225 Million for Israel

[ken barber]

Okay so am I the only pissed that Congress Approve 225 Million for Israel's Iron Dome System but claims we cant afford to bolster the VA budget. How about this every dollar spent on Foreign Aid has to be match dollar for Dollar on Programs here in the country. If you can claim we can't afford to invest in our own infrastructure then we can't afford to defend a Foreign Nation.

[seabird]

I agree that our government's priorities seem to be lacking common sense, in fact, they seem almost criminal at times. That being said, however, I do believe that Israel does require our backing. NOT, because they are Jewish, but rather, they are the sole democratic state in the entire region. They are the only bulwark holding back a flood of Jihadists, whose primary objective is the destruction of the United States and the death of its people.. They thoroughly believe "Thou shalt not allow an unbeliever to live"

 

 

That sounds pretty awful, I know, and I am sure that not all Muslims are so ferocious, but when one sees newspaper photos of these folks, their faces are screwed up in a contortion of rabid hate and anger, it is enough to scare the daylights out of anyone who sees it. If Israel ever fails, I believe we will see a floodtide of hate spread northward through Europe and cross the sea to our own country.

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[Hunter]

I agree with Seabird, we need to stand strong with Isreal. Currently our administration is sending the wrong message. How many times has Isreal honored cease fires while Hammas continually defies it time and time again. Then to hide behind innocent people is outrageous. On top of that the UN condemning Isreal when casualties of war happens. Yes I feel bad about the loss of innocent lives, but if the UN is going to set up these safe havens for the innocent lives then they should get their butts out their and clear the area of the cowardly Hammas who are hiding in close proximity firing at Isreal. If they are going to condemn Isreal they need to have similar harsh words for the cowardly Hammas who is hiding in the UN's shadow. If the UN wants there to be a safe zone, then again get off your butt UN and clear out the Hammas from your safe zone instead of wrapping your arm around them to hide them. If you don't want your safe areas to be hit by mistake then don't let Hammas hide behind you and allow them to fire off rockets into Isreal. If you allow them to do that then expect some return fire. Don't just condemn Isreal outright without making sure to condemn what Hammas is doing as well.

Yes it is a terrible thing to have a safe area hit, but on the other hand if Hammas is firing on Isreal and they are that close then the chances increases of the safe zone being hit. The UN has to lay blame on all parties when this happens or else they are sending the wrong message. It is a travesty when innocent lives are lost, but it is also a travesty when you don't condemn the other party who is equally as culpible.

In regards to Ukraine, well Putin doesn't understand anything except for force. I say go in and start putting in the defense system in Poland and Czechoslovakia like originally agreed to a few years back. Yes this all costs money but in the long run it also protects our national interests. Our own border issue is something else which needs to be addressed. The democrates, republicans, and the President are all culpible and at fault in this regard. They are blaming everyone else. Sorry Mr. President but you are only inflamming the hatred. You accuse the republicans of hate, but you are just as culpible, and aren't helping matters any. Instead of fueling the hate sit down with both sides and hammer out a compromise. That is part of your job description. All sides need to sit down and compromise or we will never resolve this issue. I'm sorry but we need to secure our own borders. For those who are always wanting to change the terminology and stuff I'm sorry but these are illegal immigrants. We can't allow our borders to be overrun and simply open them up. If we did that then we'd have three quarters of the world making a b-line for our country. All the movie stars and everything are so out of touch with reality, the pope is out of touch with reality. Open up our arms and welcome them, alright how about if we pack up the 50 to 60 thousand illegal immigrants, put them on a plane and deliver them to the pope to live with him in his appartment. Every country in the world tries to protect their borders so they aren't overrun, yet somehow when America tries to do the same it is politically incorrect. I'm sorry but if you don't protect your borders from Illegal immigrants it most definately will become a drain on our economy. I feel for the kids because they had to go through hell to get here, but let's face it this is the parents fault for sending them on a dangerous journey. How many died along the way and if we continue to send the message that we will allow them to stay when they get here how many more little kids' lives will we be culpible for. Yes, more kids will die and be abused along the way if we don't send the message that we will not accept them. We have to secure the borders and set policies in place that lets people know if you want to come into our country you have to get in line. We can't afford to open up our borders so that a certain political party can get a block of voters. We also need to implement stronger guidelines for voting to make sure it is U.S. citizens voting and not illegal immigrants. All countries do this and we have to make sure to protect our country as well. I welcome all "legal" immigrants into our country, but cannot condone the message we are sending to "illegal" immigrants.

Both parties have to sit down and compromise. We secure our borders, but implement a system where it makes it easier for "legal" immigration to take place. The road we are on now will only doom us because one party wants the voter's block in order to stay in power. Why not simply burn our constituion right now, we've pretty much shredded three quarters of it already in the shredding maching.

[ken barber]

Myth: President Obama has isolated Israel internationally

• President Obama has resolutely rejected all attempts to question Israel’s right to exist or weaken Israel’s legitimacy. Speaking before the U.N., he said “Israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the Jewish people. It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States. And efforts to threaten or kill Israelis will do nothing to help the Palestinian people. The slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance—it’s injustice.”

• Not only did the President promise to veto Palestinian attempts to unilaterally seek statehood recognition through the U.N., he prevented the vote from happening at all and called efforts to avoid direct negotiations with Israel a “mistake.” “The United Nations can achieve a lot of important work. What the United Nations is not going to be able to do is deliver a Palestinian state. The only way that we’re going to see a Palestinian state is if Israelis and Palestinians agree on a just peace,” he said.

• In addition to fighting for “fair and normal treatment everyday for Israel throughout the United Nations,” the Obama Administration used its first U.N. Security Council veto to stop condemnation of Israeli settlements. The U.S. was the only country on the 15-member Security Council not to support the resolution.

• The Obama administration stood with Israel by pushing back on the “one-sided” Goldstone Report. The President also stood with Israel inboycotting the 2009 and 2011 Durban Conferences, which unfairly singled out Israel.

Myth: President Obama is cutting funding for Israel's security

Republicans in Washington are launching a misleading attack on President Obama’s support for Israel’s security by pointing to the funding level of one item, a missile defense program, as proof. In doing so, they are purposefully ignoring the incontrovertible fact that President Obama has sent record levels of security aid to Israel as president.

President Obama has increased security assistance each year since he took office and proposed $3.1 billion in his 2013 budget—the largest security aid package ever—to help Israel keep its military edge. This funding was requested after consulting senior Israeli defense and intelligence officials. Take a look at a few of the other ways the President has strengthened the U.S’s support for Israel’s security:

• Directed the Pentagon to expand U.S.-Israel Security cooperation. Early in his term, President Obama directed the Pentagonto “‘deepen and expand the quantity of cooperation to the fullest extent,’ according to a senior administration official.”

• Scheduled the largest-ever joint missile defense exercise with Israel. In 2012, the Obama administration scheduled the Austere Challenge, the largest exercise which will involve more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

• Committed more than $650 million to Israel’s missile defense.Recognizing that rocket and missile-fire pose one of the most immediate threats to Israel’s security, President Obama committed more than $650 million in defense funding for Israel’s missile defense, a package that “more than doubles the previous administration’s planned level” of funding over the same period.

• Announced millions in funding to support Israel’s Iron Dome.In 2010, the Obama administration announced it would support $205 million in defense assistance to Israel for it’s Iron Dome, a short-range system to destroy crude Palestinian and Iranian-made mortars and rockets. 

Myth: President Obama has tried to push Israel into negotiations with Hamas

• • THE TRUTH is that President Obama has said that Hamas is not a partner for a “realistic peace process,” and his administration has clearly stated that it considers Hamas a terrorist organization.

I have more of these if you would like. The statement "Currently our administration is sending the wrong message." is incorrect republicans trying to defame the current administration through lies and deceit are sending the wrong the message 

[seabird]

I was not arguing any particular political party's agenda, altho I will admit that I have little liking OR admiration for our current President, Mr. Obama. I do not believe he and his administration is as fully committed to the the safety and endurance of the Israeli State as some people believe. I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Obama's beliefs or his objectives, political or otherwise, but, it has been my observation, based on a bit more than three quarters of a century of life, that his objectives for our country do not appear to coincide with my own.

 

 

I have served my time being shot at and serving my country, something he does not appear to have experienced. I have lived and worked in other countries, some diametrically different from the land of my birth. I have seen how peoples of other countries are forced to live and what they must contend with on a daily basis, just to stay alive. When I say that the United States beats just about every other place to live, I base that statement on first hand knowledge. There are other countries that have fine living conditions, but, on the whole, only a very select few even approach what we have here. I  can understand those of other countries wanting to have the same benefits as we enjoy, what I cannot understand is their desire to bring us down to their own level, rather than improve their own country. Our country has spent untold billions of American Dollars and uncountable American lives in an attempt to bring the level of the world's people closer to our own. For this, we received only hate and the manic need to destroy us. It would be easy to say, "To Hell with the rest of the world", but that is not how Americans work, we will continue in our efforts to help others, sometimes to our own detriment.  We continue to accept refugees from other countries, sometimes at considerable expense and danger to ourselves and we have always stood ready to assist in disasters, both natural and man made. I don't see that changing anytime soon, but I do see a resistance building to the indiscriminate disbursement of our national wealth to those who hate us so bitterly.

 

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird 

[Hunter]

Charles I'm sure that was directed more towards me and I find that many Obama supporters just like Obama can never admit when he does soemthing wrong and constantly blame the republicans. My point is that both the republicans and democrats are culpible here. They've both dropped the ball on several issues. No, Obama is not cutting funds for Israel, but then again it is congress who isn't cutting funds and not Obama. He's been very critical of Israel concerning how UN safe havens are hit at times, yet I haven't heard him fervently condemn Hammas for their actions. Again my point is that yes we all feel for the innocent Palastinians, but let's face it if someone is shooting at you are you going to stare at them and go "Oh, I can't defend myself because I can't shoot back in this location over here or over there even though the guy is standing up and shooting at me trying to kill me. All I ask is for some common sense. If Hammas is hiding behind schools, hospitals, and churches those now become targets. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is, so if anything condemn Hammas for doing this and don't criticize Israel for defending themselves. It's a terrible thing what's happening to the innocent, but Obama can't simply lay the blame entirely on Israel without condemning in the same harsh way or tone with what Hammas is doing. If he feels strongly against what Israel is doing he also needs to look at the other side to see why it is happening in the first place and condemn it as well.

Again, yes what you say above is true, but then again is that him or is that congress who support Israel and have approved these funds. The 225 million is not Obama, but rather congress. Where is his pen and phone here? He knows that if he Vetos this that congress would chew him up and spit him out. This is one area where most of both parties in congress agree that we support Israel. As for Kerry, he simply needs to stay home in this regard because he is just offensive to the people of Israel with his one sided comments. It's interesting to note that the two staunchest supporters of Israel is Egypt and Saudia Arabia, two muslim countries. Interesting how their leaders are more supportive than our own. I'd love to see Obama stand up and tell Hammas that what they are doing over there is despicable and outrageous like he's done with Israel, but he won't ever do this. He needs to condemn Hammas for their actions just as vehemently as he has been doing with Israel.

As for republicans versus democrats I'm an independent and vote for who I believe is the better candidate. I think the "current administration" has dropped the ball with what is in the best interest for our country. At this stage of his Presidency he is being very confrontational. If it isn't what he wants he simply blames the republicans. There is no right or wrong side, but rather a combination. There's a reason why our system is set up the way it is, and that is so no one side can have it all. He is like a little kid who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. In his speech all I heard was him constantly blaming the republicans for everything and never taking the blame for anything on his end or his party. He is quick to apologize to different countries on the American People's behalf and all I can say is I wish he'd just shut up when that sort of thing comes up. I'm sorry but he constantly is willing to have America apologize yet isn't willing to take the responsibility of his own actions. Instead of blaming the republicans he should simply blame both parties for not coming together and compromise. It takes two sides to tango so if nothing gets done it is both party's fault and not one or the other exclusively. His stance is creating more friction. It's like he takes sides just like Israel and doesn't see the whole picture. Yes replublicans have been a thorn in his side, but it has always been this way with each party doing the same and jokeying for power yet the only way to get things resolved is to compromise instead of the hatred and blame game which he has traveled down. Yes the republicans have blamed him for a lot of things, but so did the democrats when Bush was in office. He is the President so needs to remain neutral and try getting the parties together and compromise, but his constantly blaming republicans for everything instead of blaming both sides for not making things happen only fuels the friction with one party having to take a harder stance and dig in burying all hopes of anything working out.

Yes you can always spout off statistics, but who'se statistics are you spouting and how is it presented. All administrations have always spun numbers to make themselves look good. You can't rely on numbers at their face value but have to dig behind the numbers. Yes 225 million for Israel, but guess what, Obama didn't have anything to do with that but rather congress. Veto power, yes he has that, but he'd never jeopardize taking that sort of chance because the American people would bury him. So it appears both parties still can find common ground on things since they agreed to 225 million for Israel. If it was totally up to Obama I'm not so sure he wouldn't give it to Hammas instead. That's just a barb and I don't think he'd actually do that because it is political suicide.

Now to your original point and intent at the very beginning of this thread. Yes there are many places we are throwing away our funds and should focus on our own people such as the VA and most definately strengthening our military instead of slashing and wacking it to pieces, but what do you think would happen to the region if we stop helping Israel? I'd say they would be wiped out, genocide, and off course I doubt certain individuals would say anything and actually rejoice. These terrorists want to destroy Israel, plain and simple. That is only the tip of the iceburg because as Charles points out Israel is only the first, it would spread north to Europe and then across the sea.

Now of course not all muslims are out to destroy Israel, but we are discussing terrorist groups and Hammas is a terrorist group, one of many. I would love to see you go to Israel and live under the constant threat of thousands of missiles come raining on your head.

Again, unlike others I'm not pro one party or another in our country because they are both failures in my opinion. They each do have some good points, but many more bad points, and unless they learn to work together we are truly screwed. Both parties have lost their way in my opinion. I think Obama is taking us down the wrong path, but I also had plenty of issues with Bush as well. I think our politicians no longer have the best interest of our country at heart and have sold us all down the line for their own special interests.

I know we vote for those in office, but do we truly have a choice the way our current system is set-up. I say one vote per person, again legal U.S. citizens, and majority rules not the current system the way it is set up. If you are outraged at money that is thrown out why not start with the amount of money thrown around during our elections. If you aren't rich or have the proper connection there's no way you stand a chance these days to run for office. That's why you don't see Joe Schmoe running for office who knows and understands what it really is like to balance a budget.

Anyway, my two cents worth which in our current dollar value actually comes to minus two cents with it being payable on delivery to the good U.S. of A. IRS department the biggest crook and bully in the world. Please, I wish I could say my computer crashed so I've lost all of my accounting. No way would that fly and the IRS would be hauling my butt to prison no ands, ifs, or but's about it.

[seabird]

"Hunter", one factor that many people miss is that it is NOT the Palestinians who are fighting the Israelis, it is HAMAS. HAMAS is a group of Muslim Mercenaries and it draws fanatics from the entire Muslim world and beyond. There are even American Muslims fighting there. This is against American Law and one of the earliest laws our country passed was that if a citizen takes up arms in the service of another country, they loose their American Citizenship. When I was working overseas, I had to be very careful not to be working for any foreign government. I sincerely doubt those boys from Chicago who decided to go on Jihad, will loose their citizenship. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but it appears there is a double standard. That is what happens when a "government by and for the people" disintegrates into a rule by edict. I am NOT assigning blame for this situation, there is plenty to go around.

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[Hunter]

Of course we are a nation of laws but only when it applies in regards to being politically correct. That's the problem with out country these days. Even the U.S. Supreme court is a joke anymore because all the members sitting on the bench are politically motivated by their beliefs instead of being blind to their own beliefs. They are there to protect the Constitution and instead have shredded it to pieces.

Yes of course these kids should be stripped of their citizenship and tried for treason, but let's face it for at least a 100 years every member of congress has committed treason in some form or other with how they have tried to manipulate our laws and the Constitution, lol.

No, I know you are not laying blame in any one direction. When it comes to politics and religion there is no simple one answer solutions. It is why we have a system in place that allows for differences where compromises have to be met and hammered out. In my opinion this current administration is not willing to do just that. They are constantly blaming everyone else and when it comes right down to it aren't willing to give. The current situation with immigration is a case in point. The Republicans stuck around and put together a bill, so what is the first thing Obama says, No this is totally unnacceptable and I will have to go it alone. BS, just shut the heck up and now let the Senate come back and make a proposal of their own. Let the two different parties hammer out a compromise and keep your damn nose out of it for now Obama. If you tell your own party well I don't accept their proposal outright so I'm just going to do whatever the heck I want it sends the message to his own party that they don't need to do anything. Instead tell your party well there's a whole heck of a lot we don't like here so let's come back with a counter proposal. He needs to encourage them to all work it out instead of going it alone in what obviously is an illegal move on his part. He's been slapped several times already in this regard but the problem is it's always after the fact. "So sue me," is like a little three year old throwing a tantrum. If Obama would only let the parties hammer it out on their own something would come of it. Of course it won't be anything everyone likes, no one ever likes it when compromise is made, but it will be a start and something both sides can live with.

To outright come out and say this is unnacceptable is foolish and once more forces both sides to dig in their heels. Why not simply say, hmmmm, I'm sorry but there's too much in here we don't agree with but it is a start that we can hopefully build on. Obama the way he is approaching things have made his last couple of years a very heated and contentious one. In the past most other Presidents have recognized the situation and have actually put forth an effort to work across party lines. Of course they were frustrated to no end because in many cases nothing was ever resolved, but then again a few things were accomplished along the way. Obama is a little kid having a tantrum because he can't get his way all the time. Yes, he's been criticized, but that comes with the territory of his position. All Presidents in the past have been criticized by the other party and they simply dealt with it working things out with the other side. It's a hard thing to do, but Obama needs to realize he can't get his way on everything and he will have to grit his teeth and try to make things work without resorting to bullying.

In my opinion this is the biggest failure of this administration. They haven't learned from other past Presidents and have taken it personally. Again, in my opinion many Presidents in the past have had to deal with this sort of problem where they get hounded by the other party with disagreements. It comes with the job and it is how our system is set up. He needs to stop taking it personally and let congress do their jobs. He wants an open border policy as do many democrats; whereas, many republicans want a secured border. Well that's a big difference in personal views. To say the republicans don't care about the kids because they want to send the kids back is ludicrous. The republicans can point out that well at least we don't want to become culpable with being murderers of kids because allowing these kids into the country sends the wrong message where even more kids will take the dangerous journey across risking not only being murdered, but raped and sold into child slavery. I mean let's face it how many kids have died, been killed, raped, and sold along the way? This will continue if we send the message once they get here we will take them in instead of sending them back.

My point here is that there are two sides to the issue. On the one hand the republicans want to secure the border, which doesn't mean they hate the kids; and on the other hand you have the democrats who want to welcome everyone no matter what into our country, which doesn't mean they are culpable to being a murderer or rapist because kids are dying and being raped along the way. To sit there and accuse one side or the other of not having the best interest of these kids at heart is stupid, plain and simple, and doesn't accomplish anything.

So since there is such a wide differing view what is to be done, well this is what they signed on for when they ran for office. That's to come to some consensus, so they will have to sit down and both sides will have to compromise with a solution, but that will never happen unless Obama encourages it to happen. That is part of his job as President. It is his responsibility to try to get both sides to sit down. Of course there is going to be heated words and things won't work out the way he wants, but he can't take it personally and toss up his arms when it doesn't work at first and he doesn't get everything he wants. He has to be persistent and continue to try letting the system work instead of doing an end run around it. That is a failed way of doing things because let's face it there are other Presidents coming in behind him and sooner or later it will come full circle. Who is to say the next President comes in and simply uses his pen and makes an executive order voiding all of Obama's executive orders. Everyone is now saying that is totally illegal, well all the guy has to say is "So, sue me, for now it is done." See what Obama's words and attitudes have done now. It has set things up whereby all people following him can simply implement things and then let it go through the court system at a slow pace. The rulings will come down but it will be after the fact and after the damage has been done. Instead, let the system work it's way out in congress the way it is supposed to. Yes it is a snail's pace doing it that way, but this was also intentional in the way our founding fathers had visualized it from the get-go. They wanted it to be difficult because our country has varied views on everything, but the one thing they hadn't counted on was those in power corrupting our constitution twisting and turning it to their own political views. This is now where our country is losing it's way, and both, I say both parties are equally to blame in this.

Sigh, politics and religion is a viscious circle, lol, it's why there are always wars out there. Anyway, no matter what I'd never want to be President, it's too difficult of a job in my opinion, because you have power, but you really don't. You are hated and dispised, and loved and revered, all at the same time, lol. I think at the moment Obama is frustrated and so has done some things that have actually exasperated (not sure if I spelled this right, lol) things. I think he needs to step back for a moment and rethink things through. He's in his last two years and going it alone will only continue to create issues long after he is gone with other administrations that follow because there will be such hatred with both parties towards one another for a very long time. He is at the point where he wants it to fit neat and clean in his world of thinking, and it simply won't happen that way. He can't get everything he wants so he needs to learn to compromise. He wants a blank check for 3.7 billion dollars, but the other side is afraid of doing that because they don't exactly know how he is going to spend it. He says part of it is to secure our borders, well what percentage of money is going to go towards doing just that, is it 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent. How much is going to go towards getting judges to expedite hearings, how much is going to house these illegal immigrants, how much is going to go to programs that hand out money to them when they release them into our society. As you can see lot's of different issues here and I know the republicans are worried that the bulk of the money will simply go somewhere that allows the illegal immigrants to be released into society instead of actually securing our borders or sending them back home again. Again that is where the biggest difference is and the republicans don't trust Obama and the democrats to truly try compromising even with the money they would get and simply spend it the way they see fit. Again, along the way both sides have become distrustfull of one another so nothing once more gets done. Why not have both sides simply sit down and say, alright, here's 3.7 billion dollars, but one billion is going to this umbrella to take care of this issue, 1 billion goes to this issue, one billion to this issue, and .7 billion to this issue. Break it down even further if you have to, and allocate the funds. Again though this takes compromise, and Obama doesn't want to be restricted in the way he wants to spend the money. He wants to be able to get his hands on the money and dictate where he wants it to go instead of having restrictions. Let the money be allocated for wherever congress decides and if you think you need additional funding in one place or another take your case to congress and fight for the additional funding. Who in their right mind simply gives someone a blank check. Sigh, a viscious cycle, but at this point no one trusts anyone else. The only way money is going to go to Obama is if it is all laid out without him simply getting a blank check. Now he wants to go it alone and take money from other programs. That's what general funds are for, that is for our politician's sticky fingers and their self interests, lol.

Both sides are acting like little kids having a tantrum, and until they grow up a little and learn to work things out nothing will get resolved.

I apologize for any mis-spelled words and such, but I'm not sure why there isn't a spell check or something on here. In the future I'll have to type up my responses in Word, lol, and then post it.

Hunter

[seabird]

"Hunter", do not be concerned about punctuation and spelling, it comes with the territory. You have stated your views very well. A lot of what you say is very true, one point I would like to make, however, it something none of us has touched on. It is a simple concept that EVERY President has had to use, up until now. That concept is COMPROMISE! We are operating today in an era of, "My Way or The Highway"! Always before our Presidents have worked as mediators and brought opposing sides to a consensus. A striking example of the failure to  mediate is the Presidency of Mr. Carter and his Presidency was a utter failure. We are now in a second time in my own lifetime, where we have a failing Presidency for the same reason. It is sad, because there have been some spectacular Administrations during that period from both parties. I cite two such administrations, in no particular order; Mr. Truman and Mr. Reagan, both accomplished far more than most Presidents and both left lasting legacies that we continue to derive benefit from, even today. How did they do that? It was not easy, they sat all parties down, facing each other and worked out their differences BEFORE they were allowed to leave the room!

 

Currently, the Presidential response is to stomp off in a childish pout! That is NOT statesmanship, it is the temper tantrum of a three year old!

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[Hunter]

Hello Charles,

 

Yes exactly and that's what I've been saying all along.  The current administration is not willing to compromise; instead, simply blaming the republicans.  Come on let's get real.  Of course the democrats aren't going to agree with the republican version here regarding this latest issue of immigration, but don't have a little tantrum and immediately say this is utter rubbish and I'm going to go it alone.  BS, sit your damn party down and let them come back with something of their own, then both parties sit down and hammer out a compromise.  It's ridiculous to think that you are simply going to get your way by trying to bully the other side.  I mean we all knew that Obama is not going to agree with what the republicans come up with, but don't just kick them to the curb as they are so much rubish.  I didn't see the democrats staying longer from break to hammer out their own version.  Both sides have their own views and just because one side doesn't agree with you does not mean you have the right to call them names and mock them.  Come up with your own ideas, then sit down and come up with a compromise.  If you have a hissy fit and immediately start calling them names and saying all of their ideas are completely unnacceptible then you've already defeated the purpose here.  All Presidents have had to try to deal with the thorn in their sides.  It sets apart the good Presidents from the bad ones.  It's our system and the way our founding fathers wanted it to work.  They didn't want an absolute one sided view to win out.  The compromise is always a better solution and something both sides can slowly build on.  In a compromise we can slowly see what works and doesn't work and then tweek it as needed.  One of the responsibilities of the Presidency is to put his party line and beliefs behind him and work for all parties and all Americans, not what he in his childish selfishness thinks the way things should be.  This is another issue we are having with our court systems because they are putting their political beliefs first twisting and turning the law to suit their needs.  We see it time and time again with our Supreme Court Justices.  Justice is supposed to be blind, but it isn't the way our jJustices are now selected.  I mean it is grossly obvious anymore with most of their rulings as to their own personal leanings.

 

Again it is nice to see there are others out there who feel similarly like me where our politicians have utterly failed the American People and let's face it this starts at the top.  I have to admit I didn't like Bush either, but he was no where's near in my opinion as an utter failure as this current administration.  It's sad, but I saw it from the get go.  I knew he was going to lead us down the wrong path.  Folks this is just a personal opinion, and I know there are plenty of Obama people out there, but anytime you get a President who blames everyone else over and over again there is something most definately wrong.  No other President has been given as many passes as Obama.  He is in his sixth year and by this time all President's in the past have owned up to it now, all accomplishments and failures falling squarely on their shoulders, yet the mainstream media continually blames the Bush administration.  At this time in his Presidency everything falls squarely on his shoulders and it is no longer any past President's fault who have preceded him.  No other President at this point in their Presidency has continued to blame the previous administration for their utter failures.  Obama needs to take a step back and hit the "re-set" button with his own country's politicians.  Stop blaiming and kicking the other side to the curb, get both sides to take a step back, and start compromising with one another.  Sit down and all sides hammer out a compromise.  No one wins it all, but everyone wins something.  Don't be a stupid spoiled little brat throwing a hissy fit because he didn't get his way.

[seabird]

"Hunter", I do not think there will be any change at this late date, what I fear is that Mr. Obama has so poisoned the political scene in America that it cannot recover and, therein, lies out downfall. Regardless of who wins the next election, the screamers, like Ms Nancy Pelosi, have already set the Congressional Dialogue for the future. The American people have lost faith in our political system as evidenced by recent polls and business is pulling in it's "horns" and fleeing to other countries. Our military is so demoralized that it is unlikely we can protect ourselves and more than a few states are considering "Going it Alone". In reality, that has already happened, the State of Texas has mobilized it's National Guard to protect it's National Borders. Rumor has it that Arizona is contemplating similar action. The "Rust Belt" is growing at an alarming rate and the "Wheat Belt" is going fallow.  With the change in the pricing of international oil, the dollar is loosing value faster than it can be posted, even against a currency as weak as the Mexican Peso. In many countries, the American Dollar is no longer popular and the exchange rate changes daily, always down.

 

To the younger generation, all I can say is, "Good Luck"!

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[Hunter]

I hear you there and this is the fault of the greed and power hungry mongerers of our politicians as a whole. Over the years they've slowly eroded our constitution and shredded it to pieces for their own gains. People out there just don't get it. They are so brainwashed by the mainstream media. I watch all the media including foreign ones so I can try to get an overall view and form my own opinions without the rantings of one faction or another. What is frightening is how our politicians have sold our country down the road. With the main stream media brainwashing most of our population, our own people are willing to throw away our money at the drop of a hat. They scream at how they want to help all those poor refugees, who are actually "illegal immigrants," yet scream and holler when their taxes are raised. We need to secure our borders and protect our own people first. We need to use our money wisely so that we are protecting our national interest and our own people first and foremost. If we support countries abroud it should be because it protects our national interests.

I agree these people like Nancy Pelosi and the younger brainwashed generation are in for a rude awakening when what they sow finally takes root and grows into a tangled mess of weeds and barbs. What our mainstream media wants and what many of the brainwashed American people want just can't be sustained. It's already hitting our pocket books on a personal level, but people are so brainwashed that they simply can't see the writing on the wall. They need to take a step back and look around them to see what is happening to their own life. The strength of our dollar is rapidly fading and we no longer hold the power like we used to around the world. We will continue to slide down the hill until we are no better than all the other countries around us. All because we are so willing to help everyone else out so our politicians can get their vote and remain in power unaffected by the troubles of the average American citizen. So long as they have theirs they could care less what happens to the rest of us.

The politicians and our judicial system has manipulated themselves into a position that favors themselves and the elite where it is now difficult to change the process. The protections that were implemented by our forefathers to protect its citizens have over the years been displaced and other measures put in place to protect the elite and their status quo. It is the politicians protecting their own at the expense of our country. It won't take long now for the rest of the dominos to come tumbling down and the sad part about it is when it does those same brainwashed people still won't get it.

[ken barber]

Gentlemen,

First and foremost it is President Obama, not Obama or  Mr. Obama. You may not like the man but please do not disrespect the office. I can agree with a lot of the points from both of you however as Hunter pointed out both parties are to blame but its interesting that immediately after saying that you begin to blame President Obama. I am a supporter of President Obama and I will say that no he has not  lived up to the expectations I had for him, however to say his presidency is a failure is quiet honestly grossly exaggerating. During the first four years he attempted to compromise and work with congress on a number of issues however he was stonewalled which the republicans in the country cheered over. In the recent years he has stonewalled congress, same exact tactic they used but in his case its a failure and he is a bad president. The Blame game is the problem and instead of Blaming both political parties, Democrats blame Speaker Boehner  and Republicans Blame President Obama. They are both at fault equally. Congresses unwillingness to move on any of the Presidents Agenda Items and the President at this Point circumventing Congress. Our Political System is a farce and we are no longer a Democracy or Republic we are an aristocracy with the ruling class fighting for control. And as long as they keep us arguing and falling for each sides lies they continue to hold the power. I challenge all Democrats to honestly look at what the President and Democrat Members of Congress have done. Read past the talking point do some research. and Republicans put down your crusade against the President for a moment and look at your own party. Look at voting records and which bills have even made it to the congressional floors and which have been swept under the rug. 

 

Seabird you want us to reach out across the world and help other countries attain our standard of living but wonder why they hate us for it. Not everyone wants to be us, not everyone wants to be like us. To many of the people of the world we are no better than Viking raiders coming to rape and pillage their homes. If we really wanted to help maybe we should have left the guns at home.

[ken barber]

Seabird, The Political Screamers are from both sides of the aisle. You point out Representative Pelosi but among the political talking heads from the Right I can name a few Screamers. Rand Paul, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin I can go on but the point is all your doing in that last post is propagating the political division of our county. Unless we the people can stop arguing and throwing insults around nothing will ever change. We have to come together and find common ground because you can be Damn sure the  Politicians never will.

[ken barber]

Hunter you use terms like brainwashed, and in for a rude awakening. You should know that me and My Friends say the exact same thing about you.  the Stop and think about that for a second. Maybe it is us thats brainwashed but the funny thing is most of us are extremely educated and successful and we don't bullshit the  media is feeding us, we do our own research and come to our own conclusions 

[Hunter]

Ken, if you would notice I did not refer to Bush as President Bush so it wasn't just Obama that I neglected this on. As for the titles there is nothing as of yet in the law that requires me to address him as thus; therefore, it is a mute point. I can show him respect or not and refer to him as Obama, Mr. Obama, or President Obama as I see fit. I'll show him the respect as soon as he shows the American people with the proper respect. It is a two way street, and besides, as I point out as of yet it isn't a crime to not refer to him as President Obama. As an American citizen I still have this right to respect the office or not, and let's face it these days the office hasn't truly given me any reasons to show it any respect if I choose not to provide it.

Yes I do believe both parties are to blame, but currently it is Obama's administration so it is mostly up to him to reach across party lines. Yes, he tried working across the isles at the beginning of his first term, but it is an ongoing process throughout his time as President and not just at the beginning. He tried to work at the beginning when he controlled both the house and the senate, when it was easier for him to be a bully and get what he wants. Now it is more difficult so takes more effort and he isn't willing to do this. Don't forget that when there is a Republican President in office the democrats stonewall just as much. It is a two way street, but the President has to always try to reach across the isle and not simply throw up his arms and immediately condemn the other side and say he is now forced to go it alone. Instead he should allow the other side to make their next move and come up with their ideas. Then he needs to allow both sides to try and compromise. It's how the system is set up, and it was intentionally done this way by our forefathers.

Now just because Obama has an agenda doesn't mean that congress has to agree with the agenda. It doesn't give Obama the right to circumvent congress to get his way. He's not a dictator...yet...even though he is starting to act like he is, lol. Again, that last statement was me being facetious. I'm sure he realizes he isn't a dictator, but he also knows that the way he is handling certain decisions in what he does is also illegal. After all if he is willing to go it alone and tell everyone to sue him, then that is the lawyer in him realizing that by the time the legal issues are sorted out and comes back things he implemented is too late anyway. Again, he's manipulating the system and bullying his way through to push his own agenda even if congress doesn't agree with it. The president sets the tone for both parties, and right now I think he is keeping things contentious because it is his justification to use the pen and phone to go it alone.

Mainstream media does lean more towards the democrats and let's face it the more you say something over and over and over again the more people tend to believe things so yes, a certain amount of brainwashing does occur. I try to view several different media outlets including foreign ones in order to gather a bigger picture and then try to form my own opinions. I do my research, but again you always have to pay attention to the source because it is easy to manipulate the numbers. When Bush was in office there were plenty of things I disagreed with on his policies as well and didn't like the bickering between the two parties at that time either. Over the years they have manipulated the system to circumvent the way it was meant to be. Now all they do is try to find ways to "stonewall" as you put it and to get their way exclusively; instead, of being forced to sit down and compromise.

Again, if me not giving out so called titles offends your sensibilities, then contact your representative and have them change the law making it illegal for me to do so, lol. I'm sure our politicians would love to implement such laws. It is interesting to note that the only times the two parties come together and vote the same way is when there is a law being proposed that further enhances their own prestige, gains, and power.

Now if you are as educated as you say then I'm sure you will realize that when I make comments such as the media tends to brainwash the American people that it is a generalized terms. I think you are smart enough to know how the media tends to manipulate talking points, and again it comes from both sides, but most Americans are tuned in to the main stream media.

Our political system is broken and that is what certain elite factions wanted. It's been slowly heading in that directions for years and things are coming to a head and will continue here in the foreseable future.

As for reaching across the sea, yes there are many countries out there that hate us yet in the past we were the first one they always turn towards to help them out. These days not so much because they know when it comes down to it we will end up leaving them to fend on their own setting them up for the slaughter. Anyway when they do hold out their hand for our money or protection they then spit in our face once they have what they want. This is very much true world wide. We can't afford to continue this so all we can hope is to forge relationships where we are welcomed. If countries want our help then we have to ask them to pay a price for it because we cannot continue on our path and hope to survive as well. Change takes time when people are used to a way of life for a thousand years. At the same time we do have to always keep in mind what is in the best interest and security of our country and people. We can't afford to bail out these countries time and time again depleting our wealth, not only in monetary terms but also with the lives that are expended. I did not agree with the Bush administration going in and waging war, but I also didn't agree with pulling out of the country outright. It has made a dangerous situation even worse and believe me when I say it will come back around to haunt us.

Sigh, politics and religion. Two things that always brings out the most disagreements all around, lol.

[ken barber]

Hunter you are right, there is no Law that requires you to address him as President but not addressing him (or President Bush) as such is disrespectful  to the office, and all the Presidents that have come before. The respect of the Office is not something earned the respect of the Office should be inherent in our society. There is no law that requires you to address a doctor as Doctor or a police officer as Officer or your own Parents as Mom and Dad, yet you do because you were taught that respect. By ignoring that for the President or any elected office you are showing everyone that the office is insignificant and beneath your respect.  

 

I want to address you comment mainstream media does lean more to the democrats. Its simply not true, its another lie the Republican Party has sold to all the conservatives out there.Here is the facts.

 

In the 2012 Election news makers appearing in the media as partisan Republicans are quoted at a 44% higher rate than partisan Democrats. Additionally, the ratio of positive to negative coverage was 17.1% more critical of Obama than Romney  http://specialreports.4thestate.net/liberal-media-bias-fact-or-fiction/

http://election2012.4thestate.net/negative-coverage-among-top-print-outlets/

[Hunter]

hmmm, sorry to disagree with you on this point, but the presidency or the office is not something that is automatically inherent of respect. It is something I have a choice with, at least I still do until a law is passed otherwise. In other countries you can be imprisoned, shot, hanged, killed or whatever, but so far I still have a choice and I will exercise my right to that choice when I choose. Just because a person is a doctor doesn't mean I automatically address them with the title. I do not necessarily address all police officers as officer. There are plenty of kids out there that do not address their mom and dad as mom and dad, but in some other fashion sometimes by their names. No one is born with automatic respect it is earned not inherent. The office of Presidency is a thing...a title only. I have a right to either show a person the title out of respect or not. Just because a person holds a certain position does not automatically assign them the respect due to the office. I'm not assigning something tangible to a thing but rather the person itself. It is a title, and I can choose to present the person with an official title or not. I'm not required to provide it so it is a choice whether or not I do. In this regard if a person in my opinion earns the title then I gladly provide it, if not then I choose not to.

Now sure you can find plenty of articles out there quoting as the mainstream media being pro-republican but there are also plenty of articles showing the other side of the coin. All you have to do is listen to the different media outlets and go back recalling how they treated Bush versus Obama to realize that during the elections they treated each one differently leaning more towards the democrats. Like I said there are plenty of articles out there for either side. Here's one that I just did a quick google search on and there are hundreds out there. http://markhumphrys.com/media.obama.html

I base my view on this with what I've witnessed first hand by viewing many different media outlets. Overwhelmingly from my own experience I feel that the mainstream media is more pro democratic versus republicans. There are other media outlets out there like Fox news that most definately is pro-republican. Here again it seems like people who tend to have democratic leanings try to shift around numbers and statistics. I'm sorry but mainstream media is pro democratic and you have other media outlets like Fox news that have more republican leanings. Geeze, for real, doesn't the democrats have anything they do that is wrong. Republicans do a lot of things I don't agree with but so do the democrats but according to democrats they can't do no wrong. Give me a break. Everything isn't always the republicans fault just like everything isn't the democrats fault, and most definately democrats screw things up royally just as bad as the republicans do.

So in my opinion I'm not a liar when I say mainstream media has more democratic leanings and bias. On this I suppose we will both have to agree to disagree, lol.

[Rilbur]

Hunter you are right, there is no Law that requires you to address him as President but not addressing him (or President Bush) as such is disrespectful  to the office, and all the Presidents that have come before. 

Actually, strictly speaking, using the title President for former presidents is incorrect etiquette, and could be considered disrespectful of the office.  While common usage has decided on applying the title to both current and former Presidents, the 'correct' approach is to apply it only to the sitting president -- with the use of 'Former President' being allowed.

[Hunter]

Oh this is too funny Rilbur. Thanks for the clarification on the point that Ken made. All because one person doesn't put the title President in front of someone, lol. Well, I for one will exercise my rights while I still can, lol. At least for now it isn't illegal, and believe me I'm sure the office can survive a supposed slight, but I'm not so sure the person could, lol. After all it is a person's ego not necessarily the office that would have a fit with it. Besides, I don't think a sitting President will have someone shot for not calling him by the title, at least not yet; although, I'm sure the news media would have a field day with it, lol. If there were a choice between making burning the American Flag illegal versus making it illegal not to use the title of President, I'd vote for the flag burning any day. Now the men and women who have fought and died for that flag deserve that right more than someone who I don't necessarily respect or do completely respect having a title bandied about. I wonder what would be more offensive to the news media, having a person burning the American Flag or having the same person not use the official title of "President" when addressing a current sitting President. Now that would be interesting to see how the news media would respond. I suspect not much would be made of the Flag burning incident since they don't say much about such behavior now. Heck for that matter they don't even say anything about Illegal Immigrants flying their flag higher than the American Flag in our country. What a shame with the disparity of how people in our country view things.

Again Rilbur, thanks for the insight with proper etiquette versus in some ways rights. I've noticed you didn't make a comment on whether or not a person has a right not to choose to use the title, but then again I'm sure nothing is truly mentioned anywhere in this regard, lol. I'm sure though that there isn't a law unless there is an obscure one written somewhere.

[Rilbur]

Again Rilbur, thanks for the insight with proper etiquette versus in some ways rights. I've noticed you didn't make a comment on whether or not a person has a right not to choose to use the title, but then again I'm sure nothing is truly mentioned anywhere in this regard, lol. I'm sure though that there isn't a law unless there is an obscure one written somewhere.

 

Hrm, well since you've invited my opinion...

 

Ironically enough, my position isn't based on 'respecting the position' or the relative deservedness of the individual holding it.  It hangs on the idea of courtesy as a social lubricant.  Courtesy -- please, thank you, may I, and so on -- acts as a way to help smooth over rough patches in social situations, and if politics isn't a social situation fraught with rough spots I'll eat my hate.  And frankly the single biggest issue with our government is polarization -- the worst of rough spots.  Republicans hate democrats, who hate republicans, who hate democrats...  Our government is breaking down because the two sides are rapidly approaching a complete refusal to even talk to one another.  I could go on in this vein for some time, but the last several times I've watched political debates I had to walk away because it was so bad.  Rather than engaging in conversation, the two individuals debating focused on scoring points and reiterating political dogma.  Neither side was willing to show an ounce of give, acknowledge any aspect of their opponent's position as correct, or even so much as change their angle of attack -- to use a different phrase or way of explaining things to show how the other wasn't addressing their actual point.

 

Frankly, half of the President's 'dictatorial' moves of late really boil down to the fact that our political parties -- and therefore Congress -- are so badly divided, that Congress can't do its fucking job.  And this at a time when the world is rapidly sliding into chaos, with two separate situations (Russia and Israel) that could easily devolve into World War III going on at the same time.  If that doesn't scare you shitless, it should.

 

Utilizing the President's title won't magically hand wave our issues away.  But refusal to use it is a symptom of the polarization that is destroying our nation.  Therefore I will utilize the title when I refer to President Obama -- though I reserve the right to refer to the individual holding the office without the title.

[Hunter]

Yes again this is an opinion, but does the person actually have the right not to use the title all the points you've made aside?  I can be courteous without using the title.  Courtesy doesn't depend on a person's title and so called deservedness or not deservedness of the title.  I'd rather sit back and do away with the formalities and kick it with the man without having to resort to these so called niceties.  Maybe if our Congress simply kicks back pop the top on a beer and talk to people on a more personal level we can get things done, lol.  It's this snobishness and pettiness getting in the way.  I think the problem is that politics in this day and age ISN'T a social situation but a bunch of pompous idiots trying to outdo the other side and caring less about the American People.

 

Anyway, the political parties refering to Obama as President Obama doesn't seem to have an affect on the lubrication of the social situation so I think the point is mute, lol.  Anyway, I'm sure somewhere along the line the pompousness of certain individuals sort of made it the norm to be referred to it in this way.  I'm sure there were many earlier Presidents who probably cringed at the idea of being referred to so formally, lol.

 

Like you I'll reserve my right not to use the title and exercise it at my own personal whim, since it isn't illegal yet to do so, lol.

 

Oh and just for the record I didn't ommit the title President in front of Obama as a snub.  I never really used the title when making comments in this fashion in this type of format.  I've always gone by things like Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc..., it simply was pointed out as me not having the proper ettiquette by the ommission, lol.  I'm a military brat so know very well the proper protocol when the situation calls for it, but in a casual conversational manner I don't see the need to be so formal.  Let's face it at work I afford my boss the appropriate title and respect but when we are sitting around away from work I revert to my informal mode and do away with all the ettiquette.  Let's face it he wouldn't be my friend for long if I continued to be so formal away from work instead of being a boss at all times.  Again, when the situation calls for it by all means go for it to keep the social lubrication in action, but when I am in a casual situation I don't see the need for the pretentiousness of it all.

[Rilbur]

Yes again this is an opinion, but does the person actually have the right not to use the title all the points you've made aside?  I can be courteous without using the title.

The point is that using the title is the courteous thing to do.  And the failure to use it is a direct descendant of the factionalism I despise.

 

 

 Anyway, I'm sure somewhere along the line the pompousness of certain individuals sort of made it the norm to be referred to it in this way.  I'm sure there were many earlier Presidents who probably cringed at the idea of being referred to so formally, lol.

 

Have you actually studied history?  Seriously?  Pompousness and formality was the norm for years and years.  Our modern day brevity would be shocking to the founding fathers.  Almost as shocking as the division that's crept into our political system.  Frankly, if the republicans and democrats were polarized around large scale regions we'd be ripe for a civil war.  But with republicans and democrats being so evenly spread out (even 'blue' or 'red' states have districts where that trend is reversed!) we're insulated -- for now -- from that.

[Hunter]

Yes historically speaking there was a lot of pompousness, but there were plenty of every day individuals back in the day that despised such behavior.  After all they didn't like it with the British and their snobbishness, lol.

 

Descendent of factionalism...so being partisan or self interested is also a bad thing.  I wonder if the need for an individual to have such titles bandied about is more of a self interest than me not necessarily feeling it needs to be bandied about.

 

I do want to point out though that originally I didn't ommit the title President in front of Obama as a snub.  I never really used the title when making comments in this fashion in this type of format.  I've always gone by things like Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc..., it simply was pointed out as me not having the proper ettiquette by the ommission, lol.  I'm a military brat so know very well the proper protocol when the situation calls for it, but in a casual conversational manner I don't see the need to be so formal.  Let's face it at work I afford my boss the appropriate title and respect but when we are sitting around away from work I revert to my informal mode and do away with all the ettiquette.  Let's face it he wouldn't be my friend for long if I continued to be so formal away from work instead of being a boss at all times.  Again, when the situation calls for it by all means go for it to keep the so called social lubrication in action, but when I am in a casual situation I don't see the need for the pretentiousness of it all.

 

My point originally is to indicate that just because there is a so called ettiquete it is not a requirement and I don't appreciate people telling me what I can and cannot do when it isn't breaking the law for me to not comply.  Basically I had offended a person because of the ommission, well strictly speaking the title is implied and not law or required on my part.  Just because the ommission is made in a conversation does not presuppose that it is an actual snub.  My point was that it is sort of a fickle issue to get caught up in.  It wasn't meant as a snub, but because someone may not like my view on a certain topic shouldn't make something as trivial as me not using a title when I feel it isn't required as such a big fuss.  Yes ettiquetely speaking the title should be applied, yet let's not snub my individual right if I so desire not to use it.  So far I am still allowed this liberty of freedom.

 

The bigger issue here is not the supposed snub but rather an individual's right...ettiquete aside.
 

[seabird]

Ken,

 

I know a lot more about Ms. Nancy Pelosi than you might think. She spent some time in the then, small town that I grew up in. She was a classmate of my younger sister in high school and her father was supposed to have "had a hand" in the murder of my Mother's Cousin, a Superior Court Judge. Ms.Pelosi was yanked out of the public high school and placed in a private school in San Rafael, California. Many claimed her father was a high ranking Mafia Mobster, but I have no direct knowledge of that, I had already left the area and was serving as an officer in the US Navy, stationed out in Hawaii.

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird