Filmmakers, Obama administration say bin Laden movie is not a campaign ploy

[Hot Mega]

I don't credit them for anything accomplished on the battlefield. But if I follow your logic, Bush should get credit for the fact that we went overseas in the first place. And for getting Hussein.

The war is not over, so what has Obama accomplished?

So you follow logic now?

(Watch this....)

So you give Bush credit for starting something (but not finishing) and getting a guy who didn't have shit to do with 9-11.....HOWEVER <chuckle>, you don't give Obama credit for getting the guy responsible for 9-11??

I thought you were following logic...:rofl2: (How is it in your universe?)

You really are a troll, old man. You're trying to bait me, but I told you, I don't have cable, and don't watch Fox News. I don't even know why you assume I'm a republican. When have I stated that?

KIT...I admit...I don't really follow the internet lingo...I frankly don't actually know what a 'troll' is by definition. That said, I would have to imagine based on some of your responses to me that you are much closer to the definition than 'Mega..:dunno:

If you don't like to see Faux Faux Faux Faux Faux...then feel free to put me on your ignore list. As long as I'm not personally attacking you by calling you things like "troll" for example hard to see how my mere mention of Faux is supposed to bait you.

Your skin must be membrane-like.

How is that for logic?

 

[Trident1]

Operation Eagle Claw a failure for Carter and 'winning' of the Cold War an 'accomplishment for Reagan.

All very true, you've woken up Meg.:clap:

 

[KillTheIndustry]

As long as I'm not personally attacking you...

So you follow logic now?

I thought you were following logic...:rofl2: (How is it in your universe?)

I would have to imagine based on some of your responses to me that you are much closer to the definition than 'Mega..:dunno:

Your skin must be membrane-like.

...

...hard to see how my mere mention of Faux is supposed to bait you.

Is that why you say it in every response to me? You're incapable of NOT saying it. Because you know it annoys me. No one mentioned Fox until you. So what brought that on?

It's fine. That's why I call you an old man every time. If you're going to use the same joke, so am I. I'm starting to like it. It's fun. It's like a thing that's just between you and me.

So would you agree that Obama is to blame for our economy? He hasn't fixed it. He hasn't lowered the debt, in fact he has added to it. If Obama is credited for continuing something Bush started, he should be on all fronts. Be consistent, logic man.

Back to the thread topic, how is this film not a ploy?

And try to debate more than attack next time. Because all it amounts to is you saying 'nuh uh, stupidhead' and using smilies. That is not an argument, sir. You should also stop using the 'well that guy did it' response. Two wrongs don't make a right. You should be old enough to know what that means.

 

[Hot Mega]

...


Is that why you say it in every response to me? You're incapable of NOT saying it. Because you know it annoys me. No one mentioned Fox until you. So what brought that on?

You.:dunno:

Grown up tip: Don't annoy someone by nagging them with bullshit (i.e. no point to you BS other than being ) then let them know what annoys you.:2 cents:

It's fine. That's why I call you an old man every time. If you're going to use the same joke, so am I. I'm starting to like it. It's fun. It's like a thing that's just between you and me.

No problem at all.. (see, that would be the grown up response) you see, my skin is fairly thick. The only thing is...I play by the rules now...

So would you agree that Obama is to blame for our economy? He hasn't fixed it. He hasn't lowered the debt, in fact he has added to it. If Obama is credited for continuing something Bush started, he should be on all fronts. Be consistent, logic man.

I would say that according to history it's hard to know whether Obama is doing good or bad on the economy. We know the economy is not good. The question is whether we should expect it to be better or worse in light of what he inherited.:shock: However, by comparisons to the last time a president inherited a similar circumstance...the O man is actually ahead of Reagan on the sheer numbers...:dunno:

Back to the thread topic, how is this film not a ploy?

I acknowledged it is. Albeit fair IMO as long as nothing sensitive is released. No different from what would be happening is fill-in-the-blank GOPer would be in office. Too late though for you as I would have advised you to check out all the heaps of prop-ganda doled out for and by Bush over 9-11.:2 cents:

And try to debate more than attack next time.

You should read what I say instead of how you feel about it dispelling your beliefs. There is plenty there...I seriously doubt you're paying attention...just because there are gentle smack downs in my responses doesn't mean I haven't made a salient rebuttal, clear counterpoint and logical conclusion.

you should also stop using the 'well that guy did it' response. Two wrongs don't make a right. You should be old enough to know what that means.

That is exactly NOT the point of the exercise jr. The question stemming from my examples of Bush are simply...why do people like you say one thing for Bush..but another for Obama????

You don't see that??:confused

Faux.....:nono:

 

[KillTheIndustry]

You.:dunno:

How? I said nothing about Fox News, or any sort of media. And it didn't have anything to do with the thread. Plus I've already told you multiple times that I don't, can't, and wouldn't watch Fox News, as I don't have cable, and I don't like any form of bias media. That includes everyone from O'Reilly to Maher. I don't like any of them.

Grown up tip: Don't annoy someone by nagging them with bullshit (i.e. no point to you BS other than being ) then let them know what annoys you.:2 cents:

:1orglaugh You do that all the time. Quoting rules and jumping on a select group of posters here, even if you have nothing to add to the thread. You just want to attack them. And are you saying I'm annoying you? :1orglaugh

No problem at all.. (see, that would be the grown up response) you see, my skin is fairly thick. The only thing is...I play by the rules now...

Who's rules? Yours? You're the one that turned what I said about "Faux News" into a petty, ongoing thing. Not very grown up at all.

That is exactly NOT the point of the exercise jr. The question stemming from my examples of Bush are simply...why do people like you say one thing for Bush..but another for Obama????

You don't see that??:confused

When have I done that? I don't like Bush or Obama. So I'm not one of those people. Yes, I do see people saying one thing about Bush and another about Obama on the same issue. And what I am saying is YOU are one of them.

And I was also was addressing your comparisons of Obama to Reagan. You seem to think that if Reagan did it, Obama gets a pass. That's not the way it works.

Edit: Almost forgot...

Faux.....:nono:

Old man.

 

[bodie54]

And I was also was addressing your comparisons of Obama to Reagan. You seem to think that if Reagan did it, Obama gets a pass. That's not the way it works.

No, what he's noting is the hypocrisy of those who, despite the comparables, totally demonize Obama while assigning sainthood to Reagan.

And despite all the right's angst-ridden, hand wringing certainty that he will, Obama has yet to grant amnesty to illegals - as Reagan did.

Can you imagine the absolute frenzy that would create on the right if Obama does it? omg I can already hear the impassioned calls to arms :ak47: Shit there'd probably be at least a state or two that would convene a committee to craft an ordinance of secession :hammer: :flame: :flame:

But when Reagan did it? meh

 

[SlamJack]

Obama will be played by Samuel Jackson, there will be lots of shouting and people will wish Sam Jackson really was the President.

Who put snakes on Airforce One?

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Filmmakers, Obama administration say bin Laden movie is not a campaign ploy
from http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...n-bin-laden-movie-not-campaign-161144802.html

Filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal responded Wednesday to accusations that their movie on the capture of Osama bin Laden is a ploy to boost the president's re-election campaign.

The New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd wrote on Sunday that the Obama administration is granting the filmmakers access for the president's electoral benefit. "Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012--perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher," Dowd wrote."The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration."

Bigelow and Boal, who collaborated on Oscar-winning film The Hurt Locker, disputed the suggestion Wednesday in a joint statement issued to Entertainment Weekly, the Hollywood Reporter, and elsewhere.

"Our upcoming film project about the decade long pursuit of Bin Laden has been in the works for many years and integrates the collective efforts of three administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama," in addition to the Department of Defense and the CIA, they say. "This was an American triumph, both heroic and non-partisan," they said of the mission, "and there is no basis to suggest that our film will represent this enormous victory otherwise."

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, yesterday called for an investigation into the claims of access and classified information being shared for political benefit.

"The Administration's first duty in declassifying material is to provide full reporting to Congress and the American people, in an effort to build public trust through transparency of government," King wrote in a letter to Defense Department Inspector General Gordon Heddell and CIA Inspector General David Buckley. "In contrast, this alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history."

The White House directly disputed King's accusations Wednesday and said no classified information has been released. "The claims are ridiculous," White House spokesman Jay Carney said during his press briefing. Carney added that when writers and filmmakers ask to speak with administration officials, the White House simply tries to oblige and ensure accuracy.

Filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal responded Wednesday to accusations that their movie on the capture of Osama bin Laden is a ploy to boost the president's re-election campaign.

The New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd wrote on Sunday that the Obama administration is granting the filmmakers access for the president's electoral benefit. "Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012--perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher," Dowd wrote."The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration."

Bigelow and Boal, who collaborated on Oscar-winning film The Hurt Locker, disputed the suggestion Wednesday in a joint statement issued to Entertainment Weekly, the Hollywood Reporter, and elsewhere.

"Our upcoming film project about the decade long pursuit of Bin Laden has been in the works for many years and integrates the collective efforts of three administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama," in addition to the Department of Defense and the CIA, they say. "This was an American triumph, both heroic and non-partisan," they said of the mission, "and there is no basis to suggest that our film will represent this enormous victory otherwise."

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, yesterday called for an investigation into the claims of access and classified information being shared for political benefit.

"The Administration's first duty in declassifying material is to provide full reporting to Congress and the American people, in an effort to build public trust through transparency of government," King wrote in a letter to Defense Department Inspector General Gordon Heddell and CIA Inspector General David Buckley. "In contrast, this alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history."

The White House directly disputed King's accusations Wednesday and said no classified information has been released. "The claims are ridiculous," White House spokesman Jay Carney said during his press briefing. Carney added that when writers and filmmakers ask to speak with administration officials, the White House simply tries to oblige and ensure accuracy.


"We do not discuss classified information. And I would hope that as we face a continued threat from terrorism, the House Committee on Homeland Security would have more important topics to discuss than a movie," Carney added.

Philip Strub, the Pentagon's director of entertainment media, confirmed to CNN that he had a single meeting with Bigelow and her team, but added "we go to great lengths not to reveal classified information." Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan said Bigelow's team had other Defense Department meetings of the type the Pentagon apparently provides to established filmmakers on a regular basis.

Even some critics on the left--who view King's protest through a partisan lens--say this flap could be a good thing for transparency.

"Regardless of King's opportunistic motives, his move finally creates the possibility for a more comprehensive look at how our government as a whole--whether under Democratic or Republican administrations--now regularly and systemically uses taxpayer resources to suffuse our popular culture with 'cinematographic' militarist ideology, and uses those same taxpayer resources to try to prevent anti-militarist messages from being aired," writes the liberal writer and talk radio host David Sirota in Salon.

Betraying your military is the worst thing to do:hairpull:

They didn't "capture" him. They shot him in the fucking head like he deserved. Get it right.

 

[SlamJack]

They didn't "capture" him. They shot him in the fucking head like he deserved. Get it right.

Well, they probably had him after that, right?

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Well, they probably had him after that, right?

The body. Its not the same.....and its not the same in proper English.

You should know that.

They are intentionally belittling the mission by saying "capture" instead of "eliminated".

 

[KillTheIndustry]

No, what he's noting is the hypocrisy of those who, despite the comparables, totally demonize Obama while assigning sainthood to Reagan.

And despite all the right's angst-ridden, hand wringing certainty that he will, Obama has yet to grant amnesty to illegals - as Reagan did.

Can you imagine the absolute frenzy that would create on the right if Obama does it? omg I can already hear the impassioned calls to arms :ak47: Shit there'd probably be at least a state or two that would convene a committee to craft an ordinance of secession :hammer: :flame: :flame:

But when Reagan did it? meh

Wow, a little dramatic, but okay...

Now, I don't know, but one thing to consider is: I'm 28, and I wasn't even born when Reagan became president. It could be that the people bitching about Obama today weren't old enough to bitch about Reagan. I'm almost 30 and don't remember anything about Reagan except that we may have written him letters in elementary school. And if I don't remember him, I'm sure the new voters born a decade later than me aren't going to either.

Like I said, I don't know. But I do know Reagan's approval rating dropped to 35%, and I have heard many people talk negatively about his presidency. So I don't understand why you think no one made a big deal about what he did when nearly 2/3 of the country didn't like him at one point. And the fact that people like you and MegaHot4Obama are still ranting about Reagan, it proves people aren't ignoring what Reagan did.

Meanwhile, there are those who see Obama as a saint. Why? He's a long shot away from being as bad as Bush, but what has he done that's so great?

 

[accountantNOT]

I don't know why people consider it to be Obama's success. The military leaders and troops are the ones that got the job done.

If that's the case then why kill Bin Laden at all? What was he responsible for other than leading AlQaeda, the actual hijackers and the planners did the job, not Bin Laden. :drama:

 

[sallyfields]

I think he was already dead, is it not funny that so many people in upper government were in the operations room all at the same time and the look of horror on that great USA first lady's face when the last time any body saw her look like that when she caught bill having sex with another women without her, whole thing was a set up want to withdraw from afga but couldn't till he was dead, so faked death of man already dead. I may pay taxes to our government but dose not mean I believe them.

 

[Hot Mega]

How? I said nothing about Fox News, or any sort of media. And it didn't have anything to do with the thread. Plus I've already told you multiple times that I don't, can't, and wouldn't watch Fox News, as I don't have cable, and I don't like any form of bias media. That includes everyone from O'Reilly to Maher. I don't like any of them.

Who's rules? Yours? You're the one that turned what I said about "Faux News" into a petty, ongoing thing. Not very grown up at all.

:1orglaugh You do that all the time. Quoting rules and jumping on a select group of posters here, even if you have nothing to add to the thread. You just want to attack them. And are you saying I'm annoying you? :1orglaugh

Well, not sure why on earth you can't make the simple connection with the time you descended on a thread, ran up a bunch of my posts then (said nothing of the fucking topic) proceeded to whine about my use of FAUX FAUX FAUX FAUX FAUX and me now dropping it in every response to you. I mean killerfacepalm, what on earth did you think that would beget?

As far as quoting the rules....It makes ABSOLUTE sense when some little bugger sits and flames away at you, breaks every fucking rule on FOs message board in route to threatening to have you banned (<<against the fucking rules btw) for something NOT against the rules...to then quote the rule they are erroneously claiming you broke. Makes sense to me...however, some people can't see the sense in that. Oh well, c'est la vie in the land of inconsistency-ville aka FOs bored.

When have I done that? I don't like Bush or Obama. So I'm not one of those people. Yes, I do see people saying one thing about Bush and another about Obama on the same issue. And what I am saying is YOU are one of them.

I don't care who you like...I go by what you post. Review your posts..(not sure it will do any good though).

Now here's a challenge for you 'killer'....find a single issue or point that I have made blaming Bush for something and giving Obama a pass on it. I defy you to find a single instance of it. I fucking triple dog dare you....

And I was also was addressing your comparisons of Obama to Reagan. You seem to think that if Reagan did it, Obama gets a pass. That's not the way it works.

Again you have the example exactly reverse. How can I think Obama gets the pass????????????????????

My point has been Reagan got the pass (and some people in spite of what's in black and white STILL try wriggling Reagan off the hook by trying to unleash a haze of eggheadery...:1orglaugh) while the same people who worship at the alter of Reagan are citing Obama as a 'failure' based on metrics that are better than Reagan's were at the same point in their presidencies.

Now that's what you call a salient point...somehow I envision you STILL not comprehending it.:hairpull:

Just in case, here it is in elementary terms: Mom catches son no. 1 with his hand in the cookie jar...she pats him on the head and gives him ice cream to go with the stolen cookie. The next week mom catches son no. 2 with his hand in the cookie jar...she smacks him on the hand with a wooden spoon then grounds him.

Only 2 possible conclusions from that: Either mom is really fucked up or son no. 1 is and requires special kids treatment.

 

[KillTheIndustry]

...what on earth did you think that would beget?

A mature response. I thought you would act your age. But I guess that was too much to ask for. I know old men think puns are hilarious, and that telling the same joke over and over is fun.

As far as quoting the rules....It makes ABSOLUTE sense when some little bugger sits and flames away at you, breaks every fucking rule on FOs message board in route to threatening to have you banned (<<against the fucking rules btw) for something NOT against the rules...to then quote the rule they are erroneously claiming you broke. Makes sense to me...however, some people can't see the sense in that. Oh well, c'est la vie in the land of inconsistency-ville aka FOs bored.

The problem is, you don't seem to think those rules apply to YOU. You flame, you bait, you troll, you go off topic. Then bitch about someone else doing the same thing. Let the mods be the mods and enforce the rules. If they see someone breaking the rules, it's their job to scold, not yours. Telling someone they're breaking the rules is the same as telling them they could get banned.

I don't care who you like...I go by what you post. Review your posts..(not sure it will do any good though).

Now here's a challenge for you 'killer'....find a single issue or point that I have made blaming Bush for something and giving Obama a pass on it. I defy you to find a single instance of it. I fucking triple dog dare you....

I go by your posts too. You blame Bush completely for the current debt (that was in the debt ceiling thread, I believe), but you don't address the new spending of Obama.

Earlier in this thread you mentioned Reagan getting credit for ending the Cold War, and implied that he shouldn't have merely on the basis of him being president at the time. Then said Obama deserves credit for getting bin Laden, because as the president, he gave the go-ahead. Meanwhile giving zero credit to Bush for the fact that we even had troops over there to begin with.

Now, I extend the same challenge. Find a post where I have done what you have accused me of. I have never defended Bush over an issue I criticize Obama for, and I have never defended Reagan over an issue I criticize Obama for.

I also encourage you to find a post where I have defended Fox News. I criticized your joke, but I have not defended Fox except for saying they are biased, but they are not the only news group that is biased.

Again you have the example exactly reverse. How can I think Obama gets the pass????????????????????

My point has been Reagan got the pass (and some people in spite of what's in black and white STILL try wriggling Reagan off the hook by trying to unleash a haze of eggheadery...:1orglaugh) while the same people who worship at the alter of Reagan are citing Obama as a 'failure' based on metrics that are better than Reagan's were at the same point in their presidencies.

Now that's what you call a salient point...somehow I envision you STILL not comprehending it.:hairpull:

Just in case, here it is in elementary terms: Mom catches son no. 1 with his hand in the cookie jar...she pats him on the head and gives him ice cream to go with the stolen cookie. The next week mom catches son no. 2 with his hand in the cookie jar...she smacks him on the hand with a wooden spoon then grounds him.

Only 2 possible conclusions from that: Either mom is really fucked up or son no. 1 is and requires special kids treatment.

Read my response to bodie. I addressed some of that already.

If you are not using Reagan to defend Obama, what is the meaning of your current and previous signatures?

 

[Hot Mega]

A mature response. I thought you would act your age. But I guess that was too much to ask for. I know old men think puns are hilarious, and that telling the same joke over and over is fun.

Faux?:dunno: You like...? "old"? :thumbsup: :yesyes::tongue:

The problem is, you don't seem to think those rules apply to YOU. You flame, you bait, you troll, you go off topic. Then bitch about someone else doing the same thing.

You're lying or just don't know what you're talking about. And I'm not going to debate that non issue. With all the 'teams' I've heard tale of aligned to try and bait 'ol 'Mega into a FOs vacation....I most assuredly would be on one if I were violating the rules. Give it a rest.

Let the mods be the mods and enforce the rules. If they see someone breaking the rules, it's their job to scold, not yours. Telling someone they're breaking the rules is the same as telling them they could get banned.

Nice... I don't scold people over the rules. It's not my place... I have challenged those who were crying about me doing whatever to them...to find their claims in the rules..

I have NEVER intentionally tried to derail a thread because I didn't like the progression of the debate. I have said a million times, I don't respect the opinions or assertions of those who are clearly being intellectually dishonest or lazy in asserting something absent fact or the full scope of a circumstance. There are those who do that here and in my responses to their points (if there is one) I do ridicule their points and certainly by extension them. But there is always a point to it and counter to their assertions. That's the difference between me and some of you. But if you think that's baiting, trolling or what the fuck ever...so.:dunno:

That happens....and is alright according to the woman of administers this board by way of the rules she's posted. She wisely understands and even expects that heated topics like politics will get nasty. But as long as it stays within the rules she expects people to respond like grown ups. If you have written a check your ass can't cash and now believe someone is bothering you because they literally tackle your POV (as opposed to attacking you)..then according to the admin here...don't get into these types of discussions. It's that simple.

I'm even having this circus with you right now because of all things, thin skinned 'killer' doesn't like me using Faux so much that he made a post all about it which didn't have shit to do with the topic of the thread. It was just an attack on a poster. (Like I cared.....)

Not liking someones point of view then launching personal attacks is where the line is apparently drawn. The shit doesn't bother me in the least as I can give a thousand times better than I get on that shit..However, that being against the rules ...I just follow what the admin has said about not taking it into my own hands anymore.

I doubt you will find a serious point made by me here in which I chose to drop the topic and simply go after the other person. That has happened a thousand times the other way...And you're one of them.

I go by your posts too. You blame Bush completely for the current debt (that was in the debt ceiling thread, I believe), but you don't address the new spending of Obama.

Show me that exact point. I'll wait.

Earlier in this thread you mentioned Reagan getting credit for ending the Cold War, and implied that he shouldn't have merely on the basis of him being president at the time. Then said Obama deserves credit for getting bin Laden, because as the president, he gave the go-ahead. Meanwhile giving zero credit to Bush for the fact that we even had troops over there to begin with.

Well, I personally wouldn't have been inclined to give ANYONE credit for 'ending/winning' the Cold War under those circumstances no matter who it was. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain the Soviets had enough of their own problems that attributing their demise to someone just because they spent a ton of money is laughable IMO. That's like a person who goes into the hospital on life support after trying to kill themselves then blaming the doctor for killing them just because he pulled the plug.

Now, I extend the same challenge. Find a post where I have done what you have accused me of. I have never defended Bush over an issue I criticize Obama for, and I have never defended Reagan over an issue I criticize Obama for.

If you actually read the exact statement. I said, (people, those) like you. I never said you specifically did anything but that's where actually reading this stuff helps.:2 cents:

I also encourage you to find a post where I have defended Fox News. I criticized your joke, but I have not defended Fox except for saying they are biased, but they are not the only news group that is biased.

Well, I could point to your babbling on and on about my use of Faux as a quasi defense. The fuck should you give a shit for what I call them if it didn't personally bother you...

Read my response to bodie. I addressed some of that already.

If you are not using Reagan to defend Obama, what is the meaning of your current and previous signatures?

Six in one hand half a dozen in the other. Defend Obama...attack his inconsistent attackers...

It's worth noting that no one ever attacked Reagan's numbers until Obama's were attacked....but if you think about it...that's the point isn't it? No one (like the goobers attack Obama's) ever attacked Reagan's numbers.:tongue:

Especially not Faux Faux Faux Faux Faux Faux Faux Faux Faux Faux//////////

 

[KillTheIndustry]

You derailed the thread by bringing Fox News into it. It didn't belong, and was done with the INTENT to take a shot at me. (If that wasn't the case, I would be happy to know what it was.) You gave it no context other than that. You have attacked me, and you attack more than you counter arguments and debate. In my view, that's a sign that you are unable to properly argue for your perspective. Be it because of a lack of evidence, or not having the words. You have little to say, so you fill the void with insults.

If you weren't addressing me, then don't quote me and say it in the same paragraph as the one where you ARE addressing me. Because if it's not intended for me, it has no reason to be said to me. I am not responsible for other people, and should not be attacked because of someone else. You have assumed a lot about me. I.E. That I watch Fox News, that I support(ed) Bush, that I'm a republican, etc. None of these things are true. And you say I don't read, while you read more than what is said, then fly off the handle about it.

On your last point (which is still off topic), your whole argument is: You can't criticize Obama if you don't criticize Reagan for doing the exact same thing. Is that correct?

My response to that would be: 1. The reverse is also true. 2. They are not doing the EXACT same thing. There are differences in circumstance. But I fully blame Reagan for any and all mistakes he made that hurt the country, added to our debt, etc. 3. Why is your anger aimed at a dead man who ceased to be president over 20 years ago, but no anger aimed at Obama if he is, in fact, doing the same thing Reagan did?

Talking shit about the past doesn't fix our problem NOW! Live in the present, you immature old man. Immature old man. Immature old man. Immature old man. Immature old man. Immature old man. Immature old man. Immature old man. Immature old man. Immature old man.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Jebus in the neutral zone with a broken stick and Gretzky open for the pass. Does anyone think you're going to convince anyone else with discussion?

 

[Trident1]

My point has been Reagan got the pass (and some people in spite of what's in black and white STILL try wriggling Reagan off the hook by trying to unleash a haze of eggheadery...:1orglaugh) while the same people who worship at the alter of Reagan are citing Obama as a 'failure' based on metrics that are better than Reagan's were at the same point in their presidencies.

Reagan LED the country to prosperity. Otrauma hasn't. Reagan was a born leader that even Otrauma looks up. Otrauma isn't even in the same class as Reagan and he knows it. Period end of story.

 

[KillTheIndustry]

On topic, who deserves 'credit' for taking down Osama?

1. Osama and his men, because they attacked us. He was asking for a fight.
2. Bush for starting the war and getting troops overseas to begin with.
3. The troops who do the scouting, the fighting, risking their lives and basically doing all the heavy lifting.
4. Obama for giving the go ahead that resulted in Osama's death.

Can we at least agree on these points? That no ONE person is responsible for Osama's demise?