Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Do you think President Obama needs the OK from Congress before going all "cowboy" on Syria?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(74)

locomotive

Sep-06-13 9:56 AM

Now that's the centerish I know. If you dropped that "dear" thingy, it'd be perfect.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Sep-06-13 12:18 AM

Dear loco, You must live in a cave. Everyone and I mean everyone knows that Rush runs the Republican party. All of them(republicans) go to him for his blessing on anything. You must have slept through that. Or you just cannot believe what is out in front of you. Oh, I guess that is what it is since your history has shown that.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Sep-05-13 6:12 PM

When I see you "salutating" all posters as "dear," then my paranoia will be put back on the shelf...uh, centerish.

FYI: Rush Limbaugh is NOT the "chairman of the board" of the Republican party. That's a liberal fixation and an inaccurate one at that. Most Republicans do what they or their constituents feel is right, in spite of what Limbaugh says. Really. Look it up.

As far as paranoia, methinks yours of Rush Limbaugh is showing. A lot.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Sep-05-13 5:02 PM

Are we just a little paranoid, loco? Dear Loco, as in dear harry, dear bill. It believe it is called the "Salutation". Lets talk about bi-partisan voting. So, since the Republicans have voted for five years as a block of NO votes, that certainly is not bi- any means. The Democrats have tried at times to compromise but as one republican leader says, compromise not going to happen...let me see, oh yes, That was Mr. Chairman of the Board, Rush Limbaugh. You know good and well that the Republican party has done nothing for five years but filibuster, whine, lie, obstruct, and generally try to ruin the economy. Time for an honest check, and you have failed.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Sep-04-13 9:27 AM

centerish: "So, when you talk of bi-partisanship, you have to leave Republicans completely off the list. When you start to acknowledge that, then we can move on."

First off, I'm not a "dear." You're probably just patronizing me, but the term itself is too cuddly for this forum.

Your quote is slightly problematic. The word "bipartisan" implies two parties. In our day, the two major parties are Democrats and Republicans. If you "leave Republicans completely off the list," all that remains is the other major party, the Democrats. Call me ignorant, but I really don't get how Democrats can be bipartisan by themselves.

Movin' on...

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Sep-03-13 12:38 PM

Conti. Now, move on to the House of Representatives which has been called the poorest in history and their record shows it. What did they have, 40 votes on Obama care. What a waste of government time. So, when you talk of bi-partisanship, you have to leave Republicans completely off the list. When you start to acknowledge that, then we can move on. A lot of material on the blog from the right comes directly from highly partisan individuals ( rush, etc). or publications. Now, where would we be if there would have been some cooperation instead of stone walling? Where is that jobs bill that is still in Boehnor's desk for two years? Where are the bills for infrastructure repair? The hatred alone on the blog is certainly a cancer on the country. As we saw in the Montana legislature, the moderate Republicans broke from the radical wingers. You will see that happen more and more. It is about time.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Sep-03-13 12:31 PM

dear Loco, I am all for cooperation and bi-partisanship for our legislative and administrative government. But, a lack of cooperation began on inauguration night with the Republican gang of 15 (leadership included) met to set their game plan to (make Obama a one term president). They pledge to fight any and all proposals from Obama and the Democrats to achieve their goal. Now, they certainly were not thinking of the good of the country. They continued with a record number of filibusters to block every bill (428). They claim that the Democrats had a super majority, but they did not. The 60th vote was hung up in Minnesota's vote for almost seven months, followed by the loss of Kennedy just months later. In addition, two of the votes counted were independents that leaned Republican (one of whom spoke at the Republican convention later). So, there was no Democratic control to override the filibusters. Now, during that time, I thought Obama was too nice. Conti.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Sep-03-13 9:54 AM

(cont...) within the confines of the office's responsibility.

Is Pres. Obama seeing his promises through? When the plans/policies aren't realized, does he only blame others or does he do a reality check? Is he one to "reach across the aisle" or is he one to practice what the Daily Kos article preached?

No politician is 100% effective in implementing his agenda. Blaming somebody else for that isn't an honorable practice.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Sep-03-13 9:53 AM

centerish, I do know that libs like yourself are happy, delighted or whatever word that Pres. Bush doesn't have a sterling record from his time in office. Not every right-winger or conservative agreed with everything Pres. Bush did. I challenge you to find a source that says otherwise, and I'll defy the source, because I am one of those people.

But Pres. Obama has completed one term in office and has begun his second. When is it time that the mantle of responsibility becomes his? After the second term? He's made some promises that have not been kept, as Pres. Bush did. So one's horrible and one's only good? That doesn't make sense in a real world.

I have been on record here in saying that I appreciated parts of Pres. Obama's speech after the Zimmerman verdict. His idealism rings true in many ways. What I like to see in any president (even when it was Pres. Bush) is those stated ideals worked out in practice as much as possible, within the confines of the office's respons

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Sep-03-13 12:06 AM

Loco, do you really believe that libs went over to Europe and convinced them that Bush was an idiot and a liar. Nope, don't have to do that, they learned by their countrymen who were sent over to Iraq based on lies and came back dead or wounded. But, you go ahead and believe all the right wing garbage. OOh and you have a problem with you bring up old stuff. My example was not old, it was in the European papers last week and it was the reasons they voted not to go to Syria with the US. You have a short memory, loco, as I posted a Pew research survey that blows your supposition on presidential likeability all apart. I suppose that is just forgetting the important stuff. You do that a lot, loco.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Sep-02-13 5:26 PM

"Well, loco, it is something you and I can't do anything about."

centerish, this first sentence of yours is most accurate.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Sep-02-13 5:25 PM

Why, oh why, don't they like/trust/support Pres. Obama? It's all Pres. Bush's fault.

Peat and repeat, until the whole world is convinced.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Sep-02-13 5:24 PM

Veritas: "Why don't you TWEET this Pushkov guy and tell him to quit living in the past!"

centerish: "I realize that you people feel that you can just erase all the lousy things Bush did but you cannot. Those policies and actions still affect us both overseas and domestically."

So a post from 2004 detailing exactly how the Dem "losers" at that time were going to treat the GOP "winners" is a reach, but continual posts about how it's all Bush's fault that nobody's real keen on invading Syria with commander-in-chief Obama is somehow not a reach?

So there's no possible way that Britain, Russia, et al are reluctant because of the present administration? In spite of Veritas' one quote, has there been indications of a mistrust of Pres. Obama himself, instead of that 5 yr. old Pres. Bush hangover?

If there's distrust of the USA because of Bush, why hasn't Obama made all the distrust go away, like most liberals have desired to happen?

Why, oh wh

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Sep-02-13 2:53 PM

Well, loco, it is something you and I can't do anything about. Bush poisoned the water in Europe and they are not forgetting it. Go ahead and google the reasons why the British parliament voted against doing anything in Syria and they will say that memory of past is the reason. I realize that you people feel that you can just erase all the lousy things Bush did but you cannot. Those policies and actions still affect us both overseas and domestically. The economic disaster is still here basically because NOTHING has changed in the congress. The Republicans have blocked almost every bill and we still live with those bad decisions. You righties just have to learn to live with your peoples huge mistakes.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Sep-02-13 8:49 AM

willgrr, what is the president going to do about Syria?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Sep-01-13 10:21 PM

centerish, if I'm "reaching" it's only to counteract Veritas' relentless reach into the past to find that rarest of elements, so rare it doesn't exist, bushanium.

If certain liberals would quit with their fave "blasts from the past" about former Pres. Bush, maybe the conversations could revolve around the present, like that situation in Syria, perhaps? What is Pres. Obama going to do anyway?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Sep-01-13 10:13 PM

You cannot even followup a good post even if you try to copy it. BDGI, the European papers printed the lies of that era and that administration. Now, they don't believe anything the US says. Thanks GB. Now, since you forgot it, the world reminded you. But, your little world revolves around the right wing and they have never been correct on anything.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Sep-01-13 1:42 AM

seriously, loco, a story from 2004????you are really reaching.??

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-31-13 3:08 PM

More from Daily Kos...

"We need to make the GOP radioactive. Their incompetence is providing the ammunition. It is our job to wield it. Remember, they control everything. We don't need to be bipartisan. We don't need to work with them for them to pass their agenda. So we offer up clear alternatives to everything they propose. We have to be aggressive.

"We have nothing to lose. Being in the minority is being in the minority. Yet we have much to gain."

So, if Republicans would happen to adapt the Daily Kosian bits to their landscape, then it's "obstructionism" and lack of bi-partisanship?

I'd say it's liberal hypocrisy, or pot calling kettle midnight Big Time.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-31-13 3:06 PM

dailykos . com/story/2004/12/21/81248/-What-the-hell-happened#

I'm serious, folks. You've GOT to read this one from the Daily Kos. It came up when I searched the (made-up) word "bushanium."

Best quotes...

"The Democrats need to offer an alternative agenda over the next four years. It won't be enacted, so they can shoot for the moon. The*****with good policy, make proposals that sound great. The GOP used flag burning and gay marriage to rally their side. We can find equivalents. Don't worry about them becoming law, because they won't. Worry about branding the party and placing every bit of bad news (and there will be plenty) squarely at the feet of the party that controls all levers of government."

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-31-13 1:40 PM

"Obviously, Loco and changie, you two are having a hard time refuting factual presentations because you now are trying to ridicule them."

Bushanium? Really?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Aug-31-13 12:28 PM

Obviously, Loco and changie, you two are having a hard time refuting factual presentations because you now are trying to ridicule them. But, that is the norm for most all wingers especially those who deal with information gotten from the right wing talkies, Rush, Faux news, and others. There is no bigger group of haters than the right wing, you included changie. But, try not to be too jealous of the factual presentations from the left.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-31-13 9:40 AM

Veritas, I'll be one of the first to admit that your successive postings amount has mine beat all hollow.

Go on and gag yourself...wasn't that your line first?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-31-13 9:36 AM

"I remember loco (I think so) said how Bush was liked overseas."

centerish, I know you'd really, really like this to be true, but I'm ever so sorry, I didn't say this.

And I also know how you like to be factual about things, so you're welcome for the help. Again.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Aug-31-13 9:29 AM

Aug-30-13 6:31 PM

BREAKING NEWS on Bushanium

I think somebody's been watching too many old Batman reruns....

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 74 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web