Notice how the leftist Giuliani smear campaign is in full swing now seeing as he said some uncomplimentary things about their Deity. Yet still they hold water for someone who can't even admit ISIS are Islamic terrorists, yet still manages to compare their actions now with the crusades. So which is it Mr president. Either ISIS are Islamic terrorists after all or your comparison between them and the Crusaders (a religion based metaphor) is completely without context?

Actually I wish Giuliani had gone further, why question Obama's patriotism when the key question to pose is whether the POTUS is serially incompetent or seditious? If the answer is seditious then the question of Obama's loyalty becomes moot, except perhaps to the Ummah.

Edited February 21, 201511 yr by Steely Dan

Actually I wish Giuliani had gone further, why question Obama's patriotism when the key question to pose is whether the POTUS is serially incompetent or seditious? If the answer is seditious then the question of Obama's loyalty becomes moot, except perhaps to the Ummah.

You wish he had gone further?

Then I guess you have no interest in the GOP winning the presidency in 2016. This sort of hyper-partisan bomb-throwing might play well with extreme teaparty whackjobs, but I can assure you that it leaves independent voters shaking their heads in disbelief at what has happened to the GOP. Winning primary and caucus fights in Iowa and S. Carolina is not the same thing as getting to 270 electoral votes.

By the way, guess who just talked himself out of a prime time speaking slot at the GOP convention next year.

Some nasty, inflammatory and off-topic posts have been removed. They are apparently offensive to other members, because they have reported them.

Sometimes I like it when a member complains, because it makes it much easier to give suspensions, which is what is going to happen unless you discuss the topic and not each other or the media.

If you have trouble understanding and comprehending, I can assure you that it is usually explained quite thoroughly in the formal warning.

Now, please stay on topic.

Journalist questions White House Press Secretary about Giuliani's remarks by referencing Obama's previous comments detrimental of a sitting President.

What Obama said...

This sort of "they did it too" is inevitable from the hyper-partisans, but it's not a sound strategy. Republicans need to get this story out of the news and off people's minds as quickly as possible, because it doesn't do anything to improve their standing with the voters. It only provides raw meat to the nutjobs, and they're going to vote ® anyway. And the fact remains (thankfully) that there are not enough hyper-partisans on the right or the left to win an election. It is the moderate, independent middle that wins elections, and they don't want to hear hyper-partisans on either side saying that the President of the United States doesn't love America. Grow up.

There isn't a whole lot I agree with Giuliani about. But he is smack dab on the money about the Alien-in-Chief ruling over America.

Why would Commie like USA?

Giuliani is right Obama is a Commie As a Commie he does not like Putin Either

Case Closed

Have u noticed how all these right wing comments are straight from fox news, without editing. Amazing

Sent from my S4 LTE

Do liberals Commies Socialist members of Thia Visa love US no so why should Obama

This sort of "they did it too" is inevitable from the hyper-partisans, but it's not a sound strategy. Republicans need to get this story out of the news and off people's minds as quickly as possible, because it doesn't do anything to improve their standing with the voters. It only provides raw meat to the nutjobs, and they're going to vote ® anyway. And the fact remains (thankfully) that there are not enough hyper-partisans on the right or the left to win an election. It is the moderate, independent middle that wins elections, and they don't want to hear hyper-partisans on either side saying that the President of the United States doesn't love America. Grow up.

It's a sound strategy when it proves the astonishing amount of hypocrisy spewing forth from the mouths of the progressive liberals.

Many people on the right side of the debate have questions pertaining to Obama's loyalties and the great thing about the First Amendment is they have the right to voice those concerns.

Which is simply what Giuliani did.

No mainstream American questioned whether G.W.Bush might be engaged in sedition as has been done at this thread of President Obama.

Edited February 21, 201511 yr by Publicus

Notice how the leftist Giuliani smear campaign is in full swing now seeing as he said some uncomplimentary things about their Deity. Yet still they hold water for someone who can't even admit ISIS are Islamic terrorists, yet still manages to compare their actions now with the crusades. So which is it Mr president. Either ISIS are Islamic terrorists after all or your comparison between them and the Crusaders (a religion based metaphor) is completely without context?

Actually I wish Giuliani had gone further, why question Obama's patriotism when the key question to pose is whether the POTUS is serially incompetent or seditious? If the answer is seditious then the question of Obama's loyalty becomes moot, except perhaps to the Ummah.

It goes further. The Obamaists are now issuing death threats against Giuliani. They look more and more like ISIS every day. Make sure you don't challenge the ayatollah in the White House or his Revolutionary Guard will come after you.

No mainstream American questioned whether G.W.Bush might be engaged in sedition as has been done at this thread of President Obama.

But sedition was not mentioned by Mayor Giuliani, who's remarks are the topic of this thread.

Journalist questions White House Press Secretary about Giuliani's remarks by referencing Obama's previous comments detrimental of a sitting President.

What Obama said...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What amazing hypocrisy!

Actually I wish Giuliani had gone further, why question Obama's patriotism when the key question to pose is whether the POTUS is serially incompetent or seditious? If the answer is seditious then the question of Obama's loyalty becomes moot, except perhaps to the Ummah.

You wish he had gone further?

Then I guess you have no interest in the GOP winning the presidency in 2016. This sort of hyper-partisan bomb-throwing might play well with extreme teaparty whackjobs, but I can assure you that it leaves independent voters shaking their heads in disbelief at what has happened to the GOP. Winning primary and caucus fights in Iowa and S. Carolina is not the same thing as getting to 270 electoral votes.

By the way, guess who just talked himself out of a prime time speaking slot at the GOP convention next year.

You are out of touch at to what is going on in America. You did take notice of the mid term elections where the Democrats LOST control of the Senate, the number of Democrats seats in the U,S. were reduced by Republican replacements, U.S. State Legislatures have turned Republican along with the Governor's seat ... state governments are now a super majority of Republican control ... Elections have consequences ... Now that a respected Republican leader has said it ... dozens more will say it in a few short days and weeks. Why? Because it is the Truth. obama has no allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, to traditional America, he openly shows his allegiance and favoritism to Islam... I could write a list ten pages long... All this plus obama is a Narcissistic pathological liar, who lies about lying, who lies even when the truth would serve him better. Sure signs of the depth and pathology of his mental state.

This sort of "they did it too" is inevitable from the hyper-partisans, but it's not a sound strategy. Republicans need to get this story out of the news and off people's minds as quickly as possible, because it doesn't do anything to improve their standing with the voters. It only provides raw meat to the nutjobs, and they're going to vote ® anyway. And the fact remains (thankfully) that there are not enough hyper-partisans on the right or the left to win an election. It is the moderate, independent middle that wins elections, and they don't want to hear hyper-partisans on either side saying that the President of the United States doesn't love America. Grow up.

It's a sound strategy when it proves the astonishing amount of hypocrisy spewing forth from the mouths of the progressive liberals.

Many people on the right side of the debate have questions pertaining to Obama's loyalties and the great thing about the First Amendment is they have the right to voice those concerns.

Which is simply what Giuliani did.

For what goal is it a sound strategy? For riling up the already frothing-at-the-mouth extremists whose votes are already guaranteed? Without a doubt. But it's certainly not a sound strategy for winning the presidential election in 2016. The moderate independent voters who are actually going to swing this upcoming election don't want to hear/read this sort of hyper-partisan attacks (for example, questioning "Obama's Loyalties"), and it pushes them away from voting for the GOP.

Grow up and start thinking about the big picture. Do you want to score points on cable news or do you want to win the presidential election next year? I count myself amongst those Republicans that want to win back the White House so that we can affect actual change in how the country is run.

This weekend the Sunday shows are going to be all over this story. Not the faulty tax issue related to Obamacare enrollees. Not Scott Walker's big gains in the polls. No, instead GOP leadership and presidential candidates are going to be forced to take a position on whether or not the President is a communist who "loves America". This issue is a vote and election loser for the GOP and the sooner people stop talking/writing about it the better.

This sort of "they did it too" is inevitable from the hyper-partisans, but it's not a sound strategy. Republicans need to get this story out of the news and off people's minds as quickly as possible, because it doesn't do anything to improve their standing with the voters. It only provides raw meat to the nutjobs, and they're going to vote ® anyway. And the fact remains (thankfully) that there are not enough hyper-partisans on the right or the left to win an election. It is the moderate, independent middle that wins elections, and they don't want to hear hyper-partisans on either side saying that the President of the United States doesn't love America. Grow up.

It's a sound strategy when it proves the astonishing amount of hypocrisy spewing forth from the mouths of the progressive liberals.

Many people on the right side of the debate have questions pertaining to Obama's loyalties and the great thing about the First Amendment is they have the right to voice those concerns.

Which is simply what Giuliani did.

For what goal is it a sound strategy?

It puts political pressure on Obama to not proceed with his stupid foreign policy. The more Americans that doubt his loyalty, the more difficult it is for him to sell out the nation by refusing to do everything possible to stop Islamic terrorism and to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

A poll by CNN shows that 58% of Americans think the war against Islamic State militants is going badly and that 47% are in favor of placing boots on the ground to combat ISIS. Also, nearly half the respondents from Obamas own Democratic Party are unhappy with his handling of foreign policy with regard to ISIS.

SMH at the political naiveté of some posters.

People in glass houses...

The more Americans that doubt his loyalty

Doubt the president's loyalty to what? Good grief.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds to rational, middle of the road voters? Put 100 registered genuine independents from Ohio, Pennsylvania or Virgina in a room, and ask them how many doubt the president's (any president's) loyalty. Then ask them their opinion of the person who questioned it. It is my firm belief that nearly every single one would say that they don't doubt the president's loyalty and that they would have a very low opinion of the person who questioned it.

It is exactly this sort of hyper-partisan bile that will cost the GOP the White House in 2016.

The more Americans that doubt his loyalty

Doubt the president's loyalty to what? Good grief.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds to rational, middle of the road voters? Put 100 registered genuine independents from Ohio, Pennsylvania or Virgina in a room, and ask them how many doubt the president's (any president's) loyalty. Then ask them their opinion of the person who questioned it. It is my firm belief that nearly every single one would say that they don't doubt the president's loyalty and that they would have a very low opinion of the person who questioned it.

It is exactly this sort of hyper-partisan bile that will cost the GOP the White House in 2016.

Mainstream republicans which Giuliani is not know the R party is headed for oblivion in the November 2016 election. It's not anything a political party can stand up and openly say going into a general election, but Rs at the top know the fact and reality. So do the Democratic party upper echelon.

The party regulars meaning you and yours know the GOP nominee will be a sacrificial offering similar to the hapless Bob Dole in '96. The only real hope the party has going in is a miracle and Jesus H Christ just left the building for a D party fundraiser hosted by Sen Elizabeth Warren.

You are the 1% of the Republican party and you know that means you are pissing up a rope. Well, the 20% but the rope still remains very dry.

The R party is a bankrupt asylum that has been taken over by the inmates. The lunatics are running the asylum.

I don't wish to get into the fray on this particular topic, but I do remember something that Bill Clinton once said about various Presidents and Presidential-hopefuls that he had met. He said that although he strongly disagreed with their approach, he had never met any that did not firmly believe in the US and did have the best interest of the US at heart. It was a matter of they had very different approaches as to how to achieve it. I believe he was referring to his living predecessors, which included Regan, Ford, and Bush (I suppose Carter was in that, but they were from the same party).

SMH at the political naiveté of some posters.

It has nothing to do with naivete ... it has to do with ideologues who are so caught up in obama worship that they cannot see the obvious or understand the truth... Worshiping political 'leaders' as liberals, leftists and progressives are currently doing with obama only leads to statism as these unquestioning devotees behave as blind sheep allowing obama to do any outrageous thing that comes to his afflicted mind.

Mainstream republicans which Giuliani is not know the R party is headed for oblivion in the November 2016 election. It's not anything a political party can stand up and openly say going into a general election, but Rs at the top know the fact and reality. So do the Democratic party upper echelon.

The party regulars meaning you and yours know the GOP nominee will be a sacrificial offering similar to the hapless Bob Dole in '96. The only real hope the party has going in is a miracle and Jesus H Christ just left the building for a D party fundraiser hosted by Sen Elizabeth Warren.

You are the 1% of the Republican party and you know that means you are pissing up a rope. Well, the 20% but the rope still remains very dry.

The R party is a bankrupt asylum that has been taken over by the inmates. The lunatics are running the asylum.

The GOP has a steep hill to climb in 2016, but I wouldn't advise counting your chickens just yet. Hillary Clinton is by no means a perfect candidate. She carries significant baggage and is prone to putting her foot in her mouth at inopportune times. There are several potential GOP candidates who have a good chance of winning if the cards flip the right way.

And by the way, the "lunatics aren't running the asylum", but they have temporarily taken over the PA system. It's only a matter of time before they're put back in their rightful place.

The more Americans that doubt his loyalty

Doubt the president's loyalty to what? Good grief.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds to rational, middle of the road voters?

You mean like when Obama questioned Bush's patriotism in 2008 and then got elected anway. Maybe you need to pay more attention to the rest of the thread.

Giuliani: Obama influenced by communists since youth

“He (obama) was educated by people who were critics of the US. And he has not been able to overcome those influences.”



http://nypost.com/2015/02/21/giuliani-obama-influenced-by-communists-since-youth/

The more Americans that doubt his loyalty

Doubt the president's loyalty to what? Good grief.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds to rational, middle of the road voters?

You mean like when Obama questioned Bush's patriotism in 2008 and then got elected anway. Maybe you need to pay more attention to the rest of the thread.

While I give you credit for engaging in an epic feat of spin, your political acumen leaves quite a bit to be desired. Everyone reading this thread knows (primarily because of the youtube videos) that what candidate Obama said is that adding trillions to the debt was unpatriotic because of the affect it would have on future generations. A poor choice of words perhaps, but it does not come close to questioning President Bush's loyalty. What Giuliani said is about President Obama not loving America is jaw-droppingly outrageous. That is abundantly clear to everyone who isn't a raging hyperpartisan who feasts on that sort of bile.

The more Americans that doubt his loyalty

Doubt the president's loyalty to what? Good grief.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds to rational, middle of the road voters? Put 100 registered genuine independents from Ohio, Pennsylvania or Virgina in a room, and ask them how many doubt the president's (any president's) loyalty. Then ask them their opinion of the person who questioned it. It is my firm belief that nearly every single one would say that they don't doubt the president's loyalty and that they would have a very low opinion of the person who questioned it.

It is exactly this sort of hyper-partisan bile that will cost the GOP the White House in 2016.

Those voters are exactly the ones that are questioning his loyalty. Get out of your 'up country' for a while.

I do remember something that Bill Clinton once said about various Presidents and Presidential-hopefuls that he had met. He said that although he strongly disagreed with their approach, he had never met any that did not firmly believe in the US and did have the best interest of the US at heart. It was a matter of they had very different approaches as to how to achieve it.

This is exactly the point that hyperpartisans can't comprehend or choose to ignore. It's completely acceptable to disagree with the President on his positions or policies, but to question his loyalty or his love of the country is beyond the pale.

The path to winning presidential elections is about more than scoring points on the 24 hour cable news cycle.

Only the most naive of observers couldn't have seen this coming:

Rudy Giuliani's Obama critique puts 2016ers in a bind

Washington (CNN)

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's comments that he doesn't think President Barack Obama "loves America" have put potential Republican presidential contenders in a bind, caught between a desire to criticize the President and the need to respect the office of the presidency.

By Friday, a trio of Republicans had distanced themselves from the personal knock on Obama while maintaining Giuliani's intended critique — which they suggested was aimed at the president's foreign policy — was valid. But one leading GOP senator, Kentuckian Rand Paul, went farther, overtly criticizing Giuliani and calling it a "mistake to question peoples' motives."

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/giuliani-obama-love-of-country-2016/

This issue is a stone cold loser for the GOP.

Only the most naive of observers couldn't have seen this coming:

Rudy Giuliani's Obama critique puts 2016ers in a bind

Washington (CNN)

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's comments that he doesn't think President Barack Obama "loves America" have put potential Republican presidential contenders in a bind, caught between a desire to criticize the President and the need to respect the office of the presidency.

By Friday, a trio of Republicans had distanced themselves from the personal knock on Obama while maintaining Giuliani's intended critique — which they suggested was aimed at the president's foreign policy — was valid. But one leading GOP senator, Kentuckian Rand Paul, went farther, overtly criticizing Giuliani and calling it a "mistake to question peoples' motives."

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/giuliani-obama-love-of-country-2016/

This issue is a stone cold loser for the GOP.

CNN has not reported anything unfavorable about obama over 8 years... and you a calling others naive... mercy me ..

As indicated in the article linked above, so far Giuliani's comments have put Governors Jindal and Walker and Senators Graham, Rubio and Paul in an uncomfortable position.

Well done, Rudy.

Edited February 21, 201511 yr by up-country_sinclair