back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Sept 10, 2014 20:19:31 GMT
Interesting that Allyson Schwartz D-PA, who gave up her seat in Congress ran for PA Governor appladed Obamacare as a success in her campaign! She got a spanking in the Democratic primary getting beat by Tom Wolf by 57% v 17%. Wolf ran on a much more centrist values platform. I think he will be PA next governor. To be fair, I think Tom Wolf was going to beat everyone's tush in the primary Allyson Schwartz is a well known and liked Congresswoman in SE PA. Tom Wolf was largely an unknown in this part of the state. At first blush, I thought it would be a close race but after the way she ran her campaign aligning herself strongly with the President, the results came as no surprise to me. The midterms will be interesting for sure. |
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Sept 10, 2014 20:20:20 GMT
Yes she did, maybe she is off her meds. |
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Sept 10, 2014 20:33:08 GMT
Ok, I just saw one of @lizandjuan posts when I I opened the thread and then poof it was gone. Perhaps it isn't intentional.
|
|
iowahawk
New Member
Posts: 6
Jul 1, 2014 1:02:48 GMT
|
Post by iowahawk on Sept 11, 2014 1:15:46 GMT
We were more stable in the Middle East before President Obama pulled forces out. Remember, that was his campaign promise, so he was bound and determined to do it - no matter what. Unfortunately, doing so went against even his own advisers, but he was determined to get out. Unfortunately, he didn't understand the situation well enough, as was so painfully obvious when he called ISIS "the JV team." Reminds me of his telling Mitt Romney that "the 1980s want their foreign policy back." He views himself as oh-so-clever......yet both of these times, he was wrong. It's harder to be wrong when you go on national TV and mock the person/ideas that end up being right. Don't forget - he most recently said that it wasn't his idea to get out of Iraq - after campaigning ad nauseum with that as a tenet of his platform.
One way to look at who's war it is -- is to ask what Congress did. What is commonly called "Bush's war" was voted on by most Democrats, including the heir-apparent for the Democrat nomination for president in 2016 - Hillary Clinton. So really - it's not a war owned by one person. Let's remember that as we listen to President Obama tonight --- will he ask Congress to vote on involvement? If so - it is "our" war, should it pass. If not, it is Obama's. Bush asked. Will Obama?
|
|
|
|
Post by megop on Sept 11, 2014 1:32:52 GMT
Latest industry trade newsfeed I receive, anticipates 6% health care cost increase over each of next 10 years for employers ultimately resulting in employers dropping their contributive coverage. I say this, not to be non-supportive of the ACA as my belief, we are way too far into it to go back and change is hard. I see good and I see bad. There will have to be continued fixes, but delivery/options are going to change. The black/white notion of it's either good or bad, well, I think is just rhetoric. I want to hear, how we are going to adjust and fix at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:57:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 1:33:31 GMT
Yes she did, maybe she is off her meds. I despise that phrase. It's mindless and disrespectful to those who depend on meds to live a more tolerable life. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:57:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 1:49:52 GMT
I agree Ammaliatrice. It is disrespectful.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:57:08 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 1:53:42 GMT
We were more stable in the Middle East before President Obama pulled forces out. Remember, that was his campaign promise, so he was bound and determined to do it - no matter what. Unfortunately, doing so went against even his own advisers, but he was determined to get out. Unfortunately, he didn't understand the situation well enough, as was so painfully obvious when he called ISIS "the JV team." Reminds me of his telling Mitt Romney that "the 1980s want their foreign policy back." He views himself as oh-so-clever......yet both of these times, he was wrong. It's harder to be wrong when you go on national TV and mock the person/ideas that end up being right. Don't forget - he most recently said that it wasn't his idea to get out of Iraq - after campaigning ad nauseum with that as a tenet of his platform. One way to look at who's war it is -- is to ask what Congress did. What is commonly called "Bush's war" was voted on by most Democrats, including the heir-apparent for the Democrat nomination for president in 2016 - Hillary Clinton. So really - it's not a war owned by one person. Let's remember that as we listen to President Obama tonight --- will he ask Congress to vote on involvement? If so - it is "our" war, should it pass. If not, it is Obama's. Bush asked. Will Obama? And don't forget this, from President Bush in 2007
"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."
Another gem from that same speech "When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it will be good politics."
This action from Obama should've happened a year ago. ISIS has been included in briefings to the White House for at least a year, possibly more. Obama sat back and let them grow, allowing them to seize more and more land, gaining strength, butchering people and now that they've beheaded 2 American citizens and the US citizens are telling Obama via the polls that they don't feel safe, they have no confidence in Obama as a leader, and that we must do more to combat ISIS, NOW all the sudden (a change of heart just in the last week) it is important to him?
Obama leads in leading from behind, that's for sure. I said in another thread that I'm truly thankful that Obama met with other NATO leaders because that seems to be where he's gotten all his ideas from. Thank goodness all those other world leaders know how to lead.
The end of his presidency cannot come soon enough. If only the Republicans had a worthwhile candidate. If there was a worthwhile candidate either Democrat or Republican I'd be more excited.
|
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Sept 11, 2014 2:21:15 GMT
We were more stable in the Middle East before President Obama pulled forces out. Remember, that was his campaign promise, so he was bound and determined to do it - no matter what. Unfortunately, doing so went against even his own advisers, but he was determined to get out. Unfortunately, he didn't understand the situation well enough, as was so painfully obvious when he called ISIS "the JV team." Reminds me of his telling Mitt Romney that "the 1980s want their foreign policy back." He views himself as oh-so-clever......yet both of these times, he was wrong. It's harder to be wrong when you go on national TV and mock the person/ideas that end up being right. Don't forget - he most recently said that it wasn't his idea to get out of Iraq - after campaigning ad nauseum with that as a tenet of his platform. One way to look at who's war it is -- is to ask what Congress did. What is commonly called "Bush's war" was voted on by most Democrats, including the heir-apparent for the Democrat nomination for president in 2016 - Hillary Clinton. So really - it's not a war owned by one person. Let's remember that as we listen to President Obama tonight --- will he ask Congress to vote on involvement? If so - it is "our" war, should it pass. If not, it is Obama's. Bush asked. Will Obama? SOFA required that the US leave. Period. Bush signed the agreement. There was a drop dead date. Maliki would not renegotiate and the Iraqis wanted the US out. President Obama was not acting on a whim. He was upholding an agreement between US and Iraq. If Americans had stayed there they would have been prosecuted. And I don't think this was Congress's war. The Congress was given information on which the decision was made, and it all turned out to be lies. |
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Sept 11, 2014 3:56:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stampinchick on Sept 11, 2014 4:21:00 GMT
Ok, I just saw one of @lizandjuan posts when I I opened the thread and then poof it was gone. Perhaps it isn't intentional. I only see one of her posts on this thread (I think her first one) when I read it on my laptop but I see all of her posts on the thread when I use the app on my phone. Weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Sept 11, 2014 4:25:16 GMT
That is completely awesome and so true. Thanks for sharing the reminder. |
|
iowahawk
New Member
Posts: 6
Jul 1, 2014 1:02:48 GMT
|
Post by iowahawk on Sept 11, 2014 4:53:06 GMT
And he could have negotiated a SOFA - there were meetings set up with Maliki but he had no incentive to re-negotiate. He wanted out. He had all the tools at his disposal to make a different decision. ".....and it all turned out to be lies." WMD argument, right? You are saying, then, that Congress has no ability to get accurate information. They indeed do have many ways to get information, and assuming or insinuating that they just sit there, listen to President Bush "tell them lies" -- and then vote like a bunch of robots - is insulting to them.It assumes they haven't a brain in their heads. They voted. They are responsible for that vote. It is their job, and they will be taken care of for the rest of their lives for having been in Congress - they have a duty to cast an informed vote every single time. Who Left Iraq? |
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Sept 11, 2014 5:13:46 GMT
And he could have negotiated a SOFA - there were meetings set up with Maliki but he had no incentive to re-negotiate. He wanted out. He had all the tools at his disposal to make a different decision. From Time Magazine 10/21/11: "But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki's ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration's plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based." Iraq wanted the US out and we had to abide by the previous agreement. And just as we went to war with the army we had, not the army we would have liked to have (thank you, Rumsfeld), Congress voted with the information they were given, not the information they wish they were given. Don't you remember Colin Powell's dark night of the soul when he knowingly presented false information to the UN? If the Secretary of State doesn't have good info, how would we expect members of Congress to do better? |
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Sept 11, 2014 5:15:39 GMT
Oh, and iowahawk, no comment about the tweet I posted above? John McCain thought the troop withdrawal was Bush's victory. How soon we forget. |
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Sept 11, 2014 9:22:09 GMT
Yes she did, maybe she is off her meds. I despise that phrase. It's mindless and disrespectful to those who depend on meds to live a more tolerable life. Too bad. For someone who has been on 2peas for years and years (and now here) under various incarnations spewing mindless, disrespectful comments to others which she did on day one on this board, much worse has been said by Liz. To anyone else, my apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Sept 11, 2014 11:31:03 GMT
Using SOFA as an excuse for the president is wrong. As has been stated, Obama wanted out of Iraq, he campaigned to get out of Iraq, and that is exactly what he was going to do. We left Iraq and left many of those who supported us to deal with ISIS/ISIlL/IS alone, and we see how that has worked. SOFA could have been negotiated, and the President didn't negotiate. Oh, he did send Joe Biden to negotiate. Are you kidding me? The US held all the cards, and if we wanted to stay, we would have stayed. Oh, thats right. We would have stayed with only 3000 troops which is a number so small that there is no way they would have been able to complete their mission.
Military advisors told the President what was going to happen if we left too soon. Obama mocked those that said "hey, this isn't a good idea". Do any of you know what it takes to learn and have the knowledge that our senior military have? I watch men and women that have spent their adult lives studying military history and strategy in order to protect this country and advise our presidents and congress in military matters. It is infuriating when those that make the final decisions make decisions based on poll numbers and not on actual facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamhugh on Sept 13, 2014 0:15:32 GMT
To be fair, I think Tom Wolf was going to beat everyone's tush in the primary Allyson Schwartz is a well known and liked Congresswoman in SE PA. Tom Wolf was largely an unknown in this part of the state. At first blush, I thought it would be a close race but after the way she ran her campaign aligning herself strongly with the President, the results came as no surprise to me. The midterms will be interesting for sure. I am also in SE PA, although not as far south as Philly. I didn't know anyone who supported Ms. Schwartz, so I didn't really pay much attention to her. A few people on the Democratic side liked McCord, but almost everyone I talked to was buzzing about Wolf. PA is just pockets of different ideologies, but Corbett seems to be universally disliked. |
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,098 
|
Post by Sarah*H on Sept 13, 2014 0:34:25 GMT
I don't know how it is in your part of the state but Alyson Schwartz was just never on our radar on this side of the state. Whether or not she associated herself with President Obama was meaningless because we never heard anything about her. I disagree with Tom Wolf on a major issue that will probably keep me from voting for him and still never considered Alyson Schwartz.
|
|
|
|
Post by gossamer on Sept 13, 2014 5:02:16 GMT
I expected nothing less from them, politicians will do or say whatever it takes to get re-elected. Unfortunately for them their voting record proves otherwise and the informed voter is aware of that. Sadly not enough pay attention to who they are voting for, and that includes their voting record. |
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Sept 13, 2014 6:01:04 GMT
I find it sickening. They are distancing themselves because they have no principles. Stand up for what you believe in regardless of the cost to your career. If Obama's policies were A OK with you a couple of years ago, what has changed? Oh, the policies don't work and your voters are suffering because of it? Tough shit. I'm so sick of all these clowns in Washington.  What I also find incredibly disturbing is that the President is going to wait until after the elections to do anything about immigration. Why? Because it is unpopular as hell and would probably be the final "nail in the coffin" for many democrats. Another way to look at it would be to say that those who see the discrepancies -- that the policies aren't working as advertised and many constituents are unhappy -- and who change their minds because of this, are making a logical decision (to change their minds). I'm not a fan of either side. However, I have no problem with someone who, in the face of reality, changes his/her stance on an issue. Better that than all the spin/CYA nonsense in an attempt to always be on the "right" side. Constant flipflopping comes across as self-serving, but a sincere change of mind after looking at results and listening to voters? I'm actually all for that. I consider it a form of evolution. Now, it'll be interesting to see how many of these folks change their minds yet again (become born again Obama supporters) if being an Obama fan ever becomes advantageous. Considering who's representing (or appears to be representing) the Reps and Dems these days, there's certainly no shortage of people to vote against. |
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Sept 13, 2014 8:24:30 GMT
TheOtherMeg, that is another way to look at it, and I'm sure there are some that genuinely regret their decision on the ACA. I just feel like, as a congress person, you should KNOW what you are voting for instead of going along with the rest of your party because the president and other people in power are putting pressure on you to vote a certain way. I believe that is what happened to many of the democrats who voted for this law, but that doesn't excuse it. Are all these democrats that are now regretting their decision working to change the law? If that were the case, than I might have more respect for them. Talk the talk and walk the walk kind of thing.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by Rainbow on Oct 17, 2014 20:45:48 GMT
We were more stable in the Middle East before President Obama pulled forces out. Remember, that was his campaign promise, so he was bound and determined to do it - no matter what. Unfortunately, doing so went against even his own advisers, but he was determined to get out. Unfortunately, he didn't understand the situation well enough, as was so painfully obvious when he called ISIS "the JV team." Reminds me of his telling Mitt Romney that "the 1980s want their foreign policy back." He views himself as oh-so-clever......yet both of these times, he was wrong. It's harder to be wrong when you go on national TV and mock the person/ideas that end up being right. Don't forget - he most recently said that it wasn't his idea to get out of Iraq - after campaigning ad nauseum with that as a tenet of his platform. One way to look at who's war it is -- is to ask what Congress did. What is commonly called "Bush's war" was voted on by most Democrats, including the heir-apparent for the Democrat nomination for president in 2016 - Hillary Clinton. So really - it's not a war owned by one person. Let's remember that as we listen to President Obama tonight --- will he ask Congress to vote on involvement? If so - it is "our" war, should it pass. If not, it is Obama's. Bush asked. Will Obama? SOFA required that the US leave. Period. Bush signed the agreement. There was a drop dead date. Maliki would not renegotiate and the Iraqis wanted the US out. President Obama was not acting on a whim. He was upholding an agreement between US and Iraq. If Americans had stayed there they would have been prosecuted. And I don't think this was Congress's war. The Congress was given information on which the decision was made, and it all turned out to be lies. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:57:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 22:21:02 GMT
I expected nothing less from them, politicians will do or say whatever it takes to get re-elected. Unfortunately for them their voting record proves otherwise and the informed voter is aware of that. Sadly not enough pay attention to who they are voting for, and that includes their voting record. SOFA required that the US leave. Period. Bush signed the agreement. There was a drop dead date. Maliki would not renegotiate and the Iraqis wanted the US out. President Obama was not acting on a whim. He was upholding an agreement between US and Iraq. If Americans had stayed there they would have been prosecuted. And I don't think this was Congress's war. The Congress was given information on which the decision was made, and it all turned out to be lies. We knew Iraq had chemical weapons because we GAVE them to Iraq. But as usual the wrong questions were asked. The right questions that should have been asked and answered before we invaded Iraq were what was the DIRECT threat to the US? And knowing Iraq had the chemical weapons why all of a sudden did it pose a direct threat to the US since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Sorry the story circulating about finding WMD and hiding the evidence doesn't get Bush off the hook. IMO Bush knew the answers to the questions. There was no direct threat to US and Iraq was not part of 9/11M Bush choose to invade Iraq under false pretense. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:57:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 23:09:55 GMT
I remember republicans running far, far away from George W. Bush during the elections following his disastrous presidency. Hmmmm. Yep, same shit, different president. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:57:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 23:13:05 GMT
So Liz is here talking about Republicans running away from GWB after his Presidency? What year was that...oh yes 2010...the first midterm election after GWB left office...with a victory of landslide proportions for the Republicans.
Anyone who thinks Obama's 8 yrs in office will be looked upon as favorable...or any less "disastrous" as GWB's 8 yrs in office, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Obama is, and never was equipped for the job.
I just saw a poll number that said 91% of Americans view ISIS/IS/ISIL as a huge threat to our nation. It's sad that Americans recognized this threat before the President did...who thought they were JV.
I'm so glad that Obama attended the NATO meeting last week. There, he was able to meet with leaders that actually know how to lead and maybe NOW we have a plan. He just needed some hand holding and tips from the other world leaders.
We'll see what he has to say tomorrow. The sad thing is, the die hard supporters of the Republican party and the Democrat party won't acknowledge the incompetency of the president/former president that is part of their party. |
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by Rainbow on Oct 18, 2014 0:11:59 GMT
Sadly not enough pay attention to who they are voting for, and that includes their voting record. You do realize that WMDs WERE found, correct? We knew Iraq had chemical weapons because we GAVE them to Iraq. But as usual the wrong questions were asked. The right questions that should have been asked and answered before we invaded Iraq were what was the DIRECT threat to the US? And knowing Iraq had the chemical weapons why all of a sudden did it pose a direct threat to the US since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Sorry the story circulating about finding WMD and hiding the evidence doesn't get Bush off the hook. IMO Bush knew the answers to the questions. There was no direct threat to US and Iraq was not part of 9/11M Bush choose to invade Iraq under false pretense. |
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Oct 18, 2014 5:45:47 GMT
SOFA required that the US leave. Period. Bush signed the agreement. There was a drop dead date. Maliki would not renegotiate and the Iraqis wanted the US out. President Obama was not acting on a whim. He was upholding an agreement between US and Iraq. If Americans had stayed there they would have been prosecuted. And I don't think this was Congress's war. The Congress was given information on which the decision was made, and it all turned out to be lies. He had old weapons that the US had given to Iraq, but Iraq was not actively developing any WMDs. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:57:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2014 12:59:35 GMT
We knew Iraq had chemical weapons because we GAVE them to Iraq. But as usual the wrong questions were asked. The right questions that should have been asked and answered before we invaded Iraq were what was the DIRECT threat to the US? And knowing Iraq had the chemical weapons why all of a sudden did it pose a direct threat to the US since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Sorry the story circulating about finding WMD and hiding the evidence doesn't get Bush off the hook. IMO Bush knew the answers to the questions. There was no direct threat to US and Iraq was not part of 9/11M Bush choose to invade Iraq under false pretense. Yes so what is your point? I mean we gave them to Iraq. Why don't you answer the question. What was the DIRECT threat that Iraq posed to the US? |
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by Rainbow on Oct 18, 2014 19:17:04 GMT
You do realize that WMDs WERE found, correct? He had old weapons that the US had given to Iraq, but Iraq was not actively developing any WMDs. |
|
