The General Election

[AFhusker]

 

 

MSNBC was disgusting in not even acknowledging memorial day. They spent half the day talking about a stupid Gorilla in Chicago instead of honoring those who have died for this country.

I've never watched MSNBC so I have no proof that this allegation is false. But there's zero chance a major news outlet didn't "even acknowledge Memorial Day."

 

Where does stuff like this come from? Who thinks this is true?

 

Unless someone watched literally every minute of MSNBC then there's no way to make that statement factually.

 

Plus, I don't mean to be offensive to any veterans, current military members, etc., but what do people expect? Wall to wall coverage? It's an important holiday but it doesn't keep eye balls. Politics, breaking news, the Cincinnati Zoo incident... that's what keeps people watching TV.

 

It's called using the internet looking at MSNBC's website and pulling up stories about it. Not to mention flipping between channels since it was raining like a MF'er out here on that day and we couldn't do squat for it. The closest thing that they came to was Obama's speech at Arlington National Cemetery.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/search/memorial%20day?f[0]=bundle%3Atheplatform_video

 

The first part of your question about what people expect is quite alarming to say the least. Do you not know what Memorial Day is about? Apparently you don't so let me tell you It is about honoring all of the thousands of brave people who made the ultimate sacrifice for people to have the freedoms that they enjoy today. For those of us that are still serving or have served, we don't expect anything for doing our jobs, it's about honoring those who didn't come back. It isn't just a day off so people to only talk about a stupid gorilla (for example) and trying to act like it's life is as valuable as a human beings. That is what is concerning and dangerous about the left as they care more about taking flags off of fire trucks, stopping the pledge of allegiance, not allowing people to say "so help me God in schools" even though it doesn't say which god, you could be saying it to the spaghetti monster if that is your God. But will legislate that mentally ill people get to pick which bathroom they want to use. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

As bad as the Republican Party is messed up (and it is very messed up) the Democratic Party is messed up even worse.

[AFhusker]

 

I guess you are right, but for the wrong reason as Benghazi would have never happened under Bush. That is too funny, a tick better than her predecessors as Secretary of State. When did you become a comedian?

9/11 happened under Bush.

 

They were here and it was planned for 5 years under Clinton, Bush was 9 months on the job. Nice try though.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

I guess you are right, but for the wrong reason as Benghazi would have never happened under Bush. That is too funny, a tick better than her predecessors as Secretary of State. When did you become a comedian?

9/11 happened under Bush.

They were here and it was planned for 5 years under Clinton, Bush was 9 months on the job. Nice try though.

His post made as much sense as yours. Saying Benghazi never would have happened under Bush is like saying 9/11 never would have happened under Clinton or Obama.

 

In fact, the Benghazi thing is just as easy to argue against as the 9/11 thing. The middle east wouldn't be the sh#tstorm it is without us having gone to Iraq.

[knapplc]

 

 

I guess you are right, but for the wrong reason as Benghazi would have never happened under Bush. That is too funny, a tick better than her predecessors as Secretary of State. When did you become a comedian?

9/11 happened under Bush.

 

They were here and it was planned for 5 years under Clinton, Bush was 9 months on the job. Nice try though.

 

Bush then invaded the wrong country, costing the nation trillions of dollars and the lives of over 4,000 servicemen. He was on the job a little more than nine months when he did that.

 

The destabilization of Iraq gave rise to several militant groups, including but not limited to Daesh/ISIS/ISIL, which has been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, and three American servicemen since October, 2015.

 

I mean, I could go on. Bush was a disaster with foreign relations. Set America back decades. But you can pretend he did a good job, and you can pretend Benghazi wouldn't have happened on his watch, but history doesn't agree with you.

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm honestly curious: for the people who think Obama has been a disaster, what exactly did he do that prevented you from your own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

 

The question at this point is typically "are we better off than we were 8 years ago" and the answer is yes, of course, no question about it. And with genuine collaboration and debate rather than mere obstructionism, it could have been better.

 

The things going wrong with America are many years in the making, involve the exponential growth of income disparity and have been fed by both parties.

 

But it seems pretty clear to me the last thing we need right now is a thin-skinned billionaire who wants to take America back to a time that didn't exist.

He mandated that PUBLIC SCHOOLS be forced into having gender neutral LOCKER ROOMS. While that doesn't affect me. It affects my neices, and my potential future daughters.

 

If schools don't comply then federal funding goes out the window? This has gone from absurd to just down right biased and stupid

 

Can you give us a link to this? I googled it and came up with a transgender issue where he said transgender kids should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

 

I'm not coming up with where he directed schools that it should just be a free for all with one big locker room with both boys and girls basketball teams changing together and using the same showers.

 

LINK

 

Here is a link to an article about the directive the Obama administration issued to our schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/obama-administration-to-issue-decree-on-transgender-access-to-school-restrooms.html?_r=0

 

If your only concern is about the possibility of one big free for all, common locker room with boys and girls teams changing and showering together, you're being purposefully obstinate about the repercussions of this. I too thought you had more on the ball.

 

So, I guess you support this ruling and have plenty of good reasons why it is necessary. I would be most interested to know how you think hormonal teenage boys will not abuse this open invitation to enter girls bathrooms and locker rooms. Please share.......the reasons and/or whatever it is you may be smoking.

 

My personal opinion is that (just like allowing Syrian Muslim terrorists into the country with no back ground checks) this issue is blown so out of proportion that it's unrecognizable.

 

This isn't just a free for all where every boy who wants to can just go mingle with the girls while they are pissing.

 

It's been pointed out already that this has to start with a guardian giving the school notice the kid is transgender. Also, it's been pointed out, what boy in HS is going to act transgender just to get into take a peek at the girls?

 

As for the point Coach Power T is trying to make that all of a sudden this is going to allow so many more molestations because horrible men will have access to girls bathrooms. How come nobody is concerned about the same thing happening with men using bathrooms with little boys? Aren't there lots of incidents where men molest boys? If so, what is preventing that?

 

This entire issue us hysteria created around politics by one side wanting to paint the other side as some horrible decision maker that is endangering our kids.

 

In our school, I think we have had one transgender kid since I can even remember. It was CLEAR that this kid was different than the rest. The other kids just accepted her as who she was and it wasn't an issue. It's not like all of a sudden your school is going to have to deal with 30 kids who all of a sudden have decided to be transgender.

 

You are right, the transgender issue has been blown way out of proportion, but that is the President's fault for singing in a law that isn't needed. Being "transgender" is a mental illness that doesn't need a law to allow mentally ill people to choose which bathroom they want to use.

 

 

 

 

I realize that things are moving really fast these days. Legalized gay marriage was virtually unthinkable a decade ago, and the transgender spectrum wasn't even in the conversation.

 

But it is quickly becoming obvious that transgender is no more a mental illness than homosexuality, and neither poses a threat to people in the heterosexual majority.

 

I was fascinated to learn how many babies are born with conflicted genitalia and that obstetricians make binding surgical decisions within minutes of birth. Even without the external physical evidence, some people appear to be hardwired to another gender. A few don't necessarily identify with any gender. Being in a statistical minority doesn't make it a mental illness, although the social issues can definitely screw you up.

 

What I'm learning most from my 13 year old son and 15 year old daughter: who really cares? If it's not hurting you, don't be a hater.

 

"Hater" how old are you? lol

 

The problem is that you guys don't even understand what Transgender is. They are not born with both sex organs, they have a mental issue that makes them think that they are the opposite sex than they were born. Now if it was someone who is "intersex" where they don't clearly have one or the other sex organ or if they are born with both, then obviously there will be confusion and some considerations can be made for them. But otherwise normal people that have a mental disorder don't need to have legislation for them to pick a bathroom. That is where it became the issue, the President seems to care more about social experiments (in the military too) than he does about real issues. It was unneeded and illegal legislation to threaten to pull federal funding for not following it. What would have made sense would have been to threaten to pull federal funding for "sanctuary" cities that protect illegal immigrants from deportation even if they are criminals. On the subject of immigration, I don't mind them staying as long as they are not breaking laws. Make them Americans and tax them like we do everyone else. But those cities listed in the link shouldn't be protecting them, especially the criminals that should be deported. The right wants to have "Kate's Law" signed to have criminals who are deported and are caught back in the country automatically sent to prison for 5 years the first time, 10 years the second time. I don't totally agree with the prison time either as our jails are full enough of our own people and don't need illegals adding to the population. Yet without Mexico doing their part, we may not have a choice because they don't care. That is why Trump's "wall" is getting so much support.

 

http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

I guess you are right, but for the wrong reason as Benghazi would have never happened under Bush. That is too funny, a tick better than her predecessors as Secretary of State. When did you become a comedian?

9/11 happened under Bush.

 

They were here and it was planned for 5 years under Clinton, Bush was 9 months on the job. Nice try though.

 

Bush then invaded the wrong country, costing the nation trillions of dollars and the lives of over 4,000 servicemen. He was on the job a little more than nine months when he did that.

 

The destabilization of Iraq gave rise to several militant groups, including but not limited to Daesh/ISIS/ISIL, which has been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, and three American servicemen since October, 2015.

 

I mean, I could go on. Bush was a disaster with foreign relations. Set America back decades. But you can pretend he did a good job, and you can pretend Benghazi wouldn't have happened on his watch, but history doesn't agree with you.

 

I totally agree with you on Iraq, I was there and we had no business being there. What I can't agree with you is that you are once again trying to blame Bush for something that wasn't totally his fault and that is the rise in militant groups, they took over after Obama stupidly gave a date that we were pulling out and we did. That is why Iraq is unstable and we have ISIS or ISIL or whatever you want to call them. Obama's failed foreign policy is Syria where our arms ended up in ISIS hands and now we are going to ship more over there...give me a break. Now we have Iran in Syria and Iraq helping them, because they know we won't do anything to stop them. Putin, N Korea, China are laughing at Obama because they don't respect him. They can do whatever they want to and we won't do anything because this administration is incompetent when it comes to supporting and using our military. All you have to do is listen to two of Obama's Defense Secretaries in the link below to see how bad he is.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/20/former-sec-def-bob-gates-obama-thinks-hes-the-smartest-person-in-the-room/

 

If you want to blame Bush for being in Iraq in the first place I am all for it, but once we were there, we needed to finish the job no matter how much we didn't like to do it which is also Bush's fault. By pulling out and allowing chaos to happen, everything since is directly on Obama.

 

What Bush didn't realize is that by starting a war (which historically fixed the economy as it was in a rescission when he took office) but since NAFTA/CAFTA sent all of our factories to Canada/Mexico/China that the only ones who profited from it was the companies and those three countries. Jobs weren't created as they usually were during wartime, the only difference was that the rich got richer.

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

I guess you are right, but for the wrong reason as Benghazi would have never happened under Bush. That is too funny, a tick better than her predecessors as Secretary of State. When did you become a comedian?

9/11 happened under Bush.

They were here and it was planned for 5 years under Clinton, Bush was 9 months on the job. Nice try though.

His post made as much sense as yours. Saying Benghazi never would have happened under Bush is like saying 9/11 never would have happened under Clinton or Obama.

 

In fact, the Benghazi thing is just as easy to argue against as the 9/11 thing. The middle east wouldn't be the sh#tstorm it is without us having gone to Iraq.

 

The middle east has and will always be a sh#t storm, all they know is how to kill each other. They have been doing it for thousands of years before we went to Iraq and will be killing each other for thousands of years after. The idea of a "democracy" in the middle east is a wet dream and it will never happen.

[zoogs]

I don't think that's an entirely fair view. The Muslim world was once at the forefront of culture and civilization while Europe was governed by chaos and internecine bloodshed. Why can't that change again, in time? Western "expression" of interests there lately cannot be uniformly viewed as inconsequential or positive, and Iraq is a prominent example.

 

We can't simply wash our own hands of responsibility in all the chaos happening there right now, especially when we have *long* been players for better or worse. Often worse. And it's particularly unhelpful to view the chaos as some sort of regional or cultural defect. Think of the kinds of action as well as nonaction that such an attitude enables.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

I guess you are right, but for the wrong reason as Benghazi would have never happened under Bush. That is too funny, a tick better than her predecessors as Secretary of State. When did you become a comedian?

9/11 happened under Bush.

They were here and it was planned for 5 years under Clinton, Bush was 9 months on the job. Nice try though.

Bush then invaded the wrong country, costing the nation trillions of dollars and the lives of over 4,000 servicemen. He was on the job a little more than nine months when he did that.The destabilization of Iraq gave rise to several militant groups, including but not limited to Daesh/ISIS/ISIL, which has been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, and three American servicemen since October, 2015.I mean, I could go on. Bush was a disaster with foreign relations. Set America back decades. But you can pretend he did a good job, and you can pretend Benghazi wouldn't have happened on his watch, but history doesn't agree with you.

Truth. I struggle to understand how people defend the tenure of Bush as president. On the same note, I struggle to understand how people defend the tenure of Obama as well. Speaking of disaster in foreign relations...

[teachercd]

This thread keeps getting better and better. Some of the things that people post in this thread are simply amazing. I can't stop reading this.

[knapplc]

I struggle to understand how people defend the tenure of Obama as well. Speaking of disaster in foreign relations...

Obama hasn't been a "disaster" at all. Most of the world would tell you that Obama has done a pretty good job with foreign relations. It's only in America where Obama's political enemies live that people would consider him a "disaster." Of course, these are the same people that brought us the Birthers, the Mom Jeans and "Obama is a Muslim."

[HuskerShark]

Other countries would say he has done well with foreign relations because he's a pushover and apologizes to everyone for America being a big bully nation. Based on everything I've seen and heard, he isn't all that respected as a leader of the country... By anyone.

 

If he weren't as smooth of a talker, that would be much more apparent.

[funhusker]

It's not nearly as bad as your "friends" say HuskerShark.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/7-charts-on-how-the-world-views-president-obama/

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/16/how-the-world-sees-obama/

 

And what apologies are you talking about? If they're so rampant, I'm guessing you can share a couple?

[BigRedBuster]

Who has Obama apologized to that was absolutely horrible that he did so?

[knapplc]

We have been a bully towards many nations, and it's a great idea to approach our fellow nations with a mixture of strength and humility.

 

America has made dozens of major blunders across the world over the past century, blunders that are costing America trillions of dollars to fix, at the expense of the lives of American soldiers. We're the bull in a China shop when it comes to foreign relations. There are those Americans who think the US should be able to run roughshod over every other nation, dictate terms on everything, and basically tell everyone how to live their lives. This is a disastrous foreign relations attitude and is exactly the kind of thing Bush did, Reagan did, and exactly the kind of behavior that sows hatred toward you across the globe. American interests can be served better by working with foreign nations, not dictating to them. We are not the world's boss. We do not have the right to bomb with impunity or manipulate other nations' elections.

 

Those are the Americans who think Obama's very correct statements about American culpability (the laughably named "apology tours") should never have happened. But in a world where America will need all the good relations it can get with a growing, global China on the horizon, we simply cannot afford to continue gunboat diplomacy, no matter how much it puffs up the egos of some Americans.

 

Obama hasn't been a pushover, and his "apologies" have been well-thought-out words of reparations for American harms. It hurts some people to think America hasn't always been right in their dealings with other countries. But those hurt feelings can't stand in the way of global progress.