QuakerOats;1439380 wrote:REPORT: Special ops held back on Benghazi...

OFFICIAL: US could have stopped attack...

White House tries to deflect...

State Dept Won't Vouch for 'Credibility' of Officials Set to Testify...

Ambasaddor Pickering and Admiral Mullen and the Review Board found no evidence of cover-up and have undermined the claims made by these so called "whistleblowers" as they were not made to them during the review board hearings. Hope this helps.

It'll be fascinating when nothing comes of these hearings tomorrow and conservatives will still continue to hunt for t3h tr00f ab0uT #Benghazi.

BoatShoes;1439587 wrote:Still believing in the Green Lantern Theory of Leadership, eh??

It's very simple. The Republicans in Congress are a stone's throw away from being QuakerOats in ideology. General Patton, George Washington, Spartacus, Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, nor any other great leader from history could get guys like Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc. to agree with things that Obama has proposed...despite their being more conservative than policies endorsed by many republicans in the past.

There is no amount of Leadership (TM) that can overcome the fact that Republicans get more points/praise by being as hostile toward Obama as possible.

Just look at what Frank Luntz said about Rubio getting killed on Talk Radio and by folks like those on this board for even considering an immigration bill.

You need to open your eyes. Even if we accept that Obama "doesn't lead" as you suggest....no amount of Leadership (TM) can persuade the unpersuadable Republicans who will do anything to undermine Obama.

Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill would likely disagree with you, but okay. :laugh:

fish82;1439628 wrote:Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill would likely disagree with you, but okay. :laugh:

As if that is even a remotely good example or comparison :laugh:

But you're a smart guy and you know that democrats were not as hostile to Ronald Reagan as today's Republicans are to Obama. Many of today's hardcore republicans were still in the democratic party in the early Reagan years as the full Republican take over of the South had not fully set in. Democrats never filibustered Reagan as often as Republicans filibuster Obama and on and on. Democrats didn't primary guys like Dick Gephardt when they got in on reforms with Reagan. I'm listening to Hugh Hewitt yesterday on the ride home slam Dave Camp for even suggesting tax reform with Obama. Robert Byrd didn't make it his mission to ensure Reagan was a one term president...etc. etc.

And, add the fact that a moderate democrat like Bird was even the minority leader. There are no comparable Republican moderates in the Senate today.

Even if Barack Obama had all of Ronald Reagan's leadership skills...none the Republicans in Congress nor the conservatives on this board and elsewhere would want anything to do with it!

BoatShoes;1439641 wrote:As if that is even a remotely good example or comparison :laugh:

But you're a smart guy and you know that democrats were not as hostile to Ronald Reagan as today's Republicans are to Obama.

I stopped here, as it's painfully obvious that you were either in diapers circa 1981-83 or are just being obtuse to cover your ass again.

The list of Presidents who successfully led and worked with adversarial Congresses is lengthy. History is obviously not your strong suit.

Stick to the pretty graphs...it's easier to maintain a shred of your credibility that way.

fish82;1439647 wrote: The list of Presidents who successfully led and worked with adversarial Congresses is lengthy. History is obviously not your strong suit.

Pretty much. Before Clinton made his infamous "pivot to the center", gridlock was a key tenet of Ross Perot's bid.

Obama is the most antagonistic, divisive POTUS we've had in a long, long time. His policies are bad, but in fact Obama seems to do that almost intentionally as a campaign device. Campaigning is all he knows, he does not know how to lead. Half the time he can't even get his own party to follow him, which suits him just fine because he'd rather be stumping.

fish82;1439647 wrote:I stopped here, as it's painfully obvious that you were either in diapers circa 1981-83 or are just being obtuse to cover your ass again.

The list of Presidents who successfully led and worked with adversarial Congresses is lengthy. History is obviously not your strong suit.

Stick to the pretty graphs...it's easier to maintain a shred of your credibility that way.

Your schtick is super cool and all but it is interesting you mention history

Actual historians are on my side.

Mann and Ornstein; Let's Just Say It; The Republicans are the Problem.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

...Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-27/opinions/35453898_1_republican-party-party-moves-democratic-party

Weird that they weren't writing such things about the Democrats in the 1980's and that Reagan with his Supreme Leadership skills was able to mold their will??? Oh that's right because guys like Rick Perry were still democrats then. :rolleyes:

This Congress is not merely adversarial it is hostile. And, for that matter, President's in the past have not been able to impose their will over "Do-Nothing" legislatures who will resist them at any turn. Despite his best efforts, wonkish businessman Herbert Hoover could not impose his will on Democrats who took over and he lost. Harry Truman could not impose his will on the obstinate conservative coalition. etc.

Even the Republican Legislators know it.
Pat Toomey: (Who of course the RWNJ's are freaking out over for Manchin-Toomey)

“In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey said.

Just own it already! You've got almost half your people thinking we're gonna need an armed revolution soon! Obama could definitely cut a deal with the congressmen they voted for. :laugh:

gut;1439653 wrote:Pretty much. Before Clinton made his infamous "pivot to the center", gridlock was a key tenet of Ross Perot's bid.

Obama is the most antagonistic, divisive POTUS we've had in a long, long time. His policies are bad, but in fact Obama seems to do that almost intentionally as a campaign device. Campaigning is all he knows, he does not know how to lead. Half the time he can't even get his own party to follow him, which suits him just fine because he'd rather be stumping.

Yes, he is the most antagonizing president because he's bucked his party at every turn...handed almost every demand over to the GOP and begged them to work with him in almost any way possible and yet the refuse because they can't stand him for any number of reasons just like yourself.

Obama has made offers that were more conservative than Bill Clinton on entitlement reform and signed a bill making most of the Bush tax rates permanent (which Bush couldn't even do)...rates lower than those embraced by Clinton and he doesn't even get the time of day from the GOP. Shit, Obama's healthcare plan is Newt Gingrich's...you know the one that these Republicans have ttried to repeal over 30 times.

It's almost like you're admitting that the Republicans have lurched to the right beyond the point of reasoning with a democratic president. :rolleyes:

BoatShoes;1439680 wrote:Your schtick is super cool and all but it is interesting you mention history

Actual historians are on my side.

Mann and Ornstein; Let's Just Say It; The Republicans are the Problem.





http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-27/opinions/35453898_1_republican-party-party-moves-democratic-party

Weird that they weren't writing such things about the Democrats in the 1980's and that Reagan with his Supreme Leadership skills was able to mold their will??? Oh that's right because guys like Rick Perry were still democrats then. :rolleyes:

This Congress is not merely adversarial it is hostile. And, for that matter, President's in the past have not been able to impose their will over "Do-Nothing" legislatures who will resist them at any turn. Despite his best efforts, wonkish businessman Herbert Hoover could not impose his will on Democrats who took over and he lost. Harry Truman could not impose his will on the obstinate conservative coalition. etc.

Even the Republican Legislators know it.
Pat Toomey: (Who of course the RWNJ's are freaking out over for Manchin-Toomey)





Just own it already! You've got almost half your people thinking we're gonna need an armed revolution soon! Obama could definitely cut a deal with the congressmen they voted for. :laugh:

LOL.

Calling a couple of op-ed writers who work for political think-tanks "historians" is pretty lulzy, even for you. As usual, turning to the distortion/obfuscation playbook. Good to see you at least stay consistent across topics. :rolleyes:

Obie is a complete failure as a leader. As stated, he can't even get his own party in line half the time, and has Harry & Nancy doing the heavy lifting for him about 95% of the time. It's one thing to debate his ideas/policies, but to even think about defending his leadership fail is pretty snortworthy.

BoatShoes;1439683 wrote:Yes, he is the most antagonizing president because he's bucked his party at every turn...handed almost every demand over to the GOP and begged them to work with him in almost any way possible and yet the refuse because they can't stand him for any number of reasons just like yourself.

I know you're serious here, which makes the Derp even better.

BoatShoes;1439683 wrote:Yes, he is the most antagonizing president because he's bucked his party at every turn...handed almost every demand over to the GOP and begged them to work with him in almost any way possible and yet the refuse because they can't stand him for any number of reasons just like yourself.

Obama has made offers that were more conservative than Bill Clinton on entitlement reform and signed a bill making most of the Bush tax rates permanent (which Bush couldn't even do)...rates lower than those embraced by Clinton and he doesn't even get the time of day from the GOP. ****, Obama's healthcare plan is Newt Gingrich's...you know the one that these Republicans have ttried to repeal over 30 times.

It's almost like you're admitting that the Republicans have lurched to the right beyond the point of reasoning with a democratic president. :rolleyes:

Sorry boat, but you just filled this post with things that are not true.

Obama has done nothing of the sort (bent to the Rs). He has made promises in compromises and then refused to honor the promise on spending cuts over and over. So eventually the Rs stopped wanting to play Charlie Brown to his Lucy.

BoatShoes;1439683 wrote:Yes, he is the most antagonizing president because he's bucked his party at every turn..

No, he's at times been too liberal and too ignorant for even his own party. He also likes to distance himself from Congress - in contrast to pretty much every POTUS in recent memory - so he's not accountable and has someone to blame (I guess blaming Bush gets old).

You cannot possibly support this guy unless you are completely blinded by partisanship. He's well on-track for being the worst POTUS in modern times

I'm sorry, but Boatshoes is going on the ignore list. He has his head too far up Obama's ass to even be worth looking at his posts.

gut;1439852 wrote:He's well on-track for being the worst POTUS in modern times

You're racist.

Give credit where it is due, a DEM congressman admits that the Fort Hood shootings have been downplayed by political correctness.

http://gma.yahoo.com/dem-blames-political-correctness-fort-hood-workplace-violence-161155760--abc-news-topstories.html

Anyone else want to join me in NOT MY PRESIDENT

The only reason there will be no attempt to impeach this clown is because of the race card, liberal media ass kissing

Careers will be damage and Hillary your career is over and your run for 2016 when up in smoke ... Obama use the Clintons and Hillary under the bus, when will the Democrat Party understand Obama all about Obama and his idealogy ..

Hillary it about time to step up and call Obama out you could save your honor...

BoatShoes;1439641 wrote:As if that is even a remotely good example or comparison :laugh:

But you're a smart guy and you know that democrats were not as hostile to Ronald Reagan as today's Republicans are to Obama.

Actually, democrats were quite hostile to Reagan, as was the media, but it is terribly difficult to save face with most Americans in being hostile to a liberty-loving, free enterprise, red-blooded American. Thus, a lot of democrats were not as hostile to Reagan, as some republicans are to obama (and rightly so).


Good luck.

"Actually, democrats were quite hostile to Reagan, as was the media,"

The media was equally hostile to Margaret Thatcher when she passed recently. Just let it go. You can't get into a discussion with some folks.

tk421;1439964 wrote:I'm sorry, but Boatshoes is going on the ignore list. He has his head too far up Obama's ass to even be worth looking at his posts.

Lol...I have criticized Obama repeatedly. I have acknowledged several of his faults and called him a lame duck president even.

I am the only liberal on here who regularly posts (pretty much). Can you really not handle it?? :laugh: Political debate is fun. Tell me where I am wrong.

It is not my fault that a Tea Party darling senator acknowledges to "teh liberal media" that Pubs won't work with Obama because they don't want to be seen helping him.

I wonder why that is?? Because folks like yourself would fault them for working with an administration that "disgusts you"

QuakerOats;1440062 wrote:Actually, democrats were quite hostile to Reagan, as was the media, but it is terribly difficult to save face with most Americans in being hostile to a liberty-loving, free enterprise, red-blooded American. Thus, a lot of democrats were not as hostile to Reagan, as some republicans are to obama (and rightly so).


Good luck.

LoL. Not even comparable. For one, the fairness doctrine existed for most of his term and you didn't have the Left Wing Nut Jobs barking threats to politicians at the time. Let me know when you find a quote of a Democrat politician giving away the game saying that they didn't cut a deal with ole Ronnie because they didn't want to be seen helping the man.

But what is funny, is that you QuakerOats, actually prove my point to all of your fellow conservative friends here.

Why on earth would a good freedom-loving American like yourself and good red-blooded Republican politicans you elect ever want to compromise with a marxist/socialist/activist/agitator who wants to fundamentally transform America???

That's not change we can believe in.....

:laugh::laugh:

Belly35;1439981 wrote:Anyone else want to join me in NOT MY PRESIDENT

The only reason there will be no attempt to impeach this clown is because of the race card, liberal media ass kissing

Careers will be damage and Hillary your career is over and your run for 2016 when up in smoke ... Obama use the Clintons and Hillary under the bus, when will the Democrat Party understand Obama all about Obama and his idealogy ..

Hillary it about time to step up and call Obama out you could save your honor...

^^^Half the Republican House shares these same sentiments. Why would you work with Obama if you think this?
:thumbup:

No amount of leadership skills could get Belly to support Obama.

gut;1439852 wrote:No, he's at times been too liberal and too ignorant for even his own party. He also likes to distance himself from Congress - in contrast to pretty much every POTUS in recent memory - so he's not accountable and has someone to blame (I guess blaming Bush gets old).

You cannot possibly support this guy unless you are completely blinded by partisanship. He's well on-track for being the worst POTUS in modern times

At this rate it's not looking good for him. His only real hope is a full embrace of market monetarism by the Fed and/or sweeping gains by democrats in Congress (which has no chance of happening).

But what is funny is that by your own standards you should love the guy. Lowest levels of public employment in decades...The Fastest Rate of Deficit Reduction Since World War II...High gains in income for teh J0b Cre@tor5 in the investor class...locking in the majority of President Bush's tax rates permanently, etc.

"Current Deficit Plunges 32%"

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/07/news/economy/deficit-falling/index.html?iid=Lead

jmog;1439822 wrote:Sorry boat, but you just filled this post with things that are not true.

Obama has done nothing of the sort (bent to the Rs). He has made promises in compromises and then refused to honor the promise on spending cuts over and over. So eventually the Rs stopped wanting to play Charlie Brown to his Lucy.

He is the first democrat president to put Social Security on the table. He has cut medicare spending (which Republicans ironically ran against him on) and has proposed more. Republicans have even given him the credit for the sequester because it was "his idea".

Because he hasn't gone as conservative as Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan's election platform does not mean he has not made sincere efforts to break bread.

If I am unhappy with Obama's offers (which I am)....shouldn't that give you a clue???

what did I say that was incorrect? 1. Most of Bush tax rates permanent; Fact....2. Obamacare was floated by Gingrich as alternative to Hillarycare and is now law; Fact. 3. Obama is more conservative than Clinton on Medicare and SS; has cut one and proposed cutting the other. Fact

You just have no intention of agreeing to anything that he would propose. He is a liberal/socialist who does not really like America the way it was founded deep down and should be fought at every turn...We've got a foothold for Freedom/Liberty/'Murica and we have to hold the line...that is what they say on talk radio and that is what the Republicans in Congress believe.

Shock testimony expected from Benghazi witnesses...
Fourth whistleblower blocked from testifying...
SENATOR: 'The dam is about to break'...
'Operation Smear' already underway...
Bolton: Could bring down admin...
Cheney rips 'leadership'...
Hillary in spotlight...



Will the inept, lying, radical, leftist appeasers get what they deserve? I doubt it.


4 dead in Benghazi.

BoatShoes;1440085 wrote:Lol...I have criticized Obama repeatedly. I have acknowledged several of his faults and called him a lame duck president even.

I am the only liberal on here who regularly posts (pretty much). Can you really not handle it?? :laugh: Political debate is fun. Tell me where I am wrong.

It is not my fault that a Tea Party darling senator acknowledges to "teh liberal media" that Pubs won't work with Obama because they don't want to be seen helping him.

I wonder why that is?? Because folks like yourself would fault them for working with an administration that "disgusts you"

I give you credit, you at least try to make arguments. In the other "political" forum I post on it is completely hijacked by the Obama-poligists, likely because many of them live in the DC area and depend on big government. If I had a $700,000 house in Fairfax County that I was upside down on my mortgage I might be licking the teats of government as well knowing that it can't last much longer. These guys don't even try, if you make a statement about Benghazi or anything potentially counter to our current executive administration they will gang up and shout you down for being stupid or bigoted or whatever.

BoatShoes;1440096 wrote: But what is funny is that by your own standards you should love the guy. Lowest levels of public employment in decades...The Fastest Rate of Deficit Reduction Since World War II...High gains in income for teh J0b Cre@tor5 in the investor class...locking in the majority of President Bush's tax rates permanently, etc.

That's because most of the above is bullshit. And giving Obama credit for the "fastest rate of deficit reduction' is pure retard. Govt spending is at among it's highest levels of GDP ever, probably behind only the Great Depression. In fact, he's mainly shrunk the tax base while growing spending, and tried to pile it all on the rich. It's not only ineffective and stupid, it's divisive.

He's an abject failure, and with his own party now starting to distance themselves on many issues he's lame-ducking himself just months into his 2nd term. Yet another dubious accomplishment.

Belly35;1439981 wrote: The only reason there will be no attempt to impeach this clown is because of the race card, liberal media ass kissing .

Two words: Joe Biden.

Although, despite being a complete idiot, I believe Biden would be a more effective POTUS than Obama.