Have we become comfortably numb

[slowGEEZR]

slowGEEZR, I've been thinking about your post now for several hours and, I'm man enough to look the other way from your unabashed Flame of a fellow member. How dare you sir! Rude!! You need a time out bud.

I call 'em like I see 'em. If someone supports a racist a bigot a fascist, then that person should admit to being one. Plain and simple. And for your comments about our president, you are dead wrong. He has held the high road on every issue and has served America very well. It is the republicans who have done nothing to help America. I tire of the idiocy of the American republican party. When are the real conservatives going to stand up against the idiocy of the tea baggers? Where's the outrage from the right for the lack of leadership and positive action from the congress? All I ever see is comments like, yeah, they may be bad, but so are democrats. I call ********.

 

[Kevin]

I see where the racist and cowardly leader of France, Francois Hollande, has taken the unprecedented step of conducting more than two thousand searches of places and individuals with suspected (gotta love that word) terrorist ties. So far this obviously bigoted and fascist action on the part of the French has resulted in the closure of at least 3 mosques, as well as the collection of over 300 firearms, mounds of ammunition, and dozens of other military grade weapons. Also discovered has been hard drives, videos, and documents related to ISIS and Islamic jihad. Reportedly over a 100 mosques are expected to be closed by the time the investigations are completed. All done under the disguise of national security. How very un-French like.

The words bigoted and racist have been thrown out so often by the left that they no longer have meaning. Chris Matthews, and yes I do watch MSNBC, seems to see a racist standing behind every tree and hears "dog whistles" in his sleep. If you say "Chicago style politics", that's a wink to the racist among us. If you want to close the border you're a racist, if you disagree with gay marriage you're a bible thumping right winged bigot. If you want to take a step back from Muslims seeking to immigrate to our country, to make sure we are properly vetting each and everyone of them, so we can try to stop those claiming to seek marriage but instead jus want to commit jihad on American soil (this is exactly what that last winch in San Bernardino did to get into our country) then you are a flaming loony Islamaphobe.

I find it ironic that Obama, while a US Senator, wrote this concerning illegal immigration, "There’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before. Not all these fears are irrational. The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century. If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.” ----- Amen, you're preaching to the choir brother, but by the way, you're nothing but a low down stinking racist, but apparently so am I because I agree. On gay marriage, Obama said he opposed it as a matter of his Christian faith. Well, I'm not religious, I don't really care one way or another on gay marriage as I think we have bigger fish to fry, but I respected his view either way. But should a republican today take the same stance that Obama once held, watch out- if your unfortunate enough to say it front of someone such as Chris Matthews, he'll turn red in face, start foaming at the mouth, and unleash a load of rhetorical venom upon you.

Speaking for myself, and when I was new to this site I had people calling some of my views racist as well, once I get into a discussion on anything political and have terms such as racists or bigot thrown my way, I smile. I know that person has nothing left to say in defense of their position, so those terms are used fairly often by the left as a means to just shut down the discussion, which is a shame. Stuwee will have to speak for himself as to whether or not he is a racist, he's says he is not and I take him at his word, as I would for anyone on here conservative or liberal. I can't read minds like others apparently can. I know that I am not a racist. I have 5 ladies that work for me that I have hired, and 3 of them are Hispanic and one is black. Sometimes not the best thing when you are the boss, but I count all of them as being good friends, one of the Hispanic ladies is a very close friend. One of the Hispanics and the black lady are both Trump supporters, I think they'll find it interesting when I call them racist for their choice in a politician.

When it comes to protecting our country from people who think that it is their religious calling to kill as many infidels as they can, and in the process also causes the secondary reactions of disrupting travel plans, hurting our economy and placing the feeling of uncertainty upon the psyche of a nation, I'll take Trumps plans over Obama's, as I know them so far. Obama has told me more about what he wont do and what I shouldn't do, than he has told me what he will do to prevent terrorism. He's been wrong almost every step of the way and needs to change his words later. He called ISIS the JV team once, but not again. He said they were contained, and later had to say what he meant by "contained". He said we had little to fear in the US after the Paris incident, and then just a couple of weeks later we are attacked. But in his favor he has put together a 65 member coalition that he is leading from behind. It's just a shame that Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Latvia couldn't do more than make some good hash tag suggestions. Meanwhile Trump says he'll bomb them to smithereens and he'll protect our own shores by keeping Muslims out until we know we have a better vetting process in place that allows them in. Hmmm.... which door do I take??

 

[Brad225]

In 1979 President Jimmy Carter banned people from Iran from entering the USA. He made 50,000 students be re-vetted and 15,000 were sent back to Iran.

I am not in any way a supporter of Donald Trump but some of you need to think about the similarity.

For me Jimmy Carter was not a good President. I am happy for his improving condition and prayed for him when his health was in question in resent months.

Just because we want our country to be VERY careful who is allowed to enter does not mean we are bigots or racists.

 

[Kevin]

Obama suspended bringing in refugees from Iraq for awhile, when it was learned there were some bad actors using that program to get into the US. It only makes sense. I do not agree with all of Trumps solutions, especially the manner in which he explains those solutions, but at least he does seem to know the severity of the problems that need to be addressed. There's an Imam in Texas making news now for saying that he agrees with Trump, he is basically saying the same thing that Trump is saying, but is putting it in a much more eloquent manner.

I too am glad that Jimmy Carter is now stating that he is cancer free, that is really good news to hear. I really hope at some point we solve the problem of cancer, that would the best news of all.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Oh please, Kevin. It seems too easy for those on Trumps bandwagon to say they're not racist or fascists. Take a look at the people at his rallies. Look at their actions. Compare his rhetoric with similar statements made through history. The ugly side of America is on his side. I'm not alone in thinking that. His rhetoric gives sanctification for racism to be brought to the fore, as evidenced by what his followers are saying all the time. Open your ears and you can hear it. Examples are everywhere. Fear. Fear is what brings out the hatred and Trump is milking it for all he can so he can get his numbers up. To compare what Obama said with what Trump says is disingenuous at best. Obama didn't advocate preventing all Mexicans from coming to our country, he correctly pointed out that it was difficult to take so many so fast. Huge difference. Try to come that is more appropriate. When has Obama called Mexicans criminals, except for a few good ones, like Trump did? Again, Trump offers fear.

The vetting process for refugees has been refined and improved over time. The chances are very small indeed that a terrorist will get through that process. The reasonable thing, the vetting process, has already been done. To say we need to block our borders of all Muslims is a a political stand, not needed.

 

[slowGEEZR]

In 1979 President Jimmy Carter banned people from Iran from entering the USA. He made 50,000 students be re-vetted and 15,000 were sent back to Iran.

I am not in any way a supporter of Donald Trump but some of you need to think about the similarity.

For me Jimmy Carter was not a good President. I am happy for his improving condition and prayed for him when his health was in question in resent months.

Just because we want our country to be VERY careful who is allowed to enter does not mean we are bigots or racists.

Point taken. I understand the rational behind being very careful. My take is that Obama is taking very careful action and the remarks by Trump are over the top and a fearful reaction.

 

[Kevin]

Steve, absolutely there are racists that support Donald Trump. You are saying that "anyone" who supports Trump is a racist. Guess what, I can guarantee you that there are racist that support Hillary Clinton. In fact, I can make a case myself that the Clintons themselves harbor racist and bigoted thoughts, at least if I keep the same standard of racism that democrats use against republicans. It was the Hillary campaign that first started the rumor of Obama being a Muslim by spreading around a picture of Obama wearing a Muslim garment. When asked later if she thought Obama was a Muslim, she said there is no evidence of that "as far as I know", not quite the same as saying flat out no. I can link you to Clinton/Gore campaign buttons that they used in southern states with their names emblazoned upon the confederate flag. Bill said something when Hillary was running for the candidacy the first time around, referencing Obama, that went like "years ago that guy would have been carrying our luggage" or something to that effect. I don't think these are necessarily examples of someone truly being racists, but liberals would be quick to use them as examples against any of the current republicans running and you know it.

I didn't compare Trumps statements with Obama's, never said anything like that. What I did was quote what Obama has said in the past, and said that when a republican says something similar today, they get quickly labeled as a bigot or racist. I see it, because I watch liberal programs and I read liberal media. The left is Sfar too quick to throw out the race card, and I have even heard liberal commentators say the same thing. Even if I were to assume that you are correct in that Trump is a racist, I still think you paint with too broad of a brush to suggest that therefore anyone who supports him is a racist. That's like me saying that all of Hillary's supporters are pathological liars, because you have to be one to support one.

You say the vetting process has been improved, but I can pull out various quotes in recent days from James Foley and other top security officials saying that they have concerns with the vetting process. My gosh, Obama pretty much guaranteed that anyone released from Gitmo would not be a threat, and now there is a recent video of a released Gitmo prisoner making videos promising jihad against the west. He has resumed his position as a top leader of Al Qaeda. But the worst part of it, is that we knew he was one of the bad one's, as he admitted it while a prisoner himself. Others have returned to the battlefield since being released as well, but Obama promised they would be watched and wouldn't be allowed to do so. Honestly man, I hate to assume the worst about people, I just like to think I have differences of opinion, but Obama seems to keep giving me every reason to think he does this stuff of purpose. Look at the so called "deal" he made with Iran, and now Iran is already being investigated by the state dept for violations of that deal. The deal isn't even months old yet. But I'm supposed to put my trust in what Obama says about our vetting process? Why should I believe him now, when he's been wrong so many times before??

 

[slowGEEZR]

Steve, absolutely there are racists that support Donald Trump. You are saying that "anyone" who supports Trump is a racist.

I'm sure some aren't, but it is hard to understand how one could support someone who clearly is displaying racism. Even other right wing pundits are saying he has gone too far and yet, the more racist or fascist his rhetoric, the more his numbers rise. What is one to assume, that his ranks swell due to non-like thinkers?

Guess what, I can guarantee you that there are racist that support Hillary Clinton.

On that, we can agree.

In fact, I can make a case myself that the Clintons themselves harbor racist and bigoted thoughts, at least if I keep the same standard of racism that democrats use against republicans. It was the Hillary campaign that first started the rumor of Obama being a Muslim by spreading around a picture of Obama wearing a Muslim garment.

Interesting, I haven't heard of that. Are you sure it was from the Clintons?

When asked later if she thought Obama was a Muslim, she said there is no evidence of that "as far as I know", not quite the same as saying flat out no.

But not quite the same as saying Mexicans are rapists, is it. Saying "as far as I know", is not the same to me. It could be taken as subtle racism, but her intent is not as clear to me as to you.

I can link you to Clinton/Gore campaign buttons that they used in southern states with their names emblazoned upon the confederate flag.

We, as a country were not too concerned with the confederate flag, as a symbol of bigotry, as we have been recently, so I look at that as simply political posturing to gather southern votes. We, as a country have been pretty good at using subtle forms of bigotry for some time. I'm not condoning the buttons, but since the church goers hadn't yet been murdered by the confederate flag lover, the association of the confederate flag to racism was not a hot topic nor on the American conscience.


Bill said something when Hillary was running for the candidacy the first time around, referencing Obama, that went like "years ago that guy would have been carrying our luggage" or something to that effect. I don't think these are necessarily examples of someone truly being racists, but liberals would be quick to use them as examples against any of the current republicans running and you know it.

Not most liberals. Yes, there are some that go too far, we call them extremists. Most liberals know the difference between Clinton relaying what the past was like for blacks in this country and the clear racist remarks by Trump.There is a big difference in what is said.

I didn't compare Trumps statements with Obama's, never said anything like that. What I did was quote what Obama has said in the past, and said that when a republican says something similar today, they get quickly labeled as a bigot or racist. I see it, because I watch liberal programs and I read liberal media. The left is Sfar too quick to throw out the race card, and I have even heard liberal commentators say the same thing. Even if I were to assume that you are correct in that Trump is a racist, I still think you paint with too broad of a brush to suggest that therefore anyone who supports him is a racist. That's like me saying that all of Hillary's supporters are pathological liars, because you have to be one to support one.

You say the vetting process has been improved, but I can pull out various quotes in recent days from James Foley and other top security officials saying that they have concerns with the vetting process. My gosh, Obama pretty much guaranteed that anyone released from Gitmo would not be a threat, and now there is a recent video of a released Gitmo prisoner making videos promising jihad against the west. He has resumed his position as a top leader of Al Qaeda. But the worst part of it, is that we knew he was one of the bad one's, as he admitted it while a prisoner himself. Others have returned to the battlefield since being released as well, but Obama promised they would be watched and wouldn't be allowed to do so.

You don't see the difference in refugees fleeing from ISIS and Al Qaeda and those held at Gitmo? These people are running from the very same terrorists that are doing all the killings. I don't know which Gitmo detainees which were released did what. I don't presume to know if they are being watched or what. I do know that we are not privy to all government military activities, so I'm not going to second guess what the military has in store for those.


Honestly man, I hate to assume the worst about people, I just like to think I have differences of opinion, but Obama seems to keep giving me every reason to think he does this stuff of purpose. Look at the so called "deal" he made with Iran, and now Iran is already being investigated by the state dept for violations of that deal. The deal isn't even months old yet.

Obama worked with other countries to make a deal that is the best for America and the rest of the world. He clearly laid out the alternatives, each of which were worse, IMO. What was the republican plan? Oh yeah, go back to war. It's too easy for Hawks to do that. The deal is working as it was laid out. If Iran violates, it gets investigated and we go back to where we were. That's how it was designed to work. If Iran tries to make heavier uranium, then we will get more involved militarily. Doesn't it make sense to at least try peace first?

But I'm supposed to put my trust in what Obama says about our vetting process? Why should I believe him now, when he's been wrong so many times before??

He's been right on so many more things than the republicans have been. Remember what condition our country was in when Bush left office? It's in much better shape now, even with the senseless republican caused government shutdowns and failure to act on bills that would strengthen our country. For eight years, we've only had one side show any leadership whatsoever, while the the other side just says no. So, which republican do you believe that can do any better?

 

[Kevin]

When asked later if she thought Obama was a Muslim, she said there is no evidence of that "as far as I know", not quite the same as saying flat out no.

But not quite the same as saying Mexicans are rapists, is it. Saying "as far as I know", is not the same to me. It could be taken as subtle racism, but her intent is not as clear to me as to you.

I can link you to Clinton/Gore campaign buttons that they used in southern states with their names emblazoned upon the confederate flag.

We, as a country were not too concerned with the confederate flag, as a symbol of bigotry, as we have been recently, so I look at that as simply political posturing to gather southern votes. We, as a country have been pretty good at using subtle forms of bigotry for some time. I'm not condoning the buttons, but since the church goers hadn't yet been murdered by the confederate flag lover, the association of the confederate flag to racism was not a hot topic nor on the American conscience.


Bill said something when Hillary was running for the candidacy the first time around, referencing Obama, that went like "years ago that guy would have been carrying our luggage" or something to that effect. I don't think these are necessarily examples of someone truly being racists, but liberals would be quick to use them as examples against any of the current republicans running and you know it.

Not most liberals. Yes, there are some that go too far, we call them extremists. Most liberals know the difference between Clinton relaying what the past was like for blacks in this country and the clear racist remarks by Trump. There is a big difference in what is said.

When Trump made his remarks, it was clear that he was discussing the border, and was referring to those who are entering illegally. If you cross the border without going through the proper process for entering the US, guess what, you are a criminal. So he never said "Mexicans" in general are rapists, and he never said "all" of them sneaking across are rapists. But if you look at the data, he has a good point, one in five coming across have bad prior criminal histories from countries where crime is so rampant it often goes unreported. 20% is a lot when you look at how many are crossing, and I have pointed out that even Obama said, of course in the distant past and not recently, that way too many are coming across. I have already challenged anyone on here to look at the top most wanted criminals in any border state and/or city, and see who makes up a vast majority of the list. It's a real eye opener, but few know it. But I find it quite amusing that you blow off the Clinton's racists comments as being more "subtle". Like someone can be less racist. Do you also believe that a girl can be less pregnant than another?

You don't see the difference in refugees fleeing from ISIS and Al Qaeda and those held at Gitmo? These people are running from the very same terrorists that are doing all the killings. I don't know which Gitmo detainees which were released did what. I don't presume to know if they are being watched or what. I do know that we are not privy to all government military activities, so I'm not going to second guess what the military has in store for those.

I see the difference, and you must have misinterpreted my intention in bringing up the Gitmo detainees, that Obama has very unwisely released. He is telling us to trust him that we have a good vetting process in place for these people. But he has lost that trust from anyone with any sense. He said to trust me, I have the Gitmo detainees situation in control, and we now have some of those who were released once again committing jihad, killing innocents. Who I do trust are those at the top of our nations security who are completely contradicting the information that the president keeps feeding us.

Obama worked with other countries to make a deal that is the best for America and the rest of the world. He clearly laid out the alternatives, each of which were worse, IMO. What was the republican plan? Oh yeah, go back to war. It's too easy for Hawks to do that. The deal is working as it was laid out. If Iran violates, it gets investigated and we go back to where we were. That's how it was designed to work. If Iran tries to make heavier uranium, then we will get more involved militarily. Doesn't it make sense to at least try peace first?

Liberals love strawman arguments. I don't remember a push by republicans calling for war. I do remember that many were saying to keep the same sanctions in place that were already hurting Iran. You tank their economy and hope that the citizens revolt, and when they do, this time you actually support their effort. Unlike Obama who completely ignored the first uprising and didn't say a word. Good luck getting Russia and China on board to reinstate the sanctions. It won't happen. You called me disingenuous before, on this I would call you delusional. There are too many countries now back in business with Iran, the sanctions are gone, and we now have instead a bad deal, but it doesn't matter because that deal will be ignored. The Mullahs celebrated the deal when it was completed, and they had every reason for their exuberance.

He's been right on so many more things than the republicans have been. Remember what condition our country was in when Bush left office? It's in much better shape now, even with the senseless republican caused government shutdowns and failure to act on bills that would strengthen our country. For eight years, we've only had one side show any leadership whatsoever, while the the other side just says no. So, which republican do you believe that can do any better?

For eight years? How did they pass Obamacare? They had almost two full years that they could have passed any bill they wanted. If the democrats wanted gun control, they could have had gun control. But they did ram Obamacare down the American publics throat, who in the majority opposed it, even after electing a republican to the seat of Ted Kennedy 'only' to stop it. It's precisely because of Obama's leadership that republicans came to gain control. The public was frightened of what Obama was doing, and overwhelmingly voted republican in historic numbers to put an end to it. And there are many out there who would say that things are not better. Russia is trying to put back it's dominance, China is paving over the south China Sea, Iran is now flush with money, more Americans are on welfare, wages for many are down or stagnant at best, health care premiums for many are rising faster than ever, and polls show, that as a nation, we have never been so divided on many issues. I grant you, it might be better for those who are rich and are watching their investments rise...... at least for now. Which republican would be better? I'll do you one better and say that Hillary would be much better than Obama, at least she seems to have a pair.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Trump made his remarks, it was clear that he was discussing the border, and was referring to those who are entering illegally. If you cross the border without going through the proper process for entering the US, guess what, you are a criminal. So he never said "Mexicans" in general are rapists, and he never said "all" of them sneaking across are rapists. But if you look at the data, he has a good point, one in five coming across have bad prior criminal histories from countries where crime is so rampant it often goes unreported. 20% is a lot when you look at how many are crossing, and I have pointed out that even Obama said, of course in the distant past and not recently, that way too many are coming across. I have already challenged anyone on here to look at the top most wanted criminals in any border state and/or city, and see who makes up a vast majority of the list. It's a real eye opener, but few know it. But I find it quite amusing that you blow off the Clinton's racists comments as being more "subtle". Like someone can be less racist. Do you also believe that a girl can be less pregnant than another?

I don't know where you get your information, but from what I've read, the data on immigrants and crime are incomplete, so the 20% figure you boast is a hypothetical. A range of studies show there is no evidence these immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans. In fact, these immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born Americans. - The Center for Immigration Studies. I didn't mean for you to interpret "subtle" as being less racist. I meant that subtle racism has been the norm and now Trump has dared to bring it to the surface, unapologetically.

You don't see the difference in refugees fleeing from ISIS and Al Qaeda and those held at Gitmo? These people are running from the very same terrorists that are doing all the killings. I don't know which Gitmo detainees which were released did what. I don't presume to know if they are being watched or what. I do know that we are not privy to all government military activities, so I'm not going to second guess what the military has in store for those.

see the difference, and you must have misinterpreted my intention in bringing up the Gitmo detainees, that Obama has very unwisely released. He is telling us to trust him that we have a good vetting process in place for these people. But he has lost that trust from anyone with any sense. He said to trust me, I have the Gitmo detainees situation in control, and we now have some of those who were released once again committing jihad, killing innocents. Who I do trust are those at the top of our nations security who are completely contradicting the information that the president keeps feeding us.

Who is this released Gitmo detainee that is killing innocents? Is he one of the five released in November? Four of the five released were deemed as low level fighters and sent to a settlement in UAR. The fifth was described as a medium security risk, but the task force's recommendation in his case was overruled by a parole-like review board that recommended him for transfer. So, mistakes can be made, I agree. But, it is important to remember that none of the men had been charged with a crime but had been detained as enemy combatants. They could not be sent to their homeland because the U.S. considers Yemen too unstable.


Obama worked with other countries to make a deal that is the best for America and the rest of the world. He clearly laid out the alternatives, each of which were worse, IMO. What was the republican plan? Oh yeah, go back to war. It's too easy for Hawks to do that. The deal is working as it was laid out. If Iran violates, it gets investigated and we go back to where we were. That's how it was designed to work. If Iran tries to make heavier uranium, then we will get more involved militarily. Doesn't it make sense to at least try peace first?

love strawman arguments. I don't remember a push by republicans calling for war. I do remember that many were saying to keep the same sanctions in place that were already hurting Iran. You tank their economy and hope that the citizens revolt, and when they do, this time you actually support their effort. Unlike Obama who completely ignored the first uprising and didn't say a word. Good luck getting Russia and China on board to reinstate the sanctions. It won't happen. You called me disingenuous before, on this I would call you delusional. There are too many countries now back in business with Iran, the sanctions are gone, and we now have instead a bad deal, but it doesn't matter because that deal will be ignored. The Mullahs celebrated the deal when it was completed, and they had every reason for their exuberance.

We can disagree on whether the plan will work, it is a genuine attempt to control their nuclear advancement. It is curious to me that you fail to see the republicans calling for war, when even The American Conservative has to run an article about the rising hawkish sympathies in the republican party. Remember the Cotton letter? Republicans are clearly not interested in diplomacy, nor working with the president on these issues, as has been evidenced time and time again by their rhetoric. But one other thing is clear, the republicans have not detailed any plan whatsoever, except to rattle on about military action, period. Where is their plan? You may call those strawman arguments, if you wish, but I don't. I think it is delusional to think the republicans aren't wanting war. Rick Santorum's advice on dealing with Iran is to "load up our bombers and bomb them back to the seventh century. Just one of many pro war republican comments that can be easily found, if you choose to.

He's been right on so many more things than the republicans have been. Remember what condition our country was in when Bush left office? It's in much better shape now, even with the senseless republican caused government shutdowns and failure to act on bills that would strengthen our country. For eight years, we've only had one side show any leadership whatsoever, while the the other side just says no. So, which republican do you believe that can do any better?

eight years? How did they pass Obamacare? They had almost two full years that they could have passed any bill they wanted. If the democrats wanted gun control, they could have had gun control. But they did ram Obamacare down the American publics throat, who in the majority opposed it, even after electing a republican to the seat of Ted Kennedy 'only' to stop it. It's precisely because of Obama's leadership that republicans came to gain control. The public was frightened of what Obama was doing, and overwhelmingly voted republican in historic numbers to put an end to it. And there are many out there who would say that things are not better. Russia is trying to put back it's dominance, China is paving over the south China Sea, Iran is now flush with money, more Americans are on welfare, wages for many are down or stagnant at best, health care premiums for many are rising faster than ever, and polls show, that as a nation, we have never been so divided on many issues. I grant you, it might be better for those who are rich and are watching their investments rise...... at least for now. Which republican would be better? I'll do you one better and say that Hillary would be much better than Obama, at least she seems to have a pair.

You seem to think that fighting is required to have a pair. I think it takes more bravery to work for peace. Yes, Obama got the healthcare passed and now we have hospitals making more money as they don't have the emergency rooms as crowded with the uninsured. We have millions more who now have health insurance that couldn't get it before. We have the slowest rise in the rates of health insurance that we have had in the decade prior to the healthcare reform. Remember when health insurance costs were rising faster than income? A major victory.

Democrats could have had gun control? Are you kidding? Just the mention of the talking about any restrictions on guns in this country is met with incredible opposition. You say it like it would be a piece of cake for the democrats to get gun control legislation passed. That is an untenable position, IMO. If it was easy to fight the NRA and their lobbyists and the gun rights activists, well, I'm not even going there.

 

[Kevin]

In fact, these immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born Americans. - The Center for Immigration Studies. I didn't mean for you to interpret "subtle" as being less racist. I meant that subtle racism has been the norm and now Trump has dared to bring it to the surface, unapologetically.

That Center for Immig. Studies figure, that I guess you are referring to, has been used many times to discount what Trump said, but there is a problem with it. Trump clearly was talking about illegal immigrants, and that study included all immigrants. When you migrate into the US lawfully, you have a criminal background check performed, and obviously we don't allow serious offenders into the US.....knowingly. Not really sure where you are coming from on racism, it sounds like you are ok with it as long as it is kept on the low down. Lord knows I would much rather have someone hiding their racism from me than just bringing it to the surface. Be a racist if you want, just don't let me know it, and that makes it better. And I believe that the confederate flag has been on the radar for quite sometime before the SC church slaying, that was just the straw that broke the camels back. The Clintons knew full well what they were messaging with the buttons. I call them shady, but not stupid.

Who is this released Gitmo detainee that is killing innocents? Is he one of the five released in November?

No, he was released in 2010 and had apparently pleaded guilty of terrorism charges as part of the condition for his release. The propaganda video of him was released very recently, so it is being reviewed for authenticity, just like we do for citizens killed by ISIS before officially announcing. If true, he is the newest leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen, so yes I would say he'll be in charge of killing innocents. But it is also reported that over a 100 more former detainees are suspected of having rejoined in terrorism. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article49022855.html

Republicans are clearly not interested in diplomacy, nor working with the president on these issues, as has been evidenced time and time again by their rhetoric.

I wouldn't say that. The deal that was made gave Iran pretty much everything they asked for, and left us without some of the conditions that we first deemed necessary. It was a bad deal to make with a country that puts out the rhetoric that they do, with chants of death to the US. We had the option of sticking with the sanctions which were really starting to take a bite into their economy, that's what I would have done. Still not a good option either, but better, I think, than the deal we settled for.

You seem to think that fighting is required to have a pair. I think it takes more bravery to work for peace. Yes, Obama got the healthcare passed and now we have hospitals making more money as they don't have the emergency rooms as crowded with the uninsured. We have millions more who now have health insurance that couldn't get it before. We have the slowest rise in the rates of health insurance that we have had in the decade prior to the healthcare reform. Remember when health insurance costs were rising faster than income? A major victory.

Democrats could have had gun control? Are you kidding? Just the mention of the talking about any restrictions on guns in this country is met with incredible opposition. You say it like it would be a piece of cake for the democrats to get gun control legislation passed. That is an untenable position, IMO. If it was easy to fight the NRA and their lobbyists and the gun rights activists, well, I'm not even going there.

No, fighting is not required to have a pair. But when you do have a pair you don't talk tough and set a red line, only then to ignore it when it's crossed. Perhaps he had beer muscles that night. You don't set up conditions that are required for a deal with Iran and then give in on those conditions. You don't tell Russia that there will be "costs to pay" if it intervenes in the Ukraine and then sit back and watch them do just that. It indicates to them that they can get away with anything they want and Obama won't do anything, and that's what the countries are now doing. They are making hay while Obama remains president. It would have been better for Obama to not have said anything, than to not keep to his guns.

I had read before that emergency room visits actually increased after passage of the ACA, and that still appears to be the case. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sits-rise-under-affordable-care-act/26625571/ Also, many of the provisions of Obamacare have only recently really kicked in, and some of the exchanges are already going bottom up. I think it's still too early to say if the ACA has helped or hurt, but obviously many people are now paying way higher rates than they ever were, and others now have deductibles they can hardly afford, for them it most definitely hurt.

You said Obama was blocked from doing anything for his 8 years. I pointed out that for a time he, along with the democrats in congress, could have passed anything they wanted. The NRA may have influence, but they certainly can't vote. If democrats wanted to pass gun laws, they could have. If you are saying it was impossible to do then, then why have all the fuss to do it now? Why have we even bothered to discuss it if it's something that can't be done?

I thought that Obama, as a president, was not going to work from the beginning. Obviously, I personally hold the view that I was correct. I didn't see how a community organizer, coming from the politics of Chicago, was going to make a great leader. But I wanted him to be a great leader, why wouldn't I? I'm still working, I have a young family, I have my own business that I want to grow. I had every reason to want him to succeed for the sake of the country and my family. I was proud that our country had come far enough to elect it's first black president, and I still am for that. But obviously we disagree with the outcome of his presidency.

 

[twich54]

Good post Kevin (as usual) but for the record let it show that our president is not 'black' , rather a man of 'color' ……………. last I knew his racial makeup was as much 'white' as it was 'black'. Therefore to my way of thinking there should be credit given to both !

 

[slowGEEZR]

Ok Kevin, we can continue to agree to disagree. I, obviously look at the present situation vastly different than you. You say his policies have failed and I say they haven't. You continue to distort my reference about subtle racism, when I clearly said it is still racism. You think the Republican Party is open to diplomacy when in fact, the deal was passed with republican fighting the entire way. That the deal opened up Iran to inspection seems not matter to you, but it was a key benefit of the deal. As I said before, if Iran doesn't abide, we can still go back to the sanctions, as was said by the president at the time. You read that emergency room visits increase and I read that hospitals are making more money due to the reduction of them. We continue to disagree on gun laws, also and the ability to do anything about them. Time and time again the republican side has not even allowed the discussions.

 

[twich54]

We continue to disagree on gun laws, also and the ability to do anything about them. Time and time again the republican side has not even allowed the discussions.

Steve, with all due respect and IMO you need to be concerned more about the pathetic judicial system as it relates to the myriad of gun laws already on the books. I am all for sensible gun laws, ones that carry 'real' punishment and not plea bargained ******** to follow.

Lets see how the state of Ca handles the 'straw purchaser' of the AR's that were used in the San Bernardino tragedy, if it's anything like the 'OJ' fiasco………….

 

[slowGEEZR]

Steve, with all due respect and IMO you need to be concerned more about the pathetic judicial system as it relates to the myriad of gun laws already on the books. I am all for sensible gun laws, ones that carry 'real' punishment and not plea bargained ******** to follow.

Lets see how the state of Ca handles the 'straw purchaser' of the AR's that were used in the San Bernardino tragedy, if it's anything like the 'OJ' fiasco………….

I agree wholeheartedly that current laws should be enforced. I also agree that sensible laws need to at least be talked about, but for some reason, they aren't in the current congress. Why is that?

 

[stuwee]

Steve, thank you for your post, I appreciate your opinion and think it's great that this discussion has gone so smoothly.

You may not call me a racist, bigot or a fascist, you may call me a 'p***y' because I will not comment more on this thread, others will do much better than I!!

Thank you Kevin for your insight, I've learned a lot from your comments sir!!

Change is coming folks like it or not...

I'm going to listen to some good tunes right now!!

 

[RCHeliGuy]

Here are the facts as I understand them.

Donald Trump has enough support to win the GOP Primaries, but he has no chance to win the popular vote in the full election.
The GOP is in a panic because they know he can't win, but he will keep them from fielding a candidate who could potentially win.

The GOP has conducted all kinds of voter studies and have found that the Trump supporters don't trust the GOP, they don't trust the media, and they consider Don the real deal.

If anything was shown to these people in small groups that discredits Donald, they say that it was taken out of context and that what they are watching is part of the machine that Donald is fighting against.

They are immovable in their conviction. They also think that in an election with Donald running as an independent in a 3 way race that he would win. So when they were asked if they would vote for a Republican candidate to keep Hillary from winning they agreed that they would, BUT they said that isn't the case and Donald will win.


This is the problem with for profit news that is catered to an audience. We know that the news is presented to appeal to a specific audience and now people don't trust any news. When Fox "news" repeatedly said that Romney was going to win the last election despite all the statistical evidence to the contrary, they lost face. So when they tried to discredit Trump they lost a chunk of their rabid audience.

Many conservatives believed that FOX "News" was really news and they already considered all of the other news networks too liberal. When FOX news betrayed them, that left them with NO news of any kind that they felt they could trust.

How do you sway a group of people who have latched on to someone as the anti-politician and won't believe any information from any information source that is out there?

The answer is, you can't.

These people are unreachable because they don't trust the media, and they don't trust the government and now they don't trust the Republican party.

We created this WHOLE mess when we made the news profit centers. Until that point the evening news was presented as information and you decided what to think of it rather than having it predigesting with an agenda and delivered full of personal opinion. The news didn't divide the country, it informed the country. Democracy depends on having an educated population to make decisions. We no longer have that. Instead we have lynch mobs who are upset and are unable to see reason. There is so little reason presented anymore they don't even know how to recognize reason.

 

[twich54]

good post Mark …………………. Ok, where's Ross Perot these days ?

 

[slowGEEZR]

Steve, thank you for your post, I appreciate your opinion and think it's great that this discussion has gone so smoothly.

You may not call me a racist, bigot or a fascist, you may call me a 'p***y' because I will not comment more on this thread, others will do much better than I!!

Thank you Kevin for your insight, I've learned a lot from your comments sir!!

Change is coming folks like it or not...

I'm going to listen to some good tunes right now!!

Ok stuwee, I'll take you at your word and I apologize for the inference. But, you must realize that all around the world people are reacting to Trump as a racist and a bigot and a fascist. I was thinking of his supporters that beat up a black man and called him racist names just because he used his American rights to protest. Those are the types of people I see he is recruiting. He is a fear monger, just to get those fearful on his side. Just a few blocks from my home a Muslim American, born and raised here, was mistreated at a restaurant and when she asked for help and who cared for her, a local yelled out, "nobody". She was shamed just because she is Muslim. This kind of racist activity is coming out more and more I believe because Trump is showing those types of people that it is perhaps ok to be racist. Racism repulses me and I have a very short fuse when it comes to the topic. I hope you understand where I was coming from.

 

[RonR]

A Muslim is someone who follows the religion of Islam. Muslim is not a race. Please at least use the correct terminology when accusing people of things.