those efforts?"

You response to me, quoting my statement for discussion, was condescending and evasive of any real debate. You keep crying priorities. You gave the example of the Afghan invasion. I mentioned facts. Instead of having a constructive discussion and allowing meaningful debate to take place, your response was "The reason there is so little meaningful national debate is that there is so much hatred for President Obama that it gets in the way of any constructive thinking." .

By your reasoning of respecting Obama, "It might be a more productive exercise to simply put Barack Obama aside to a back corner of your mind," and not discussing issues involving his leadership would be the same as putting other representatives in Congress in the back corner of your mind. No discussing issues they uphold or disapprove of. Just keep quite, be respectful and vote them out. That is absurb and disingenuous to the real point of discussions and learning.

I agree with Bucco, I enjoy reading your posts. I usually take something away from them. I use many things you say to study and learn on my own. But your closed minded attitude of taking any discussion about Obama off the table is not fodder for open debate and discussion or learning how to prioritize.

Sorry for the criticism. It is intended to be constructive.

Calling Fox a news network seems to be quite a stretch. I do think that if a network any network attacked me 24 hours a day 7 days a week with some at best luke warm investigations into the true facts I probably would attack them also. From birthers to Ayers Fox has made its sole mission the destruction of Obama 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Luckily there are people who fact check their stories and some of us get the real news. I just loved their latest "news" that the symbol for the limitation of atomic weapons
is very similar to some countries that have Islamic populations and this is another way that Obama is bowing to them. Give me a break. Ask the guy who designed it and he says its the symbol for the hydrgen atom.

Waynet--- Bush had ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. attacking him 24/7 for eight years. He never said a word. Have you ever listened to FOX? There are a whole lot of Democrats on it. Many have their own shows. How many Republicans are on the other channels, much less have their own shows?

Originally Posted by Sally Jo

Waynet--- Bush had ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. attacking him 24/7 for eight years. He never said a word. Have you ever listened to FOX? There are a whole lot of Democrats on it. Many have their own shows. How many Republicans are on the other channels, much less have their own shows?

Sally Jo, you took the words from my mouth. Poor Obama. Only one TV station that hasn't drank his Kool Aid. The poor thing.

I say suck it up and be a man. You guys cried for 8 years with the media on your side. You win the election and your still crying.

Sally Jo,I dont think we watch the same Fox. Democrats???Who???As for Bush he had an easy road for the first 4 years of his Presidency. It was only when he began lying to the public,taking away our rights outing CIA agents and on and on that the press really got on him. And one major difference between those networks and Fox. The other networks did some investigative reporting before issuing the story. Fox network lies plain and simple. In my last post I gave you the example of the atomic ban symbol as an example of their just stupid reporting. How about the idiot who went into the Acorn offices and then EDITED the film to make them look bad. Isn't it the same fool who illegally broke into a senators office? He was all over Fox a hero.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Bucco, your intense disrespect for Barack Obama has continued unabated since pretty early in his campaign. But he was elected and he will be our President at least until January 20, 2012. That's just a simple fact.

I voted for George Bush for his first term, but as his administration progressed I grew to dislike his political style, the people he surrounded himself with, as well as his abandonment of things he promised while campaigning. I don't think my feelings were quite as intense as yours are for Obama and I'm glad they weren't. I made the decision not to vote for a second Bush term about halfway thru his first. But then I tried to spend my time trying to understand the issues and listening to those that were campaigning to replace him.

I'm glad I did. As you know, my consideration lead me to vote for Barack Obama. I thought he was the best candidate for President at the time I entered the voting booth. My confidence and certainty with my decision was far from 100%, but I had only one choice.

I haven't been at all happy with all that President Obama has done so far, but it's certainly not all bad. I have decided not to vote for him for a second term. But I'm glad I won't be inhibited by intense emotions against him any more than I was for George Bush. While I won't vote for Barack Obama again, I'm glad my emotions will permit me to think about more important issues than those that you cite and recite as you have again above. Bush and Obama were both our Presidents, for better or worse. If nothing else, both occupy an office that all Americans should respect, even if they don't have strong feelings for the person.

I think such intense emotion interferes with the ability to properly assess what is being done by this administration, and maybe more importantly what's not being done. Not everything this administration has done has been bad. But the intense and growing enmity between the Obama partisans and those of his opponents is clearly interfering with the governance of the country. Too much time is being spent on partisan politics and nowhere near enough on addressing the many increasingly critical problems facing the country. We are a country that is in a tailspin in many respects, but those in the cockpit are more interested in winning the wrestling match over the steering wheel than they are in preventing the inevitable crash.

Just think about how our Congress is currently operating. Unless I've missed a vote, in recent months any legislation sponsored by the Democrats or proposed by the President is opposed 100% by the Republicans. They can't even reach some sort of agreement on legislation that the GOP sponsored themselves only a year or so ago! There are no statesmen left, no conciliators, no negotiators. All we have are partisans, and they are growing more and more fractious and recalcitrant. Unless things change, the roles may be reversed if the GOP regains control of one or both houses of Congress. Does anyone think this is good for this country? Does anyone believe that the form of government designed by our founders is what we're seeing in 2010? My answer is a resounding NO! to both those questions.

As I said, Barack Obama will be President for another three years or so. It might be a more productive exercise to simply put Barack Obama aside to a back corner of your mind, and concentrate on really understanding what we need to demand and expect from the next President of the United States and the Congress that will form his administration. To think about and write letters such as quoted above, again and again and again doesn't accomplish a whole lot in my mind. You won't be able to change him for another three years, so why get all upset by your feelings for the man? You and I are both going to vote for someone other than Barack Obama for POTUS in 2012. I'd much rather be discussing the issues that will be facing those candidates than "listening" again to how much you disrespect the current occupant of the office of President.

Sorry for the criticism. It is intended to be constructive.

Perhaps you should send this to the current POTUS. It seems that he is the one who does not respect the office.

As leader, he should do no less than listen to what people have to say. If nothing more, that is simple courtesy. He is supposed to be a President, not a dictator of what he wants and those he hand picks want. Prime example....his visit to NASA.

I think the media by overexposing Obama with their love for him have inadvertently shown him for the snake oil salesmen that he is. A president who is in constant campaign mode and always speaks down to those that question him is no leader. no-matter how hard the MSM try to show-boat him I no longer care to see him or take him seriously and I believe many are feeling this way both at home and abroad.

Waynet--- For starters, Shepard Smith has two hours a day, on FOX. Greta VanSustern has an hour each night. Geraldo Rivera has an hour show, once a week. These people are not republicans. The following are on regularly: Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Lamont Hill and Al Sharpton. The list goes on and on.
Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald knew this before he even started his investigation. It didn't seem to bother him one little bit to waste time and money to try and nail somebody for something. Furthermore, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether she was even a covert agent, at the time. the one thing we do know is that her husband didn't like Bush.
What rights have you lost? Do you really think agents are listening in to your phone calls?
As far as ACORN goes I think they made themselves look bad. How many cases of voter fraud have they been accused and convicted of? This has happened for years. Long before they were dumb enough to say what they did on tape.

Yup,fair and balanced thats Fox. Shep Smith is good. He seems to be an honest broadcaster. But Greta not a Republican and the rest on your list are just used for soundbites maybe on for 3 minute segments.Take those 3 minute segments multiply by 5 if they are all on in one day and that makes 15 minutes. The other 23 hours and 45 minutes are used to bash Obama. That to me is not really fair and balanced. By the way does Fox do anything else besides bash Obama and the liberal left?

Originally Posted by waynet

Yup,fair and balanced thats Fox. Shep Smith is good. He seems to be an honest broadcaster. But Greta not a Republican and the rest on your list are just used for soundbites maybe on for 3 minute segments.Take those 3 minute segments multiply by 5 if they are all on in one day and that makes 15 minutes. The other 23 hours and 45 minutes are used to bash Obama. That to me is not really fair and balanced. By the way does Fox do anything else besides bash Obama and the liberal left?

Yes, they do. If you call what Obama & the liberal left is trying to do to America, "bashing" so be it. They do it and Fox reports it. Seems fair to me.

Originally Posted by waynet

Yup,fair and balanced thats Fox. Shep Smith is good. He seems to be an honest broadcaster. But Greta not a Republican and the rest on your list are just used for soundbites maybe on for 3 minute segments.Take those 3 minute segments multiply by 5 if they are all on in one day and that makes 15 minutes. The other 23 hours and 45 minutes are used to bash Obama. That to me is not really fair and balanced. By the way does Fox do anything else besides bash Obama and the liberal left?

I read your posts and it scares me because I think you said you were a schoolteacher and had/have access to young minds.

You not only are way off ANY course, you dont even have a clue. I am not defending Fox with this statement in anyway...I happen to watch them all at times and have no favorites on any channel.

You simply restate a "wivestale" begun by radicals. There are news shows and commenatators on each and every cable show that I am aware of. Each of those commentators (such as Keith Olbmermann or Rachel Maddow) have an obvious leaning. I think to anyone who watches such shows you can determine what leaning that is and decide whether to watch or not. Given time, which I surely will not give to this matter, I can find opinions on both sides either smashing or defending all the networks and their commentators.

What is really disarming about your posts on this subject is your TOTAL lack of knowledge of the subject. Your posts are almost verbatim from places like MOVEON or the like. Instead of discussing poor news coverage on all networks, which is the case and you would think would be something an educator would be aware of, you sound like an active member of the DNC. There is nothing wrong with that either but at least identify yourself that way !

Before you comment on my lack of respect for President Obama, let me tell you that I was commenting on here about the same issues regarding him BEFORE he was even the candidate and before he was even a frontrunner for the Democratic nod. I might add that many who come on here now and express admiration for him were on here "spanking" him pretty good before he beat out Clinton for the nod.

Bucco,exactly what are you implying?I'm off any course?I don't have a clue?My total lack of knowledge? Because i don't agree with you and a few others on this site I have no knowledge. I am in a discussion concerning Fox news and you come up with this personal attack.Where am I off course? Where do I display no knowledge? Where dont I have a clue? Some of you are good at attacking me personally but can't seem to respond to any issues I bring up. If you think Fox is fair and balanced good for you but I strongly disagree. If you think Obama is bad for the country I disagree. If you think the repubs are going to change anything if they are elected I disagree. If you think tea partiers are the answer I disagree. If you thinkthat 41 repubs have already said they will vote in a block to stop any debate on Wall St.changes is a good thing I disagree. Yes right now I am a democrat,I think they give us the best chance right now. I have also been a registered repub until Bush and I have been a independent. And finally your comment about my teaching was way out of line and uncalled for. Mock my politics but my personal life is none of your business.You have no idea what or how I taught.