Tommy, I want to congratulate you – it’s like there’s this huge bear and you’re this little mouse, just pecking away at the bear’s feet. And the bear would like nothing more than to swat you and crush you and literally kill you, but you will not be killed.

“While this sort of attention-whoring is par for the course for Limbaugh,” TC

Please Tommy. The only difference between you and Rush is that Rush has a bigger microphone.

I don’t care for Rush much but he sure knows how to piss off the liberals. LOL….it’s like an art.

Tommy says:

Smerconish is right, though, to ask if Limbaugh is making Republicans look bad with his inflammatory comments, because he is making Republicans look bad with his inflammatory comments. The fact that he hides behind his impish “tweaking” excuse only proves him a coward in the process.

Of course, that’s your opinion Tommy and alot of use don’t put much stock in your opinions.

I happen to catch this on the radio driving back from Harrisburg and the first thing I said to myself I wonder if it will make Mediaite?

Tommy doesn’t disapoint. Rush was right Tommy doing his best Pavlov’s dog here.

Keep em’ coming Tommy you’ll land that MSNBC gig yet.

Tommy expressing your love of Keith one day and your disgust for Rush the other makes you look like a hypocrite. I, for the record, could do without both. But as long as you prop up one, there must be a counter to it. I mean the whole reason FOX came into existence is because the MSM answered complaints of it’s bias by saying… “SUCK IT” (memogate anyone?). So a counter was created. As long as people are propping up the 10%’s on the left there must, by law of nature, be the 10%’s on the right to counter them. In your own way your keeping them around.

Tommy,

Have I told you how much you look like the Character “Spenc Ulchen” on the sitcom “King of Queens?’ Man you two are the same…I swear. The only difference is he worked in the Subway as a toll collector and you write for Mediaite….wait……uh…yeah you guys are just alike.

I hear he’s the titular head of the independent party.

RIGHT ON, RUSH!

Also note this:

50 Impeachable Crimes and Counting

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26650

November and IMPEACHMENT cometh -

Rush is too funny. He says things most people are thinking, but are too PC to say. LOL.

El Rushbo cannot be Christophered .

Glynnis wrote:

Smerconish is right, though, to ask if Limbaugh is making Republicans look bad with his inflammatory comments, because he is making Republicans look bad with his inflammatory comments. The fact that he hides behind his impish “tweaking” excuse only proves him a coward in the process.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

More Americans agree with Rush, not just Republicans!

I prefer to call it Tommied, and once again Tommy does not disappoint.

I repeat my question: WHere is Dan? How can he allow this level of complete and total BS on this board?

Smerc is right, in Tommy’s mind, because in Tommy’s mind all liberal lefty loons are right and anyone/anything conservative is wrong.

And he is a member of the WH Press Corpse.

Isn’t it awesome that TC represents the media? He is so astute, so smart, so smug, so stupid.

The White House cries “Havoc!”, and let’s loose the dumbest mutt in the kennel:

“The Republican party is solidifying its reputation for intolerance in this year, for almost any kind of difference in American society, is going down a very dangerous long term road,” [Anita] Dunn said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “They might see some short term things although I think the American people are better than that,” she said.

Coming from Dunn — who is no longer works for the Obama administration but still goes to the White House for regular message meetings — the attacks on the GOP could be viewed as having been coordinated with top advisers to the president such as David Axelrod and Dan Pfeiffer, her former deputy who now runs Obama’s communications shop.
(Daily Caller)

Tommy is making the democrats look bad btw, with his incessant stupidity on this board. But I guess it doesn’t matter.

Go Rush, give em hell, laugh out loud on your show again tomorrow. They buy it, hook, line and sinker every day.

Rush is a genius.

To answer the question in the headline “Another “Media Tweak”? ” Uh…yeah, and you took the bait again.

“Hey, watch me tweak these cops,” and then smacking a cop in the face. Yes, you have cagily manipulated that cop into arresting you. Good show!”

Oh, yes, Limbaugh is just doing himself no good at all by provoking the media to pillory him…

(As Tommy’s analogy and the five or six Limbaugh stories a week here show, their insight is inversely proportional to the seriousness with which they take themselves…)

Rush is proving himself to be more and more irrelevant. Keep talking, drugster!

Maybe Rush is closer to the truth than you think.

Didn’t Obama change his name from Barry to Barack? Barack being Mohammad’s horse when he rode into heaven.

Nothing wrong with a President being Muslim but he should have told everyone during the campaign.

Tommy got up off his prayer rug just long enough to bash Rush again.

tjl said:
Rush is proving himself to be more and more irrelevant.

Yeah, quite irrelevant; he has the #1 radio talk show like O’Reilly’s being #1 in cable TV for 9 years.

I just wonder why Tommy doesn’t cover white house press conferences since he’s a member of the press corps.

Kird said:
I just wonder why Tommy doesn’t cover white house press conferences since he’s a member of the press corps.

He writes a lot when it comes to defending anti-Semites like the late WH press corps member Helen Thomas. As a matter of fact, you can’t really stop him in his vociferous defense of that bigot.

I was wondering when we would hear from Anita Mao ZeDunn again.

notsofast said:
He writes a lot when it comes to defending anti-Semites like the late WH press corps member Helen Thomas. As a matter of fact, you can’t really stop him in his vociferous defense of that bigot.

O-K. He did the cover the Gibbs vs. Professional Left stuff as well. It would just be nice to get daily reports of the press room from somebody on the scene.

Imam Obama! I love it.

Not a Rush listener. But if he pisses off the left, I say all the power to him.

Jeff Jackie said:
Imam Obama! I love it. Not a Rush listener. But if he pisses off the left, I say all the power to him.

Sure, I agree, that is excellent. Rush does his job.

psssst!

Keeep spreading the talking point through “Imam Obama” or any other means:
Democrats = SOFT ON TERROR!

Can anyone imagine Romney, Palin, McCain, Biden, McCain, Edwards, Giuliani, Clinton (or any other ’08 prez candidate) slipping up, saying, “my Muslim faith?”

I don’t think so. But the media brushed it off.

Barry is a Muslim.

NORBIT said:
psssst! Keeep spreading the talking point through “Imam Obama” or any other means:Democrats = SOFT ON TERROR!

Yes, soft on terror, that’s the way to work it. By the way, how many non-military terrorist deaths last year?

oops, I mean deaths from terrorist attack?

There is nuthin” better than hearing Rush play with these left wing
nut jobs on a daily basis. The response is so predictable, so rapid, or should
I say rapid?? Love it!!
THEN—
Um Hummmm!
Beck, O’Rielly and Hannity takes over..
PRICELESS!!!!!!!

Or should I say, RABID???? I get to carried away with my
joy at times!!!

valkyrie101 said:
oops, I mean deaths from terrorist attack?

Well, just today, a suicide bomber killed 61 people in Iraq.

So, let me get this straight: Tommy Christopher tricks people into kissing the rear end of Øbowmao as he endorses the 9/11 Jihadi Victory Mosque, and then Tommy complains when most Americans instead scream out loud that they would rather kick Imam Øbowmao in the butt (as he, ONCE AGAIN, bends over to jihad).

Don’t worry Tommy, I am sure you can get a job putting some ice on it.

I must say I do respect Tommy Christopher for one thing. He’s open about his liberal bias. He doesn’t try to paint himself as objective. Many “journalists” claim to be fair and objective. Tommy doesn’t claim to be a journalist. He is an opinionist and is open about it. I wish others could be as upfront about their bias.

valkyrie101 said:
Yes, soft on terror, that’s the way to work it. By the way, how many non-military terrorist deaths last year?

————————-

Yes, the Democrats Great Anti-Terror strategy:

“Let’s hope the terrorists continue to prove themselves as INEPT & INCOMPETENT as the Obama Financial Team!:”

LMAO!!!!!

valkyrie101 said:
Yes, soft on terror, that’s the way to work it. By the way, how many non-military terrorist deaths last year?…oops, I mean deaths from terrorist attack?

Why don’t you count them up here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com

“oops, I mean deaths from terrorist attack?” Valkyrie

Monthly Jihad Report
July, 2010 Jihad Attacks: 192
Countries: 23
Religions: 5
Dead Bodies: 1060
Critically Injured: 1860

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

It’s a dirty job, but someone has to keep track of the bodies.

“While this sort of attention-whoring is par for the course for Limbaugh, the immediacy of his “Who, me?” defense reveals the fatal flaw in his logic.”

Takes one street walker to know another street walker, he said with tongue in cheek….or something like that…..
The slouching would lose you big bucks though, I bet……

gordonbloyershow said:
Tommy got up off his prayer rug just long enough to bash Rush again.

So if I accused you Gordo of being a drug addled cross-dresser with an anal cyst that you used as an excuse for not serving, I could come back after your incoherent rant and suggest I was just “tweaking you?”

Kird said:
Well, just today, a suicide bomber killed 61 people in Iraq.

U.S. deaths. Like 911 or the like? 25

There were more deaths from off track racing.

It always amazes me how may people bow before the great draft dodging, pill pushing family values man of four wives. If any Democrat had that baggage the right wing nutjobs would be all over themselves condemning them. You are all a bunch of hypocrites who worship that trash-talking clown who couldn’t make it out of the first college semester. He is a bigoted, anti-woman, anti-environment, anti-American clown with a big mouth.

valkyrie101 said:
There were more deaths from off track racing.

What a disgusting way to make a political point. One death, no matter the nationality, due too terrorism is one death too many, no matter who the President of the United States is.

And one death due to any cause is one death too many and shouldn’t be trivialized for any reason.

Hey Alamo, weren’t you the one bemoaning the lack of civility the other day? Looking at your last comment, I’d say you are a huge hypocrite.

“U.S. deaths. Like 911 or the like? 25″ “There were more deaths from off track racing.” Valkyrie

Earth to Valkyrie, that’s what Homeland Security is about–preventing US deaths. But I do realize that for someone as obtuse as you apparently are, you won’t believe there is a threat until there are piles of dead US civilians.

Who am I kidding? Even then you wouldn’t believe it. Well, if there’s any justice in the world, you and your ilk will get to experience a terrorist attack up close and personal.

Azarkhan said:
Who am I kidding? Even then you wouldn’t believe it. Well, if there’s any justice in the world, you and your ilk will get to experience a terrorist attack up close and personal.

Has politics totally destroyed morality here?

“Has politics totally destroyed morality here?” Kird

No. I’m actually in love with Valkyrie, and I don’t want any bad thing to befall him/her. But first there’s the whole Moon thing, and now this! I’m losing patience!!

alamo2 said:
It always amazes me how may people bow before the great draft dodging, pill pushing family values man of four wives. If any Democrat had that baggage the right wing nutjobs would be all over themselves condemning them. You are all a bunch of hypocrites who worship that trash-talking clown who couldn’t make it out of the first college semester. He is a bigoted, anti-woman, anti-environment, anti-American clown with a big mouth.

Bingo! By the way, you forgot anti-intellectual. Other than that… spot-on.

Azarkhan says:

No. I’m actually in love with Valkyrie, and I don’t want any bad thing to befall him/her.

You’re just saying that because he/she is famous. You’re star-struck.

She is the goddess, and I am the skinhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uelHwf8o7_U

JimBob said:
Or should I say, RABID???? I get to carried away with my
joy at times!!!

Right JimBob, whatever you do, don’t get rapid unless you’ve got some anti-biotics available.

Looks like Rush pooped in Tommy’s latte again. Oh well. Tommy, don’t you worry about how YOU & Olbermann & Mathews & Milloy & Miller & Schultz make liberals look?

Smerconish is right, though, to ask if Limbaugh is making Republicans look bad with his inflammatory comments, because he is making Republicans look bad with his inflammatory comments.

No, Tommy, he would be making himself look bad. But for you I guess it is appropriate to smear an entire political party based on the words of one man. I thought we have been lectured ad-nauseum from the PC police about labeling segments of this country. Does that mean your oracle Keith Olberman makes ALL Democrats look bad on a nightly basis? If that is the new standard, then we can smear tens of millions at a time. Wonderful.

Kird said:
What a disgusting way to make a political point. One death, no matter the nationality, due too terrorism is one death too many, no matter who the President of the United States is. And one death due to any cause is one death too many and shouldn’t be trivialized for any reason.

The suggestion was that Obama has been soft on terrorism. In fact, terror has not been a major problem on our own soil. So that accusation does not hold up.

MartiniShark said:
Smerconish is right, though, to ask if Limbaugh is making Republicans look bad with his inflammatory comments, because he is making Republicans look bad with his inflammatory comments. No, Tommy, he would be making himself look bad. But for you I guess it is appropriate to smear an entire political party based on the words of one man. I thought we have been lectured ad-nauseum from the PC police about labeling segments of this country. Does that mean your oracle Keith Olberman makes ALL Democrats look bad on a nightly basis? If that is the new standard, then we can smear tens of millions at a time. Wonderful.

Doesn’t Rush have 20 millions listeners? And he has been described as the defacto spokesperson for the republican party.

Azarkhan said:
“U.S. deaths. Like 911 or the like? 25″ “There were more deaths from off track racing.” Valkyrie Earth to Valkyrie, that’s what Homeland Security is about–preventing US deaths. But I do realize that for someone as obtuse as you apparently are, you won’t believe there is a threat until there are piles of dead US civilians. Who am I kidding? Even then you wouldn’t believe it. Well, if there’s any justice in the world, you and your ilk will get to experience a terrorist attack up close and personal.

Don’t get excited. The point is, the Obama administration has not allowed a major terrorist attack. Would you consider that a good thing? And perhaps offer a job well done to the Iman Obamaites? A couple years ago you said Obama would drop the ball on security. Do you still feel that way?

lonestar77 said:
 

Lone-dip-shit – you’re not one of those drug addled, cross-dressing, impotent fellows complaining an anal cyst like Gordo are you?

I am not a George Bush fan, but he did get one thing right. He went out of his way to make clear that he wasn’t lumping all Muslims in with the terrorists. It seems like people everywhere, not just Conservatives, have been forgetting that for a few years now. On the one hand, claiming that the president is a muslim for purposes of inflaming anti-muslim sentiment against him is pretty vile. On the other hand, would there even be an article if he called him “Reverend Obama” or “Rabbi Obama?”

“A couple years ago you said Obama would drop the ball on security. Do you still feel that way?” Valkyrie

Pres. Obama had a very close call with the Christmas Detroit airliner incident, which if successful, would have made him a one term president. He got lucky, he knows he was lucky, and I think it woke him up.

I haven’t read the recent NYTimes report, but apparently overseas, he is kicking ass.

But the borders of the US, in particular the southern border, remain a major problem. Given Obama’s opposition to Arizona law SB1070, should a successful terrorist attack occur in which the perpetrators crossed into the US from Mexico, well, the resulting uproar will spell finis to his presidency.

“And perhaps offer a job well done to the Iman Obamaites?”

No. Unlike Pres. Bush, I don’t believe Pres. Obama’s heart is in this fight. He came in as the great conciliator vis-a-vis Islam. It didn’t work. Now he realizes a successful terrorist attack will put his presidency in jeopardy, so he does what he has to.

“Don’t get excited.” Sorry!

valkyrie101 said:
Doesn’t Rush have 20 millions listeners? And he has been described as the defacto spokesperson for the republican party.

Well for starters, he has been described as the defacto spokesman of the Republicans by liberals and Democrats, simply to fit their agenda. They tried that ruse when Obama went on to smear and belittle Rush at the start of his Presidency. The plan was to label him as spokesman, bring Rush down, and take the Republicans with him. Problem was when Obama picked the fight Limbaugh did not back down, and his ratings shot up. Whoops.

Bear in mind these are the same people who try to denigrate Rush by claiming nothing more than an entertainer with no political heft. So he is the spokesman of an entire political party, AND he is of no consequence because he is nothing more than a lowly entertainer. (Ironic to hear from the left, considering how often they stampede to the entertainers in Hollywood for support.)

“The point is, the Obama administration has not allowed a major terrorist attack.” Valkyrie

I wouldn’t say that to the 12 dead and 31 wounded at Ft. Hood.

MartiniShark said:
Well for starters, he has been described as the defacto spokesman of the Republicans by liberals and Democrats, simply to fit their agenda. They tried that ruse when Obama went on to smear and belittle Rush at the start of his Presidency. The plan was to label him as spokesman, bring Rush down, and take the Republicans with him. Problem was when Obama picked the fight Limbaugh did not back down, and his ratings shot up. Whoops. Bear in mind these are the same people who try to denigrate Rush by claiming nothing more than an entertainer with no political heft. So he is the spokesman of an entire political party, AND he is of no consequence because he is nothing more than a lowly entertainer. (Ironic to hear from the left, considering how often they stampede to the entertainers in Hollywood for support.)

Wasn’t it Limbaugh himself who called himself the defacto spokersperson for the republican party?

Azarkhan said:
“The point is, the Obama administration has not allowed a major terrorist attack.” Valkyrie I wouldn’t say that to the 12 dead and 31 wounded at Ft. Hood.

There were some non-Islamic terrorist attacks too. But again, more people died from car accidents on any single day than from terrorism.

Azarkhan said:
Pres. Obama had a very close call with the Christmas Detroit airliner incident, which if successful, would have made him a one term president. He got lucky, he knows he was lucky, and I think it woke him up.
I haven’t read the recent NYTimes report, but apparently overseas, he is kicking ass.
But the borders of the US, in particular the southern border, remain a major problem. Given Obama’s opposition to Arizona law SB1070, should a successful terrorist attack occur in which the perpetrators crossed into the US from Mexico, well, the resulting uproar will spell finis to his presidency.
“And perhaps offer a job well done to the Iman Obamaites?”
No. Unlike Pres. Bush, I don’t believe Pres. Obama’s heart is in this fight. He came in as the great conciliator vis-a-vis Islam. It didn’t work. Now he realizes a successful terrorist attack will put his presidency in jeopardy, so he does what he has to.

You know that there were successful post 9/11 attacks on the US during the Bush presidency, right? And that the first shoe bomb attack happened in December, 2001, right? And that the culprit was foiled not by airport security or air marshals, but by an observant flight attendant and some brave passengers, right? And that later, a terrorist cooperating in exchange for a reduced sentence admitted that the crash of AA flight 587 in November 2001 was caused by a shoe bomber, right? And that an Egyptian gunman opened fire at LAX and killed a couple of Israelis before killing himself, right? And that’s only the first 2 years of the Bush administration, and only the attacks easily linked to Islamic terrorists. Right?

” But again, more people died from car accidents on any single day than from terrorism.”

More people died from car crashes during the Vietnam War, but protestors still protested. Apples and oranges, sweetheart.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008170044

“right? right? right? right? right? Right?” Dave Be

We are going to have Islamic terrorist attacks for a long, long time. It bothers me however, when the President insists we don’t use the expression “war on terror” but instead use “Overseas Contingency Operation.”
Or when his Atty. Gen. refuses to say “radical Islam” is responsible for terrorist attacks. Or when the Ft. Hood investigative report refuses to say the killer was a radical Islamic fanatic. Or when the President insists on kissing the ass of every Islamic leader in the world, when they seem intent on giving him the finger.

I write people like that off as fools. But he’s your president-love him if you want.

adel said:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008170044

The epitome of objectivity!

Azarkhan said:
We are going to have Islamic terrorist attacks for a long, long time. It bothers me however, when the President insists we don’t use the expression “war on terror” but instead use “Overseas Contingency Operation.”
Or when his Atty. Gen. refuses to say “radical Islam” is responsible for terrorist attacks. Or when the Ft. Hood investigative report refuses to say the killer was a radical Islamic fanatic. Or when the President insists on kissing the ass of every Islamic leader in the world, when they seem intent on giving him the finger.
I write people like that off as fools. But he’s your president-love him if you want.

So successful attacks during the Bush administration you chalk up to “We’re going to have terrorist attacks for a long, long time,” but the expressions people in the Obama administration use are what bother you? As far as the Ft Hood incident goes, you know that internal Army reports dating back to 2005 (3 years before Obama took office) indicate that officers were aware of Hasan’s radical islam leanings, and yet he remained on active duty? Obama was in office for less than a year before the shooting. Bush had more than three times as long to deal with the threat.

Obama is my president, but I don’t love him. I did support him during the campaign and voted for him, but he’s been a disappointment to me since taking office.

Azarkhan said:
” But again, more people died from car accidents on any single day than from terrorism.” More people died from car crashes during the Vietnam War, but protestors still protested. Apples and oranges, sweetheart.

There were 25 non-military deaths from terrorist attack. Is it correct to say that the obama folks protected us? And that Obama did not drop the ball in that regard?

” Is it correct to say that the obama folks protected us? And that Obama did not drop the ball in that regard?”
Valkyrie

Ask me when Obama is at the end of his presidency, in either two years or six.

“but he’s been a disappointment to me since taking office” Dave Be

Let me guess-you’re part of the “professional left” that Robert Gibbs complained about.

valkyrie101 said:
Wasn’t it Limbaugh himself who called himself the defacto spokersperson for the republican party?

No.
On a regular basis he calls them out, and has pointed out the folly of the charge that he is the leader because, again, that title was branded by those on the left.

valkyrie101 said:
The suggestion was that Obama has been soft on terrorism. In fact, terror has not been a major problem on our own soil. So that accusation does not hold up.

I wasn’t questioning Obama being soft on terror; he hasn’t been.

I simply displayed my disgust that your politics have displaced your humanity.

Azarkhan said:
Let me guess-you’re part of the “professional left” that Robert Gibbs complained about.

No, I don’t really identify with any particular ideology. I try to look at each issue objectively. I’m generally distrustful of politicians and the media. If I HAD to pick an ideology to identify with, I guess it would be Libertarianism, but really that’s trying to put a square peg into a round hole. I supported McCain in the 2000 Republican primary, though by 2008, other issues aside, I felt like he was too old to be President, especially when his aged heart would be the only thing between Sarah Palin and the Oval Office.

mikepower said:
Maybe Rush is closer to the truth than you think. Didn’t Obama change his name from Barry to Barack? Barack being Mohammad’s horse when he rode into heaven. Nothing wrong with a President being Muslim but he should have told everyone during the campaign.

jpeditor said:
So, let me get this straight: Tommy Christopher tricks people into kissing the rear end of Øbowmao as he endorses the 9/11 Jihadi Victory Mosque, and then Tommy complains when most Americans instead scream out loud that they would rather kick Imam Øbowmao in the butt (as he, ONCE AGAIN, bends over to jihad). Don’t worry Tommy, I am sure you can get a job putting some ice on it.

The crap written by the bigots on the right makes them so delusional to think that everyone will go for the right after writing lies, posting racist rant, and bigoted junk like this right-wing junkie. since he’s a racist!

“especially when his aged heart would be the only thing between Sarah Palin and the Oval Office.”

I’m a Palinista! But I didn’t follow the 2008 campaign at all because I could never support John McCain. He’s too soft on immigration. I only caught on to Sarah Palin after I read David Letterman’s nasty remarks, and then started to read and see how the Left smears her. I wouldn’t give 10 cents for the other possible Republican candidates for president, but I’d give everything for her. She’s the chosen one.

mikepower said:
Maybe Rush is closer to the truth than you think.
Didn’t Obama change his name from Barry to Barack?

Nope. He was named after his father, Barack Obama Sr. Barack Sr. was born a Muslim but became an Athiest before he met the President’s mother. They were married only 3 years and spent a significant portion of that time living apart. Barack lived with his mother during and after the marriage. He was visited by his father only once, when he was 10 years old.

mikepower said:
Barack being Mohammad’s horse when he rode into heaven.

Nope. The horse’s name was Al-Baraq. “Barak” is the name of a general in the Book of Judges in the Bible, an Israeli missile system, an Israeli Armored Brigade, an Israeli pistol, and a moshav in Israel though. Funny how you’re not accusing him of being a Jew.

mikepower said:
Nothing wrong with a President being Muslim but he should have told everyone during the campaign.

There is nothing wrong with the president being a Muslim, but this president isn’t.

Azarkhan said:
’m a Palinista! But I didn’t follow the 2008 campaign at all because I could never support John McCain. He’s too soft on immigration. I only caught on to Sarah Palin after I read David Letterman’s nasty remarks, and then started to read and see how the Left smears her. I wouldn’t give 10 cents for the other possible Republican candidates for president, but I’d give everything for her. She’s the chosen one.

When I was a kid, I bought into the hype (this was in the early 80s, when the real threat was pretty well past) that we might have a nuclear war with the USSR, and would go to sleep some nights scared that the missiles would land before I woke up. As I got older, geopolitics stopped scaring me, and I pretty much forgot about it ever having happened. I was reminded during the 2008 election, when I would go to sleep scared that McCain would win and die in office and Palin would take over.

MartiniShark said:
No.On a regular basis he calls them out, and has pointed out the folly of the charge that he is the leader because, again, that title was branded by those on the left.

All we know for sure is that republicans are afraid to call him out. They cower before the great Rush and his viagra.

Kird said:
I wasn’t questioning Obama being soft on terror; he hasn’t been. I simply displayed my disgust that your politics have displaced your humanity.

Now thats funny. Spoken like a prophet.

Azarkhan said:
” Is it correct to say that the obama folks protected us? And that Obama did not drop the ball in that regard?”Valkyrie Ask me when Obama is at the end of his presidency, in either two years or six.

Yes, I am knocking on wood. What we need is peace. War, though necessary sometimes, is still too costly over the long run.

valkyrie101 said:
All we know for sure is that republicans are afraid to call him out. They cower before the great Rush and his viagra.

That so? He’s spent a bulk of his time the past few years pointing out how they don’t listen to him. I have no idea what Viagra has to do with it.

“when I would go to sleep scared that McCain would win and die in office and Palin would take over.” DaveBe

The hype you bought into was spread by liberals who wanted to appease the Soviet Union and were terrified of Ronald Reagan’s aggressive stance. But history proves Reagan had the right approach to totalitarianism.

Anyway, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid terrify me. What they are doing to this country will take decades to undo.
So no, Sarah Palin doesn’t terrify me. In fact, she is the only political leader who gives me hope.

This fat fu%k is a asshole… Maybe he needs to take more oxycontin to chill.

Give me a break Azarkhan you should be terrified at the crap that your boy George Bush created. You must not have a brain to think Sarah Palin could run this country. It took her 8 colleges to graduate. She can’t wink herself out of everything. You and the rest of your Republican cohorts are pathetic..

” It took her 8 colleges to graduate.”

I’m sure it was 80. Nevertheless, she is smarter and more in touch with America then that arrogant elitist who currently occupies the White House. Where did he go…oh yeah, Harvard. Big fucking deal.

Marie Salomon said:
This fat fu%k is a asshole… Maybe he needs to take more oxycontin to chill.

Michelle Obama is back under a new name . Remaining classy as always . Get some rest , Moochelle , you have a hard vacation coming up this week . Tell King Obama to have Reggie stock up on the Kools . 10 days is a long stretch , and a real sacrifice for you .

Azarkhan said:
The hype you bought into was spread by liberals who wanted to appease the Soviet Union and were terrified of Ronald Reagan’s aggressive stance. But history proves Reagan had the right approach to totalitarianism.

Actually, it was Conservatives who wanted to spend hundreds of billions on the Strategic Defense Initiative. It’s way, way too soon to have any historical perspective on the Reagan administration. Despite Reagan being lionized by the Conservative movement, many of his supporters have quietly distanced themselves from his economic policies. He incorrectly applied supply-side economics and hyped “trickle-down economics” that didn’t really produce results. Even at the time, professional economists warned the Reagan administration that the idea that an across the board tax cut would result in increased tax revenues was far too optimistic, and even supply-side economics advocates complain that the Reagan administration didn’t understand the Laffer curve (a theoretical graph of tax revenue and tax rates) and blame the failure to produce real increased revenue on that. At the same time that revenues were down (7 of his 8 years in office in real dollars, and all 8 years as a percentage of GDP), rampant discretionary spending, mostly on defense, ballooned the National Debt, which nearly doubled in dollar amount,and he was the first president since WWII to increase the Debt as a percentage of GDP.

As far as Sarah Palin goes, there are plenty of facts out there for you if you care to look for them. You haven’t really responded to my earlier points about your posts though. You seem to hold (and expect the voters to hold) President Obama to a much higher standard than President Bush was held to.

Azarkhan said:
” It took her 8 colleges to graduate.”
I’m sure it was 80. Nevertheless, she is smarter and more in touch with America then that arrogant elitist who currently occupies the White House. Where did he go…oh yeah, Harvard. Big fucking deal.

Haha, really? Where did George Bush go? Oh yeah, Harvard. Except, of course, that Barack Obama attended Columbia for his undergrad degree, and Bush attended Yale (both respectable schools, I just think it’s funny that you’re using him going to Harvard Law School as ammo, when Bush went to Harvard Business School).

Sarah Palin attended a number of state schools to earn an undergrad degree in Communications. She is not by any stretch “smarter” than…well, almost anyone. She also isn’t in touch with America by any rational definition. She couldn’t name a single magazine or newspaper that she reads. She couldn’t name a single Supreme Court decision she disagreed with besides Roe v. Wade (Dred Scott, anyone?). She didn’t know what the vice president’s constitutional role is. There are plenty of other (and many more egregious, but I’m trying to avoid ones that could have been just slips of the tongue that political hay was made from) examples of her being stupid and ignorant. I won’t even mention her questionable ethics, except to bring up one more stupid thing she believed: that there is a Department of Law in the White House (there isn’t) that would be responsible for ethics investigations and would throw out some of the charges that caused her to resign as Governor of Alaska. Investigations into a sitting President (or Vice President, or other elected official) are handled by a Special Prosecutor appointed by Congress. The White House (and entire Executive branch) have nothing to do with it.

MartiniShark said:
That so? He’s spent a bulk of his time the past few years pointing out how they don’t listen to him. I have no idea what Viagra has to do with it.

Just google rush and viagra. There are several celebrated cases where republicans that dared challenge him came back cowering, in fact.

Azarkhan said:
The hype you bought into was spread by liberals who wanted to appease the Soviet Union and were terrified of Ronald Reagan’s aggressive stance. But history proves Reagan had the right approach to totalitarianism.

Yes, he did, and he won. A different approach is in order post cold war.

“You haven’t really responded to my earlier points about your posts though. You seem to hold (and expect the voters to hold) President Obama to a much higher standard than President Bush was held to.” Dave Be

I don’t. The US cannot be made 100% safe. I’m surprised we haven’t had more attacks. But Bush was inaugurated Jan 2001. Nine months later 9/11 happened. An entire security apparatus had to be set up. Given our lack of knowledge about Al Qaeda, I think Pres Bush did very well.

Obama had the advantage of the Bush experience, and the fact that our security forces were on a war footing. Yet he basically shrugged off the terrorist threat. His conciliatory approach to the Islamic world, and particularly Iran, has been naive and dangerous. Worse, it’s been a failure.

Economically, Reagan and every president since has failed to recognize and combat the threat from East Asia (and now South Asia). That is for me the primary reason the US is losing its global leadership and being relegated to a second-class power. Domestically, Reagan always had a Democratic House and for many years a Democratic Senate. I’m sure he would have cut spending if he could have. I don’t have a problem with his defense build up. Getting rid of the Soviet Union was worth it.

PS: I know the facts on Sarah Palin, and I know the lies. Nothing can change my support for her.

He tweaks the media constantly and they fall for it every time. It’s hilarious.

” Where did George Bush go? Oh yeah, Harvard” Dave Be

The difference is that Obama’s sycophants make a big deal out of The One attending Harvard. They think Obama is a genius. Just read their posts.

Nobody cared that Bush went to Yale and Harvard. In fact, despite that, leftists constantly smeared him as being dumb.

Personally, I’m with Bill Buckley. I’d rather be ruled by 100 people picked at random out of phone book than the Harvard faculty. That’s another reason I love Sarah Palin-she’s not a pretentious asshole. Neither are the people who support her.

Liberals like Smerconish need to focus on saving that jerk they voted into office from becoming a Jimmy Carter sequel. We Republicans will decide if Rush is making us look bad and he isn’t.

Azarkhan said:
” Where did George Bush go? Oh yeah, Harvard” Dave Be

The difference is that Obama’s sycophants make a big deal out of The One attending Harvard. They think Obama is a genius. Just read their posts.

Nobody cared that Bush went to Yale and Harvard. In fact, despite that, leftists constantly smeared him as being dumb.

Personally, I’m with Bill Buckley. I’d rather be ruled by 100 people picked at random out of phone book than the Harvard faculty. That’s another reason I love Sarah Palin-she’s not a pretentious asshole. Neither are the people who support her.

I agree with you. Give me someone who’s run a business and had to make payroll. Karl Rove never graduated from college and he’s one of the smartest men alive. Obama and his cronies are the most well educated idiots to ever occupy The White House.

Azarkhan said:
Nobody cared that Bush went to Yale and Harvard. In fact, despite that, leftists constantly smeared him as being dumb.

My point was not that going to Harvard makes Obama smart (though he is, and was a law professor), but that you were denigrating him for having gone there, when GW Bush went there as well.

Azarkhan said:
Obama had the advantage of the Bush experience, and the fact that our security forces were on a war footing. Yet he basically shrugged off the terrorist threat. His conciliatory approach to the Islamic world, and particularly Iran, has been naive and dangerous. Worse, it’s been a failure.

In what way has Obama shrugged off the terrorist threat in your opinion? That isn’t a challenge, I’m curious about your point of view. I have felt even since the days immediately following 9/11 that our response was entirely overblown, so haven’t really researched that angle. I remember a few days after the attack I was in Penn Station in NY and there were military (I think national guard) with machine guns standing around, and I felt like I’d been transported to some third world country with military coups going on all the time.

Azarkhan said:
Economically, Reagan and every president since has failed to recognize and combat the threat from East Asia (and now South Asia). That is for me the primary reason the US is losing its global leadership and being relegated to a second-class power.

That doesn’t really address the Reagan domestic economic policies, but that’s ok, I wasn’t really looking for debate on that point. I was just using it to illustrate how in the few short decades since the Reagan administration, the perspective on his economic policies has changed dramatically, and there hasn’t been enough time to really analyze his presidency. Reagan did cut spending on many social programs, but more than made up for the savings with lost tax revenue and increased spending in other areas, notably defense. Reagan only had a Democratically controlled Senate in 1987 and 1988. 3/4 of his administration, the Republicans had control. While Republicans had control of the Senate in 1982, they passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1982 over Reagan’s veto. An interesting aside is that, despite the House being controlled by Democrats and the Senate by Republicans, in the first 2 years of the Reagan presidency, in 5 veto override attempts, 2 were passed by both houses, 2 failed in the House, and only 1 failed in the Senate.

Reagan did WANT to cut spending. He wanted to very badly. He just wasn’t able to pull it off, and the tax cuts he enacted in 81 were so disastrous that in 82 they repealed several of them, doubled and even tripled some excise taxes, and increased several other taxes. The bill (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) that originally passed in the House didn’t have any tax increases, but the Republican controlled Senate added them (wisely, the previous cuts were too big and revenues fell much more than the Kemp-Roth Act supporters claimed they would). That bill was the subject of a lawsuit that made it to the 9th Circuit, where the judges ruled that it didn’t violate Article 1 of the Constitution, which weakened the restrictions on revenue bills having to originate in the house. TEFRA was the largest peacetime tax increase in United States history, and it was the work of a Republican controlled Senate and a Republican president.

Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent, but maybe someone will find it informative, and start to question their blind adherence to ideology. There are plenty of examples of Democrats doing very un-Democratic things in recent history as well, so don’t start gloating too much Libs, or I’ll have to post some of their dirty laundry too, haha.

@ DaveBe

In what way has Obama shrugged off the terrorist threat in your opinion?

Not to answer for anyone else, but when Napolitano gave her first speech to Congress it was noticed that she had without mentioning terrorism, and then this administration did take the curious path of renaming terrorism with a euphamism, like “Man-caused disaster”. Not saying that proves out anything directly, but it does give a curious impression.

Dave , when Obame backtracked and let Holder go after employees of the CIA for torture techniques after 9/11 it put our country in a compromising position. If you noticed the FBI stopped a couple of terrorist attacks as they were happening in the U.S .It seemed like the only way to be politically correct was to follow planned attacks to as close to the conclusion as possible.WHO KNOWS WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP WAS BETWEEN THE CIA AND FBI? DID IT COMPROMISE OUR COUNTRY? It seemed like the CIA was walking on pins and needles, which most people could understand. Could they have stopped the Fort Hood Killer before he acted without going through intense scrutiny and being chastised again? Maybe you can answer that question.BTW Dave, I know a lot of smart people who couldn’t find their way out of a paper bag without a schematic. This country right now is being run by the best and brightest and by your account it’s disappointing.What is it with you and the liberal media on Palin? We’re intelligent enough to form our own opinions on how bright an individual is.I notice the President has problems without a teleprompter. Does that make him an idiot?

Think about it Tommy, yesterday hundreds of thousands of people googled “Imam Obama,” found the clip. Tens of thousands of people listened to the *entirety* of Rush’s remarks, and perhaps went and researched some of the context.

Thousands of people were swayed by Rush’s argument, and thousands more got a demonstration of the mainstream media taking him out of context.

Say what you want Tommy, but Rush is a master of using your own networks against you.

s if this oxymoron should be allowed to comment on anything. He is a hideous druggie and verbally abusive hit man. He is a liar and an pawn of the right wing media.

HiredMind said:
Think about it Tommy, yesterday hundreds of thousands of people googled “Imam Obama,” found the clip. Tens of thousands of people listened to the *entirety* of Rush’s remarks, and perhaps went and researched some of the context. Thousands of people were swayed by Rush’s argument, and thousands more got a demonstration of the mainstream media taking him out of context. Say what you want Tommy, but Rush is a master of using your own networks against you.

Its all like a mixer, these days. Rush is most definitely very influential.

MartiniShark said:
Not to answer for anyone else, but when Napolitano gave her first speech to Congress it was noticed that she had without mentioning terrorism, and then this administration did take the curious path of renaming terrorism with a euphemism, like “Man-caused disaster”.

I believe the quote you’re referring to is “At its core, I believe DHS has a straightforward mission: to protect the American people from threats both foreign and domestic, both natural and manmade – to do all that we can to prevent threats from materializing, respond to them if they do, and recover with resiliency.” Nowhere in her remarks to Congress did she use the term “Man-caused disaster.” I’m not trying to nail you on a technicality; I know you said “like,” and she even erroneously said that she used that phrase in an interview later. I have a little extra insight into this issue because I’ve taken several FEMA independent study courses (they’re free, have some good info, and you can even apply them to a college degree, and if anyone would like to check out the offerings they’re available here http://training.fema.gov/is/crslist.asp ) and that type of language is common in the training documents. The vast majority of those courses were developed before the Obama administration.

I also don’t care for the easy way the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” are bandied about because I think it gives legitimacy to people and organizations that are nothing more than criminals and thugs. There’s no more honor in blowing up an office building to make a political statement than there is in blowing it up to perpetrate insurance fraud. While the Obama administration has definitely made an effort to change the lexicon to a less confrontational one, I think you’d be hard pressed to make a reasonable case for the act of avoiding words with a strong negative connotation being equivalent to shrugging off the terrorist threat. To me, shrugging off the threat means not taking reasonable steps to prepare for and mitigate the risks.

On the topic of preparing for and mitigating the risks, from that same address to Congress, “Resources such as explosives detection systems and transit, rail, and port security personnel contained in the recently passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will enable the Department to accelerate the mitigation of risk in [transportation security] areas.” I would be unsurprised if many of the Conservative readers of this blog were unaware that the stimulus package included about two and a quarter billion dollars for Homeland Security projects. The port security review Napolitano ordered and the appropriations for it in the stimulus package are security measures that I consider to be very important, since port security is an area that I felt the Bush Administration didn’t give enough importance to. By the time the Safe Port Act was signed into law (which doesn’t really do enough to secure the ports, and which was used to sneak an internet gambling prohibition through Congress), 5 years had elapsed since the destruction of the WTC.

gar said:
Dave , when Obame backtracked and let Holder go after employees of the CIA for torture techniques after 9/11 it put our country in a compromising position. If you noticed the FBI stopped a couple of terrorist attacks as they were happening in the U.S .It seemed like the only way to be politically correct was to follow planned attacks to as close to the conclusion as possible.WHO KNOWS WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP WAS BETWEEN THE CIA AND FBI? DID IT COMPROMISE OUR COUNTRY? It seemed like the CIA was walking on pins and needles, which most people could understand. Could they have stopped the Fort Hood Killer before he acted without going through intense scrutiny and being chastised again?

One of the ways in which President Obama disappointed me was by not exposing all of the acts of torture committed in the name of my country and prosecuting those responsible. The idea of the greatest democracy in the world, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, torturing prisoners turns my stomach. Legitimate research shows that torture is ineffective anyway, and the real experienced people in the Bush administration knew that and cautioned against it, but some political appointees who’d watched too much “24″ thought differently. A large volume of false information was obtained through torture, which is what always happens, because the subject will say anything to get the torture to stop. Investigating the false claims was a waste of resources that could have been put to better use, and the use of torture, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and the existence of the detention facility at Gitmo and other secret facilities around the world were and still are powerful recruiting tools for terrorist groups.

In any case, the investigation that finally went ahead and will be drawing to a conclusion soon is only looking for people that overstepped the boundaries drawn by the secret torture memos produced by the White House Office of Legal Counsel. Setting that criterion effectively adopts a standard that the President can issue secret internal directives to commit acts of torture, and has those secret directives have the force of law. The problem with this investigation isn’t that it’s occurring at all, it’s that it legitimizes the practice. Even if you disagree, surely you would agree that a cop that beats a suspect or plants evidence, or a DA that withholds exculpatory evidence or suborns perjury should be prosecuted, right? This investigation is no different than investigating a case like that, and I don’t see how it puts the United States in a more compromising position than having committed acts of torture and then giving those involved a completely free pass does.

I’m not an expert, but I think the reason for allowing terrorist plots to progress further is to build an ironclad case that can be tried in a civilian court and meet the civilian court burden of proof. If you disagree with trying terrorists in civilian courts, that’s a separate issue, and one that could be a legitimate point for the case that the Obama administration has weakened our ability to combat terrorism, but personally, I believe that treating terrorists like the criminals that they are will do more to decrease terrorism than treating them as enemy combatants in war, which gives their cause legitimacy. It’s also important to note that, in many of the cases you’re referring to; the terrorist cells were infiltrated by undercover agents well in advance of the arrests. It’s not like they’re waiting for people to blow stuff up before capturing them.

I’m not really sure what you’re asking about the relationship between the CIA and FBI, but as far as the Ft Hood shooter goes, the Army had intel on him since 2005 and did nothing with it. If you want to point the finger at a president for dropping the ball on that one, you’ve got to point it at Bush. I don’t think it’s reasonable to blame the president for the failure of his superiors to act on the information they had available though.

gar said:
BTW Dave, I know a lot of smart people who couldn’t find their way out of a paper bag without a schematic. This country right now is being run by the best and brightest and by your account it’s disappointing.What is it with you and the liberal media on Palin? We’re intelligent enough to form our own opinions on how bright an individual is.I notice the President has problems without a teleprompter. Does that make him an idiot?

I quoted this part of your post separately because it’s a more difficult question to answer, and highly subjective. It’s also an area of debate that doesn’t interest me much, but you tried to give me an honest answer to my question, so I’ll try to do the same.

Intelligence is only one of many qualities that make a good leader. Some of the other important qualities are good character, enthusiasm, confidence, commitment, courage, and a whole host of other qualities, including some indefinable ones. I think President Obama has many of those qualities. One of the ones that I think he doesn’t have in sufficient quantity is confidence. I think his fear of failure has made him make decisions that he wouldn’t necessarily have agreed with before taking office. One example of his lack of confidence is the point you made about the teleprompter. He’s very articulate and has a good command of facts to base a discussion on, but his fear of slipping up makes him perform poorly without a script. He didn’t seem to have that problem in the early stages of the campaign, but I think he’s gun-shy about a few off the cuff comments that his opponents made political hay from. So while intelligence is not the only attribute a good leader must have, it is one of the attributes they need.

I don’t care much about slips of the tongue, like many of the things the Liberal media excoriates Sarah Palin (and before her George Bush, and before him Dan Quayle; there’s a never-ending stream of foot-in-mouth fodder in political arenas) for. I consider myself to be a pretty intelligent guy, but I’m not a great public speaker, and I’m sure that I’d slip up plenty if I were subjected to the stresses of an interview. What sours me on Palin is that she demonstrated a lack of basic understanding of the construction and operation of our government, and a lack of understanding of basic geopolitical concepts. It’s not really politically correct to admit it, but I think that the first female President will have to be sharper and tougher than a male President. I have no problem taking orders from women or dealing with them on equal footing, but the President has to deal with heads of state from other cultures that DO have a problem with it, and be able to earn their respect and overcome their bias. I don’t think that Sarah Palin (or Hillary Clinton, for that matter) comes close to being sharp enough and tough enough. I also think both Palin and Clinton have questionable character, but that’s a separate issue.

The main reason President Obama has been a disappointment to me is, frankly, I hoped he would handle some issues differently than he has. It started with the decision to have the United States recognize the illegitimate, but friendly to the US, government of Honduras. Before that, I’d hoped that this administration would be able to create a less adversarial environment between South America and the United States, which I believe to be critical to our long term prosperity. In order to compete with the economic powerhouses that the existing European Union and developing South Asian Economic Union will become, I think we need to have stronger ties to all of the countries of the Americas, and better access to their resources. Backing fraudulent elections and recognizing a military coup that overthrew a democratically elected government pretty much killed that hope for this administration. On an ideological level, I believe that either you believe in and support democracy, or you don’t. The US has a long history of paying lip service to supporting democracy around the world, but suppressing it when it serves our interests. However, that is my personal opinion and beliefs, and Obama (or all of the presidents that came before) can disagree with it without necessarily being “bad.” I also don’t agree that the country is being led by the best and brightest by any stretch. I think some of the cabinet appointments have been ill advised, notably Tim Geithner and Hillary Clinton, but again, that’s opinion, not fact.

Dave, what you’re saying is this administration let these terrorist attacks go to completion so they could try them in civilian court. Tell that to the dead and injured at Fort Hood.BTW while you’re being sexist you might as well add Napolitano, who doesn’t look like she carries the fear factor or character for her position. Also I used best and brightest sarcastically. I don’t know how many times we’ve been reminded how smart and how educated this administration is. Why Dr. Chewme actually stopped the leak with his Pulitzer Prize. It seems with all your personal opinion theres lots of contradictions and the one major quality you leave out about this president is that of a leader . Wishy Washy and devisive doesn’t cut it. Poor choices to delegate to doesn’t cut it. Poor R&D on all major so called major achievements doesn’t cut it.

valkyrie101 said:
Now thats funny. Spoken like a prophet.

Then, I suggest you seek counseling before you do something that harms yourself or others.

It was a Nobel Peace prize. Who cares?

gar said:
Dave, what you’re saying is this administration let these terrorist attacks go to completion so they could try them in civilian court. Tell that to the dead and injured at Fort Hood.BTW while you’re being sexist you might as well add Napolitano, who doesn’t look like she carries the fear factor or character for her position. Also I used best and brightest sarcastically. I don’t know how many times we’ve been reminded how smart and how educated this administration is. Why Dr. Chewme actually stopped the leak with his Pulitzer Prize. It seems with all your personal opinion theres lots of contradictions and the one major quality you leave out about this president is that of a leader . Wishy Washy and devisive doesn’t cut it. Poor choices to delegate to doesn’t cut it. Poor R&D on all major so called major achievements doesn’t cut it.

I wasn’t talking about the Ft Hood shooting, I was talking about the cases where it seems to you that the FBI waited til the last second to stop terrorist attacks for political reasons. Like I said, I’m no expert, but even I can offer a plausible alternative reason. if the assessment that they’ve waited til the last second is even accurate.

I don’t think my statements were sexist. I think they were realistic. The President does have to deal with leaders of other countries where women are not traditionally viewed as equals. A subordinate like Napolitano or Clinton doesn’t have the same burden as a female president would have, though I’m sure they have both had to overcome prejudice to achieve the posts they hold.

What contradictions in my opinions are you referring to? In what way were you dissatisfied with Dr. Chu’s performance regarding the Gulf Spill? Also, Dr. Chu has a Nobel Prize in Physics, not Peace, for developing methods to cool atoms to nearly absolute zero while in gaseous form using lasers, which allows them to be studied more easily because they move very slowly at extremely low temperatures. His prize has little bearing on his work as Energy Secretary, except to illustrate that he is a first-rate scientist, and was awarded for work he did 25 years ago. I wouldn’t go so far as to call the president wishy washy, though I did question his confidence. I also wouldn’t call him devisive, My list of leadership qualities was not all-inclusive, nor was my list of cabinet appointments that I disagree with.

@ DaveBe

No, I know she did not say such to Congress, it came later. The DerSpiegel interview is where it kicked off I believe. So you understand, I was talking more about the perception of “shrugging off”, I don’t believe that to actually be the case. For me there was some concern when I hear them resorting to bureaucratic speak on matters of this importance (you alluded that may in fact be the case). I just feel that in the case of conflict in foreign theaters there should be more of a focus, not a softening of the language, or blurring of the message. I can see the point behind the tonal shift, but that also provoked the perception.

MartiniShark said:
No, I know she did not say such to Congress, it came later. The DerSpiegel interview is where it kicked off I believe. So you understand, I was talking more about the perception of “shrugging off”, I don’t believe that to actually be the case. For me there was some concern when I hear them resorting to bureaucratic speak on matters of this importance (you alluded that may in fact be the case). I just feel that in the case of conflict in foreign theaters there should be more of a focus, not a softening of the language, or blurring of the message. I can see the point behind the tonal shift, but that also provoked the perception.

That’s a legitimate argument, and well thought out. If I wasn’t clear enough before, I absolutely agree that there has been a shift in the lexicon to less confrontational language when it comes to both domestic threats and military action overseas. I don’t think that changing terminology necessarily means becoming less focused on effectively dealing with threats, however. To misquote Shakespeare, “a rose by any other name would still be just as dead when bombed by an A-10 Warthog.” Of course there is a perception among some people that the administration has been softer on terrorism than they should be. My contention is that this perception is unwarranted.

I see it’s fruitless to argue back and forth with someone that makes the arguments to fit his points. Either the FBI let those actions run there course to fruition to try these terrorists in civilian court as you argued previously or they played “GLORY HOUND” by letting it go to it’s conclusion. Why wouldn’t fort hood fit into that category? The general feeling is that Obama’s best strength is his public speaking yet you use the excuse of the teleprompter as a confidence issue.He”s the marketing department of this administration. Strange that a person lacking in confidence would be designated to that job. I really do believe you”re in the minority if you think this president isn’t devisive. Look around and it’s not pretty. Look how many times he”s gone against the will of the people he”s supposed to serve . Stimulus as passed,Healthcare, Bailouts, Arizona, all happened with a majority of americans disapproving.

gar said:
I see it’s fruitless to argue back and forth with someone that makes the arguments to fit his points. Either the FBI let those actions run there course to fruition to try these terrorists in civilian court as you argued previously or they played “GLORY HOUND” by letting it go to it’s conclusion. Why wouldn’t fort hood fit into that category?

The Ft Hood incident doesn’t fit into that category because you defined the category as incidents where the FBI waited until the last minute to stop terror plots. Since they didn’t stop that one, clearly it doesn’t fit the category that you defined. I’m still not convinced that there’s any merit to the idea that they waited longer than necessary to foil the plots, but I offered one possible explanation for why they might do that. I don’t KNOW the answer; it’s just a guess.

gar said:
The general feeling is that Obama’s best strength is his public speaking yet you use the excuse of the teleprompter as a confidence issue.He”s the marketing department of this administration. Strange that a person lacking in confidence would be designated to that job.

I don’t think the general feeling is that Obama’s best strength is his public speaking ability. He does give a good speech, but I think that that’s the general feeling among Conservative pundits, who try to play up his public speaking skill to distract people from the content of the speeches. I’m sure many people would disagree when I say that self-confidence is a problem for him though.

gar said:
I really do believe you”re in the minority if you think this president isn’t devisive. Look around and it’s not pretty. Look how many times he”s gone against the will of the people he”s supposed to serve . Stimulus as passed,Healthcare, Bailouts, Arizona, all happened with a majority of americans disapproving.

In all the times someone has been accused by other politicians of being racially motivated in an attack on the President, he has disagreed. The “beer summit” was an effective way to defuse the racially charged situation with Henry Gates’s arrest. I do think that his immediate remarks when he heard about the incident were ill advised. Here’s a quote from a speech in January:

“But we shouldn’t sort of assume that the other side is either heartless or doesn’t care about sick people or is some socialist/communist who’s trying to take over the health care system,” the president said. “We start getting into these caricatures. They’re so damaging.”

The healthcare bill was opposed by a majority of Americans when it passed. The stimulus package was not. The bailouts were all passed during George Bush’s administration. 50% of the country opposed the Arizona immigration law lawsuit, not a majority, see http://www.gallup.com/poll/141209/americans-oppose-federal-suit-against-ariz-immigration-law.aspx .

Bush loaned GM money, Obama bailed them out. Better than 50% were in favor of a stimulus plan that was well thought out, not the one that was passed by Obama. A majority of americans disapproved of the plan that was passed. When the pie is only 83 pieces, if 50 don’t like it it’s a majority

gar said:
Bush loaned GM money, Obama bailed them out. Better than 50% were in favor of a stimulus plan that was well thought out, not the one that was passed by Obama. A majority of americans disapproved of the plan that was passed. When the pie is only 83 pieces, if 50 don’t like it it’s a majority

The money that was used to bail GM out was part of TARP. That’s a program passed under the Bush administration. Also, you said bailout, not GM bailout. There were several other bailouts as well (under the Bush administration).

Stimulus poll: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/gallup-presiden.html

From the article:

Sixty-seven percent of the American people approve of how President Obama’s handling his efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, as opposed to 48% for Democrats in Congress and 31% for congressional Republicans.

You said these things “all happened with a majority of americans disapproving.” That means the American people disagreed with it beforehand, not after. Also, Congress got to play around with the Stimulus bill before it got passed. One thing that the President did around the same time that I found disappointing though, and am surprised you haven’t mentioned, is pass a budget including a lot of earmarks after having previously said he wouldn’t, and blaming it on the fact that Congress had drafted it before he took office. If he’d just said “look, I gotta work with these guys to get things done, so I have to let them have some pork here,” I would have been fine with it, but the excuse he used was crap.

The pie isn’t 83 pieces, the pie is 100 pieces. A majority is more than 50%. People with no opinion don’t suddenly not count. They count as “not opposed.” The only one of your examples that holds water is the Healthcare Bill. Here’s another set of polling data you might find instructive. It’s a list of poll responses for the Iraq war, starting in 2006. Apparently Obama isn’t the only guy to have “gone against the will of the people he”s supposed to serve.” http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm