(03-08-2019, 07:52 PM)Bullseye Wrote:

(03-08-2019, 09:59 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [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." 

Quote: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.

---