10 years ago!! Just compare the number of negatives that Obama has said about Bush alone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree it would be interesting. I don't think it would be close. The far left yelled at Pres. Bush but the mainstream right has joined the far right to hurl insults at Pres Obama.

What % of right tried taking his God and country away from him by lying about his religion and where he was born? A large % still believe that.

"I don't think it would be close." Me either, and I'd bet the other way...

"The far left yelled at Pres. Bush "

Do you remember the 2004 and 2006 elections? It was brutal, he was called a war criminal. Harry Reid called him a loser. All a metter of perception, I guess.

"What % of right tried taking his God and country away from him by lying about his religion and where he was born?"

I bet the % of conservatives who genuinely believed he was a Muslim, is a lot lower than you'd guess. Hell, I wish he was a Muslim, as that is a lot easier to understand than how anyone, and I mean anyone, could listen to Rev Wright for 20 years and have no issues with any of it, until it became a political necessity. I'd rather have a Muslim president than a President whoi is a disciple of something called "black liberation theology".

"A large % still believe that"

I don't know if that's true. But I bet a large % of liberals believe that Bush/Cheney got us into the Iraq war for money,. or oil, or to finish what Bush 41 started, and that Bush "lied", etc...Oh, and that Bush somehow stole the election from Gore. let's not forget that he's a fictional president, and a mental lightweight, all that stuff.

Kooks on both sides. I'd bet everything I have in return for the spare change you have in your pocket, that Bush got more personal attacks

Look at how much you post and insult the Pres. Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?

I agree that there are kooks on both sides. It seems to me (as someone who voted for Pres. Bush for his first term) that the insults and complaints have bc more mainstream from the right.

So why/how did we get into Iraq? Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime?

Don't you think getting us into a war would raises someone's hackles a lot more than providing them w/health insurance?

True. But what I do is a reflection of me, it doesn't say anything about everyone else who happens to vote the same way as me. You have posted that Tea Baggers are racist. i don't hold anyone else accountable for that statement, just you.

"Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?"

I didn't realize the question was limited to those who post here?

"So why/how did we get into Iraq?"

You don't know? The vast, vast majority of our leaders in DC authorized the use of force, because the vast, vast majority of them (including your party's next nominee for President, Hilary Clinton) were certain they had WMDs.

"Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime"

It wasn't a lie, that's for sure. There's a big difference between being wrong, and lying. Did Hilary lie when she said Iraq had WMDs, and when she authorized the use of force?

It's fair to hold Bush accountable for his incorrect conclusion, but a large majority in DC (including Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards) also looked at the same intelligence, and consluded that the invasion was justified.

So why is Bush criticized (which is fair), and those Democrats who reached the exact same conclusion as Bush, get a free pass? Hmmm?

10x
Is that your guess or your opinion. :)

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/398283/print


the president brings a lot of this upon himself with his demeanor....his predecessor(whom he has criticized to no end), on the other hand, was for the most part an honest and decent guy

I believe the only person truly capable if disrespecting the office is the office holder...at that...he has exceeded expectations

BC, it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on.

Again, I'll ask -don't you think people are more justified about getting us into a war based on bad intelligence (and I think it went beyond that to some lies and some ignoring anything that didn't fit in w/the what the admin. wanted) and trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?

I forgot about "Romnesia". Great article. It's this clear pattern of behavior (my favorite - "Republicans gotta stop just hating all the time") that's so un-dignified and beneath the office, that makes me despise the man. He's an embarassment and a disgrace.

Why do you guys bother , it's like talking to a wall.............

Oh, the signs at tea party ralies mean that tea partiers are inherently racist?

A few signs among large groups. And we know for a fact, that some of th epeople holding those signs, were planted by liberal groups to fool people exactly like you into concluding exactly what you concluded...that a group that believes in fiscal responsibility, is racist, despite the fact that said groupo has endorsed monority candidates who support their agenda. You've been played for a sucker by those on you rside. If someone did that to me, I'd be upset, but that's just me.

"it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on"

Correct, and the large majority of people who looked at that evidence, arrived at the same conslusion he did. He didn't lie or manufacture evidence...if he did, I'd be the first one calling for his impeachment and arrest. He was wrong. Many, many people were wrong. They were equally wrong.

"I think it went beyond that to some lies "

The "Bush lied, people died" slogan makes for a great bumper sticker. There's no proof of it. You're entitled to your beliefs. Many people think 9/11 was an insoide jobm many people think Obama wasn't born here. All are very weak conslusions, IMHO...

"trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?[/"

Again, it's demonstrably false that only your side wants to insur emore people. My side wants to do it too, we just have a dfferent approach (using exchanges and vouchers, getting more people into good jobs, enacting tort reform, which unlike Obamacare would actually decrease costs and let more people get insurance).

Getting more people access to healthcare, in and of itself, is a good thing. Making free birth control (specifically for use in recreational sex) a part of that, and exempting union employees from taxes on cadillac plans becaiuse they happen to vote for democrats, and forcing Christians to abandon their religious beliefs in the process, is not a good thing.

It is either this or work.

What he said...

So what legislation has "your side" (since I guess it is either your side or my side) proposed? They have voted what - 55?? times to canc. the ACA but I haven't seen any alternatives.

What chance would GOP-led legislation have of passing, when Harry Reid controls the Senate committees? Come on...

Now that the GOP has both houses, as you say, it's on them to put forth some common sense legislation, make Obama veto it all, then see how he likes being called an obstructionist...if the GOP doesn't make good use of this majority, they deserve to get the boot...

Hmmm. Comparing war to health insurance. Yeah . . . I can see some similarities. Winning a war would probably insure better health for the victors than the losers. On the other hand, abandoning the victory and letting enemies gain strength would probably threaten one's health.

But there is also another type of health that is affected by the innocent sounding "trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it". The nature and method of the attempt was not just getting some uninsured folks insurance, but transforming the whole health care process for everybody, and creating a whole new power for government, enabling it for the first time to tax the people for not buying something. In other words, fundamentally changing the relationship of the individual to the government. And in such a way that it would have absolute power over the people rather being limited to power consented by the people. Now here, indeed, there might be a closer comparison to war. Rather than some admirable little attempt to get some folks insured, it turned out to be a war against liberty in the name of good.

I suppose there might also be a comparison with the nature of the "intelligence" gathered to justify a particular war or a particular health insurance. You believe that the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war was bad. And even manipulated to make it even more justifiable. So, then, how about the validity or truth of the "intelligence" justifying this insurance? Does the name Jonathan Gruber ring a bell. Were the lies told about what the ACA really was and how it worked and what its impact would be comparable to the lies that you imply the Bush administration told?

And how about a comparison of the results of the war and the insurance.

Yup. Thousands died and were maimed in Iraq. That is the nature of war. And justifying an offensive war to a free people, certainly to the people of this country, has always required some manipulation. Starting with the American revolution and with every offensive war we entered after, there was always needed some "twisting" or creating of facts and necessities. I'm not going to judge that here, though you probably do. It is hard to tell what was achieved with victory in Iraq, since we've tossed the victory out. Briefly, there was a retrenchment of the bad guys and the possibility of the growth of a more Western type of secular government, if we had stayed.

The ACA was supposedly for the purpose, as you say, of getting some people who had none, insured. That is, apparently happening. But the need for that was, supposedly, to take the burden off of the rest of us who were paying for the health care those same people were getting without insurance. And the rest of us would still, then, be able to keep the insurance we had, but with the lowered costs due to not having to pay for the other uninsureds. As it turns out, we indeed will still be paying for the previously uninsured, at an even higher rate than before. And in the process, we have become vulnerable, in a way never before imagined, to some further government demand that we must buy what it considers a necessity, or be taxed if we don't. It all may not seem to be much of a price to pay to get a few folks who could not afford insurance great health care, but it is huge in the annals of American individual freedom.

It is, of course, a huge step into socialism. Added to the other steps we've been taking. The problem of insurance for the few who didn't have it but deserved assistance could have been provided in a far less intrusive and liberty destroying way.

If the case that the USSC will rule in the next few weeks about the Fed run exchanges turns out like the Repubs. want, they will have to come up with some alternative for everyone whose insur. is canc.

Where is that "someone is wrong on the internet" JPEG.

"providing" ????

Providing? or forcing Obama care upon us after many false promises
another example of abuse of power

yes it can be
some people care about their country and hate to see it struggle

Sorry Jim BUT Repubs do not have enough votes in senate to oust Obamacare....would pass in the house but no further.

if he were not in this country, the victims would not be dead because of him. This is not a movie about butterfly effect, it's real life.


Constitution you ask??? Well the President is the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UKqXmzY7g


truth
sad truth


keep your heads in the sand, I'll be with Andy gathering whatever means needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT9K2shh3qk

this guy is wicked smaht

So why isn't any legislation that passes forcing something on us and wouldn't that then be an abuse of power? I thought the SC took up this question?

Well - I guess you can compare Benghazi and ACA - there was intelligence on both predicting significant failures that were ignored by the administration.

D'oh!

How does the executive action have any bearing on him being in this country illegally. Heck, if anything it will free up resources to prioritize criminals.

If the House de-funds the DHS as threatened how effective do you think our border enforcement will be?

And then you should read this...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...e-amicus-brief

So crony capitalism is GOOD. Especially for giant corporations.

Probably as effective as it is now. In fact, if the federal government would let the states patrol their own borders, the enforcement might be even more effective.

Please explain how the action makes it any easier for criminals to come here, stay...or how they have any access to health care under the ACA.