Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually no one ever cared in the past about who attended funerals for supreme court justices or first ladies, that changed in the past few weeks.
I do understand that. I don't care if Obama skipped Scalia's funeral. He did go see him lying in repose before the funeral, and that's fine by me. I really don't care if he skips Nancy Reagan's funeral except the idea behind it and all the excuses that presidents don't normally attend funerals of first ladies really bugs me. It's an old world attitude that is a little sickening in this day and age. They served their country even if they were not elected to the office. There will necessarily be lots of security and media coverage, so that excuse that a president won't attend so people can mourn in privacy doesn't apply. It just seems like poor taste in my opinion.
You are right about one thing: labels are pointless. Accuracy, however, is quite another. It would be more accurate to say that Obama is the first U.S. presidents with absolutely no accomplishments worthy of your distinction. You don't speak for all of Western Civilization. A number of us civilized people think he is one of the best this country has seen in action as POTUS. Imagine that! ....
When all you can do is talk about me instead of informing us of Obama's accomplishments, you absolutely prove my point.
Obama will be remembered as the first mulatto president of the USA, and maybe for Obamacare. But I don't expect Obamacare to last for another 24 months. It will go down as a colossal economic failure ranking up there with Nixon's wage & price controls of the early 1970s.
It sounds Obama dos everything to avoids being with Michelle as well as making it a double whammy to avoid going to anything that shows patriotism and honoring a Rep.
President Obama will not be attending Nancy Reagan's funeral. What a terrible human being.
But wait...
President Reagan did not attend Mrs. Truman's funeral.
President Carter did not attend Mrs. Eisenhower's funeral.
President Clinton did not attend Mrs. Nixon's funeral.
President Bush did not attend Mrs. Johnson's funeral.
President Obama did not attend Mrs. Ford's funeral.
The current first lady at the time did, however, attend those funerals because it is customary for the First Lady to represent the President at funerals for former first ladies.
Thanks to you and others that posted this.
I wish I could be surprised at the faux outrage on this forum, but I'm not.
It's so pathetic and predictable, I can barely put it into words.
President Obama will not be attending Nancy Reagan's funeral. What a terrible human being.
But wait...
President Reagan did not attend Mrs. Truman's funeral.
President Carter did not attend Mrs. Eisenhower's funeral.
President Clinton did not attend Mrs. Nixon's funeral.
President Bush did not attend Mrs. Johnson's funeral.
President Obama did not attend Mrs. Ford's funeral.
The current first lady at the time did, however, attend those funerals because it is customary for the First Lady to represent the President at funerals for former first ladies.
Hey there you go letting those pesky thing we call facts get in the way of a perfectly misplaced rant
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
Whatever mistakes Bush made (and they are legion), Obama has doubled down on them. He left Iraq without a status of forces agreement,
Actually, President Bush did that. Barack Obama gets the blame from right wingers but It was President Bush who signed the agreement to leave in 2010, not Obama.
The argument that many conservatives give in response to finding out that blaming Obama is a falsehood is that " Well Bush wanted him to negotiate a better one, but he didnt" If that was true, then President Bush would have never signed the original agreement. There was nothing forcing him to as we had military control of the nation
Quote:
committed more troops to Afghanistan (!) where our "allies" are boy-raping scumbags,
Now you are proving the " lose lose situation argument" because the same things are happening in Iraq by soldiers we trained, if we had left soldiers behind somehow, you would now be saying we shouldnt just as you are wit Iraq.
Quote:
turned Libya into a failed state
Libya was already a failed state, Gaddafi could not police his own nation while being in a civil war.
Quote:
, armed rebel forces against Assad who turned out to be ISIS,
We didnt arm any rebels until after ISIS already existed, and even then, it was only 300.
Quote:
killed I don't know how many innocent people with drone strikes
Do you think no innocent people died when we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan ????????
Would you rather we kill 2,000 extra people because they were near a terrorist, or 300,000 because we invaded ????
Quote:
released deadly terrorists because he wants to close a prison in Gitmo,
some of the people who have been in gitmo are wrongfully there, Others are indeed terrorist and the only way they are released is in hostage/prisoner trades.
Quote:
and now has our troops over in Iraq to "fight" ISIS rebels, but not really. He appears to still be hoping they will take out Assad for him.
Conspiracy theories.
Quote:
He has betrayed allies and made friends with our enemies. His biggest failure of all is he will probably cause us to get into a war with Iran because he had to have some kind of deal for his legacy. Now Iran is thumbing it's nose at us and shooting off banned missiles with our name on it like a giant middle finger to Obama and Kerry. Eventually there will have to be consequences for Iran's failure to comply with the treaty, and that means more war.
This argument doesnt even make sense. What exactly did you think no deal meant. Based on your post, you seem like the " they would have a bomb in 5 years"type, so why is it that you believe a deal is bad, but not them getting the actual bomb ?????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
