I've been waiting a long time for someone to hit back against Obama, and to tell America exactly what Obama is.

Yesterday in Ohio, Romney said this of Obama

"He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces. If an American president wins that way, we all lose," Romney said. "So, Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago, and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America."

Here here! Or, is it hear hear! Either way, you get my point...that's exactly what Obama is and does.

That is the way to talk to the Kenyan born, socialist, Muslim.

He's going to be re-elected sorry
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is the way to talk to the Kenyan born, socialist, Muslim.

No. But congrats on playing the race card where it has no place. PaulS, welcome back. Your first response to me in a while is to put idiotic jibberish in my mouth that doesn't resemble anything I have ever said.

But this is exactly how you talk to a guy who, in 2008, said that the other side (a hero named John McCain) is "going to make you afraid of teh fat that I'm black".

It's how you talk to a guy who says that those who disagree with him should "get in the back of the bus".

It's how you talk to a guy whose former policy advisor (Bill Burton) puts out a ridiculous ad suggesting that Romney caused this woman's death...and Obama will not denounce that ad.

That is the way to talk to the Kenyan born, socialist, Muslim.

And it would be easier for me to swallow his being a Muslim than it is for me to accept that he subscribed to Black Liberation Theology for 20 years, until it became politically expedient for him to switch religions. Yessir, you have to admire a man that chooses his religion based on political polling!

If you two can't behave I will shut this down in a heartbeat...

Have a Nice Day :hee:

No. But congrats on playing the race card where it has no place. PaulS, welcome back. Your first response to me in a while is to put idiotic jibberish in my mouth that doesn't resemble anything I have ever said.



Race card :laugha:

Having the usual reading comprehension problems today? I didn't say that was a quote of yours. You must be feeling guilty for some reason:uhuh:

Thanks for the welcome back - I didn't miss your posts.:)

Maybe Romney should spend some time and fufill his promise to ABC news and get back to them on whether he ever paid less than 13.9% in taxes :laugha:

"He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces. If an American president wins that way, we all lose," Romney said. "So, Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago, and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America.".
Again, Romney talking about any other politician pandering to their voting-base is the definition of the Pot calling the Kettle black (no racial pun intended).

Paul, can you seriously denounce one single word that Romney said about O? Is there one part of that you disagree with?
I'm not a Romney fan, but its spot on. That is exactly Obamas campaign strategy.

RIJ - My point was that Obama has been insulted more than any other pres. than I can remember - and that much is below the belt. Has any pres. been shown more anger than Obama?

Legit criticism is certainly appropriate.

"He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces. If an American president wins that way, we all lose," Romney said.
Sounds exactly like the Karl Rove approach Bush used.

I think every presidential candidate would be guilty of demonization and pandering.

Obama certainly didn't smash America apart in 2008, hell, if anything he won by capturing the independent vote.

I could make a good argument even now that Romney is doing exactly as he just said.

That's why the quote doesn't have a lot of value outside of the haters.

-spence

every election its the same thing. They work to discredit the other person and say very little about what THEY would actually do... I am getting so sick of this crap..

Again, Romney talking about any other politician pandering to their voting-base is the definition of the Pot calling the Kettle black (no racial pun intended).

JohnnyD, I do not know much about what Romney did as governor, if that is what you are referring to. But since you are not one here who is prone to lies or exaggerations, I believe you that Romney has done some pandering.

I don't see that he's doing much pandering now. Did you see the speech he gave at the NAACP last month? Zero pandering. I mean, you and I both know that the easiset thing in the world for a politician to do is pander, and tell them what we know they wanted to hear. Romney did the opposite, telling the audience that what he was promising was the opportunity for them to rise out of poverty if they were willing to work for it. It was a very brave speech, which is why he got booed.

Biden spoke to the same audience a few days later, and right out of the liberal playbook, he told the NAACP that none of the poverty was any of their fault, and that they better be afraid of the GOP who wants to keep them in poverty forever (as opposed to welfare, which has done such a great job in eliminating poverty).

Johnny, I have zero doubt that your claim (that Romney has been a panderer) is valid. But I also believe you give credit where it's due...he sure as hell didn't pander to the NAACP, and it might have been politically wise for him to pander to them...

Obama certainly didn't smash America apart in 2008, hell, if anything he won by capturing the independent vote.
With promises of crossing the aisle and working closely with Democrats and Republicans alike. Then, he crapped all over the Independent vote by building a huge steel wall between himself and Republicans and by ignoring just about all moderate promises that he made.

Then, he crapped all over the Independent vote by building a huge steel wall between himself and Republicans and by ignoring just about all moderate promises that he made.
I'll bet that's a lot easier to post than prove.

-spence

I'll bet that's a lot easier to post than prove.

-spence

As for breaking promises, he promised to cut the deficit in half and to close Gitmo...

As for being divisive, he said that Republicans should sit in the back of the bus.

How's that for worlking across the aisle Spence? How will you spin that, I wonder?

A little modicum of intellectual honesty makes life a lot easier Spence.

As for breaking promises, he promised to cut the deficit in half and to close Gitmo...

As for being divisive, he said that Republicans should sit in the back of the bus.

How's that for worlking across the aisle Spence? How will you spin that, I wonder?

A little modicum of intellectual honesty makes life a lot easier Spence.

We'll completely ignore the Defense Authorization Bill of 2011, it would be hard to build outrage and blame with that.

We'll completely ignore the Defense Authorization Bill of 2011, it would be hard to build outrage and blame with that.

Likwid, I don't know what that bill is, I don't know what it did. Unless that bill closed Gitmo or made it illegal to insult Republicans, posting that bill does not refute my point.

Spence said it would be difficult to prove that Obama broke promises, and that it would be difficult to prove that Obama intentionally alienates his political opponents. He said that would be difficult. Turns out, it's only difficult when you are literally blinded by love for Obama.

As it turns out, if you consider Obama's record honestly and thoughtfully, you can prove those things in two seconds.

Did Obama break every promise he ever made? Nope. Does he insult conservatives every time he opens his mouth? Nope.

Did he break promises? Yes. Does he have a habit of demonizing those who disgree with him? Yes.

Nothing hateful or even opinionated in that post. Just fair-minded honest facts.

We'll completely ignore the Defense Authorization Bill of 2011, it would be hard to build outrage and blame with that.
You mean a bill that was essentially dropping the Constitution into a fire? As a Constitutional Scholar, you'd think Obama would have vetoed the bill due to the blatant destruction of civil liberties that were contained within.

Likwid, I don't know what that bill is, I don't know what it did. Unless that bill closed Gitmo or made it illegal to insult Republicans, posting that bill does not refute my point.

Go look it up, please. Just spewing "look! didn't close gitmo!" without understanding the backstory is just straight up silly.

Go look it up, please. Just spewing "look! didn't close gitmo!" without understanding the backstory is just straight up silly.

OK, I looked it up. I also went back and listened to his campaign promises.

The man promised to close Gitmo. Gitmo is still open. Promise broken.

Am I going too fast?

He also promised to cut the deficit in half, and hasn't done so. Is it equally silly for me to say he broke that promise?

Sounds exactly like the Karl Rove approach Bush used.

I think every presidential candidate would be guilty of demonization and pandering.

Obama certainly didn't smash America apart in 2008, hell, if anything he won by capturing the independent vote.

I could make a good argument even now that Romney is doing exactly as he just said.

That's why the quote doesn't have a lot of value outside of the haters.

-spence

to Paul and Spence - Thats just plain crap - talking points, but let me see some details. I can easily give you specific examples where Obama has said (my quotes may be slighly off) -
1. "These people cling to the their guns and religion" - while addressing San Francisco dems
2. "People say you should learn English, while I say maybe your kids should learn Spanish" while addressing a latino crowd
3. Countless times he demonized "wall st fat cats", banking, etc

Romney has been in the political limelight for over decade. Obama much less. Please provide examples of Romney insulting americans, demonizing people he doesnt agree with or contribution to dividing this country?
It speaks to class and character. Sorry, Obama does not rate highly in either category. I look forward to the details.

The man promised to close Gitmo. Gitmo is still open. Promise broken.

The man was forced into not closing Gitmo.

Am I going too fast?

Do I need to make comments that will make you cry to the mods?

every election its the same thing. They work to discredit the other person and say very little about what THEY would actually do... I am getting so sick of this crap..
I'm kinda hoping for a third party, maybe call it the Common party as opposed to the Emperor's Red and Blue parties that have no clothes.

I'm kinda hoping for a third party, maybe call it the Common party as opposed to the Emperor's Red and Blue parties that have no clothes.

The media (and the two parties) will make sure that never happens.
Polarizing people to one side or another is easier to sell to.

Most who try to run independent are marginalized (most for very good reason) and shunned by mass media and the two parties.

Unless someone can be produced who has a reasonable view (sorry, but nuking taxes and programs for this that and everything else will never fly) with reasonable cuts ACROSS the board (yes i mean everything tightening up the belt) it'll never happen.

As it is, the level of pandering you have to do to EVERY special/not special interest group prevents that.

I think every presidential candidate would be guilty of demonization and pandering.

-spence

Ahhh. But Obama was the one who promised something called "change". HE was going to be a different (better) kind of politician. HE was going to end the partisan rhetoric and bring us all together. Since his entire campaign was based upon "change", I don't think it's a valid defense to say "everyone does it".

He promises to be different, people buy it, he turns out not to be different, , and no one holds him accountable for that.

And Spence, in the same thread here, yuo claimed that (1) you don't agree that Obama demonizes the opposition, and then (2) you defend it by saying everyone else does it.

Spence: Obama doesn't sling mud. And besides, it's OK when he does it, because everyone else does.

The remark was in context of promises made to "moderates". Closing GTMO was a promise made to the Left.

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are about PolitiFact's Top Promises (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/)
The only broken promise I see here that would appeal to moderates would be a tougher position on industry lobbyists.

Other than that it's all Left-wing stuff.

-spence

The man was forced into not closing Gitmo.



Do I need to make comments that will make you cry to the mods?

"The man was forced into not closing Gitmo"

By whom? The man is the President. Who forced him, and how? Boy, we've come a long way from "the buck stops with me". With Obama, it's always "don't blame me".

Obama wasn't forced, I think he looked at the situation (i.e. nobody wanted to take any of the inmates still there regardless of their threat level) and had no other options.

-spence

I'm kinda hoping for a third party, maybe call it the Common party as opposed to the Emperor's Red and Blue parties that have no clothes.

There is always the Libertarian party...Unfortunately the Christian Conservatives and the Social Democrats will make sure that never happens.

The remark was in context of promises made to "moderates". Closing GTMO was a promise made to the Left.

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are about PolitiFact's Top Promises (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/)
The only broken promise I see here that would appeal to moderates would be a tougher position on industry lobbyists.

Other than that it's all Left-wing stuff.

-spence

He promised to cut the deficit in half. Was that pandering to liberals?

Obama wasn't forced, I think he looked at the situation (i.e. nobody wanted to take any of the inmates still there regardless of their threat level) and had no other options.

-spence

So what was Obama thinking when he said (as he was looking for votes during the campaign), that he'd close Gitmo? He said the existence of Gitmo was an embarassment, and he criticized Bush for using Gitmo.

He promised to cut the deficit in half. Was that pandering to liberals?
I think we've discussed this previously.

-spence

So what was Obama thinking when he said (as he was looking for votes during the campaign), that he'd close Gitmo? He said the existence of Gitmo was an embarassment, and he criticized Bush for using Gitmo.
Not closing Gitmo is far from an endorsement. Obama was simply hamstrung by bad Bush policy he inherited.

-spence

I think we've discussed this previously.

-spence

Perhaps you could refresh my memory?

Not closing Gitmo is far from an endorsement. Obama was simply hamstrung by bad Bush policy he inherited.

-spence

Spence, you're really talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

So according to you, it was bad for Bush to use Gitmo. But it's brilliant for Obama to continue using it, because it's the smartest possible option. It was bad when Bush used Gitmo, awesome for Obama to use it.

Do I have that right?

Spence, you're really talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

So according to you, it was bad for Bush to use Gitmo. But it's brilliant for Obama to continue using it, because it's the smartest possible option. It was bad when Bush used Gitmo, awesome for Obama to use it.

Do I have that right?

No.
Gitmo wasn't great, but maybe needed after 9/11....
Now, it is a bitch to close b/c not all are suitable for release, and no country wants them.... it is definetly not brilliant or awesome. I think he's stuck and made a stupid promise....

No.
Gitmo wasn't great, but maybe needed after 9/11....
Now, it is a bitch to close b/c not all are suitable for release, and no country wants them.... it is definetly not brilliant or awesome. I think he's stuck and made a stupid promise....

"Gitmo wasn't great, but maybe needed after 9/11.... '

I didn't hear any Democrats saying that when Bush was in office. All I heard was that Bush was the second coming of Atilla The Hun for opening Gitmo. Then Obama descended from the heavens, declared that Gitmo was antithetical to American values. Yet, Gitmo is still there.

If any liberal feels that Gitmo is an unfortunate necessity in a screwed-up world (which is the truth), they should also feel like they owe Bush an apology. Because Bush used Gitmo for the same reason you just cited, and for that, he caughgt a lot of heat from folks on your side of the aisle...

"b/c not all are suitable for release, and no country wants them..."


Like Spence, you are using that to justify the fact that Obama is continuing to use Gitmo. But why don't you also concede that very same reason is justification for Bush opening up Gitmo in the first place?

Here's how this conversation is unfolding...

Bush: We can't keep these terrorists anywhere else, so I'll put them in Gitmo.

Liberals: Booo! War criminal! Impeach Bush! Hate crime! Murderer!

Obama: I'm going to close Gitmo...

Liberals: Yeah!

Obama: We can't keep these terrorists anywhere else, so I'll put them in Gitmo (note the similarity between this statement and Bush's statement)

Liberals: OK, sounds good!

It's OK for Obama to use Gitmo to keep these terrorists, but Bush was a monster for doing the same exact thing?

RIJIMMY, I don't often agree with you, but you are one very thoughtful person. In this case, it seems to me that Bush and Obama did the same exact thing. One guy gets villified for it, the other gets worshipped.

RIJIMMY, let me put it this way...please tell me the difference between Bush's use of Gitmo, and Obama's use of Gitmo. Because Bush caught a lot of heat for his use of Gitmo. In my opinion, Obama is using Gitmo the same exact way, and he gets a pass.

No.
I think he's stuck and made a stupid promise....

BINGO! He was pandering to the people who wanted it closed. Then, when he realized he wasn't going to be able to deliver on that and other promises he made, instead of just saying "maybe I was wrong to make that promise", he makes up lame excuses to deflect the blame.

I think he sucks as a President.

RIJIMMY, let me put it this way...please tell me the difference between Bush's use of Gitmo, and Obama's use of Gitmo. Because Bush caught a lot of heat for his use of Gitmo. In my opinion, Obama is using Gitmo the same exact way, and he gets a pass.

How many have been added to the detaines under this administration? I ask b/c I just don't know... it does change that argument for 'using' and being 'stuck with'

and yes, I agree he was pandering, we aren't all blind idealogs on the left Jim........

Like Spence, you are using that to justify the fact that Obama is continuing to use Gitmo. But why don't you also concede that very same reason is justification for Bush opening up Gitmo in the first place?

This doesn't make any sense.

Records seem to indicate that the vast majority of Gitmo detainees were released. Hell, people were just scooped up...Accounts of recidivism are small, but probably to be expected.

It appears like of those who are left they're either people of little threat that no country will take, or some genuinely dangerous folks that nobody wants to bring in the US, probably because the evidence against them is pretty weak.

It's a wart that Obama inherited and there's no easy solution.

-spence

How many have been added to the detaines under this administration? I ask b/c I just don't know... it does change that argument for 'using' and being 'stuck with'

and yes, I agree he was pandering, we aren't all blind idealogs on the left Jim........

I honestly have no idea how many have been added.

I know that you are not a blind ideologue. In my last post, I referred to RIJIMMY when I meant to say RIROCKHOUND. I don't agree with you on much, but I know that you are very thoughtful. And thoughtful is the polar opposite of a blind ideologue. That's what I was trying to say before.

I still don't see how one can bash Bush on Gitmo, but not bash Obama. We'll agree to disagree on that score...

I know that you are not a blind ideologue. In my last post, I referred to RIJIMMY when I meant to say RIROCKHOUND. I don't agree with you on much, but I know that you are very thoughtful. e...

he's cute and cuddly too :)

I still don't see how one can bash Bush on Gitmo, but not bash Obama. We'll agree to disagree on that score...

I think he did pander and overstate what he could do... my gut is that he has not been adding a huge number of new detainees, and I suspect, that if they are most are not random targets... a lot of the early heat on GWB about Gitmo was that it was more of a wide cast net, that has been thinned down... many needed/deserve to be there; many did not... that's why Bush got crucified for it...

think progress is not my 'trusted source' but I see the same number in two articles... 171, down from 779; it doesn't say how many added, but my sense is not many....

you view at as 'doing the same thing' I see them as one ordering the drinks and one stuck with the tab.....

By The Numbers: 10 Years At Guantánamo Bay | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/01/11/402586/ten-years-at-guantanamo-bay-by-the-numbers/)
Guantanamo Bay 10th Anniversary: Obama's Detention Law Could Fill Prison Obama Tried To Close (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/guantanamo-bay-10th-anniversary-indefinite-detention-american-citizens_n_1197547.html)

I know that you are not a blind ideologue. In my last post, I referred to RIJIMMY when I meant to say RIROCKHOUND. I don't agree with you on much, but I know that you are very thoughtful. And thoughtful is the polar opposite of a blind ideologue. That's what I was trying to say before.

Thanks

TXJimmy is a just some dumb redneck.... the opposite of very thoughtful

you view at as 'doing the same thing' I see them as one ordering the drinks and one stuck with the tab.....

[

based on your links, it seems as though he hashly criticized the guy at the bar for how much and what he was drinking and for even being at the bar in the first place, but upon depature he jumped right up on the barstool, set a deadline for the bartender to stop serving him but then signed legislation eliminating 'closing time" and he's been at the bar drinking ever since....I'm not sure that the tab he got stuck with will ever get paid if he has anything to do with it :uhuh: after the cops drag him out for overstaying his welcome and being disorderly I imagine the "tab" he got stuck with will probably get passed on to the next guy on the barstool.......

can't think of any reason why he'd be "adding huge numbers of detainees" but if we end up in a major conflict in the next couple of months this could certinly happen.....

from your link
Obama's Detention Law Could Fill Prison Obama Tried To Close"President Barack Obama failed two years ago to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison, and with Wednesday marking the 10th anniversary of its creation, debate is raging over whether a law he signed will ensure it will stay open for decades to come, jailing even United States citizens.

Tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which Obama signed on New Year's Eve, are provisions that appear to allow indefinite military detention of American terrorism suspects, and to require it of suspected foreign enemies.

it's funny that Ryan is accused of hypocrisy in the other thread for assisting a constituent(s) in accessing stimulus funds after raiing against and voting against them...

he'd have to rail against, vote against and condemn their very existence as un-American...then become President and sign legislation extending them and expanding the scope of those who might get "access"...to reach this level


August 2007

“As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists,” says then-Sen. Obama.

Jan. 22, 2009

“This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.”

May 2009:

“…by any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.”

http://www.salon.com/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric/

Obama's Detention Law Could Fill Prison Obama Tried To Close.

And if my Aunt had nuts she'd could be my uncle....

Can I be any clearer that I think it was a stupid pander?

I also think it is not a direct comparison to GWB... IF he STARTS to fill the prison he tried to close (which that line indicates he did TRY to close it) then the direct comparison with GWB can be made...

August 2007

“As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists,” says then-Sen. Obama.

Jan. 22, 2009

“This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.”

May 2009:

“…by any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.”

The Obama/Gitmo timeline - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric/)

I have to wonder about salon, they've been around forever as a footnote.

Guantanamo Bay: How the White House lost the fight to close it - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html)

Less spin, more reasons.

I also think it is not a direct comparison to GWB......

of course it isn't...GWB was presiding over a very different situation, Obama condemned the solution to the situation that was developed under GWB and then promised to end it and eventually signed law continuing it indefinitely and expanding it's reach....a little more than simple pandering, i think

I have to wonder about salon, they've been around forever as a footnote.

Guantanamo Bay: How the White House lost the fight to close it - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html)

Less spin, more reasons.

I figured Salon was safe from being criticized as a intellectually challenged fox biased misinformation propoganda arm of the vast right wing conspiracy...I guess they're under suspicion too:)

I figured Salon was safe from being criticized as a intellectually challenged fox biased misinformation propoganda arm of the vast right wing conspiracy...I guess they're under suspicion too:)

Nah, not under suspicion, just wondering how they managed to stay solvent after their whole shot at "oh, pay for content" game. They were a mere flash in the pan for dotcom news/opinion/life sites, now they've turned into a "medium sized blogging news site (some news with too much opinion with no clear line)".

Hell when they first launched they were considered a daily goto site then just kinda flopped with trying to charge both bloggers and readers. They became a case study in "how not to run a large site".

Nah, not under suspicion, just wondering how they managed to stay solvent after their whole shot at "oh, pay for content" game. They were a mere flash in the pan for dotcom news/opinion/life sites, now they've turned into a "medium sized blogging news site (some news with too much opinion with no clear line)".

Hell when they first launched they were considered a daily goto site then just kinda flopped with trying to charge both bloggers and readers. They became a case study in "how not to run a large site".

not sure what that has to do with anything......particularly " spin and reason(s)"

Obama adds few inmates because he just kills them with drones
Gitmo is still needed because the brilliant idea of trials in New York kinda went up in flames

Obama adds few inmates because he just kills them with drones

Its cheaper. See? He's saving you and I money. :hihi:

Gitmo is still needed because the brilliant idea of trials in New York kinda went up in flames

I do love how Bloomberg WANTED the trials there, then suddenly reversed that one with the rest of the "outrage".