Having A Pushover President Has Now Become Extremely Dangerous.

reply to post by Alxandro


A war that began in 2001 is called "Obamas' War"? Obama didn't take office until 2009.

Man oh man did Orwell have us pegged.

~Heff

War is war.
There are wrong wars and there are right wars.
When Obama called it "the right war" he pretty much married it, so yes, it is Obama's War.
Hey, but at least he got a prize out of it.

reply to post by Alxandro


A pushover? He is the most hawkish Democrat we've had and Osama bin Laden was killed on his watch. He has caught or killed many of the al qada and Taliban leaders (unfortunately many innocent people too) with successful drone strikes. Israel tries to wag the dog and he sides with Israel on every issue short of starting a war just for them.

I am not going to blame the moderator. He sucked at that debate. He let Romney get away with one of the most blatant flip flopping tricks, flopping all the way over from far right to center far right without calling him a liar. He let Romney lie and retract many of his previous positions without getting ugly back at him because he figured most people know a lie when they hear one and he needed to appear Presidential, which he did. If you listened to Romney he said he wanted to do away with Obama care but when the President brought up the things it accomplished Romney said my plan does that, and my plan does that too so when it came down to it the only difference became ROMNEY WOULD LET STATES DENY PEOPLE WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS IF THEY DID NOT ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE.

I don't get what's dangerous about him. He has been President for 4 years now and the world was collapsing down around us all when he took office. He stopped the speedy downward decline, and prevented some of the most disastrous outcomes that would certainly have befallen us as a result of the previous 8 years mismanagement and you want to hand the country back to those who sent us into a slump and the whole world into a downward spiral where we were the most hated Nation on the planet?

That's dangerous.

reply to post by Xtrozero

The problem was that Obama had no comeback to defend it...just a smirk... This is a tell tell sign he just doesn't get it, or is lost in party talking points...

Yes, he is "LOST in party talking points"....the Hollywood version! With all his appearances on late-night talk shows and schmoozing with his Hollywood kin, does not make for "top of your game" deliberations....no?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
I think the odds are lower that war is avoided completely with Obama.

I don't think so....

When was the last time one of our Embassies was attacked and the ambassador was killed..

US ambassadors have been killed by mobs/terrorists in 1968, 1973, 1974, 1976 and 1979 prior to the Libyan ambassador being killed. US embassies have been attacked at least 34 times since 1958. 1974 was the last attack when a ambassador was killed

Originally posted by elrem48
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

The problem was that Obama had no comeback to defend it...just a smirk... This is a tell tell sign he just doesn't get it, or is lost in party talking points...

Yes, he is "LOST in party talking points"....the Hollywood version! With all his appearances on late-night talk shows and schmoozing with his Hollywood kin, does not make for "top of your game" deliberations....no?

He was shocked. He predicted his opponent was going to try and argue their own talking points and was prepared for that. He was prepared to deal with the truth and when Romney CHANGED HIS POSITION on apparently everything and flat out lied through his teeth right there in front of God and everyone - he was taken aback.

How can you prepare for and predict the man running for President of the United States is going to fill the airwaves with a made up platform and pack of lies?

I think the next debate Obama should lie his ass off and make a whole lot of promises he can't keep. As long as he looks him in the eye when he does it - people can't tell the difference. We've proved that recently.

reply to post by newcovenant

I think the next debate Obama should lie his ass off and make a whole lot of promises he can't keep. As long as he looks him in the eye when he does it - people can't tell the difference. We've proved that recently

Oh my! Is either candidate any different? Four years ago Obama uttered similar hyperbole......"same as it ever was, same as it ever was..."

so what has romney accomplished ?

borrowed a huge amount of federal money to bail out the SLC olympic games

ok

lets not forget which party was in power on 9/11/01

So he loses one debate and that makes it clear he has to go? A politician losing a debate is a sign they should automatically resign? ON WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE?

By that logic, they'd all have to go

Think of him what you want, but this accusation is ridiculous.

Originally posted by elrem48
reply to post by newcovenant

 

I think the next debate Obama should lie his ass off and make a whole lot of promises he can't keep. As long as he looks him in the eye when he does it - people can't tell the difference. We've proved that recently

Oh my! Is either candidate any different? Four years ago Obama uttered similar hyperbole......"same as it ever was, same as it ever was..."

edit on 6-10-2012 by elrem48 because: (no reason given)

Right. So I guess you'll have to move.

Your conception of leadership is being overly aggressive, bullheaded and jittery? Romney looked like he was high on something. A contributor to this subject told me that Mormons aren't allowed to consume caffeine. Perhaps one of his senior advisers slipped him some before the debate because he looked very high strung.



While Obama was stuttering and losing a bit of focus, he was not being pushed over. You were just seeing a jittery Romney compared to a calm and maybe disinterested (for many reasons) Obama, and you perceived it as being 'Strong' and 'Assertive', when in reality, he was uncontrolled, and high strung. That debate wasn't even a real debate. Come on now, stop fooling yourself.

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by elrem48
reply to post by newcovenant

 

I think the next debate Obama should lie his ass off and make a whole lot of promises he can't keep. As long as he looks him in the eye when he does it - people can't tell the difference. We've proved that recently

Oh my! Is either candidate any different? Four years ago Obama uttered similar hyperbole......"same as it ever was, same as it ever was..."

edit on 6-10-2012 by elrem48 because: (no reason given)

Right. So I guess you'll have to move.

No, I LOVE my country where I was born....I just don't like most of those who represent it now.

I may be the minority here when I say this...

Looking out of my eyes I see this....

Obama is an assassin. He is not one to talk the talk... he just makes up his mind (and is in some ways stubborn) and takes action. Its as if his opinion is right, therefore the way to go.

He seems nervous in front of the camera while in a debate. The other night he seemed distant and not quite sure sometimes what to say.

It has to be nerve racking when everyone in the world is judging each word you say or don't say.

Romney seemed more comfy, but that doesn't mean he should have a vote because he is comfy.

Maybe it is Romney's comfort zone to lie and bs the American people.

Is the best Bs'er the way to go? I dunno.

ETA: Remembering Bush's excitement for the shock and awe on March...cant remember date now but I think it was the 3rd. He was soooo excited to show us the newest bomb. It was pretty sinister if ya ask me. Really weird that the people even loved the excitement and its like the American people were supposed to get coke and popcorn out for the event.

I want a president who loves human kind and is not bought and paid for. Who is he, that is not bought and paid for?

reply to post by elrem48


OK. I can respect that. I feel the same way.
I don't imagine it can continue unchallenged or unchanged for much longer. People are a lot smarter than they used to be although immediately this does not appear evident. They are. People are casting around for a solution. I can hear the gears grinding and see the smoke.

Originally posted by Hefficide

You do realize that Obamacare was predated and inspired by "Romneycare"?

So let me ask you some questions Heff... Do you like the idea of federal programs push down every American's throat in some kind of totalitarian government scenario? Did our forefathers dream of a totalitarian government when they created America? Are we a Democracy or a Republic in your eyes?

When we talk about Obamacare and Romneycare they are two totally different animals...one is based on a Democracy and the other is based on a Republic. There is a reason why every state has its own President in the form of a Governor, and every state has its own military. There is good reason why we should let each state determine what is best for them by keeping these programs at the state level.

Quote

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

It is this that people have such a hard time understanding in that Romneycare at the state level is a great thing if THAT state so deems it right, and Obamacare is so wrong and goes against everything our forefather versioned for America.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Well, except that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Source

Means that the argument you propose was settled some 144 years ago or so. The Fourteenth Amendment has been created, reviewed, ratified, signed into law, and held up in the Supreme Court - meaning it has passed all checks and balances.

It is law and it supersedes any "State rights".

~Heff

Originally posted by MamaJ


Obama is an assassin. He is not one to talk the talk... he just makes up his mind (and is in some ways stubborn) and takes action. Its as if his opinion is right, therefore the way to go.

When you think about it the one thing that made Clinton and Reagan great was their ability to work with a congress that was a majority of the other party. With Obama even when he had congress for two years that would pass anything he put in front of them he screwed up, and now will not move an inch with one that is not a majority of this party.

This is where his true narcissistic personally comes into play. It is his way or the highway since he "knows" he is the smartest man in Washington...just ask him. His inability to work with congress has created a lame duck Government and we will see the same for the next four years.

He can't change in some magical way, he can't all of a sudden "get it", he can't fumble America's football for four years and now can say I have OJT and will do a good job...that is the problem here is he can't....

I love presidential posts and what not, it is always funny when people start blaming someone who has absolutely no control or say on any matter whats so ever. You people take these faces and dedicate you time talking and discussing an actor on stage who you all believe to actually be a man in power, hahahaha, LOVE IT!!!

Seriously people, they are all actors and US does not have the strongest army as well, if someone wanted to invade your country it would have been done a long time ago, the only thing US is good at, and many other countries, is sustaining a war for profit, never winning or loosing. (and please do not tell me US won WW2, bunch of baloney)

You are all entertained by these elections? is it fun to watch and make for good arguments away from the tele? Of course it is, it is a show that actors are playing out, and very well i might add, its just shocking how all of you believe that these people are somehow related or close to you, what a joke.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Well, except that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Source

Means that the argument you propose was settled some 144 years ago or so. The Fourteenth Amendment has been created, reviewed, ratified, signed into law, and held up in the Supreme Court - meaning it has passed all checks and balances.

It is law and it supersedes any "State rights".

Work with me here Heff...I'm missing your point.

The 14th Amendment was passed to protect all naturally born citizens (i.e. slaves mostly in this case) to say all Americans are equal under the law.

The point is how does this transferred to the State having no rights and we are now a full blown Democery?

quote

This clause forbids a state from unjustly depriving citizens from other states of any rights derived from state citizenship solely on the basis of nonresidence. Yet the Supreme Court has never interpreted it to preclude all deferential treatment of in-state citizens. As a result, the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not bar differential state standards governing the practice of certain professions. Out-of-state doctors, lawyers, and other professionals may be required to prove their competency based on standards that are higher than those applied to their in-state counterparts.

The Supreme Court has narrowly construed the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873). The case involved a Louisiana state law that gave one meat company the exclusive right to slaughter livestock in New Orleans. Other packing companies were required to pay a fee for using the slaughterhouses. These companies filed suit, claiming that the law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court upheld the Louisiana Monopoly law, ruling that the Privileges and Immunities Clause had limited effect because it reached only privileges and immunities guaranteed by U.S. citizenship, not state citizenship. Because the law in question dealt with states' rights, the Fourteenth Amendment had no effect.

The Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to grant former slaves legal equality, not to grant expanded rights to the general population. In addition, the Court was concerned that a broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment would give too much power to the federal government and distort the concept of Federalism, which grants the states a large measure of power and autonomy.

The Court has consistently followed the restrictive interpretation given the Privileges and Immunities Clause by this decision. The clause has little significance today in invalidating state statutes that present a constitutional question. When state laws infringe the fundamental rights of U.S. citizenship, the Court usually invokes the Equal Protection Clause to analyze the constitutionality of the state action.

The Artical 4 and the 14th Amendment has little consequences in how you are suggesting it does.

So you still need to answer my questions.... Are we a Democracy or a Republic and do you like the idea we are heading in the direction of a totalitarian state?

Originally posted by MamaJ
I want a president who loves human kind and is not bought and paid for. Who is he, that is not bought and paid for?

I would answer your question with "Jesse Ventura" if he decides to run in 2016.