Englebert

You did not call me out. I called you out because you said I had a misunderstanding of Obama's view's. Again...let that sink in. I called you out because you arrogantly stated that I had a misunderstanding of Obama's view on race. I made the point that you were condescending because you have no idea what I know about the man, but you arrogantly assumed I was some blowhard you could talk down to. I have never stated that I knew, read, or researched anything on Obama. I said you don't know what I know about the man, but somehow your opinion is more valid than mine. That's the epitome of condescension. But you won't admit it. Again assuming are you. Yes, let Cap & Trade sink in. Anyone that does 30 minutes of research on man-made global warming can quickly find out that it is a lie. And when a president proposes transforming the entire national economy on a lie, in my opinion he should go to prison. I'm fairly certain Obama knows man-made global warming is a lie, but he wants to spend trillions of tax payer dollars on it. Many men have gone to prison for far less.

I got called a racist on here a couple of years ago for making that same statement. Somehow I was accused of speaking in some code language I have never heard of.

Again, by most people standards you were condescending. Deny all you want. I really don't know or care what you think you know about racial issues. It does cut both ways. I have many stories on racism and reverse racism. I also know many, in fact, the majority of people that don't have a racist bone in their body. Maybe it is you that has lived the charmed life. But your life experiences do not afford you any depth of knowledge on what shaped Obama's views. You are the one that felt the need to have to justify Obama's views based on personal experiences. I just reciprocated. And again, your personal experiences do not give you any more insight on Obama's personal experiences, and neither does mine. To say you can understand Obama's views and I only have a misunderstanding of his views is condescending. You have no clue as to what I have read, heard, or researched about the man. I agree Obama could have done a lot more, especially in the first two years when he had both houses. In fact, I think everyone agrees with that. You made the statement enclosed in the paragraph of Obamacare. So I assumed you were talking about Obamacare. If you were referring to a larger scope it would have been helpful if you would have relayed that information. And don't get me started on Cap & Trade, better known as the fallacy of man-made global warming. The Obama Administration had to change the name when they figured out the sheeple weren't following along like they should. The man should go to prison for even suggesting Cap & Trade. Calling it a bad policy is like saying a big pile of crap is just a little distasteful.

I do know the tone in your writing. You were being condescending in two particular sentences. You stated that I have a misunderstanding of one black man's (Obama) perspective and that I will "learn this lesson the hard way when Hillary gets elected." You have no clue as to what I have learned, will learned or refuse to learn. And to state those sentences the way you did is condescending by the majority of people's standards. Furthermore, how in the hell do you think that witnessing (I'm guessing) some acts of racism give you any more perspective than anyone else's on Obama's view of race. I have no idea why you felt the need to share your experiences at Alabama. I suppose you were trying give credence to your perspective, and again, not having a clue as to my experiences. If you want to compare credentials, I'll go along. I have a Master's Of Science degree in Psychology and have done consulting work for over 30 different companies in the last 22 years. The majority of that work has been close involvement with management and HR departments, including hiring and firing practices, dispute resolution (the majority involving racial complaints), and diversification of the labor force. None of which gives me any more clue about Obama's view of race, nor does your personal experiences. When you said Smitty was trying to divide people you also included the phrase "along with your other super conservative buddies". I took that as a blanket statement regarding the majority of posters on this site. I could be wrong and I'll begrudging (based on the tone of that post) give you the benefit of the doubt. I glanced over your last post this morning during a court recess, and one of your statements stuck out: "The idea that something [Obamacare] was "all Obama could get" when his party controlled both houses of Congress is laughable". You stated that if he was more adept he could have gotten much more. I don't know where you were or how well you kept up with the proceedings, but my statement that "was all Obama could get" is factual. He and Pelosi had to plea, beg, threaten, and make side deals to persuade some House Democrats to vote for the monstrosity. They also had to release the bill on the day the vote took place so no one could read it. It was common knowledge among liberal and conservative media that Obama was stretching as far as he could for something that would pass. In fact, most pundits thought that Obamacare would not pass. If you think he could have gotten much more then you are in the slimmest portion of the minority, possibly alone. I'm not going to go through the rest of your post, because basically I don't see us getting anywhere. You have not swayed me in any way that Obama is not the worst president in U.S. history, and I doubt I swayed you in any way. For Bobcat1, I have no clue if Trump can beat Hillary.

I would prefer that you don't talk down to me. You don't have a clue as to my "understanding" of one black man's perspective on race. I am also not ignorant of the consequences of a Hillary presidency. Now, to retort some of your answers. Obama got Obamacare passed because that is as much as he could. A single payer plan would have never passed the House or Senate. I have absolutely no doubt that he would have signed a single payer healthcare bill if it was put on his desk. The dems are taking baby steps to get to the single payer plan. Period. I didn't even mention his involvement in man-made global warming. If given the opportunity, he would (and has tried) to get bills through that would do substantial damage to this country's economy all under the fallacy of man-made global warming. That, along with healthcare, would surpass LBJ's and FDR's crap. Luckily, so far he has been stopped. So yes, I think his intentions are not in the best interest of this country. I do believe he has done everything he can to destabilize and ruin our relationship with every country around the world. Not blatant enough to raise the ire of Dems and get him removed from office, but enough to cause what we have now. I believe it was definitely intentional on his part. Now to the corruption. I guess you forgot about James Rosen and many others. So yes, along with the other things we know Obama and his administration has risen to and above the level of Grant. I'm sure there will be more information we might find out about later. You stated that Buchanan's ambivalence laid the foundation for the Civil War, then answered my statement with the statement that the Civil War was indeed inevitable. So yes, your original statement was bogus. The foundation was already set for the Civil War. Obama's executive order to give illegals amnesty is blatantly against his oath of office, and against the laws of the United States. You might not think illegal immigration is a big deal, but I think that it is the biggest burden on this country (with the interest payments on a 19 trillion dollar debt coming in a distant second). Obama is not trying kill a race of people, but he is actively trying to change to demographics of it. Also, I never mentioned the amount of executive orders. I know other presidents have issued more. It is the scope and scale of the ones he has signed that is so troubling. FDR's interment camps and the Indian Wars were wrong, but done with the intention of strengthening this nation. Obama intentionally stoking racial divide is done with the intention of weakening this country. I'll state it now. I think, without one iota of doubt, that Obama is the worse president to ever grace the oval office. I'm not stating that to invoke any political point, or to try and divide people. That is my opinion and I have the right to state it. I have never read anywhere that Smitty has any kind of divisive intentions. There is not one smidgen of proof. I find it highly ironic that you try to impugn me and Smitty and many others by trying to interpret our intentions, but refuse to believe or acknowledge that Obama's intentions are not morally sound and indisputable.

I'll answer your questions. I'm not going to quote your post because it's full of childish pictures and formatting. To answer every one of the questions in summation: Hell yes Obama is the worst president in U.S. history. Does Obama compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude. No, but Carter was doing what he though was good for America. Obama is much worse. He does what he thinks puts America on the path to be a more socialist nation. He doesn't like America's stature in the world and is doing his best to smack us down a notch. Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? Yes. Lois Lerner come to mind. He sat back and did nothing. Fast & Furious! He exerted executive privilege over the documents. The military attired radicals stifling voter turnout. He watch Holder drop the charges and did nothing. Obamacare. He knew full well that we could not keep our existing healthcare plan or doctor, and knew the costs would rise, but lied and lied, and lied some more. (This is by no means a full list.) As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? That is a bogus statement. The Civil War was coming no matter what Buchanan did. As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? Yes. Sanctuary cities and executive amnesty. His executive orders have been more detrimental to the country than any other president in U.S. history. (This is by no means a full list.) As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? FDR was doing what he though was right for the country. Obama knowingly is creating a racial divide...which is pure evil. You had to try and pack the wrongs of many individual presidents to reach the level of Obama's wrongs...unsuccessfully I might add. Then you resort to personal attacks on not only Smitty but to the entire board. I don't know what happened to you lately, but I no longer feel any desire to read your posts.

All I can think of about this is that: Of the money given to low income people with children for purchasing the child's necessities, that money apparently is not going toward diapers. So instead of finding out where that money is going, let's just give out more free money. I think I will be able to understand how women think before I will ever come close to understanding the liberal mind.

Based on what little I've read about his views of the 2nd Amendment, he should not be allowed to sit on any court, much less the Supreme Court.

I will also honor his request. Now that he has passed on I'm sure he will vote for Hillary, probably twice.

I agree with you about "Trumpcare". In the not-too-long-ago past he was all for single-payer healthcare. I don't believe him when he talks about his full transformation from New York liberal to "common-sense" conservative. I think he will repeal Obamacare just because he said he would, then replace it with just a big of a boondoggle as Obamacare...behind schedule and over budget. By electing a Democrat or Trump this go 'round our generation will be known as the generation that killed the greatest healthcare system the world has ever known.

You are living in a dream world if you think Hillary, Obama, and many others in the Democratic party do not want to ban guns. They just will not admit it. Hillary has stated that she wants to hold gun manufacturers accountable in cases of gun violence. Do you have any idea what that means? Do you have any idea the effect that would have? You can bury your head in the sand all you want about this issue...some of us are not that blind!

They could treat the nomination just like Harry Reid treats a yearly budget...and just ignore it. Constitution doesn't provide for that but it didn't stop ol' Harry.

On the same vein, let's also look on the Democrats side. Do you think: A. Bernie Sanders' rise to prominence is due to many more people being far far left-wing and support his socialist views. B. Many people are supporting Bernie Sanders only because they are put-off with Hillary and he is the only other Democrat choice. C. Other Thoughts?

Wow. Been watching too much NCIS...I mean MSNBC.

Donald Trump has been saying over and over that he is pulling traditional Democrat voters over to him. The voter turnout has shown that many Democrats have switched parties. He is taking credit for this metamorphosis. Which one of the following choices do you think is really happening: A: These voters are switching parties because of him. B: These voters are just so turned off by the Democrat candidates that they decided to switch parities. When evaluating the Republican nominees they are picking Trump basically because he is a (supposedly former) New York liberal. C: Other What do you think?

I definitely agree with you that "the single biggest persecutor of thought-crime throughout human history has undoubtedly been organized religion." But that hasn't happened in the United States. In fact, throughout the history of the U.S. Christians have occupied the majority of seats in the legislative bodies, but other religions have not been trounced out. I constantly hear that the far-right Bible-thumping Christians are trying to take everyone's rights away. History shows that is not the case, but many people always refer to it as truth. Trump is playing on the misnomer "fear of Christian domination" and "unethical Christians" belief that many people have. He is constantly saying that "Ted Cruz walks around waving the Bible then lies". He is targeting that misconception in order to gain votes. (If he wants to talk about inconsistent ethics, he needs to go no further than the nearest mirror.) That's what prompted my response. There is nothing in Ted Cruz's history, or the U.S. Christian history, that should lead anyone to believe that if elected Cruz would try to invoke Christian doctrine on everyone.

Don't know how I got a double post. I edited my original post and it posted it twice.

It seems you are making false accusations against the integrity of Cruz and of all Christians. I see no evidence that Cruz would propose such nonsense. I see no evidence that if he actually did propose that type of legislation that the vast majority of Americans, including Christians, would not revolt. There have been many instances of Christians exerting Christian theology in legislation, but not where Christians would insist on "join us or face persecution". That's the domain of radical Islam and progressive liberals. If Christians would have been dead-set on forcing everyone to believe in the Bible through legislation, it would have been done in 1776.

It seems you are making false accusations against the integrity of Cruz and of all Christians. I see no evidence that Cruz would propose such nonsense. I see no evidence that if he actually did propose that type of legislation that the vast majority of Americans, including Christians, would not revolt. There have been many instances of Christians exerting Christianity theology in legislation, but not where Christians would insist on "join us or face persecution". That's the domain of radical Islam and progressive liberals. If Christians would have been dead-set on forcing everyone to believe in the Bible through legislation, it would have been done in 1776.

Wow. I just lost all respect for Loretta Lynch. Man-made climate change is just a political issue being pushed by progressive liberals to exert more power over the uneducated masses. Anyone that doesn't believe that is the true denier. What is so disheartening is that if she is such a liberal ideologue, I now have zero confidence in her prosecuting Hillary Clinton (even though that confidence was not high to begin with). I think all of the Republican candidates need to be grilled on this issue to see exactly where each one stands.

Hillary has already publically stated that she wants to hold gun manufacturers accountable in gun violence cases. That is a tactic to drive gun manufacturers out of business...plain and simple. Just like liberals say they are not socialists (we all know that they are), they say they don't want to take our guns, but if Obama had a bill on his desk to outlaw all guns, he would break his arm trying to get a pen fast enough to sign it into law. Now if you want to talk about scaring constituents, how about Hillary saying Republicans are trying to take away the right to vote, Republicans want dirty air and dirty water...the list is endless. I notice you will not answer a single question, you just try to change the subject when your generalizations fall flat. I've posed numerous questions to you but you keep changing the subject. I'd be willing to bet you will not answer the above questions. You throw out ridiculous allegations then run and hide when you get called on them. You act eerily similar to a certain person that holds the all time record for being banned on this site.

Where is any proof of his Dominionist theology? Ronald Reagan appealed to many many people, even some bad ones...so what. What lies has Cruz been telling while looking straight at the camera. Name them. If you want to discuss presidential candidates who look straight in the camera and lie, the biggest liar of them all is Hillary. So if your are turned off by Cruz's presumed lying, you should be furious at Hillary's blatant lies.

LOL! I was thinking the same thing.

So are you gonna ridicule the Republican debates as "acting like fools", while at them same time calling them childish names? Sounds pretty hypocritical.

I think the rest of the Dems got the memo from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (I don't know if that is the correct spelling but I'm not going to look it up because I just don't care that much about that.....her) that the deck was going to be stacked for Hillary's coronation.