I'm not worried in the least how he is treated in newspapers, etc. I'm talking specifically about comments made here long before he was elected the first time and how they have continued to today. Like it or not, he was elected twice to office. I can't say I'm impressed with his track record since I'm not but he's still our president. Discuss his policies, rail against his willingness to say he will veto certain bills, but do it with the respect the office deserves. If I could do it with Reagan, you can do it with Obama. Maybe it will even lead to respecting each other a little bit.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm not worried in the least how he is treated in newspapers, etc. I'm talking specifically about comments made here long before he was elected the first time and how they have continued to today. Like it or not, he was elected twice to office. I can't say I'm impressed with his track record since I'm not but he's still our president. Discuss his policies, rail against his willingness to say he will veto certain bills, but do it with the respect the office deserves. If I could do it with Reagan, you can do it with Obama. Maybe it will even lead to respecting each other a little bit.

I am a bit confused. Can you copy and paste since those posts are not available, or at minimum paraphrase what someone said that was aimed at him personally and did not go to his policies, or since you mentioned before his election, his qualifications for this office ? That might help to understand better.

And why the constant reference to Reagan and ignoring everything in between ?

Originally Posted by Guest

I am a bit confused. Can you copy and paste since those posts are not available, or at minimum paraphrase what someone said that was aimed at him personally and did not go to his policies, or since you mentioned before his election, his qualifications for this office ? That might help to understand better.

And why the constant reference to Reagan and ignoring everything in between ?

Sorry..made a typo. I meant to say that the posts you are speaking of are now available for you to copy and paste. All the previous posts are here

Reference to Reagan is because I disliked him about as much as a human can dislike someone they've never met yet I never called him a name, never implied he was the fool I thought he was while he was in office.

Unfortunately, I can't give you any links since they are so old and I have yet to figure out how to copy links on my iPad even if they were available. But even today there are still references made to him being born in Kenya (untrue), being a Muslim (extremely unlikely). He is repeatedly called a liar -- show me a politician who tells the truth and I'll eat my hat. Actually, most of the posts I've seen today haven't been bad except for the birth certificate one. A lot different from before there was a political forum and while I was semi-active in the old political forum.

Originally Posted by Guest

Reference to Reagan is because I disliked him about as much as a human can dislike someone they've never met yet I never called him a name, never implied he was the fool I thought he was while he was in office.

Unfortunately, I can't give you any links since they are so old and I have yet to figure out how to copy links on my iPad even if they were available. But even today there are still references made to him being born in Kenya (untrue), being a Muslim (extremely unlikely). He is repeatedly called a liar -- show me a politician who tells the truth and I'll eat my hat. Actually, most of the posts I've seen today haven't been bad except for the birth certificate one. A lot different from before there was a political forum and while I was semi-active in the old political forum.

First I am not sure why the hate for Reagan that you have but it seems very well seated !!! I ask about that because you seem to ignore all the bashing of Bush that took place when you were making your point about respect for the office. I think to make a case that you are trying to make, that is a bit unfair. I am not trying to defend Bush in anyway as that is not the issue. The issue you raised is respect for the office, and I assume you do not believe that respect is just reserved for certain parties.

Having said that.....the birther thing always bothered me and NOT what you think. I was more bothered by the delay in responding but that is water over the dam.

I did get a bit nervous about what I may have said in past posts that I asked you to read and a quick scan of those posts made me feel better. I went out of my way, and do now, to separate the man from the office. Of course I have respect for the office and I am also sure that those who criticize him ALL have respect for the office.

I also in reading those posts can say with a lot of confidence that my concerns about this current President came true....basically all of them. But that is also past news. He IS the President but saying that folks who disagree with his actions or not acting are not taking aim at the office and I hope that the day NEVER arrives where we treat the President as a all knowing, all wonderful person so as not to offend. This country NEEDS and used to thrive on difference of opinions. One criticism I have of this President is his total blind spot for even talking to anyone who disagrees with him.

But, respect for the office......I think 100% of posters on here and in the past have 100% respect for the office. BUT, not as a kingdom !!!

Thank you to the guest who posted, "What is missing is any chance of compromise and that I put squarely on the tea party." The statement provided me with the best laugh of my day!

Obama, his minions and the media frequently remind us of the coalitions he has built and with whom the United States is standing up to terrorists and their acts of terror. That makes me wonder why, if he is such an excellent coalition builder, has he not built a coalition with Republicans who have been elected to office. Is a coalition not a diverse group of people who come together to work to achieve a common goal? Would the President and his Cabinet, the Senate and House not be groups of diverse elected and appointed officials who should be working together to blend the red states and blue states into purple states and/or be working for the common good of this nation? Where has the President's negotiation and compromise been to build a coalition with that goal?

Ideologues do not build coalitions. Negotiation and compromise are not virtues which ideologues aspire to embrace due to their dogmatic adherence to personal principles. As is mentioned on this website A thought experiment: name all the Obama compromises with the GOP | Flopping Aces when Obama says he welcomes compromise with the Republicans he really means that he welcomes capitulation from them.

If truly interested in and in favor of and desirous for negotiation and compromise, would Obama have made it ever so clear that he has a "pen and a phone" and would use it as he sees necessary. Why does he threaten to veto legislation rather then pledge to develop legislation that can serve diverse constituents and meet their diverse needs. Only an ideologue or a clairvoyant would claim that they know what is for everyone else...and Obama has proven time and again that he is no clairvoyant!

Originally Posted by Guest

Thank you to the guest who posted, "What is missing is any chance of compromise and that I put squarely on the tea party." The statement provided me with the best laugh of my day!

Obama, his minions and the media frequently remind us of the coalitions he has built and with whom the United States is standing up to terrorists and their acts of terror. That makes me wonder why, if he is such an excellent coalition builder, has he not built a coalition with Republicans who have been elected to office. Is a coalition not a diverse group of people who come together to work to achieve a common goal? Would the President and his Cabinet, the Senate and House not be groups of diverse elected and appointed officials who should be working together to blend the red states and blue states into purple states and/or be working for the common good of this nation? Where has the President's negotiation and compromise been to build a coalition with that goal?

Ideologues do not build coalitions. Negotiation and compromise are not virtues which ideologues aspire to embrace due to their dogmatic adherence to personal principles. As is mentioned on this website A thought experiment: name all the Obama compromises with the GOP | Flopping Aces when Obama says he welcomes compromise with the Republicans he really means that he welcomes capitulation from them.

If truly interested in and in favor of and desirous for negotiation and compromise, would Obama have made it ever so clear that he has a "pen and a phone" and would use it as he sees necessary. Why does he threaten to veto legislation rather then pledge to develop legislation that can serve diverse constituents and meet their diverse needs. Only an ideologue or a clairvoyant would claim that they know what is for everyone else...and Obama has proven time and again that he is no clairvoyant!

Your post reminds me of a comment made to me last weekend in discussing various political issues facing this country.

This guy was a huge big time Obama fan, a devoted Democrat. He said and this is paraphrasing of course....

I am disappointed generally in what he has done and not done but maybe my biggest single disappointment has been not only his lack of cooperation with Republicans, but more specifically, his total and scary lack of attempt to even engage them.

I recall vividly the word SCARY as he said it because I have never heard that phrase used.

[QUOTE=Guest;1007879]Can you validate any of your charges ?

I CAN show and validate the opposite !

Where, or what year should I begin, and I am speaking of BACKING up with facts.

But you have made serious charges and I welcome you to prove them.

By the way, I have NEVER EVER voted a straight party ticket. I have supported many of Obama s policies , and be glad to both show you post from me to that effect.

I, also, while you are correct that I am a registered Republican, was once employed by the Democratic Party. I have participated in marches on their behalf.

So, get of your preachy high horse and speak to issues. May I take you back to manipulating the laws of the U.S. senate to pass the affordable care act, or in that same vein, ignoring input AND legislation from the Republicans to add to that bill. Or just off the top of my head, since you feel the Democratic Party leads the world in goodness, the last increase in min wage became law because President Bush stood up and backed the democrats.

This President has been insulting and publicly humiliating to anyone who dares to oppose him on any subject.

EVERY PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN has commented on this President s lack of co operation, or inclination to do so..IN HISTORY. So you do not have facts on your side at all. You are mouthing the spin from whatever source.

I will wait for your factual backups...key being FACTUAL, not talk from the spin[/QUOTE

At what point did you crown yourself king of this blog to tell anyone what to do. Back off.

[quote=Guest;1008053]

Originally Posted by Guest

Can you validate any of your charges ?

I CAN show and validate the opposite !

Where, or what year should I begin, and I am speaking of BACKING up with facts.

But you have made serious charges and I welcome you to prove them.

By the way, I have NEVER EVER voted a straight party ticket. I have supported many of Obama s policies , and be glad to both show you post from me to that effect.

I, also, while you are correct that I am a registered Republican, was once employed by the Democratic Party. I have participated in marches on their behalf.

So, get of your preachy high horse and speak to issues. May I take you back to manipulating the laws of the U.S. senate to pass the affordable care act, or in that same vein, ignoring input AND legislation from the Republicans to add to that bill. Or just off the top of my head, since you feel the Democratic Party leads the world in goodness, the last increase in min wage became law because President Bush stood up and backed the democrats.

This President has been insulting and publicly humiliating to anyone who dares to oppose him on any subject.

EVERY PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN has commented on this President s lack of co operation, or inclination to do so..IN HISTORY. So you do not have facts on your side at all. You are mouthing the spin from whatever source.

I will wait for your factual backups...key being FACTUAL, not talk from the spin[/QUOTE

At what point did you crown yourself king of this blog to tell anyone what to do. Back off.

I made NO accusations....YOU made accusations.

Seems logic in a civil society dictates that when you accuse, you are required to supply backup or you are simply blowing smoke !!!

Adding to the above post.....

"DHS secures U.S. airports and borders and spearheads domestic counter-terrorism efforts. It also contains the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a small agency that is expected to process the millions of undocumented immigrants who may apply for legal protection under Obama's November 2014 executive order.

Republicans charge Obama overreached with the 2014 executive order, which shields from deportation the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, as well as a 2012 order that helped undocumented child immigrants, widely known as the "Dreamers" program."

I post that part of the article first so everything is in context because I weighed all sides of this. Keep in mind, our President said he wants a bill from congress on immigration....he also will veto this bill....funding for the Homeland Security expires this month, so who is really playing politics here.

"Senate Democrats held firm on Wednesday and for the second time this week blocked a Republican proposal to cut off funding for President Barack Obama's immigration reform policies.

The legislation, which also funds the Department of Homeland Security, failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate, continuing a political battle as the clock ticks toward the Feb. 27 expiration of funding for the homeland security agency.

Senate Republicans say they intend to make another attempt to advance the legislation on Thursday, partly to call public attention to Democratic moves to block the measure, which has already passed the House of Representatives. Both chambers have Republican majorities."

President said his dictate on immigration was to FORCE congress to act, and they are, BUT.......before immigration legislation is even on the floor we do need to fund Homeland Security. Now, in order to get the way he wants, lets just stop any legislation to fund this because it will get rid of the pronouncement made earlier by the President.

Much of this is politics as usual....I get that, but this is the President who said he would love to work with congress, yet his party is stopping a forward movement.

This is the link to the article...

Senate Democrats again block bill derailing Obama on immigration | Reuters

If you read the link, and most will not, you will find that Republicans are not being unreasonable, but politics as usual.

My criticism is for BOTH parties....the party with the Tea Party members who block, but also the party who never even allowed over 100 pieces of legislation to even get to the floor of the senate for discussion, while yelling to come up with legislation.

My problem is with both parties, BUT ALSO with those who drink the party kool aid and come on here and blame one sector of our "leadership" as if the party they support is the all knowing all wonderful group of people.

We better get smart....the PARTIES are running the country and to the person who said we affiliate with a party because of what they stand for, wake up....you keep following what your party tells you to do and you will be repeating history over and over. Demand that they listen to each other instead of preaching hate for the party you do not support.

If you feel that ONE SINGLE political party is responsible for all the ills of the world, then you are simply not informed and not paying attention.

Originally Posted by Guest

When he was elected I said I would give him the benefit of the doubt until his first State of the Union address.

I look at people who are in a given job and responsibility and judge them on several factors. One is do they keep their promises? Two, do they do what they say they are going to do? Are they meeting the objectives and commitments made?

It was easy for me to say at the end of one year, if Obama was working for me he would have been let go for lack of performance. After one year!!!!!
I do not accept th new guy only on for a year. That does not work for top level executives. They own it from day one. No excuses and first and foremost no blaming the man/woman one just replaced.

His claim to fame is he can talk and charm the the gullible and easy to hook.
He was like a pied piper and the sheeple fell for it and even voted him in a second time.

A case study of his accomplishment could be to take each state of the union speech....what he committed.....and then come back and update what has changed since the speech.

Just go back and look at his first 6 months in office when his party had control of both houses of the Congress. How much did he get done with such a deep bench?

As was said in another post...he was and continues to be well insulated by the media that overlooks ANY bad light cast upon or cast by his administarion.
He manages the news allowed.

Lastly it takes a team player in a top position, which he has demonstrated time and again he is not. Another good case study would be to review his relationsahips with the military leaders of this nation.

Now entering his 7th year is the only positive I see......less than two years to get rid of him.....and hope we the people and the congress can effect enough damage control for the remainder of his term.

I can respect the office of the POTUS....I can not respect a non performer who is allowed to continue unchecked.

A top executive who is in over his head with the luxury of not having a boss capable of removing him from the job.
That is how I see it plain and simple.

Here are some factors to judge the President on what got done. Sometimes a little memory refreshing is good for the soul.

1. Passed Health Care Reform
2. Passed the Stimulus
3. Passed Wall Street Reform.
4. Ended the War in Iraq
5. Drew down the War in Afghanistan
6. Eliminated Osama bin laden
7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry
8. Recapitalized Banks
9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
10. Reversed torture policies.

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Here are some factors to judge the President on what got done. Sometimes a little memory refreshing is good for the soul.

1. Passed Health Care Reform
2. Passed the Stimulus
3. Passed Wall Street Reform.
4. Ended the War in Iraq
5. Drew down the War in Afghanistan
6. Eliminated Osama bin laden
7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry
8. Recapitalized Banks
9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
10. Reversed torture policies.

WOW...nice list and a great post to have a basis to talk about.

I agree on numbers 2 and 3 but a bit fuzzy on some.

For example, the plan used to stop the Iraq war was already in place, and this administration DID accerlate it but that is not a positive thing in my opinion.

He did get Bin Laden, and I give it to him under the auspice that he was in office when it occurred but i still think it would have happened under any watch.

Torture polices are for sure up in the air, as this administration was elected based on a number of things in that area that he did not do and I applaud him for that, ie. running for office with certain words and then once seeing the reality changing course...see Patriot act. Torture was, and I think you know that, a political term

The health care reform...you should start another thread on that one. For time, let me just say that the ACT is not even fully engaged as of yet and the costs are a rising like a rocket. AND THAT WAS THE REASON TO PASS THE BILL...cut costs. I also think our leadership reached very low spot in history with the shennagins involved in getting it passed....pay offs, changing rules in the Senate....and above all the total lack of respect for the loud proclamation about working together to get a law passed on health care. Folks make it seem as if the other party was opposed...they were not and had their own plan, but our President who said it was so important that he would discuss it on CSPAN so we could all watch it, ignored everyone and did it in back rooms. THIS ACT BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS PASSING THIS LAW IN THIS MANNER, IN MY OPINION IS WHAT HAS POISONED ALL POSSIBILITY OF ANY KIND OF DISCUSSION OR WORKING TOGETHER FOR MANY MANY YEARS. AND I FEEL IT WILL BE JUDGED THAT WAY BY HISTORIANS. IT WAS AN EPIC MANIPULATION AND POISONED THE WELL FOR ALL OF US. But the insurance companies who were in that back room certainly loved the profits!

But good post.....great for discussion. AND if I may, both parties and all of us agree that health care legislation was needed...that is a documented fact. The MANNER and SNEAKY approach is what has tainted it forever.

It's always amusing to hear criticism of the president from the party that gave us the Iraq war, the worst recession since the great depression, Dow below 7000, 750,000 people per month losing their jobs, and on and on.

This is the party that thought Sarah Palin would make a good president. You betcha!!!

It's almost the same as hearing the Colts call the Patriots cheaters as they were getting their butts handed to them in a 45-7 blow-out.

It will be fun to hear the Viagra voters telling their wives why a woman should never be president.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm not worried in the least how he is treated in newspapers, etc. I'm talking specifically about comments made here long before he was elected the first time and how they have continued to today. Like it or not, he was elected twice to office. I can't say I'm impressed with his track record since I'm not but he's still our president. Discuss his policies, rail against his willingness to say he will veto certain bills, but do it with the respect the office deserves. If I could do it with Reagan, you can do it with Obama. Maybe it will even lead to respecting each other a little bit.

Instead of railing against us about "respecting the office", how about calling out the person IN the office for disrespecting it , when he labels the largest religious population in the nation--Christians--as being as murderous and torturous as the Inquisition was 800 years ago!

TODAY, there is NO Christian group that crucifies, burns alive, beheads, or rapes and butchers children! Even the VILE so-called "baptist" group that pickets soldiers funerals yelling damnation and insults on them do not BUTCHER people!

If you want respect for the office, then stop pandering to the person IN it who disrespects the nation with such slander!

Originally Posted by Guest

It's always amusing to hear criticism of the president from the party that gave us the Iraq war, the worst recession since the great depression, Dow below 7000, 750,000 people per month losing their jobs, and on and on.

This is the party that thought Sarah Palin would make a good president. You betcha!!!

It's almost the same as hearing the Colts call the Patriots cheaters as they were getting their butts handed to them in a 45-7 blow-out.

It will be fun to hear the Viagra voters telling their wives why a woman should never be president.

These are the posts that serve NO purpose and made by folks who evidently have no idea of the issues confronting the country.

It is just baffling how folks like you cannot see WHO the President is...if he or she were Republican, no difference...still talk about the issues and where you disagree. If he or she was a martian, same thing.

You folks who are so party oriented and issue deprived will go to the polls and vote party no matter what.

I have yet to see on this new Political forum, and actually not that much until the posters like yourself got it shut down, where anyone is attacking the President as a person.

HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. It is his policy or lack there of that is going to be discussed. How can you not understand that.

To post about...as in playground...oh, yeah, well you know what you did...that is just plain dumb. Come up with conversation on ISIL, ECONOMY, UKRAINE....whatever and post your opinion and why. But to continue down this road about whose is bigger is just plain infantile !