It's hilarious to see the conservatives on this site try SO hard to criticize his politics in order to disguise their true disdain for him as a person. These conservatives could care less about the flaws of Obamacare, or anything else he's done, but they harp on it every day because they simply don't like him. Obama could cure cancer and alloak would criticize him for it. I'd have a lot more respect for conservatives if they just say "I won't support him because I don't like him." It's amazing they can't see how silly they look by opposing EVERYTHING he says and does. When you criticize 100% of someone's words and actions, it's obviously about something else besides the actual words and actions. Common sense people. But keep on bashing....such great qualities to flaunt.

Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."

Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?

And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.

So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?

I didn't lose mine eeyore. nor did I lose my doctor.

It is almost impossible to find PPO coverage for a small business now (at least in NY) and it is impossible for an individual or family to purchase such a plan. Don't know if it is the way the law is written or underwriting decisions by the insurers but the small business person is being punished. And I think it is cause small businesses can't pay for their employees health plans to the same extent large businesses can

My comments are no worse than the constant harsh attacks on Obama. Spare me your moral superiority B.S., it's very lame. And out of all my thousands of posts, nastiness is far from typical of me. Next.

No. Your comments accusing people of racism are MUCH worse than ANYTHING written about Obama and if you don't think so you need to take a deep look at yourself and cut out the crap already. Nobody appreciates being falsely accused of racism. In this day and age its an extreme insult. So cut the crap. This is nonsense and if you don't stop it I'm not going to converse with you anymore. False accusations of racism have no place in this forum.

I know it doesn't need my attention. I can't stand the clapping or faux outrage. I think it is the most disgusting display in all of American politics.

So much is appearance; if you are golfing and you get bad news (previous issue I can't remember which) you stop even though in reality it changes nothing. Current administration is not good at grasping that point. Maybe James Taylor can bring his guitar tonight and sing "Handy Man"

You mean like continuing to read a children story in a classroom while hijacked planes are flying into buildings?

He did that to avoid panicking the children. Whatever you think of Bush and the job he did overall are you seriously suggesting that he seemed detached and aloof from the crisis on 9/11?

Yes. He was in over his head. He could have cut the reading short without panicking the children. Children all over the country were getting updates as it happened.

So you didn't answer the question. Do you seriously contend that Bush was detached and aloof from the crisis of 9/11?

Do you expect Oil to stay under $70/bbl indefinitely?

Yes, as long as OPEC tries to undermine shale oil production in the US.

Now that it's low, it's Obama's doing. You can bet when it goes back up it will be due to circumstances beyond his control.

The right blamed him when prices were high. Now that they are low, he has nothing to do with it. OK, got it.

He opposed the very things that brought prices down. He claimed we can't drill our way to lower prices. Now that increased supply has led to lower prices he claims credit. It's not his fault that prices were high. It is certainly not his doing that prices are low. He was not blamed for prices being high. He was criticized for not embracing policies that would lower them.

OriginalGoober doesn't mind when a colored fella plays drums in his favorite band, but having one run the country and make decisions for Americans....now that's where he draws the line!

Nasty and uncalled for. Yet typical.

From the King Of Nasty And Uncalled For. If anyone would know, it would be doughron.

Right. I'm SOOOOOOO nasty. Because I disagree with people and challenge their opinions. How awful. How mean. How cruel. Just as bad as saying someone is ok with a colored drummer but not a colored president. Sure. Whatever you say dude.

Obama could cure cancer and alloak would criticize him for it. I'd have a lot more respect for conservatives if they just say "I won't support him because I don't like him."

1. As soon as he cures cancer, we'll find out.

2. I've already said I don't like him (more than once here), but you probably complained about that, too. I fail to see much of anything likable about him but that's just one opinion. Pretty sure I'm the type of person he can't stand, so we're even.

When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.

Classic Obama.

Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.

Can you explain that?

Important bi-partisan bills were passed and signed under Reagan. When Congress challenged him he vetoed as is his prerogative. Ultimately, Congress compromised with him and he with them. For example he got the tax cuts he wanted but never got the spending cuts he wanted. But things got done under Reagan. Obama would rather attack and destroy than pass things. That may be true of the Republicans now that they are in the majority but it may not. We will see. If they pass bills that a reasonable opposition president should sign and he vetoes them then it is on him. If they pass pie in the sky with no hope of an override, it's on them. Just about every prior president with an opposition Congress fought with them and tried to one up them but ultimately compromised in a meaningful way. That includes Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.

Classic Obama.

Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.

Can you explain that?

And let me add to this the fact that the Republicans in the House & Senate have stood against Obama since he was elected regardless of policy. Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that. And just about everything else they fought him on was for the sake and not what was good for the American people. Hell, they even shut the government down. What does that say about the GOP?

Alloak's post smacks of Republican hypocrisy given their history of the last 5 or 6 years and the GOP voiding the business of the American people.

I don't get it. They oppose Obama's policies. As Democrats opposed Bush and Reagans'. Are they supposed to just pass what he asks for despite being in opposition to it? Wasn't the last election fought over the election of a Congress that would or would not carry out Obama's agenda? Don't elections have consequences? Why do you assume the business of the people is to do what Obama wants? Much of the country opposes many of his policies. He was not elected dictator. And what opposition party wouldn't strive to make the president a one termer? Do you think the Democrats planned on Bush being re-elected after the 2000 debacle?

It sure killed them in the mid-terms, didn't it?

Senate Democrats received 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans.

That's the way it goes. A minority is now in control of the Senate of the greatest democracy in history.

How will a representation of the minority of the country do the work of the People?

Excellent spin. Love it. A minority party. Haha.

When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.

Classic Obama.

Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.

Can you explain that?

And let me add to this the fact that the Republicans in the House & Senate have stood against Obama since he was elected regardless of policy. Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that. And just about everything else they fought him on was for the sake and not what was good for the American people. Hell, they even shut the government down. What does that say about the GOP?

Alloak's post smacks of Republican hypocrisy given their history of the last 5 or 6 years and the GOP voiding the business of the American people.

I don't get it. They oppose Obama's policies. As Democrats opposed Bush and Reagans'. Are they supposed to just pass what he asks for despite being in opposition to it? Wasn't the last election fought over the election of a Congress that would or would not carry out Obama's agenda? Don't elections have consequences? Why do you assume the business of the people is to do what Obama wants? Much of the country opposes many of his policies. He was not elected dictator. And what opposition party wouldn't strive to make the president a one termer? Do you think the Democrats planned on Bush being re-elected after the 2000 debacle?

If most of the country oppose Obama's agenda please explain how he was elected twice?

Do you expect Oil to stay under $70/bbl indefinitely?

Yes, as long as OPEC tries to undermine shale oil production in the US.

Now that it's low, it's Obama's doing. You can bet when it goes back up it will be due to circumstances beyond his control.

The right blamed him when prices were high. Now that they are low, he has nothing to do with it. OK, got it.

He opposed the very things that brought prices down. He claimed we can't drill our way to lower prices. Now that increased supply has led to lower prices he claims credit. It's not his fault that prices were high. It is certainly not his doing that prices are low. He was not blamed for prices being high. He was criticized for not embracing policies that would lower them.

Obama said Drill Baby Drill was a "bumper sticker."

The countless energy experts here said the same thing. Even if we could increase production it wouldn't lower prices. Still waiting to hear from them. Haven't heard anything yet....

Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."

Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?

And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.

So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?

I didn't lose mine eeyore. nor did I lose my doctor.

So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?

OriginalGoober doesn't mind when a colored fella plays drums in his favorite band, but having one run the country and make decisions for Americans....now that's where he draws the line!

Nasty and uncalled for. Yet typical.

From the King Of Nasty And Uncalled For. If anyone would know, it would be doughron.

Right. I'm SOOOOOOO nasty. Because I disagree with people and challenge their opinions. How awful. How mean. How cruel. Just as bad as saying someone is ok with a colored drummer but not a colored president. Sure. Whatever you say dude.

I didn't make that remark. I have read your condescending remarks on here long enough to know how your superiority complex has you look down on those who disagree with you.

My comments are no worse than the constant harsh attacks on Obama. Spare me your moral superiority B.S., it's very lame. And out of all my thousands of posts, nastiness is far from typical of me. Next.

No. Your comments accusing people of racism are MUCH worse than ANYTHING written about Obama and if you don't think so you need to take a deep look at yourself and cut out the crap already. Nobody appreciates being falsely accused of racism. In this day and age its an extreme insult. So cut the crap. This is nonsense and if you don't stop it I'm not going to converse with you anymore. False accusations of racism have no place in this forum.

From the guy who accuses people of anti-Semitism when they oppose Israeli policy.

Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."

Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?

And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.

So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?

I didn't lose mine eeyore. nor did I lose my doctor.

So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?

I believe I answered that. I believe you ignored it.

Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."

Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?

And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.

So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?

The ones who lost their plans, lost plans that were non compliant. They are now in different compliant plans. This has all been explained to you and you either ignore it or, once again, it went over your head.

Mr. Meaningful,

It wasn't spelled out that way 500 times and you know that. Obama said, "if you like your plan you can keep it. Period." Doesn't leave a lot of room for misunderstanding does it?....He DIDN'T say, "if I like your plan you can keep it." Nothing about compliance was ever mentioned until after the fact and they were well into (fruitless) damage control mode.

quote:
My comments are no worse than the constant harsh attacks on Obama. Spare me your moral superiority B.S., it's very lame. And out of all my thousands of posts, nastiness is far from typical of me. Next.

No. Your comments accusing people of racism are MUCH worse than ANYTHING written about Obama and if you don't think so you need to take a deep look at yourself and cut out the crap already. Nobody appreciates being falsely accused of racism. In this day and age its an extreme insult. So cut the crap. This is nonsense and if you don't stop it I'm not going to converse with you anymore. False accusations of racism have no place in this forum.

____________________

Who decides whether they are false? I call it like I see it, and some people wreak of it, not only here, but in all forms of media, and in Washington, IMO. I appreciate your opinion on the matter, but the way I see it, bashing someone for doing what he/she believes is right, simply because you don't agree with it, is downright nasty. My comments are no worse, so maybe it's you that needs to take a look in the mirror and cut the crap. It was nasty when liberals did it to Bush and it's nasty when conservatives do it to Obama. And how ironic that a conservative such as yourself now wants to play the PC sensitivity card. What other words, phrases, and topics should be banned from this public forum?

You know as much as I admire what Obama has accomplished despite overwhelming obstructionism from the GOP I really can't wait for Hillary to take office so I can hear what the conservatives here will find to complain about her. You guys need some new material and I think Hillary will provide you with some motivation. 😛

Alloak, are you trying to tell me that a politician lied??

Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."

Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?

And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.

So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?

The ones who lost their plans, lost plans that were non compliant. They are now in different compliant plans. This has all been explained to you and you either ignore it or, once again, it went over your head.

Mr. Meaningful,

It wasn't spelled out that way 500 times and you know that. Obama said, "if you like your plan you can keep it. Period." Doesn't leave a lot of room for misunderstanding does it?....He DIDN'T say, "if I like your plan you can keep it." Nothing about compliance was ever mentioned until after the fact and they were well into (fruitless) damage control mode.

Move the goalposts. Your remarks were that nobody lost their plan. you say this implying that people who had health insurance do not have it anymore. That's a lie. I responded to your remarks which have nothing to do with what Obama said. And you wonder why I think your are obtuse.

[Edited on 1/22/2015 by jkeller]

Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."

Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?

And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.

So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?

The ones who lost their plans, lost plans that were non compliant. They are now in different compliant plans. This has all been explained to you and you either ignore it or, once again, it went over your head.

Mr. Meaningful,

It wasn't spelled out that way 500 times and you know that. Obama said, "if you like your plan you can keep it. Period." Doesn't leave a lot of room for misunderstanding does it?....He DIDN'T say, "if I like your plan you can keep it." Nothing about compliance was ever mentioned until after the fact and they were well into (fruitless) damage control mode.

As Pelosi so famously said: "We have to pass this so you can see what's in it."

When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.

Classic Obama.

Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.

Can you explain that?

Important bi-partisan bills were passed and signed under Reagan. When Congress challenged him he vetoed as is his prerogative. Ultimately, Congress compromised with him and he with them. For example he got the tax cuts he wanted but never got the spending cuts he wanted. But things got done under Reagan. Obama would rather attack and destroy than pass things. That may be true of the Republicans now that they are in the majority but it may not. We will see. If they pass bills that a reasonable opposition president should sign and he vetoes them then it is on him. If they pass pie in the sky with no hope of an override, it's on them. Just about every prior president with an opposition Congress fought with them and tried to one up them but ultimately compromised in a meaningful way. That includes Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Sorry - regardless of what or how you responded to Billy's post, the fact of the matter is Reagan 78 vetoes versus 2 Obama vetoes. That's a significant difference & undeniable.

When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.

Classic Obama.

Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.

Can you explain that?

And let me add to this the fact that the Republicans in the House & Senate have stood against Obama since he was elected regardless of policy. Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that. And just about everything else they fought him on was for the sake and not what was good for the American people. Hell, they even shut the government down. What does that say about the GOP?

Alloak's post smacks of Republican hypocrisy given their history of the last 5 or 6 years and the GOP voiding the business of the American people.

I don't get it. They oppose Obama's policies. As Democrats opposed Bush and Reagans'. Are they supposed to just pass what he asks for despite being in opposition to it? Wasn't the last election fought over the election of a Congress that would or would not carry out Obama's agenda? Don't elections have consequences? Why do you assume the business of the people is to do what Obama wants? Much of the country opposes many of his policies. He was not elected dictator. And what opposition party wouldn't strive to make the president a one termer? Do you think the Democrats planned on Bush being re-elected after the 2000 debacle?

Don't be so naive. Obama has faced much more resentment and uphill battles than just about any president I can remember or read about through history. From the numbers of judges left unfilled to the vast number of filibusters, the GOP has worked every angle to block progress regardless of benefit or policy.

Here's a link that might help you understand my post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

This from the mouthpiece of the Republican Party - Good ole Rush Limbaugh.

So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Throw in the antics and hatred of members of the GOP towards Obama. Here's a good one for you, Doug pasted below & compliments of Fox News.

WASHINGTON -- In an extraordinary breach of congressional decorum, a Republican lawmaker shouted "You lie" at President Barack Obama during his speech to Congress Wednesday.

The incident came directly after Obama said, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted from his seat on the Republican side of the chamber.

Bottom line - The disdain, the shutting down of the Gov't. by the GOP, the unwillingness to work with Obama - it goes way beyond policy.

When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.

Classic Obama.

Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.

Can you explain that?

Important bi-partisan bills were passed and signed under Reagan. When Congress challenged him he vetoed as is his prerogative. Ultimately, Congress compromised with him and he with them. For example he got the tax cuts he wanted but never got the spending cuts he wanted. But things got done under Reagan. Obama would rather attack and destroy than pass things. That may be true of the Republicans now that they are in the majority but it may not. We will see. If they pass bills that a reasonable opposition president should sign and he vetoes them then it is on him. If they pass pie in the sky with no hope of an override, it's on them. Just about every prior president with an opposition Congress fought with them and tried to one up them but ultimately compromised in a meaningful way. That includes Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Sorry - regardless of what or how you responded to Billy's post, the fact of the matter is Reagan 78 vetoes versus 2 Obama vetoes. That's a significant difference & undeniable.

Congress actually has to pass bills to give Obama a chance to veto theem. I think now we are going to see congress pass lots of bills and see Obama veto most of them. I don't think in the time left (2 years) congress will get a chance to learn a lesson that they will actually need to compromise for anything to become law. They will just be falling all over themselves to pass bills that will please the base knowing full well that they have zero chance of becoming law. Politics these days is about making statements rather than actually doing anything.

The focus from the State of the Union, the one thing that will probably become reality, should be the trade issue.

Republicans never saw a free trade agreement they didn't like. And Democrat leadership continues to build on it's reputation of outsourcing jobs through their own free trade agreements while talking out the other side of their mouth on protecting jobs.

It is crazy that history keeps repeating. NAFTA and CAFTA were such huge successes right - I mean of course do it again! Permanent normal trade relations with China, the Korean Trade deal signed by this President and now the Trans-Pacific deal, the latest one that the corporations are writing that the President wants no disclosure or debate on.

There needs to be pushback on this from the left. The President says "it's the right thing to do", but it's not. In the end foreign nations and multinational corporations win, and America workers and communities and tax bases, schools, emergency response forces, etc lose all while stressing unemployment programs and education assistance, and all the social programs that people who are impacted by free trades negative consequences seek for help.

There is pressure to push the minimum wage up because too many people are finding themselves in those jobs and the jobs that would've supported these people finding themselves in minimum wage jobs because opportunity for them has been ruined by free trade. The problem isn't that the minimum wage is too low, it is that there are too many people having to rely on these jobs for their opportunities. Free trade hallows out the middle class while enriching others and transferring wealth to other nations. It sounds like it would be a staple of the Democrat Party to oppose, which they do when campaigning, but when they get to Washington and the corporations sink their fingers in them it is free trade all the time and in this case with President Obama and the Trans-Pacific Partnership it must be secret. You'd expect as much from a Republican President right, but how about this President.

This is where Democrats and this President is no different than Republicans and Presidential predecessors.

For all the cheaper clothing we can buy in this country, their workers are making 56 cents per hour, it isn't raising them out of poverty and we have no new jobs. It is great that 11 million new jobs were created in all the sectors, but 8.7 million people still have no jobs, so we need to do something as a country to help all of those people. Using natural gas as a transportation method is an interesting idea.

Gina, I've been waiting all these years to say - alright we're on the same page!

All we can control is what happens in this country. Our labor standards. Our environmental standards. Our safety standards. To think that trade deals are going to impose our standards on foreign nations is ridiculous. And to have politicians say things like "American can compete with anyone in the world", well we aren't competing with 75 cents and hour and the people of those nations can't afford what we export. And I'm just like who cares really. I'm not interested in raise the Vietnamese out of poverty when they are making the things that we can be making here.

Free trade proponents love to hold up a company like CAT as why strong exports are important for our country. But I would like to ask, well what if the Japanese heavy equipment companies couldn't export their earth movers and related equipment to our country, think about how much more business CAT would have supplying heavy equipment to companies for work being done here if they weren't competing with foreign built equipment? Alot of these US companies have factories all around the world anyway, especially the auto companies, so it isn't like all of what they sell abroad is actually built here and shipped there. Ford and Chevy cars sold in Thailand are usually built in that part of the world, not in Detroit.

Sure there is some really cheap clothing imported here. But I buy all of my clothes made in the USA and actually it isn't that much more. I'm sure somebody can buy jeans for like $20, honestly I have no idea how much imported jeans are because I never look at them. The jeans I buy are in the $45-50 dollar range from 3 different companies. The only thing that is somewhat expensive is USA underwear, but I've found I get alot of life out of USA underwear compared to the stuff made in central America I used to have.

There are so many things that we source from abroad that we could have people here build. Start by telling all the foreign auto companies that any car or truck they sell here must be built here or they face a tariff. I don't look down upon Toyota and Honda because they invest a ton of money in our country. Let's incentivize all the foreign auto companies to invest more here and put our citizens to work.

I could go on and on ofcourse, but most people here are more interested in personal attacks and name calling and finger pointing. I'm not saying Obama is horrible, I'm saying all of our governmental leaders that have lead us down the path of ruin are horrible. Some have their partisan blinders on to see that both parties willingly sell our country out.

Natural gas for transportation fuel is an excellent idea. It works great for fleet vehicles that typically fill up at the beginning of the day and return back to the terminal when the day is done. Delivery trucks, public transportation vehicles are perfect candidates. With the oil and gas we are producing (or capable of producing) coupled with our neighbors to the north and south it is not at all unreasonable that we can get off of oil from the middle east, Africa and South American countries that would rather see us burn than flourish. And to hell with all of them anyway. Shouldn't be our duty to trade with them in order to better their way of life. Let China fight wars over oil and deal with that shit for a change. I mean green energy is cool too. Whatever it takes, all of it.

Don't be so naive. Obama has faced much more resentment and uphill battles than just about any president I can remember or read about through history. From the numbers of judges left unfilled to the vast number of filibusters, the GOP has worked every angle to block progress regardless of benefit or policy.

Don't you just think it is the progression of things?

Criticism of Clinton paled in comparison to Bush I. Bush II faced unprecedented criticism. And Obama has faced it on yet another level. And the next President will be subjected to even more heavy fire by the opposition. This is just the way things are going. I've never been able to see the point of trying to make it out to be something else. We are a divided and galvanized nation and the people who didn't vote for or support the party in power are getting nastier and nastier. I don't expect it to change with the next President's skin color or party designation. It just is what is is at this point.

Don't be so naive. Obama has faced much more resentment and uphill battles than just about any president I can remember or read about through history. From the numbers of judges left unfilled to the vast number of filibusters, the GOP has worked every angle to block progress regardless of benefit or policy.

Don't you just think it is the progression of things?

Criticism of Clinton paled in comparison to Bush I. Bush II faced unprecedented criticism. And Obama has faced it on yet another level. And the next President will be subjected to even more heavy fire by the opposition. This is just the way things are going. I've never been able to see the point of trying to make it out to be something else. We are a divided and galvanized nation and the people who didn't vote for or support the party in power are getting nastier and nastier. I don't expect it to change with the next President's skin color or party designation. It just is what is is at this point.

I'm not so sure. Possibly, however it seems that if weights could be assigned to obstruction & "for the sake of who is sitting behind the chair in the White House since 2008", at this stage I would say that the GOP has skewed your theory.

I certainly don't dismiss your idea, but before I'm willing to agree, we'd need to see how things shake out for the next several presidents to conclude that this is a true trend.

Keep in mind that there are 2 variables here - 1)Is it "criticism" (your term), or is it resentment and dislike from the beginning? 2) The evaluation of this also takes into account the party makeup of congress vs. the party of the person in the White House.

quote:
quote:
It sure killed them in the mid-terms, didn't it?

Senate Democrats received 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans.

That's the way it goes. A minority is now in control of the Senate of the greatest democracy in history.

How will a representation of the minority of the country do the work of the People?

Excellent spin. Love it. A minority party. Haha.

More taxpayers voted Democrat than voted Republican. That's a fact. I take that to mean the majority of the country is less conservative than our representative government indicates. The system is baked. And is getting more baked everyday.

I should say a majority of the people. A land mass can't have a political viewpoint.

Criticism of Clinton paled in comparison to Bush I.

Um, whut? 😮