Obama's frightening insensitivity following shooting

[Steelie]

Good Day,

Hey SIB, hehe... just my little way of poking a stick in the ribs... ;-)

Steelie

[sassysandy050]

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
And the Bushes had what else to do Friday? Run the country?
And how long did it take Bush to get to New Orleans? Oh, but then there were no military shot in New Orleans. Just some of their families devastated. Big difference.
Obama is "making it over" today, as I understand it.

So, you let Mr. Obama skate and slap President Bush around again...nice SIB. You are in the same boat as Pete. You talk really well about the "superior intellect" that you and Obama have, but when push comes to shove, you are just a Democrat Party hack. Plain and simple. If that pisses you off, so be it. There is no "superior intellect" involved in being a hack for either party.

[abranger]

Businessminded_plus4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay - I understand what you are saying - there is always a 'hesitance' on a speakers voice & words if they are 'worried' about backlash for any comment made. I've seen both sides do this to politicians on opposing sides. Obama is certainly an eloquent speaker and that is what won him the election. But on several occassions when I've heard him speak, IMO he does not get HIS point across in what I would call a convincing manner. I don't think I am the only one who feels this because if he was articulate with a message that was SO convincing -then it would be much harder for people to be as upset as they are - right? I mean, the very things that people are afraid of happening, he says 'won't happen'. So either he is not articulate in explaining his position OR, he is lying. In part he cannot articulate it because there is nothing to back up what he 'claims' I fail to believe that a man as eloquent like he is in speaking cannot convince more than 1 Republican that this Healthcare plan is "good" for the country. If he could articulate it, why the need to strong-arm it through like he is?

Keep in mind that Obama is only an eloquent speaker when reading from a teleprompter. And even then, he is basically humorless, arrogant and monotone. Take the teleprompter away and he stutters and stumbles worse than Bush ever did and what that says to me is he is not versed on events and basically clueless. He may be a great thinker but someone else has to put it in words for him.

[neecer]

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
And the Bushes had what else to do Friday? Run the country?
And how long did it take Bush to get to New Orleans? Oh, but then there were no military shot in New Orleans. Just some of their families devastated. Big difference.
Obama is "making it over" today, as I understand it.

That would mean Obama is really running this country.

That would also mean that he is no longer campaigning..........

[sassysandy050]

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
I've seen that a lot too. He just doesn't measure up to the expectations the right has on him. Just look at Bush. It's been a very log time since I've seen anyone so like a bull in a china shop in the use of the English language; couldn't form a comprehensible sentence, bumbled through most everything he spoke about yet the right followed behind him saying 'we knew what he meant'. So it must be the more intellect the less the right understands? Please please do not try and tell me Bush was a good articulator.
Trying to convince a Republican of anything that even may appear to interfere with privatized corporate control over the economy is like herding cats.
You mean like Bush strong armed us into a wrongful war? That kind of strong-arming? Like Bush demolishing the 14th Amendment taking away the personal Rights to freedom of the People because it was good of the People? That kind of strong-arming? Yet people admire(d) him for doing what he thought was right and as a leader just doing it. Is it that money is more important than freedom? Is it that individual health is less important than individual wealth?
There was less angst about individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution being taken away by (basically) abolishing the 14th Amendment, than there is about this health care. And this national health care is a bad thing because it supposedly deprives the American People of their individual freedoms while the actual deprivation of personal freedoms by trouncing on the 14th Amendment was a good thing?
No one will ever make it comprehensible they hold the Constitution above all by saying that national health care is un-Constitutional while they support(ed) the blatant trouncing on the Constitutional 14th Amendment by Bush.
None of the arguments given by the right against the Constitutionality of national health care and personal freedom, as they supported trouncing the 14th Amendment, or the articulation of Obama to convince, as Bush couldn't put together a single articulate sentence. This is simply and purely about right hates left, conservatism hates liberalism, wealth against health politicking. It just couldn't be any clearer.

The 14th Amendment???? Must have had a brain fart there, SIB...nothing that Bush did "trounced" on the 14th amendment. As to your comment about the right "hating" the left, I would say the left should look in the mirror for that comment. I must say, this post of yours was certainly a rambling one, are you ok? You are usually much more clear in your comments. You have done and continue to do your fair share of attempting to trounce the right, so I guess you should be considered right in the middle of all of this, eh?

[Seenitbefore]

sassysandy050 wrote:

<quoted text>The 14th Amendment???? Must have had a brain fart there, SIB...nothing that Bush did "trounced" on the 14th amendment. As to your comment about the right "hating" the left, I would say the left should look in the mirror for that comment. I must say, this post of yours was certainly a rambling one, are you ok? You are usually much more clear in your comments. You have done and continue to do your fair share of attempting to trounce the right, so I guess you should be considered right in the middle of all of this, eh?

Yup, you're right. The 4th Amendment is what I was talking about.

They did a pretty good job on the 5th Amendment too.

[Seenitbefore]

abranger wrote:

<quoted text>
Keep in mind that Obama is only an eloquent speaker when reading from a teleprompter. And even then, he is basically humorless, arrogant and monotone. Take the teleprompter away and he stutters and stumbles worse than Bush ever did and what that says to me is he is not versed on events and basically clueless. He may be a great thinker but someone else has to put it in words for him.

So then you're looking for an entertainer as President.

Few Presidents used their own words to get 'it' across. That's why they have speech writers to put their thoughts into language the public can understand. Or at least want to hear.

Bush couldn't even do it with his speech writers.

[Gville Jim]

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
So then you're looking for an entertainer as President.
Few Presidents used their own words to get 'it' across. That's why they have speech writers to put their thoughts into language the public can understand. Or at least want to hear.
Bush couldn't even do it with his speech writers.

There is More to it than being able to read a teleprompter.
Maybe Bush wasnt as elequent and pretty as Obama is.
But you just love him because he's just so darn cute and stuff!
Thats a good reason to vote for a president, isnt it?

[Seenitbefore]

Gville Jim wrote:

<quoted text>There is More to it than being able to read a teleprompter.
Maybe Bush wasnt as elequent and pretty as Obama is.
But you just love him because he's just so darn cute and stuff!
Thats a good reason to vote for a president, isnt it?

Look, I don't have anything a against them but it's just not my life style. He just hasn't ever affected me in that way. It's good for you that's fine, just not for me.

[DARK HELMET LIVES]

Businessminded_plus4 wrote:

Lastly, I am not happy about the direction the war has taken this country but I also believe that from a Commander In Chief perspective it was probably one of the most difficult times for a President to lead. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and at the time, being proactive in our war on terror seemed like the right thing as it pertains to Iraq. What we know now is that the evidence wasn't good. But, at the time, the fear in our country was still VERY high. The fear was on many levels from of our water supplies being messed with to the next large attack. I think that Bush, his administration AND the entire congress made a decision based on that 'fear' of the unknown. It was a irrational decision made on rational information. What I mean by that is that even though the WMD were gone, the congress KNEW Iraq DID HAVE WMD. That is fact. How does the saying go 'the best prediction of the future is past behavior'. Why would congress expect less of Iraq when Saddam was in power? So - stop with the blaming Bush - the Dems went along with the war. The Republicans aren't "going along" with Obamacare.

FINALLY ... Somebody who actually gets it on this misbegotten excuse for a website, whose motto more than likely is "designed BY liberals FOR liberals ... Conservatives need not post here--but may do so at their own risk."

[KCGR]

There are many more Conservatives on this sight then there are Liberals.

DARK HELMET LIVES wrote:

<quoted text>FINALLY ... Somebody who actually gets it on this misbegotten excuse for a website, whose motto more than likely is "designed BY liberals FOR liberals ... Conservatives need not post here--but may do so at their own risk."

[Seenitbefore]

Businessminded_plus4 wrote:

<quoted text>
I will agree Bush bumbling through alot of speaches but he rarely if ever used a teleprompter and Obama stutters and stammers in most situations without a teleprompter. But if you're going to defense of Obama was his fear or saying the wrong thing then I'm quite sure that applies to Bush - even more so because he spoke more often without the teleprompter and was 'winging it'. I would say Bush was eloquent in speaking in his own way as is Obama. They each say things in a way that those who follow them understand. IMO Bush spoke more down to Earth. They say most newspapers have to be written at an 8th grade reading level and newspapers are read by BOTH Dems & Republicans. For you to suggest that Republicans are too stupid to understand Obama is ridiculous. I would suggest that perhaps those of us to don't understand or believe what Obama tries to say are simply holding him to a higher standard - perhaps even a higher standard than we held Bush. You seem to think that since the war was 'shoved down' our throats that is somehow equal when in fact -Dems held the majority in that instance AND at the time, National Security was a serious concern. Health care is NOT a National Security concern. So if I said, yes, this is strong-arming as bad as Bush did would it matter to you? Or is it justified since it's Obmaa? When are we Americans willing to say this isn't a left right issue - it's an AMERICAN issue. The left feels the only way to get there way is to push it through when in fact, many of the things in the bill could be pushed through in several smaller bills. But the Dems refuse to do this. Why? This is one of the largest pieces of legislation in history and will impact EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN. Obama does NOT articulate what this legislation will do because HE doesn't even understand it himself. This is a bunch of Democrats having trust in those whom wrote it. Nobody knows the full economic impact just as nobody knew what economic impact the war would be. Are we ready to take this on? At what cost to you and I are we willing?

I'll be surprised if I have enough room here. First things first. "When are we Americans willing to say this isn't a left right issue - it's an AMERICAN issue."
Well lets see, South Carolina (R) Senator Jim DeMint said "Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people," DeMint predicted, adding that "this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America." "If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said.
Sounds like the Republicans have thought of it as an American issue doesn't it. Or is what you are saying is it's time for it to be an American issue by killing it and breaking Obama.

Ya know the Democrats holding the majority position in Congress when the Iraq was at issue is old and smelly. Those Democrats who spoke out against the war and giving the reasons why where vilified and shouted down to as anti-Americans and not patriots to this country. And as it turns out they were, and actually are, the ones who where right.

"At what cost to you and I are we willing?" Sounds like perplexities everyone faces every day in some form or another. We've had tons of experience on ALL the costs of war(s) yet that never seems to be a deterrent. Why is what may be better for the people?

[Businessminded_p lus4]

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll be surprised if I have enough room here. First things first. "When are we Americans willing to say this isn't a left right issue - it's an AMERICAN issue."
Well lets see, South Carolina (R) Senator Jim DeMint said "Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people," DeMint predicted, adding that "this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America." "If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said.
Sounds like the Republicans have thought of it as an American issue doesn't it. Or is what you are saying is it's time for it to be an American issue by killing it and breaking Obama.
Ya know the Democrats holding the majority position in Congress when the Iraq was at issue is old and smelly. Those Democrats who spoke out against the war and giving the reasons why where vilified and shouted down to as anti-Americans and not patriots to this country. And as it turns out they were, and actually are, the ones who where right.
"At what cost to you and I are we willing?" Sounds like perplexities everyone faces every day in some form or another. We've had tons of experience on ALL the costs of war(s) yet that never seems to be a deterrent. Why is what may be better for the people?

SIB - keep it simple here. Just you, as an American. Do you believe it is better to cram this entire bill into a 1,000 page document that at least ONE Democratic Senator ADMITS he will not read and in fact would need a lawyer with him to interpret what it all means - OR - would it not be better to have several smaller bills that could be hashed out in a way everyone would understand and could buy in to? Which option is best for the American taxpayer? You've made plenty of comments on here about the problems with lobbying....which one is easier to slip in all sorts of BS - 1 1,000 page bill or several smaller bills? I don't give a rats A@@ what Republican politicans are doing or not doing - that kind of rhetoric is unproductive unless you are simply trying to do a 'tit for tat'. And if 'tit for tat' is all that this huge healthcare bill is to you and others than IMO you've crawled down to the level of the dirty politicians on either side. It's okay with you to spend unknown amounts of money on Obamacare since we've committed to uknown amounts of money on a war that many don't agree with. Is that your stance?

[jay bee]

_Dingo wrote:

<quoted text>
WTF are you talking about now, you dolt? You're comparing the WTC attack with a lone shooter now. Thousands died on 9/11, not that you care. The president and vice president followed standard procedure during an attack by terrorists. I'll bet you did a little dance for "the cause" when the towers fell. This latest tragedy is but another source of joy for someone like you, who would piss on the American flag, more misery heaped on our brave soldiers while you spin it back to your stupid diatribe against Bush/Cheney. Blind to everything but your ridiculous political wet deams.
I'm certain Obama knew more than most of what was going on, yet he still couldn't control his giddiness, even for the sake of at least appearing presidential. You stupid, dangerous progressives fairly jump at every tragedy that befalls America. Obama is the perfect talking head for such an arrogant, irresponsible and immature group of cowards and this is but another perfect example that we have indeed elected the enemy.

Bingo, Dingo!

[Seenitbefore]

Businessminded_plus4 wrote:

<quoted text>
SIB - keep it simple here. Just you, as an American. Do you believe it is better to cram this entire bill into a 1,000 page document that at least ONE Democratic Senator ADMITS he will not read and in fact would need a lawyer with him to interpret what it all means - OR - would it not be better to have several smaller bills that could be hashed out in a way everyone would understand and could buy in to? Which option is best for the American taxpayer? You've made plenty of comments on here about the problems with lobbying....which one is easier to slip in all sorts of BS - 1 1,000 page bill or several smaller bills? I don't give a rats A@@ what Republican politicans are doing or not doing - that kind of rhetoric is unproductive unless you are simply trying to do a 'tit for tat'. And if 'tit for tat' is all that this huge healthcare bill is to you and others than IMO you've crawled down to the level of the dirty politicians on either side. It's okay with you to spend unknown amounts of money on Obamacare since we've committed to uknown amounts of money on a war that many don't agree with. Is that your stance?

From experience several smaller in legal terms only serves for more confusion. Granted it doesn't have to be as big as it is, however, this is a country of adversaries. It's been turned into a very adversarial environment.

I'll disregard the political slurring my way and just say that what this bill has evolved into is not what the American People, that wanted it, wanted. It has morphed into another gift to the insurance companies. The antis turned it into one more profit center. The insurance companies are the ones that will be administering it and will be being paid handsomely.

We shall see what the Senate does with it's end of it.

And no, I am not a tit-for-tat type person. What I am is one that is willing to entertain all forms of reasonable negotiation. When it turns into a battle to be won, I can and do do that.

[jay bee]

Twinky wrote:

Alright, ENOUGH OF THIS ALREADY...It is NOT necessary to over-analyze every little thing Obama does or doesn't do...So he wasn't at Ft. Hood in what some of you think to be a "reasonable" amount of time but Bush was...SERIOUSLY, what good would it be for Obama to have visited Ft. Hood this past weekend in the middle of an extensive investigation? Do any of you REALLY think it matters to the people who lost loved ones that Obama wasn't there this past weekend? I'm sure they're in such a state of shock that they wouldn't remember it anyways...You people need to stop nit-picking at Obama for every little thing and realize what REALLY matters in what he does or doesn't do

Trust me when I say; Our soldiers don't want that America Hater anywhere near them OR their fellow soldiers.
Barry......pfffffft....

Would someone please call Coach Soros and beg him to put the Varsity in now?

[hmm]

Bubbly4now wrote:

He was trying not to glorify the killer or killers - as it was too early to have ALL THE FACTS.
He didn't want a bunch of crazy-a teabaggers killing people who looked Middle Eastern.

Geez, really nice that in the wake of this terrorist attack all you want to do is play politics. I think it's time to divide this country in half, libs on one side, and those of us who care about America and the military on another. Better yet, why don't the libs try living with the 'radical' muslims you so admire. Let us know how that works out for you, if you don't lose your heads...

[Lucy in Rockford]

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>Bush couldn't even do it with his speech writers.

And Obie can't do it with a teleprompter.

NEXT!!

[abranger]

What is wrong with libs who continue to bash the insurance companies who are NOT, I repeat, NOT making exorbitant profits by any corporate standards as evidenced by recent reports available for anyone to examine. Find another whipping boy...it's not the insurance companies. Start with Tort reform which is not even mentioned in the 1000 page document. You all know our taxes will go through the roof and part of that FEDERAL TAX MONEY will be used for illegals and abortions. Seniors, those who can least afford it, will be burdened with higher costs and declining levels of care. The administration has already stated that seniors use too high a percentage of health care resources so what does that equate to...rationing of care...the so called "death panels"? You blind hope and changers have no clue.

[abranger]

I could at least look in Bush's eyes when he spoke and see sincerity. I look in Obama's eyes and I am frightened for my country.