It seems Iraq is in a melt down phase right now..again.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2014 18:58:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

You are a much better historian than I- but I was just thinking back to my lifetime.  I was born at the end of Vietnam- but pretty hard to argue Obama did so much worse than our leadership did back then. He was trying to end the Iraq fuck-up- and unlike Hilary was not in support of it in the first place- which was the correct position to take. Meanwhile back at the GOP ranch- war is ever on their minds.  Maybe they would be wise to figure out that the younger voters- AKA the new electorate- is sick of this bullshit. Even some in the party have realized this- ands that is where the split is going to be- the old school hawks and gay hating Bible thumpers vs. the Libertarian faction that thinks live and let live, and stay the fuck out of these places.  I would love to see a new Republican party that casts out these Neanderthals and gives me a choice again on which party I vote for.

i honestly, sincerely don't buy that Obama was worse than Bush.  i just can't fathom that perspective.  but i am open to hearing the justification for it.


lay it on me. 

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2014 18:13:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 21, 2014 17:53:18 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's not rare for a President to be wrong. That I agree with. Presidents are human and as such fallible. However, His Highness Obama brought "wrongness" to a whole new level. He created an art-form of it. And his wrongness has hurt more people that all other presidents combined (granted, part of that is due to there being more people now than, say, during Harding's administration... but still more people is more people).

by what measure? 

And, don't forget the statement includes the word "rarely". It doesn't exclude all others, it just limits them.

i think Obama is sort of "average".  let's use Buchanan, Hoover, and Nixon as three examples.

Buchanan's inept leadership and handling of race and slavery issues during his tenure lead to the secession of the South, and drove us into a war that killed off 7% of our population.  for the math impaired, that would be the equivalent of having 22 MILLION die today.

Hoover's insane monetary policies and overconfidence in the face of collapse exacerbated what was to follow: the loss of half of all US equity, and 1/4 of all jobs. 

Nixon's handling of the war makes Bush's handling of the war seem pretty tame by comparison.

ETA: as far as comparing Cheney's wrongs to His Holiness Obama's wrongs... remind me... when was Cheney President? I don't remember us ever having a "President Cheney".

if you are unaware that Cheney was perhaps the most consequential VP in American history, let me be the first to point it out to you.

but in addition, his recent emergence as some kind of "expert" on Iraq is why i bring him up.  apparently, he is not the only one who has forgotten his mistakes.  also, this part of this discussion is based on a Cheney quote.  perhaps you can remember that?

Ahhhh... the re-writing of history. I just love it when people ignore the truth about history.


The secession of the Southern States was actually LEGAL based on the Constitution. Prior to the Civil War, this country was the United States of America (little or no emphasis on "the"... because it was a loose association of individual States with a few interests in common). The Northern War of Aggression was actually illegal. Afterwards it was (and remains) THE United States of America (huge emphasis on "the")... one indivisible entity.

The secession wasn't about slavery, it was about State's Rights. (yes, slavery was ONE of those "state's rights"... but that's it. Slavery was NOT "THE" issue.).

While I agree that 7% now is (about) 22 Million... I wasn't comparing percentages. I was comparing actual numbers of people. Now, were more KILLED back then? Yes. Absolutely. But were more HURT (physically {including, but not limited to, being killed}, financially, and emotionally) in any way, shape, form, or degree? No. Not even close.


ETA: I'm still waiting to hear when Cheney was President...

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2014 19:13:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 21, 2014 18:13:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if you are unaware that Cheney was perhaps the most consequential VP in American history, let me be the first to point it out to you.

but in addition, his recent emergence as some kind of "expert" on Iraq is why i bring him up.  apparently, he is not the only one who has forgotten his mistakes.  also, this part of this discussion is based on a Cheney quote.  perhaps you can remember that?

Ahhhh... the re-writing of history. I just love it when people ignore the truth about history.

do you love it as much as i love it when people wrongly accuse you of things?

The secession of the Southern States was actually LEGAL based on the Constitution. Prior to the Civil War, this country was the United States of America (little or no emphasis on "the"... because it was a loose association of individual States with a few interests in common). The Northern War of Aggression was actually illegal. Afterwards it was (and remains) THE United States of America (huge emphasis on "the")... one indivisible entity.

i was making a gross simplification, Richard.  let's cut to the chase: do you think Buchanan was worse or better than Obama?

The secession wasn't about slavery, it was about State's Rights. (yes, slavery was ONE of those "state's rights"... but that's it. Slavery was NOT "THE" issue.).

While I agree that 7% now is (about) 22 Million... I wasn't comparing percentages.

fine.  let's compare absolute numbers then.  over 600,000 people died.

I was comparing actual numbers of people. Now, were more KILLED back then? Yes. Absolutely. But were more HURT (physically {including, but not limited to, being killed}, financially, and emotionally) in any way, shape, form, or degree? No. Not even close.

hurt in what way?  sorry, i am still not following you, Richard.  i really am trying, tho.

ETA: I'm still waiting to hear when Cheney was President...

i never claimed he was president.  let's try to stick to his quote.  that was where we disagreed.

[EVT1]

Oh Lord- the northern war of aggression. 

I am going to assume 'ol Richard is mountain folk with an internet connection.  What else is there in east TN- well except for the poor ones that vote GOP while their homes and schools are polluted with coal ash sticking their kids to die in hospitals because they don't have health insurance.

Whatever you say Skeeter.

[EVT1]

As an aside more related to other topics- I carry when I go camping and kayaking in that neck of the woods- because armed rednecks with no sense scare me.

And of course- thanks to Obama- I can now carry my weapon into Federal parks and campgrounds- not that I didn't carry anyway

I saw Deliverance- and that is right in the heart of my recreational area.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2014 19:31:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oh Lord- the northern war of aggression. 

I am going to assume 'ol Richard is mountain folk with an internet connection.  What else is there in east TN- well except for the poor ones that vote GOP while their homes and schools are polluted with coal ash sticking their kids to die in hospitals because they don't have health insurance.

Whatever you say Skeeter.

LOL... Actually, I'm from Florida (grew up there)... I just currently live in Tennessee (have for several years now).

Doesn't mean I don't know how the Civil War REALLY happened though... I don't buy into all this revisionist history crap that they teach now.

Full disclosure requires me to submit that I just did a little unintentional revision myself. I typed "Northern War of Aggression" when it was actually "The War of Northern Aggression"... will anyone ever forgive me?

[mmhmm]

Jun 21, 2014 19:31:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oh Lord- the northern war of aggression. 

I am going to assume 'ol Richard is mountain folk with an internet connection.  What else is there in east TN- well except for the poor ones that vote GOP while their homes and schools are polluted with coal ash sticking their kids to die in hospitals because they don't have health insurance.

Whatever you say Skeeter.

Let's not be assuming anything about other posters, EVT.  Additionally, there's no poster in this thread named "Skeeter". If you're not capable of civil debate, you could have fooled me a couple of times.  Now, knock it off with the nastiness. People disagree. Disagree with some dignity, can't you?

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

[EVT1]

Skeeter was a derogatory term- excuse me- gotta watch out- this is a '1st amendment free zone'

So how are those rules working?  I bet I can fly a mass insult and rack up untold irks and a few bothersomes. 

If only everyone was armed with a 'fuck you' arsenal these thing would not happen

[mmhmm]

Jun 21, 2014 20:52:27 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Skeeter was a derogatory term- excuse me- gotta watch out- this is a '1st amendment free zone'

So how are those rules working?  I bet I can fly a mass insult and rack up untold irks and a few bothersomes. 

If only everyone was armed with a 'fuck you' arsenal these thing would not happen

The rules work great for the majority of posters and the 1st amendment doesn't apply on a private message board, FYI. If you'd like to try on your bet, be my guest. You won't be here to do it twice.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2014 20:04:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 21, 2014 19:31:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oh Lord- the northern war of aggression. 

I am going to assume 'ol Richard is mountain folk with an internet connection.  What else is there in east TN- well except for the poor ones that vote GOP while their homes and schools are polluted with coal ash sticking their kids to die in hospitals because they don't have health insurance.

Whatever you say Skeeter.

LOL... Actually, I'm from Florida (grew up there)... I just currently live in Tennessee (have for several years now).

Doesn't mean I don't know how the Civil War REALLY happened though... I don't buy into all this revisionist history crap that they teach now.

history has never been taught very well.  but i wasn't trying to provide anyone with a history lesson.  i was comparing Obama to Buchanan.  never mind "the crap".  who do you think was worse?

Full disclosure requires me to submit that I just did a little unintentional revision myself. I typed "Northern War of Aggression" when it was actually "The War of Northern Aggression"... will anyone ever forgive me?

of course.  will you answer my questions?

1)  what is this "hurt" that you are saying that Obama did more of than any other president?
2)  who did more harm between Obama and Buchanan, in your opinion?

[Spellbound454]

I'm just glad Obama didn't pizz off Putin too much

This growing Muslim Caliphate is the biggest threat we have had to world peace in a long while.

If it kicks off...we are going to need to ally....and Putin is a lot of things but Russia is still European

Hopefully when the insurgents have beheaded enough people....the locals aren't going to be quite so welcoming. 

There are bigger games afoot... and Obama, at least has his nose to the ground. Couldn't say as much of Bush for his foreign policy.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2014 23:35:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 21, 2014 20:04:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

LOL... Actually, I'm from Florida (grew up there)... I just currently live in Tennessee (have for several years now).

Doesn't mean I don't know how the Civil War REALLY happened though... I don't buy into all this revisionist history crap that they teach now.

history has never been taught very well.  but i wasn't trying to provide anyone with a history lesson.  i was comparing Obama to Buchanan.  never mind "the crap".  who do you think was worse?

Full disclosure requires me to submit that I just did a little unintentional revision myself. I typed "Northern War of Aggression" when it was actually "The War of Northern Aggression"... will anyone ever forgive me?

of course.  will you answer my questions?

1)  what is this "hurt" that you are saying that Obama did more of than any other president?
2)  who did more harm between Obama and Buchanan, in your opinion?

I know you weren't, I was commenting to EVT1...

But, that said... Thanks for forgiving me 


Now, on to your questions
1> the hurt itself wasn't more (as in higher threshold of individual injury), the amount of people hurt was. As to the number...

• What was the population when he caused our country's credit rating to drop... twice?
• What was the population when he negotiated with terrorists?
• What was the population when he signed Obamacare?
• What was the population when he ran up more debt than all other presidents combined?
• What was the population when he lowered our perceived standing as a country in the eyes of the world by acting subservient to numerous foreign dignitaries?
  
  

2> Obama. Buchanan was more "ineffectual" than harmful.


ETA: By the time Buchanan got into office, The secession of the Southern States was already virtually a guarantee UNLESS the Federal Government stopped it's meddling in affairs that (According to the Constitution) were "reserved to the several States"... something that the Federal government was very unlikely to do... considering that Congress had just gained a Majority hold in both houses.

[Virgil Showlion]

Why not make the comparison more systematically?

Here are some basic lists of "Presidential Sins" by Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama. Complete the lists, attach costs to each item in terms of lives, national integrity/prestige, and money, and we'll sum them up.

Pres. Bush

- instituting "Bush tax cuts"
- running up massive perpetual deficits
- co-responsibility for passing the 2008 bail-out ($800 billion)
- instigating war with Iraq on false pretenses
- instigating war with Afghanistan on false pretenses
- (arguably) dismantling protections against excessive campaign spending
- instituting Bush-era military non-justice and torture initiatives
- instituting and expanding the US Patriot Act
- (arguably) presiding over dismal "No Child Left Behind" educational mandate
- (arguably) responsible for FEMA post- Hurricane Katrina blunders
- severely worsening global perception of the United States
- perpetuating irresponsible fiscal policy responsible for the 2007 market bubble and subsequent financial collapse
- authorizing targeted assassination of foreign citizens
- presiding over a significant expansion of the Military Industrial Complex

Pres. Obama:

- (arguably) involvement in the IRS targeting scandal
- running up massive perpetual deficits
- (arguably) co-responsibility for the 2013 government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis
- (arguably) exacerbating already fevered racial tensions in the US
- funding for failed green energy initiatives with political ties to the White House (e.g. Solyndra)
- failing to promptly withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan wars as promised
- failing to repeal any significant portions of the amended Patriot Act
- expansion/reaffirmation of NSA's (illegal) domestic spying mandate
- failing to dismantle Gitmo, repeal Bush-era torture initiatives
- illegally arming Syrian rebels (ultimately resulting in the attack on the Benghazi embassy)
- unilateral acts of war against Libya
- systematically dismantling the US coal industry
- passing Obamacare a.k.a. the greatest gift to insurance companies in the US's national history
- co-responsibility for passing the 2008 bail-out ($800 billion)
- authorizing targeted assassination of US citizens
- authorizing drone activity over US soil and targeted drone strikes against US citizens


Anybody care to do the honours?

[Blonde Granny]

Virgil, you forgot the VA mess on the Obama side. He started spouting off about the VA in 2008 while running for President. He's had a few years to "investigate" the problem and make changes, but has done nothing. Firing Shinseki has not or will do anything to fix what is wrong.

Shall we add Benghazi? Exactly where was he that night won't tell us where he was....Hmmm.

Appointed Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State, we can all tell how well that turned out.

I will add this link, as it's too much to copy & paste, but it is a list of some campaign promises that never materialized

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

[djAdvocate]

Jun 22, 2014 3:56:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 21, 2014 23:35:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

of course.  will you answer my questions?

1)  what is this "hurt" that you are saying that Obama did more of than any other president?
2)  who did more harm between Obama and Buchanan, in your opinion?

I know you weren't, I was commenting to EVT1...

But, that said... Thanks for forgiving me 


Now, on to your questions
1> the hurt itself wasn't more (as in higher threshold of individual injury), the amount of people hurt was. As to the number...

• What was the population when he caused our country's credit rating to drop... twice?
• What was the population when he negotiated with terrorists?
• What was the population when he signed Obamacare?
• What was the population when he ran up more debt than all other presidents combined?
• What was the population when he lowered our perceived standing as a country in the eyes of the world by acting subservient to numerous foreign dignitaries?
• 
  
  

2> Obama. Buchanan was more "ineffectual" than harmful.

ok, thanks for answering. 

so, you are trivializing harm.  by your standard, every president is the worst president, the most harmful president ever, starting with Washington, and ending with Obama.  but that doesn't really help rank them.  furthermore, it contradicts Cheney's quote.  Cheney implied that Obama was somehow unique- wheras by your standard he is not only not unique, but he is SERIALLY awful.

but let's also be clear about some other things.  the credit rating drop was avoidable.  i don't really blame Obama for it, because i don't think it should ever be used as a tool for negotiation. 
before i comment on the second one: which terrorists?  the Taliban?
not everyone was harmed by ObamaCare, unless you think that people are harmed by taxation.  and if so, you are trivializing harm again.  there are winners and losers in every transaction.  ObamaCare is no exception.
your fourth claim is false.  on a GDP basis, nobody tops Roosevelt.  i am not sure that Obama has topped Reagan yet, either, but he might have.  if you are not using inflation adjusted amounts, you are trivializing the issue, again.
i am not even going to address #5.  i honestly don't care about it, but i don't see how i or anyone else is harmed by it.

so, i see your point now, but again, i think you are trivializing harm to the point where every president is more harmful than the previous, which is in direct contradiction with the Cheney quote.

as to your second point, Bush was also "ineffectual".  so was Hoover.  failing to do things in the face of disaster is far worse than doing things and being criticized for it.  that is why Lincoln and Roosevelt are revered, and Buchanan, Hoover, and Bush are jeered.  this also implies that Obama will be treated favorably by history, and i think that is the case.  he will probably never have the stature of these other men, but he certainly is no Buchanan.

[djAdvocate]

Virgil- the IRS targeted liberal groups as well as conservative ones.  you know that, right?
i believe that torture was also eliminated by executive order.
but i agree with most of the rest of your list.  esp the NSA point, which is very disheartening and disturbing.

[Spellbound454]

unilateral acts of war against Libya

Nope that was the French and UK......US didn't really want to be involved...though it was partially.

We've hated Gadaffi since he brought down a passenger plane over our soil...and gave semtex to the IRA to blow us up.

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2014 10:39:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 22, 2014 3:56:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I know you weren't, I was commenting to EVT1...

But, that said... Thanks for forgiving me 


Now, on to your questions
1> the hurt itself wasn't more (as in higher threshold of individual injury), the amount of people hurt was. As to the number...

• What was the population when he caused our country's credit rating to drop... twice?
• What was the population when he negotiated with terrorists?
• What was the population when he signed Obamacare?
• What was the population when he ran up more debt than all other presidents combined?
• What was the population when he lowered our perceived standing as a country in the eyes of the world by acting subservient to numerous foreign dignitaries?
• 
  
  

2> Obama. Buchanan was more "ineffectual" than harmful.

ok, thanks for answering. 

so, you are trivializing harm.  by your standard, every president is the worst president, the most harmful president ever, starting with Washington, and ending with Obama.  but that doesn't really help rank them.  furthermore, it contradicts Cheney's quote.  Cheney implied that Obama was somehow unique- wheras by your standard he is not only not unique, but he is SERIALLY awful.

but let's also be clear about some other things.  the credit rating drop was avoidable.  i don't really blame Obama for it, because i don't think it should ever be used as a tool for negotiation. 
before i comment on the second one: which terrorists?  the Taliban?
not everyone was harmed by ObamaCare, unless you think that people are harmed by taxation.  and if so, you are trivializing harm again.  there are winners and losers in every transaction.  ObamaCare is no exception.
your fourth claim is false.  on a GDP basis, nobody tops Roosevelt.  i am not sure that Obama has topped Reagan yet, either, but he might have.  if you are not using inflation adjusted amounts, you are trivializing the issue, again.
i am not even going to address #5.  i honestly don't care about it, but i don't see how i or anyone else is harmed by it.

so, i see your point now, but again, i think you are trivializing harm to the point where every president is more harmful than the previous, which is in direct contradiction with the Cheney quote.

as to your second point, Bush was also "ineffectual".  so was Hoover.  failing to do things in the face of disaster is far worse than doing things and being criticized for it.  that is why Lincoln and Roosevelt are revered, and Buchanan, Hoover, and Bush are jeered.  this also implies that Obama will be treated favorably by history, and i think that is the case.  he will probably never have the stature of these other men, but he certainly is no Buchanan.

I'm not trivializing him. If you'd like to switch it to percentages, he's still hurt more than any other President... because he's the only one that hurt 100%... REPEATEDLY.

Yes, the credit rating drop was avoidable both times. How can you NOT blame the man that caused it? Even if you want to argue that the first one was PARTIALLY Bush's fault (not sure how you can... but some want to), it was still partially Obama's fault then, AND the second one is all on him.

Yes the Taliban. They were not a recognized government, and they use terroristic methods. If he wanted Berghdal back so badly he should have sent in troops to get him. You never, ever, negotiate with hostage takers... unless you want MORE hostages taken... because that tells others that would even consider taking hostages that they have a reasonable chance of getting what they want if they take hostages in the future. It emboldens them.

Yes. Everyone was harmed by Obamacare. Did some ALSO get help? Sure. Were there good parts to Obamacare? Sure. But the unconstitutional mandate of insurance purchase hurts everyone because it sets a BAD precedent. Now, based on that, and SCOTUS precedent that improperly agreed with it, the Government can legitimately mandate ANYTHING as a requirement, as long as they can make a "it's good for the country" issue. Cattle market gets in trouble? Now they can mandate that all families MUST buy 5 pounds of beef a week, It doesn't matter if you are Vegan... you still have to buy it or pay a fine. Next time the Auto industry gets into trouble... instead of a bailout, they can mandate that all Americans MUST buy a new car every 5 years (and they can mandate that they be AMERICAN MADE cars too). 

Double all others combined is STILL double all others combined... no matter how you try to alter the equation. So it's not trivial. And it's not false.

#5 matters because the Prestige of our country used to mean something. It used to afford us an "edge" when dealing with other countries... but now that Obama has made us subservient... well... we just don't have that "edge" anymore.

I never said there weren't other ineffectual presidents either... you asked for a comparison between two very specific ones. The two you asked for were Buchanan and Obama. Buchanan was ineffectual, Obama was/is intentionally hurtful.

[EVT1]

Have to take issue with your claim about emboldening terrorists to take hostages or that they would take more of them.

First off they are plenty emboldened- when your members are willing to blow themselves up to kill others it is hard to get more emboldened than that. Second they are going to capture as many of us as they can- the only difference is what the possible outcomes are.  So maybe next time instead of a prisoner swap they just decide to cut a head off and put it on the internet.

So I am not going to give Obama any shit for bringing one of our soldiers home.  If you want to attack the soldier to make the idea of leaving him there to die more palatable like a lot of the right wing is doing, you can, although I don't recall too many people here jumping on that bandwagon- well except for PBP of course who wants him and his dad executed.

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2014 18:23:10 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Have to take issue with your claim about emboldening terrorists to take hostages or that they would take more of them.

First off they are plenty emboldened- when your members are willing to blow themselves up to kill others it is hard to get more emboldened than that. Second they are going to capture as many of us as they can- the only difference is what the possible outcomes are.  So maybe next time instead of a prisoner swap they just decide to cut a head off and put it on the internet.

So I am not going to give Obama any shit for bringing one of our soldiers home.  If you want to attack the soldier to make the idea of leaving him there to die more palatable like a lot of the right wing is doing, you can, although I don't recall too many people here jumping on that bandwagon- well except for PBP of course who wants him and his dad executed.

I am not giving Obama crap for bringing a deserter home (so he can hopefully face charges FOR his desertion). I'm giving him crap for how he did it. Prior to this, the US's stance has ALWAYS been "We do not negotiate with terrorists. Period."... well... at least for the next 2 years and 7 months... apparently we do. And that's bad.

[EVT1]

Jun 22, 2014 18:29:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 22, 2014 18:23:10 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Have to take issue with your claim about emboldening terrorists to take hostages or that they would take more of them.

First off they are plenty emboldened- when your members are willing to blow themselves up to kill others it is hard to get more emboldened than that. Second they are going to capture as many of us as they can- the only difference is what the possible outcomes are.  So maybe next time instead of a prisoner swap they just decide to cut a head off and put it on the internet.

So I am not going to give Obama any shit for bringing one of our soldiers home.  If you want to attack the soldier to make the idea of leaving him there to die more palatable like a lot of the right wing is doing, you can, although I don't recall too many people here jumping on that bandwagon- well except for PBP of course who wants him and his dad executed.

I am not giving Obama crap for bringing a deserter home (so he can hopefully face charges FOR his desertion). I'm giving him crap for how he did it. Prior to this, the US's stance has ALWAYS been "We do not negotiate with terrorists. Period."... well... at least for the next 2 years and 7 months... apparently we do. And that's bad.

And you just went there.  He is not a deserter until the military determines he is. 

And prisoner swaps are nothing new- maybe it was a bad deal, maybe not, but we got him home, and I am sure Obama has a drone following everyone of these assholes he swapped for.  And if I recall- there was a good chance they were going to be let go anyway- but I am sure you support unlimited detention and torture of the bad guys but would shit a brick if they did that to us.

[mmhmm]

stimpy, we do not bring matters from other boards onto this board. We also do not call out posters on this board for things that purportedly happen/have happened on other boards. I'm going to remove this personal argument from the forum. If you must continue, take it to PMs. Thanks.

mmhmm, Administrator

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2014 20:20:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jun 22, 2014 18:29:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I am not giving Obama crap for bringing a deserter home (so he can hopefully face charges FOR his desertion). I'm giving him crap for how he did it. Prior to this, the US's stance has ALWAYS been "We do not negotiate with terrorists. Period."... well... at least for the next 2 years and 7 months... apparently we do. And that's bad.

And you just went there.  He is not a deserter until the military determines he is. 

And prisoner swaps are nothing new- maybe it was a bad deal, maybe not, but we got him home, and I am sure Obama has a drone following everyone of these assholes he swapped for.  And if I recall- there was a good chance they were going to be let go anyway- but I am sure you support unlimited detention and torture of the bad guys but would shit a brick if they did that to us.

Correction: He's not a CONVICTED deserter until the military determines he is.

He abandoned his post. That's not in question.
He abandoned his equipment. That's not in question.
He abandoned his bivouac area. That's not in question.
He had no known permission/orders from his chain of command to do the previously mentioned acts. That's not in question. (if this last one comes to light as being untrue, if he was ordered {for some covert-op reason} to "appear to have deserted", then everyone, myself included, will likely change their tune)
 
As far as I or his fellow soldiers that served with him (as well as many other people) can figure, following the facts: he deserted.

[EVT1]

Jun 22, 2014 20:47:51 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 22, 2014 20:20:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

And you just went there.  He is not a deserter until the military determines he is. 

And prisoner swaps are nothing new- maybe it was a bad deal, maybe not, but we got him home, and I am sure Obama has a drone following everyone of these assholes he swapped for.  And if I recall- there was a good chance they were going to be let go anyway- but I am sure you support unlimited detention and torture of the bad guys but would shit a brick if they did that to us.

Correction: He's not a CONVICTED deserter until the military determines he is.

He abandoned his post. That's not in question.
He abandoned his equipment. That's not in question.
He abandoned his bivouac area. That's not in question.
He had no known permission/orders from his chain of command to do the previously mentioned acts. That's not in question. (if this last one comes to light as being untrue, if he was ordered {for some covert-op reason} to "appear to have deserted", then everyone, myself included, will likely change their tune)
 
As far as I or his fellow soldiers that served with him (as well as many other people) can figure, following the facts: he deserted.

Oh OK- good to know you and the right wing media has determined these facts- why fucking bother with the investigation then.

I maintain this is a perfect example of how the right wing would shit on a soldier as long as they get to shit on the president.

And of course- as usual there are death threats from the right. 

[Deleted]

No one is suggesting "shitting" on a soldier. Berghdal is a deserter. The known facts bear this assessment out.

I'm not condoning any death threats.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 22, 2014 18:04:33 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 22, 2014 10:39:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, thanks for answering. 

so, you are trivializing harm.  by your standard, every president is the worst president, the most harmful president ever, starting with Washington, and ending with Obama.  but that doesn't really help rank them.  furthermore, it contradicts Cheney's quote.  Cheney implied that Obama was somehow unique- wheras by your standard he is not only not unique, but he is SERIALLY awful.

but let's also be clear about some other things.  the credit rating drop was avoidable.  i don't really blame Obama for it, because i don't think it should ever be used as a tool for negotiation. 
before i comment on the second one: which terrorists?  the Taliban?
not everyone was harmed by ObamaCare, unless you think that people are harmed by taxation.  and if so, you are trivializing harm again.  there are winners and losers in every transaction.  ObamaCare is no exception.
your fourth claim is false.  on a GDP basis, nobody tops Roosevelt.  i am not sure that Obama has topped Reagan yet, either, but he might have.  if you are not using inflation adjusted amounts, you are trivializing the issue, again.
i am not even going to address #5.  i honestly don't care about it, but i don't see how i or anyone else is harmed by it.

so, i see your point now, but again, i think you are trivializing harm to the point where every president is more harmful than the previous, which is in direct contradiction with the Cheney quote.

as to your second point, Bush was also "ineffectual".  so was Hoover.  failing to do things in the face of disaster is far worse than doing things and being criticized for it.  that is why Lincoln and Roosevelt are revered, and Buchanan, Hoover, and Bush are jeered.  this also implies that Obama will be treated favorably by history, and i think that is the case.  he will probably never have the stature of these other men, but he certainly is no Buchanan.

I'm not trivializing him. .

not him....HARM.  did you seriously get that wrong?  wow.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 22, 2014 18:04:33 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 22, 2014 10:39:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

.If you'd like to switch it to percentages, he's still hurt more than any other President... because he's the only one that hurt 100%... REPEATEDLY.

totally untrue, as i have already pointed out.  i couldn't care less about item #5, for example.  nobody i know cares about it.  that is less than 100%.  and that is only ONE of your five points.

let's move onto ObamaCare.  i know several people that had previously been uninsured.  they are now getting insurance policies.  one of them is on this board.  they have not been hurt.  they have been helped.  that is also less than 100%.  so that is TWO.

Bush not only negotiated with terrorists, he totally appeased them.  nobody even noticed it.  Reagan didn't only negotiate with terrorists, he funded them with drug money, bypassing an act of Congress, and then claimed they were the moral equivalent of Jefferson, even though they were known to drag babies over barbed wire in front of their mothers to exact information from them about their husbands.  i would call that "exceptional".  nothing Obama did even comes close.

Yes, the credit rating drop was avoidable both times. How can you NOT blame the man that caused it?

i already explained that.  our credit rating should never have been used as a bargaining tool.  if Obama had used our credit rating as a bargaining chip, i would consider him a much worse president for it.

Even if you want to argue that the first one was PARTIALLY Bush's fault (not sure how you can... but some want to), it was still partially Obama's fault then, AND the second one is all on him.

no, i have already stated, i mostly blame the GOP for ever thinking of that monstrous bargain.  Bush had nothing to do with it.  all of his debt ceiling increases were rubber stamped by "yes, sir" congresses, including those that were headed by our own GOP.  but sure, Obama didn't capitulate, so he too is "to blame" for the one that caused the downgrade.  if you can't see the folly in capitulating, that is fine.

Yes the Taliban. They were not a recognized government, and they use terroristic methods. If he wanted Berghdal back so badly he should have sent in troops to get him. You never, ever, negotiate with hostage takers... unless you want MORE hostages taken... because that tells others that would even consider taking hostages that they have a reasonable chance of getting what they want if they take hostages in the future. It emboldens them.

i am not going to play this game with you about the Taliban.  they are scumbags.  for the record, i was never in favor of the Berghdal swap, and i have stated so on this board.  i just don't see how this even remotely compares to the emboldening that was done by Bush, Reagan (who helped train OBL in the first place), and half a dozen other presidents all the way back to Ike.

Yes. Everyone was harmed by Obamacare. Did some ALSO get help? Sure.

do you recognize that as contradictory?  if not, how do you explain that people who were helped were also hurt?

I never said there weren't other ineffectual presidents either... you asked for a comparison between two very specific ones.

no, not really.  i mentioned at least four other presidents during this discussion.  but i only needed ONE to prove my point.  Cheney said that such instances- where incompetence caused harm to many- were rare.  i totally disagree.  by YOUR STANDARDS, such instances are not only common, they happen every four years.  that is what i meant by "trivializing harm".

The two you asked for were Buchanan and Obama. Buchanan was ineffectual, Obama was/is intentionally hurtful.

no, i also compared Nixon, W and Hoover to Obama.  i think all of them were vastly worse for this country.  if you don't, i couldn't really care less.  i just don't find your argument very compelling.  but clearly there is an audience for it on the Glenn Beck "news" spectrum.

lastly, i don't think Obama, Buchanan, W, or Hoover INTENTIONALLY hurt this nation.  they did it on accident.  does that make it more excusable?  of course not.  but again, measured on gross harm, the ineffectualness of Buchanan, W, and Hoover did way more harm than anything that Obama has done.  two of those tree arguably threatened our nation with extinction.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 22, 2014 21:24:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

No one is suggesting "shitting" on a soldier. Berghdal is a deserter. The known facts bear this assessment out.

I'm not condoning any death threats.

EVT's right, Richard. Don't jump the gun.

Condemning Mr. Bergdahl before all the dust has settled would be like condemning George Zimmerman before the jury came back with a verdict.

[Deleted]

Yes. Everyone was harmed by Obamacare. Did some ALSO get help? Sure.

do you recognize that as contradictory? if not, how do you explain that people who were helped were also hurt?

For some reason the quote button wasn't causing it to jump to a quote... so I just grabbed what I wanted to comment on

There's nothing contradictory about it.

Look at it this way, I could break your arm AND give you a lollipop at the same time... The fact that I gave you a lollipop doesn't make the other fact that I broke your arm disappear... does it?

That's how Obamacare hurt everyone and yet still helped some (broke everyone's arms... but gave some of them lollipops) the two things are not mutually exclusive.


The rest of it your comment that wouldn't quote, rebutting it would just (basically) be me re-typing what I have already typed... so... believe what you want. 20 years from now, one of us will be right. I've got my money on "Obama was the worst president in the US History" (at least up until his term ended... who knows what/who will be next or how bad/good they will be) being in the history books.