The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
If Obama Wins
 

Mick28
Level

Join date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3392

i don't think obama has been a bad president foreign policy wise. but economically he's been a disaster. i won't be voting for him. my wife voted for obama against my wishes the first time around but she won't be doing it again.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

Draugr wrote:<<< Not exactly conductive to debate.
I think you were lookin for "conducive" there Junior. Better check that link I gave ya =]
lanchefan1 wrote:<<< HA HA he is real!!!!
Did ya think I was a phantom or sumthin? I am not the biggest or strongest guy here, but I will match my efforts in the gym with anybody anywhere. The kids at my Detroit Powerhouse call me "Sir". (No it's not Lenda's).
ZEB wrote:<<< Trib you look Baaaaaad man. Ha ha you're wrecking the kids day. >>>
Thank you ZEB.

As for the actual topic? I don't see a way around what Thunderbolt said on the first page. Obama will claim a demand for more and BOY OH BOY will he do his best to deliver. Furthermore. What's the basis for arguing with him? A second term would mean they DO want more.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

optheta
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3592

Mick28 wrote:
i don't think obama has been a bad president foreign policy wise. but economically he's been a disaster. i won't be voting for him. my wife voted for obama against my wishes the first time around but she won't be doing it again.


"against my wishes"

Lol wat.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

apbt55
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1472

Tiribulus wrote:

As for the actual topic? I don't see a way around what Thunderbolt said on the first page. Obama will claim a demand for more and BOY OH BOY will he do his best to deliver. Furthermore. What's the basis for arguing with him? A second term would mean they DO want more.



I disagree with this part, just means he somehow, whether through fraud or divided votes. And whether or not the masses want more, the role of the president is to uphold the constitution, nothing more. And he has done nothing but trash our rights. following the legacy of the Texan before him.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7227

apbt55 wrote:
...the role of the president is to uphold the constitution, nothing more.


No, that's the role of the judiciary. President gets some limited, enumerated powers. You should read the constitution Mr. Ron Paul.


And he has done nothing but trash our rights. following the legacy of the Texan before him.


Following the legacy of Wilson, FDR and LBJ.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7227

Mick28 wrote:

i don't think obama has been a bad president foreign policy wise.



Oh sure. Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform of having "talks" with Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad. How'd those "talks" work out then? Immediately upon election Obama flew to Egypt and gave a humiliating speech calling America the "largest Muslim country in the world." He then travelled all over the Middle East(except Israel of course) and made similar speeches. NASA was no longer for space exploration but for "reaching out to the Muslim world." How'd that work out then? How about the "reset" button? I found that extremely humiliating. How about handing Tunisia, Libya and Egypt to the Islamists? Funding the Muslim Brotherhood? Little chats with the Taliban in Qatar? Aggressive demands to Israelis about where they are and aren't allowed to build on their own land? Funding, arming and training Fatah. A series of "leaks" - the first by Panetta himself - preventing Israeli strikes on Iran. How about refusing to recognise the capital of Israel in breach of U.S. law?

'Senator Rick Santorum has an important oped in the New York Daily News today about how the Obama administration is breaking US law by not recognizing that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

As he writes:

It is actually not well known that the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 made it U.S. law to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that the waiver provision of the act only applied to moving the embassy to Jerusalem. A letter to President Bill Clinton -- signed by 84 U.S. senators, including me -- articulated this point.'

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mick28
Level

Join date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3392

optheta wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
i don't think obama has been a bad president foreign policy wise. but economically he's been a disaster. i won't be voting for him. my wife voted for obama against my wishes the first time around but she won't be doing it again.


"against my wishes"

Lol wat.


i begged her not to vote for Obama but she did anyway. this time around she's voting for romney and i didn't even ask her to.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mick28
Level

Join date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3392

SexMachine wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

i don't think obama has been a bad president foreign policy wise.



Oh sure. Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform of having "talks" with Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad. How'd those "talks" work out then? Immediately upon election Obama flew to Egypt and gave a humiliating speech calling America the "largest Muslim country in the world." He then travelled all over the Middle East(except Israel of course) and made similar speeches. NASA was no longer for space exploration but for "reaching out to the Muslim world." How'd that work out then? How about the "reset" button? I found that extremely humiliating. How about handing Tunisia, Libya and Egypt to the Islamists? Funding the Muslim Brotherhood? Little chats with the Taliban in Qatar? Aggressive demands to Israelis about where they are and aren't allowed to build on their own land? Funding, arming and training Fatah. A series of "leaks" - the first by Panetta himself - preventing Israeli strikes on Iran. How about refusing to recognise the capital of Israel in breach of U.S. law?

'Senator Rick Santorum has an important oped in the New York Daily News today about how the Obama administration is breaking US law by not recognizing that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

As he writes:

It is actually not well known that the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 made it U.S. law to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that the waiver provision of the act only applied to moving the embassy to Jerusalem. A letter to President Bill Clinton -- signed by 84 U.S. senators, including me -- articulated this point.'



hey i said i'm not voting for him. but he did kill binladen and we are out of Iran. there were other things as well.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

squating_bear
Level 5

Join date: May 2011
Posts: 656

SexMachine wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
...the role of the president is to uphold the constitution, nothing more.


No, that's the role of the judiciary. President gets some limited, enumerated powers. You should read the constitution Mr. Ron Paul.

I feel pretty confident in saying that's the role of EVERYONE, federal gov't or not.


President gets some limited, enumerated powers.

Gets those powers from where?
What are the purposes of those powers?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24796

squating_bear wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
...the role of the president is to uphold the constitution, nothing more.


No, that's the role of the judiciary. President gets some limited, enumerated powers. You should read the constitution Mr. Ron Paul.

I feel pretty confident in saying that's the role of EVERYONE, federal gov't or not.


One tiny little oath of office and everybody expects to you act all constitutional and stuff :-(((

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

squating_bear
Level 5

Join date: May 2011
Posts: 656

orion wrote:
squating_bear wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
...the role of the president is to uphold the constitution, nothing more.


No, that's the role of the judiciary. President gets some limited, enumerated powers. You should read the constitution Mr. Ron Paul.

I feel pretty confident in saying that's the role of EVERYONE, federal gov't or not.


One tiny little oath of office and everybody expects to you act all constitutional and stuff :-(((

Obama supposedly made his in secret though.... so I guess maybe he's exempt?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37901

http://www.morningstartv.com/...marxism-america

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7227

Ben Shapiro, Breitbart.com:

'Today, Time magazine got hold of a memo written by then-CIA head Leon Panetta after he received orders from Barack Obama's team to greenlight the bin Laden mission. Here's the text, which summarized the situation:


Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault.

The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.

This, of course, was the famed "gutsy call." Here's what Tom Hanks narrated in Obama's campaign film, "The Road We've Traveled":



HANKS: Intelligence reports locating Osama Bin Laden were promising, but inconclusive, and there was internal debate as to what the President should do.



VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We sat down in the Situation Room, the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and the President turns to every principal in the room, every secretary, "What do you recommend I do?" And they say, "Well, forty-nine percent chance he's there, fifty-one - it's a close call, Mr. President." As he walked out the room, it dawned on me, he's all alone. This is his decision. If he was wrong, his Presidency was done. Over.



Only the memo doesn't show a gutsy call. It doesn't show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.



The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven ?? the "timing, operational decision making and control" are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.



The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the "risk profile presented to the President." If any other risks ?? no matter how minute ?? arose, they were "to be brought back to the President for his consideration." This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama's way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he'd say that there were additional risks of which he hadn't been informed; he'd been kept in the dark by his military leaders.



Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to "get" Bin Laden, whatever that meant.



President Obama made the right call to give the green light to the mission. But he did it in a way that he could shift the blame if things went wrong. Typical Obama. And typical of him to claim full credit for it, when he didn't do anything but give a vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn.'

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11