"Blame Bush" "Blame Reagan" "Blame Nixon"

Sorry, chum, there are too many of us out here that know the truth about you and the rest of your socialist pals.

Rumsfeld and Cheney have more integrity in the tip of their little fingers than you have in your entire body.

i find very few people that voted for Bush still liked him at the end of his Presidency = even his voters didn't like/support his actions

in fact many voted Dem on this ticket, as a result

SO YOU ARE COMPLETELY OFF BASE. sounds like you feel guilty about boosting Obama, thats what I think = you've figured out he's a rat bastard like the rest, or even worse

re: And just how do you know, so authoritatively, that our government did NOT allow 9/11 to happen?

You have finally revealed yourself as a Truther.

like Shays says!

because Clinton was the one in Office when 9/11 was planned.

so in between blow jobs he helped the Taliban, its clear now. thanks Shays!

Since I referred to three presidents, your question is a bit vague.  I will therefore assume you are asking about George W Bush, whose practice was to ignore complaints ... and even evidence ... of wrongdoing, until such time as there was nothing to do.  The list is quite lengthy, as his administration ranks right up there with one of the most corrupt and one of the most special-interest serving administrations in American history.  I don't even want to bother to look up all the names, so will just cite examples (if that's okay).

I'll start with George Tenet.  This is a man who headed an agency that provided such profoundly bad intelligence that we went to war because of an imminent threat that didn't exist (either that, or he participated in one of the most blatant examples of false testimony and prefabricated reporting in recent history).  After retirement, he received a Presidential Medal of Honor.

Dusty Foggo.  Number 3 man in the CIA.  Resigned (finally) after allegations that he actively participated in defense contractor bribery with his lifelong friend Brent R. Wilkes and Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham.  This scandal brought down Porter Goss (appointed to replace George Tenet), who regularly attended the poker games the Duke threw.

Stephen Johnson.  Head of EPA.  Regularly "suggested" that EPA scientists change wording or leave certain content out of their reports (most famous being the recent reversal of his decision not to enforce carbon emissions, even though his staff rejected his report; second most famous being rejection of states' rights effort to have tougher emission standards than the EPA formalized).

Actually, the EPA (and its director, whomever it happened to be at the time ... didn't really matter, since loyalty to Bush policy had priority to science or environmental protection), has a very spotted record throughout the Bush administration.  Do you remember how new limits on arsenic in drinking water were withdrawn by the EPA in 2001, despite two decades of research; do you also recall how the requirement that local water authorities report arsenic levels in water were also withdrawn?  Actually, refusal to regulate emissions from cars, coal-burning electricity factories, and the oil industry began in 2003.  Do you remember the EPAs ruling regarding pesticides and the Clean Water Act in 2006?  Scientists at EPA were alarmed at the increasing levels of pesticides in the water, but the head of the EPA "clarified" the standards (i.e., eliminated them) and allowed companies to apply pesticides deliberately over water ... without permits ... as long as they "targeted" mosquitos and aquatic weeds.

The Department of the Interior fares no better.  You remember Johnnie Burton, the Minerals Management Service Director?  Her agency played with oil executives and lobbyists for four years ... engaging in sex and drugs and party favors in exchange for oil leases and energy contracts.  We won't talk about mountaintop strip mining, or coal ash waste deposit dams ...

Does any of this ring a bell?

Shays reminds me of Kwai Chang Caine. Walking into a dusty bar in the old west, the lone liberal surrounded on all sides by rabid rightwing crazies, yet smoothly deflecting all their flailing attacks and dumping them on the floor in an embarrassing pile.

I am no fool, but you certainly are free to delude yourself.  I asked you a simple question:  please elaborate on your meaning.  In case you have forgotten (are you also a victim of short attention deficit disorder ... SADD), I present it for you again:

Our President must be forced into a box where he can no longer effect his plan to destroy the America we know.

My request:  please describe the America the president plans to destroy.

America is a free nation and Obama and his left wing crew (with the big government activism/centralized control agenda they promote) are a threat to that.

In what way, sir?  In everything he says, I hear reference to a freedom to choose (Republicans, on the other hand, would restrict and control our choices in just about every situation, except that related to gun ownership).  I have not yet heard anyone on either side of the aisle accuse this President of ordering the phones of American citizens to be wiretapped ... for any reason!  To the best of my recollection, so far no American citizens have been rounded up and transported to a "secure location" on the basis of them being a "material witness" to an undefined crime, held without access to a lawyer, charged with no crime, but held indefinitely.  I will admit that this administration seems fairly intent on curbing the freedom of sprawling health care corporations to cheat citizens of affordable health care (and denying health care to those who might actually pose a risk of making a claim) ... but that's about it.  Please elaborate on the freedom you feel is threatened.

Oh, yeah ... When Mr Emmanuel spoke of not letting a crisis go by, he was merely channelling Bush-Cheney, now wasn't he?

The Constitution specifically limits the power of the government and his supporters have referred to it as a "living document" and/or want to defer to international laws when interpreting it.

Yes, indeed, the Constitution defines and clearly limits powers.  For example, the Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war or to commit American soldiers overseas, only to command the Army and Navy and the militias (but the latter only when actually called into the service of the United States).  The Congress is given the specific power to declare war.  The last time the Congress exercised that power was on December 11, 1941.  And yet thousands of American soldiers and millions of civilians (innocent or otherwise) have died in the intervening 68 years.  So if the Constitution is not a "living document", how in the world have so many presidents been able to justify the legality of their actions?  There are literally hundreds of other such examples that I could cite, but I'll provide just a couple:  where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to finance and build interstate railroads or highways, to regulate and monitor air traffic, or to spy on foreign and domestic enemies?

I'll tell you where these powers come from (legally or otherwise):  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And who can forget Obama specificallywanting a Supreme Court justice for so called "empathy" reasons. Obama himself claimed courts did not "go far enough" to address the issue of "redistributive justice" during the civil rights era of the 1960s.

He specifically identified empathy as one of the strengths that Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor would bring to the Court; and the president is correct about the second half of your complaint ... because overt racism and discrimination continues, it is clear that the Warren Court did not go far enough in protecting the rights it extended.

"Spreading the wealth around" is not what I would call a recipe for economic growth/job creation/personal initiative.

And yet during time of war and for a period of time lasting almost three more decades, tax policies in which the wealthiest Americans paid as much as 90% of their income, price and wage controls, redistribution of collected revenue to provide education, housing, small business loans and a social safety net for the less fortunate (i.e., "spreading the wealth around") resulted in America becoming the strongest economic power on the planet.  I personally remember that despite the high tax rate, there were still wealthy people, and that energetic and innovative people were free to exercise their talents and vision to join them!  I also know, again from personal experience, that those same wealthy Americans, sill being taxed anywhere from 70-90% of their income until I was well into my twenties, somehow managed to invest in new companies or to improve established operations while the economy flourished.  In short, post-war America ... with high rates of taxation on personal and business income, a strong social safety net, and vast investments in social programs and government construction projects ... was EXACTLY a "recipe for economic growth/job creation/personal initiative".

Neither is his cap and trade program or hamstringing the private sector's ability to create jobs with additional taxes/regulations.

First, cap-and-trade is not a program, yet.  Secondly, it would not be necessary to FORCE companies to resume their social responsibility had they voluntarily done so at any point over the last three decades.  Back then, it would have been very productive to support legitimate efforts to find and develop alternative sources of energy besides coal-fired electrical generation and gasoline-driven internal combustion engines ... Jimmy Carter initiated many programs to do just that.  But in those days, coal and petroleum were "cheap" (well, the petroleum "conveniently" became cheap again, once Jimmy Carter was removed from office and deals were struck with evil-doers in the Middle East).  Though "cheap", even then we were very aware that they were extremely dirty and harmful to the environment, and that -- because they were non-renewable resources -- their supply was limited (and increasingly in more difficult ... and expensive ... places to obtain).  But because they were "cheap", short-sighted CEOs of increasingly powerful multinational corporations chose to extract and use as much of it as quickly as possible to maximize profits rather than look to future needs.  Back then, for example, it would have been relatively inexpensive to convert from coal-fired electrical generation to natural-gas.  So, just like putting off fixing the leak in your roof for ten or twenty years tends to increase the cost of fixing it when you finally get around to doing the work, there is also a strong possibility that collateral damage and expenses might arise from your negligence.  Yes ... cap-and-trade will be expensive.  While there should be provisions that the increased expenses for greedy, short-sighted corporations should not be passed on to consumers (born, in entirety, by corporate executives ... past and present ... as well as investors in companies that did not apply pressure on those executives to do the right thing), it is true that consumers have benefitted from the procrastination, as well.  So ... let it be a lesson learned; we all share in the expense of the short-sightedness of some, and move on; but we don't let it happen again.

Companies will just have to find ways to deal in a market-place in which one of their expenses is a higher cut of their profits.  Innovative and creative entrepreneurs thrive on such challenges, I have always been told by conservative business types.  Those that can't go the way of the dinosaurs.

And some of us are not buying the song and dance routine about government health care plans supposedly covering millions more people, providing "better services" and somehow being more "cost efficient" at the same time. How much was Medicare projected to cost when it was introduced in the 1960s? And how much does it cost right now? A lot more.

Hate to shake you awake, but EVERYTHING costs a lot more today than it did in the 1960s.  The cost of medical care is rising faster than inflation, however ... it is rising as much as 7 or 8 times faster (my insurance provider just announced a 22% increase in premiums).  As you know, I do not believe private insurers and profit-taking ought to be involved in health care, at all (if people want to gamble on how long they will live, whether their house will burn down or not, or on their ability to avoid a catastrophic car accident ... and the last two types of insurance are already mandated in many states); if they want to exploit the desires of those who like trim bottoms and puffy lips, large breasts and smaller stomachs, that's okay.  Again, people should have choices.  But primary health care should be provided by a single-payer, and everyone of us should be a part of the primary insurance pool.  I recognize that there are too many stupid people out there to ever allow this to occur.  So the next best thing is to provide an option (again ... a CHOICE) for those who wish to buy into a publicly funded option.  I really don't give a rat's pitootey if you don't care about the health of some poor unemployed middle-aged man in Tennessee, and resent the fact that some of your hard-earned dollars might go to providing him with chemotherapy ... there are plenty of cold, callous, uncaring s.o.b.s in the world and yet the rest of us still manage to support and help each other when in need.

I had just graduated from high school when Medicare passed.  I wasn't too concerned about what happened to old people (in general), but both my grandparents were eligible and highly supportive of its adoption ... so I paid attention.  For $3 they enrolled in Medicare Part B.  While some Republicans ended up voting for Medicare (and in those days, when there were still these bizarre creatures called "moderate Republicans", some of them even helped write the silly thing), they were pretty loudly opposed to ... and in large numbers.  Of course the costs have gone up (I enrolled at Long Beach State in that same year, and my "student fee" was $14), and the costs have been added to since Republicans managed to (1) borrow from the Trust Fund by transferring it to the General Fund, (2) "reform it" by subsidizing private insurance companies to rob from the elderly and denying Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices, and (3) attempted to privatize it, entirely.  So ... the hundreds of billions from Medicare will come by revoking the subsidies paid to private insurers and then identifying and trimming the wasteful, duplicitous, often times unnecessary expenses that accrue when Republicans stop regulating.

Van Jones was a self proclaimed communist and made racially insensitive remarks about "white polluters" and black children never being involved with incidents of school violence.

So freaking what?  You guys go ga-ga and fall in love with all of your closeted gay members or wife-betraying adulterers, even though many of them built careers on bashing gays and demanding that cheating husbands be kicked out of government.  All Van Jones did was say that as a young college student he considered himself to be a communist.  Even Ronald Reagan flirted with communism and socialism in his youth!  Besides, there is nothing illegal about being a communist as far as I can tell ... neither the Constitution forbids it, and none of the "Living part" of it does so either.  Every year, a communist manages to get his or her name on the ballot for President.  Grow up ... this is a free country and people are free to express whatever political beliefs they desire; it is YOU who is responsible to decide whether you want to agree with them.  I do not know anything about the "white polluters" part of your comment (and am sure you will inform me) ... but I grew up living next door to a chicano barrio and many of my best friends lived there; I KNOW how they feel about white people (in general), and I also know that they have every right to feel that way.

And spare us the lecture about "fearing your fellow man". You have made your share of insulting remarks about "right wing crazies" having guns/being armed or so called "closet racists" who dare challenge the left wing status quo on the reasoning process behind racial preference programs.

I have nothing to fear from my fellow man ... UNLESS he is deranged, carries a gun in public to express his point of view, or decides to use it.  I also have plenty of first-hand experience with closet racists (and open racists, as well).  We may have made a lot of gains in respect to racism in this country (I was most impressed by the diversity present in that Arlington high school where the president made his socialistic, indoctrination speech ... but then, I find that to be true in most high schools I visit today, or in downtown San Francisco, or riding BART), and many of us have worked very hard to accomplish what has been accomplished (the work made harder by open and closeted racists); but Barack Obama and other talking heads are a bit premature to describe America as post-racial.  We will not come close to that until, as just one example, the percentage of people incarcerated in this country more closely reflects the racial and social demographic.  Remember ... I taught junior high for 25+ years, and my work as a staff developer in California took me to hundreds of high schools and hundreds of high school classrooms; I know, for a fact, that opportunities for children to become the best that they can be are still fairly restricted in urban and rural schools (funding, materials available, experience of teachers on the staff, quality of facilities, curriculum options, to name but a few), but the skills, intelligence, potential and dreams of kids in those schools are relatively similar (if only by laws of probability) to those attending the more affluent schools in our communities where kids get all sorts of advantages and legs-up denied to the rest.  We must address these inequities ... perhaps affirmative action is not the best way, but it is a proven way and it works.