So ordering the strike that killid Bin Laden did nothing to advance America?

Is this seriously what you're arguing?

Pretty sure you are arguing that point. But I'll play. What has changed since his death? You can ponder that but the answer is nothing.

If you think Obama is the hero in that scenario, you couldn't be more wrong. So, should we blame Obama for the 15 other times he could have been taken out but wasn't? Was it his fault that foreign policy failures allowed Pakistan to shelter Bin Laden for years? Can we blame Obama for his tight authoritarian grip on combat rules of engagement that endangered boots on the ground? Teams like the one that got Bin Laden had worked auntonomously for decades but not under Obama. Good thing they are now back to that mission set.

No.

Bin Laden got on America's [BLEEP] list in the Clinton administration.

He launched the 9-11 attacks 9 months into W's administration.

President Obama ordered the strike that killed Bin Laden two years into his term of office.

It's patently silly and spectacularly disingenuous to blame president Obama for the failures that happened more than a decade before he got into office, but apparently that isn't stopping you from doing so.

Big shock.

If he had an abundance of clear policy failures, there's no need to make stuff up or exaggerate.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Pretty sure you are arguing that point. But I'll play. What has changed since his death? You can ponder that but the answer is nothing.

If you think Obama is the hero in that scenario, you couldn't be more wrong. So, should we blame Obama for the 15 other times he could have been taken out but wasn't? Was it his fault that foreign policy failures allowed Pakistan to shelter Bin Laden for years? Can we blame Obama for his tight authoritarian grip on combat rules of engagement that endangered boots on the ground? Teams like the one that got Bin Laden had worked auntonomously for decades but not under Obama. Good thing they are now back to that mission set.

No.

Bin Laden got on America's [BLEEP] list in the Clinton administration.

He launched the 9-11 attacks 9 months into W's administration.

President Obama ordered the strike that killed Bin Laden two years into his term of office.

It's patently silly and spectacularly disingenuous to blame president Obama for the failures that happened more than a decade before he got into office, but apparently that isn't stopping you from doing so.

Big shock.

If he had an abundance of clear policy failures, there's no need to make stuff up or exaggerate.

No, these are specific failures under his watch I am speaking of. Nobody else. Stay on track. Let’s revisit how the revenge manhunt was so good for America. Did it change anything besides offering up a rediculous pay per view atmosphere in the war room? I’m fairly certain we still have his terror group staying strong. I’m also fairly certain that terror group has political influence in many parts of the world, especially Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. You know, where we still keep governmental relations going even though the 9/11 killers resided there and their country ideologies still place the US at shoe sole level.

---

No.

Bin Laden got on America's [BLEEP] list in the Clinton administration.

He launched the 9-11 attacks 9 months into W's administration.

President Obama ordered the strike that killed Bin Laden two years into his term of office.

It's patently silly and spectacularly disingenuous to blame president Obama for the failures that happened more than a decade before he got into office, but apparently that isn't stopping you from doing so.

Big shock.

If he had an abundance of clear policy failures, there's no need to make stuff up or exaggerate.

No, these are specific failures under his watch I am speaking of. Nobody else. Stay on track.

Let's take what you say here at face value. 

It doesn't help your point, even to attribute all 15 failures to get him at Obama's feet.

His immediate predecessor in office had 7.5 years to get him.

If he didn't have as many failures to get him as Obama, then he didn't try as hard to get him.

If he had more failures trying to get him than Obama, then he wasn't as effective. 

At the end of the day, Bush had 7.5 years to get him and didn't. 

Fifteen failures or not, Obama got him in 2.

Let’s revisit how the revenge manhunt was so good for America. Did it change anything besides offering up a rediculous pay per view atmosphere in the war room? I’m fairly certain we still have his terror group staying strong. I’m also fairly certain that terror group has political influence in many parts of the world, especially Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. You know, where we still keep governmental relations going even though the 9/11 killers resided there and their country ideologies still place the US at shoe sole level.

Bush made the vow to get Bin laden Dead or alive.  Do you sugggest the war in Afghanistan was nothing but military masturbation?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

And if it doesn't, you can always claim a Deep State and/or MSM cover-up. Kinda like those WMDs in Iraq.

This again huh? Already found in Iraq and in Syria. For the other stuff, you can go ahead and do some leg work on the Google machine. Search Prince Sultan Air Base Friendly Forces village. Prince Sultan is also known as PSAB or Al Kharj ( Als Garage). The construction company went by SBG. 

Hmm...https://rewardsforjustice.net/english/ha...laden.html

What was found in Iraq (by you personally, I presume, you are everywhere when it comes to military actions) was degraded stashes of chemical weapons dating back to the Iran/Iraq war. Their discovery was expected and not publicized because Rumsfeld helped Hussein acquire them, and they weren't evidence of the active WMD program bill of goods used to justify the invasion. If you really cared, you should be outraged.

Anyway, where did I dispute that Bin Laden's son was leading al-Qa'ida and wanted with a $10 million price on his head? Do you not understand the significance of bolded text in a quote? My apologies, I thought you'd been on message boards before. What was it you said to me before? Oh, yeah...your reading comprehension reeks!

It's ok, you probably replied while blowing a gasket, am I right?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

[quote pid='1197607' dateline='1552050432']
Bullseye
So ordering the strike that killid Bin Laden did nothing to advance America?

Is this seriously what you're arguing?

1.  Since Bin Laden was under a death sentence by the US since long before Obama became president, the one good thing you can point to that he did was something that was just a matter of timing and could have happened under any president.

And there was a lot to dislike about his policies:

2.He co-opted the US medical system, costing people who already had insurance (you know, the responsible ones) thousands of dollars a year in either increased contributions, vastly increased deductibles, or both in our case.


3.  He returned $1.5B to a terrorist regime in Iran. He also gave them $500M (?) in exchange for hostages, basically paying a kidnapper.

4.  While there was no actual crime in the Benghazi failure, leaving US diplomats to die when help any time within 9 hours would have rescued them was a total dirtbag action.

5.  Obama supported racial discord. His chosen AG stated that whites could not be considered hate crime victims, and the Justice Department acted accordingly. Obama personally meddled in local matters if a black man was shot, usually the ones where it was justified.

Those are just a few of his policy decisions (not his skin color or his statements) that I found abhorrent.

6.But keep believing he was only disliked because of his skin color if it makes you feel superior to the deplorables.

(Numbering added)

1.  A)  That wasn't the only good accomplishment of former President Obama I COULD name.  It was the only one I DID name because that was all that was required to negate the ridiculous stance that President Obama did nothing positive to advance America, an advisable strategy as opposed to introducing a slew of his accomplishments to those who refuse to acknowledge them when it comes to the 44th president.  B) Funny that the law of averages when it came to Bin Laden's demise didn't kick in under Clinton or W.  This is especially true considering W had seven and a half years after 9-11 to kill him, and he knew or should have known he was a threat even BEFORE 9/11 because of Clinton's failed attempt to get him.  C)  During the presidential debates leading up to the 2008 election, President Obama said if he had actionable intelligence that bin Laden were hiding in Pakistan, he would sent American troops into get him.  Conservatives, including Republican presidential nominee John McCain, threw a collective hissy fit, yammering on about the sovereignty of our Allies, yada yada yada.  D) Somehow, I don't think you would have shrugged off an Obama failure to capture or kill Bin Laden due to inevitability.  Just a hunch.

2.    A)  Even with some people kicked off of their crappy plans, there was still a huge gain in the overall number of insured people.  In fact, the ACA was so "abhorrent" that several red states adopted many of its features in recent elections.  B)  President Obama openly solicited...hell DARED Republicans to offer their own health care alternatives.  They did nothing of the sort, instead voting to repeal the ACA how many times?  I stopped counting in the 50s.  c)  Even when Trump got into office with a Republican congress, they STILL couldn't figure out how to repeal it.  Instead, Trump resorted to Executive orders (you know, the long utilized perfectly constitutional mechanism that made Obama a "dictator" to conservatives) to negate things like the individual mandate.

3.   Trading to our enemies for some consideration?  Hmmm...where have I heard that before.  Here's a clue:  "I don't recall."

4.  The funny thing is there have been numerous attacks on US embassies abroad over the years preceding the Obama administration, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, including 13 such attacks in W's administration.  Yet amazingly, congress couldn't be bothered to hold hearings to investigate the attacks.  Maybe the murder of American diplomats abroad were somehow less of a serious matter before Benghazi or after Trump was elected.  It couldn't be because President Obama was held to a different standard, could it?  Nahh.

5.  I am reminded of a quote from the great movie "O' Brother, Where art Thou." 

This band of miscreants, this very evening, interfered with a lynch mob in the performance of its duty.

 
Wanna throw in an "outside agitators" for good measure there?

Conservative hostility to Obama in matters of law enforcement began long before any of the controversial law enforcement shootings.  There was the controversial arrest of Harvard professor Dr. Henry L. Gates, who committed the heinous atrocity of trying to get into his own house.  In saying the cop who arrested a man trying to get into his own house "acted stupidly,", President Obama didn't say whites, as a whole were stupid.  He didn't say cops, as a whole, were stupid.  Yet white conservatives were pronounced and uniform in their indignation.  There was ZERO REASON for racial offense to be taken in that instance, unless:

• You heard things in his (Obama's) statement that simply weren't there;
  
• You have a fundamental belief that an African American suspect does not have rights to access his own property free from law enforcement intrusion
  
• You think cops serve for the sole protection of whites and their property rights;
  
• You were inclined to find fault in the head of the executive branch of government somehow impugning or disrespecting law enforcement.  As to this point, perhaps that isn't a race based paradigm on its face, but then you'd be hard pressed to explain the complete lack of conservative finger wagging towards Trump for his continuous trashing of Mueller and the FBI
  

Then, white conservatives were enraged over President Obama's reaction to the Trayvon Martin shooting.    To review, Martin was a visitor at a relative's house when he took a walk to a nearby convenience store.  Zimmerman, who was NOT law enforcement but was acting as a neighborhood watch, claims vigilance because of recent burglaries in the area.  Zimmerman calls the police and seeks to engage Martin.  The police TELL Zimmerman NOT TO ENGAGE Martin, and Zimmerman ignores the police order.  He confronts Martin and a fight ensues.  Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin and claims a "stand your ground" defense.  President Obama observes "That could have been my child." and white conservatives again took racial umbrage.

Why?

Does acknowledging the humanity and sanctity of black life somehow offend traditional notions of whiteness?  Can whites not be sufficiently white if they aren't killing or otherwise oppressing or antagonizing blacks?  Obviously so, given the collective mouth frothing from the right over President Obama's facially tame self identification with a black make (gasp), the statement "Black lives Matter," and the mere act of taking a knee at a football game.

Lost in all of the bigoted conservative indignation is the idea that an unarmed Martin (who, by the way, was NEVER linked to any burglaries and did not initiate the confrontation that led to his death) could have a reasonable apprehension of fear of death or severe bodily injury when accosted by a complete stranger and stand his own ground.  Zimmerman had no law enforcement authority, ignored a police order and, without provocation, attacked and killed an innocent kid and his right to self defense is wholly unchallenged by white conservatives, yet Fox news and white conservatives cheered the death of an unarmed teenager in a hoodie.

6.  "Deplorables?"  Yeah that fits.  Me..."Superior?"  Nah.  I think "uppity" may be the term for which you seek
[/quote]

1. The US took a long time to track down Bin Laden. Yes, he wasn't found during Bush's terms. I still say that Obama did nothing that Bush didn't do to find Bin Laden, and kill him. The search for Bin Laden would have been carried out without any input from a president. A president doesn't micromanage military actions.

2. So you applaud the forced sacrifice of responsible people who had coverage in order to cover the irresponsible people who didn't. Typical leftist. And no, the Republicans tried many times to amend the ACA bill, and were never allowed to do so. Claiming they failed to offer their own healthcare alternative(s) is nonsense. They had ZERO power. They also did not have a filibuster-proof senate needed to repeal Obamacare.

3. ??? If you are claiming that two wrongs make a right, then at least explain the other wrong.

4. Were any of those attacks ignored for nine hours while US diplomats were fighting for their lives?

5. You are wrong about the Trayvon Martin story. Zimmerman turned back and was walking toward his van when Martin attacked him. The location of the shooting proved this. It was self-defense (not "stand your ground"), and Zimmerman was found innocent in a trial that Obama's justice department forced on the local authorities.

I've responded to you, but the main point is that we "deplorables" disliked Obama because of his policies, not his skin color. Defending the policies I listed changes nothing. It's how I viewed them as they apply to Obama that is important here. And yes, there are some things the Republicans (and Trump) have done that I also dislike, but you were talking about Obama. I'm not giving any politician a pass on bad policy because of skin color.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

As someone that opposed Obamas policies pretty much 100% of the time I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise of the article. In no way did Obama fire any shots or start any civil disturbance. Did he practice some dirty politics? Sure id agree with that. Is there another civil war brewing? I pray not and cerntainly dont see a scenario that it happens.

What concerns me is the romantic refrence some people use when talking about civil wars or any war in general.

---

Good lord.

That may be the longest post in the message boards history

---

This again huh? Already found in Iraq and in Syria. For the other stuff, you can go ahead and do some leg work on the Google machine. Search Prince Sultan Air Base Friendly Forces village. Prince Sultan is also known as PSAB or Al Kharj ( Als Garage). The construction company went by SBG. 

Hmm...https://rewardsforjustice.net/english/ha...laden.html

What was found in Iraq (by you personally, I presume, you are everywhere when it comes to military actions) was degraded stashes of chemical weapons dating back to the Iran/Iraq war. Their discovery was expected and not publicized because Rumsfeld helped Hussein acquire them, and they weren't evidence of the active WMD program bill of goods used to justify the invasion. If you really cared, you should be outraged.

Anyway, where did I dispute that Bin Laden's son was leading al-Qa'ida and wanted with a $10 million price on his head? Do you not understand the significance of bolded text in a quote? My apologies, I thought you'd been on message boards before. What was it you said to me before? Oh, yeah...your reading comprehension reeks!

It's ok, you probably replied while blowing a gasket, am I right?

Drunk posting again I see. Not going to regurgitate Iraq/Syria WMD a second time. You can go find it with the search function. Probably still believe we went for the oil huh? 

You can also go search for the information related to the bold text I tried to lead you to previously. Do you always need someone to hold your hand? It’s like trying to get my distracted 11y.o. to brush his teeth. As far as outrage over your link, no. We had teams with maps to identify/verify “hot” areas. We had CBRNE teams for testing and marking. We all had 6 months worth of suits, filters, and P-tabs. If you were exposed because you had stupid leadership believing that EOD disposal was fine, even after SECDEF orders not to... play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Not sure what to make of your other gibberish. Better luck next post?

---

1.) Obama advanced progressivism. In my opinion that doesn't advance the country.

2.) The civil war war fought between 1932 and 1973 and the statist progressives won.

---

Okay, it's not a civil war. It's politics. A civil war is when people take up arms and have a bloody war with shooting and bombing and rape and pillage and murder. Calling run-of-the-mill politics a "civil war" is ridiculous.

---

1.) Did anyone read the source article?

2.) The death of constitutional republicanism and replacing it with statist progressivism isn't "run of the mill politics."

3.) The results killed way more people than a shooting war.

---

If we really want a civil war we should do this... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opini...tions.html

I think the idea is preposterous on all fronts. But I do have a morbid curiosity to see how much violence would ensue.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

The idea of a civil war is absolutely preposterous. It's forwarded by a few people with extreme bias, whether it be political, social or racial. Otherwise, the vast, vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with it and are living their lives day to day without the thought. If I saw people frequently squaring off in public over any of the previously mentioned differences, then I would agree that a civil war is possible. As it stands now, the whole narrative is fueled by political discordance over a completely unexpected presidential election result.

Balderdash! I say.

---

1.) Did anyone read the source article?

2.) The death of constitutional republicanism and replacing it with statist progressivism isn't "run of the mill politics."  

3.) The results killed way more people than a shooting war.

To call this civil war is to go in for a cancer screening every time you get a hangnail.

---

Civil War? I doubt it.

Class warfare? Sure. That's been ongoing for decades. Didn't matter if the political mouthpiece wore a red tie for 4 - 8 years or a blue tie for 4 - 8 years. The rich get richer. The poor become more invisible. And the ones left to keep the cogs turning are spoon fed what they want to hear at 500 O'Clock, 800 O'Clock, and 1000 O'Clock on the nose.

While the Middle class gets kicked around and the spectrum and definition of exactly what "middle class" means in modern terms is now left up to debate as it's apparently shrunk. Economy goes up and down with each passing decade and the "kick the can" method is often applied in our darkest hours for the next generation to eat [BLEEP] and die.

Changing the name of a condition doesn't change the actual condition. It just helps people forget how [BLEEP] they were then, how [BLEEP] they are now and how [BLEEP] they'll be before it's all said and done. Unless you hit the lottery. All bets are off then.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

1.) Did anyone read the source article?

2.) The death of constitutional republicanism and replacing it with statist progressivism isn't "run of the mill politics."  

3.) The results killed way more people than a shooting war.

To call this civil war is to go in for a cancer screening every time you get a hangnail.

Hey, if the government is paying for it ...

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I don't know if I would call it a "civil war", but there is a "war" heating up in politics these days, mainly in the democrat party.  Their "face of the party" is leaning further left into socialism and their "base" or "establishment" part of the party is having a hard time reigning all of that in.  I'm thinking that the democrat party's only hope of winning the presidency is to run somebody like Joe Biden.

Having said that, I do believe that politics today, especially for the younger generations leans more towards the left-leaning part of the democrat party.  The democrat party is going to change their playbook and target millennials, genZ'ers etc. even more which can and will change the political landscape of this country.  Gone are the days of compromise and actually getting things done.  I think the last time that happened was when Bill Clinton was President and Newt Gingrich was The Speaker.

The more that the political "leadership" moves towards the left and socialism, the more I fear for our country.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I don't know if I would call it a "civil war", but there is a "war" heating up in politics these days, mainly in the democrat party.  Their "face of the party" is leaning further left into socialism and their "base" or "establishment" part of the party is having a hard time reigning all of that in.  I'm thinking that the democrat party's only hope of winning the presidency is to run somebody like Joe Biden.

Having said that, I do believe that politics today, especially for the younger generations leans more towards the left-leaning part of the democrat party.  The democrat party is going to change their playbook and target millennials, genZ'ers etc. even more which can and will change the political landscape of this country.  Gone are the days of compromise and actually getting things done.  I think the last time that happened was when Bill Clinton was President and Newt Gingrich was The Speaker.

The more that the political "leadership" moves towards the left and socialism, the more I fear for our country.

I don't. Provincially they'll elect more lefties into office until they get a taste of their own medicine, then they'll come to their senses.

---

That's not how it's worked, historically.

---

I don't know if I would call it a "civil war", but there is a "war" heating up in politics these days, mainly in the democrat party.  Their "face of the party" is leaning further left into socialism and their "base" or "establishment" part of the party is having a hard time reigning all of that in.  I'm thinking that the democrat party's only hope of winning the presidency is to run somebody like Joe Biden.

Having said that, I do believe that politics today, especially for the younger generations leans more towards the left-leaning part of the democrat party.  The democrat party is going to change their playbook and target millennials, genZ'ers etc. even more which can and will change the political landscape of this country.  Gone are the days of compromise and actually getting things done.  I think the last time that happened was when Bill Clinton was President and Newt Gingrich was The Speaker.

The more that the political "leadership" moves towards the left and socialism, the more I fear for our country.

We've had lots of socialists in government twice before. Once In the late thirties and once in the mid-60s. Both times they were a minority in the Democratic party, and both times they had to cooperate with capitalists to get the votes they needed. These socialists campaigned for government unemployment insurance and a 40-hour work week and things like that. But they couldn't pass those things without help, because they never won enough elections. And then their help went away whenever they agitated for something more radical.  
So our history with them has actually been lucky.
Many other countries have not been so lucky.
There is an inflection point between simply trying to help more and more people and trying to make sure that the people will never be able to remove you from power.  If we ever elect a leader who wants to cross that inflection point, history and international experience show that there is no sure way to stop them.
I think those who came before us were able to switch so quickly between working with socialists and fighting against them because they thought about things on a case-by-case basis. Ideology is too strong now. Political ideology is nothing more than a fiction that those who gain power invent to explain why they should stay in power. In the 1600s, the divine right of kings was a political ideology. 400 years from now, historians will attempt to reconstruct our government and society and they will be able to make sense of taxes and spending and they will understand law and order. but they are likely to find our ideologies as ridiculous as we find the idea of a divine right of kings.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.