• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DC Turns On Obama

The Prof said:
Behind the Curtain: D.C. turns on Obama - POLITICO.com

i haven't said a word

joust with the journolisters
Click to expand...

Republicans will be republicans and democrats, democrats. With the president being a democrat you know the Republicans will be outraged and the democrats will be in the defending mode calling every thing a witch hunt. That is except the IRS scandal which has both sides of the aisle outraged as the IRS hold so much power, pretty much unchecked power unless both parties unite against them and this seems the case here.

But back to republicans being republicans and democrats, democrats. I like to ignore them and look at the independent voters and how they are reacting to the last two scandals, Benghazi and the AP phone taps. For most it is ho hum, it is time to make a living or watch some reality TV or a baseball game. But I think the president has taken a hit among the indies, but to make sure we will have to wait for gallup to publish their weekly poll on Monday which includes independent as a sub group on his approval ratings. It stands at 45% for the week of 5-12 may. Just a few points down from the 48% last November and 3 points up from President Obama's low figure of 42% which has been reached numerous times since last November.

I do not think most independents really know what to make about Benghazi, but the AP phone taps may turn some of them off as it smacks of government doing just about as they please. It is actions like this they can relate to, along with the IRS, that evil big brother. So the question is will independents take the Democrat's outrage, President's Obama's outrage at the IRS as being serious? Time will tell as with the AP story. But without figures until Monday, in my gut I feel the President has taken a hit, whether it will be lasting or not, no one knows at this time.
 
Fenton said:
He agreed with you but with qualifiers.
Click to expand...

His qualifier was "but there's a lot of information missing." Non partisan hacks often have a habit of wanting more information before leaping to conclusions. I respect that, but me? I'll go out on a limb enough to say that tapping AP's phones and emails is dirty as hell, but it's important to remember that it also follows in the tradition set up by Bush with warrantless wiretaps, and conservatives thought that was just okey dokey.

The truth is that as disappointing as Obama is in the arena of privacy and civil liberties, the right consistently avoids offering up an electable candidate as an alternative. Until then, it is, sadly, a wash.
 
Cardinal said:
If it's not concrete information, it's flibble flabble. All of the above is also an excellent example of flibble flabble.

I can already see from your posts that I could spend the next eight pages criticizing Obama's presidency, but ask for just one tangible connection between him and the IRS story and I'm "Obama's butt boy."
Click to expand...

IT happened on his watch, BUT I suppose the buck doesn't stop with this President.

If I criticize this President, I give reasons. So I'm not simply a partisan ranting, I didn't vote for him, and the his policies have led to near economic ruin for our Country and have effected people I know personally.

If you want to debate the specifics of any of my criticisms then let's go. Personally I don't like liars, people that think so less of you they would look you in the face and make false statements assuming your'e dim witted enough to accept their misinformation. A President who is a nearly pathological liar, must think the majority of Americans are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Up until now he's had good reason to think that.

I expect the leader of the free world NOT to have the Character of a Meth Addict, not to lie to to protect his ass or his cabinets ass when something is clearly awry. To have the integrity to stand up and lead, which means accepting responsibility for your actions......( there is no way he "went to bed" during the 9 hour Benghazi Circus )

The thing is, we warned you folks. 2007-8. Remember ? I mean in walks a Junior Senator with radical ties, past affiliations to radical groups, who immediately starts lying to the voters.

About Reverend Wright. Of course he sat in those pews for 20 years but never heard anything questionable. Who lied about his association with Bill Ayers.
Unbelievable. HE WROTE TWO BOOKS ( had written ) and none of the low information voters payed any attention to any of it. The Constitution " was a charter of negative liberties " ???? Fuc*** REALLY ???!!

So don't be surprised after 4.5 years of economic destruction when 3 huge scandals pop up and the best The President of the United States of America can do is to ....lie to save his sorry ass.

You folks claimed GW Bush did almost irreparable damage to the US's standing in the World. Bull Sh** ! Obama is a joke internationally now. Now Hillary has exposed herself as a low life too, putting her political aspirations ahead of the truth about four dead Americans.
 
Cardinal said:
Benghazi isn't a scandal, but his response to it sure does feed those who think it is. Obama is utter crap at crisis response and damage control. He couldn't decide what the talking point after the attack should be, and couldn't get everyone in his administration on the same page so that six people were saying eight different things. It was embarrassing to watch, I admit.
Click to expand...


It's not up to you to make that assertion. Here is the deal......Listen Closely......DAMAGE CONTROL SHOULDN'T MEAN LYING TO 300 MILLION AMERICANS....AND THE FAMILIES OF THOSE KILLED BECAUSE IT WAS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT.

Unbelievable. You think Benghazi was simply mishandled in reference to crisis management ??? No wonder you think it's not scandal worthy. You've justified down the killing of four Americans to a benign crisis management issue.

Thankfully, it's not up to you to determine whether or not it's scandal worthy. Here's the proof to it's scandal worthiness...well just one of the many. If the Democrats held the House and the Senate, it would still be about a video.
 
President Obama "obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch," Chris Matthews said tonight.

Yes, you read that right: The MSNBC host who in 2008 felt a "thrill going up my leg" after hearing Obama speak has grown disenchanted. Tonight's episode of Hardball saw Matthews delivering a rare, unforgiving grilling of the president as severe as anything that might appear on Fox News.

"What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing with other politicians -- that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft," Matthews said.

"So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning, visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or somewhere," Matthews continued. "But what part does he like? He doesn't like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn't like selling to the press. He doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn't seem to like being an executive.”

On Tuesday's program, Matthews similarly called Obama "a ship with the engine off."
Click to expand...

Chris Matthews sours on Obama - POLITICO.com
 
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that he believes President Barack Obama owes the American public explanations for both the seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Department of Justice and the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

“I don’t think anyone truly believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer for America, much less the press,” Rangel said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think this is just the beginning and the whole idea of comparing this with Nixon, I really think is just, it doesn’t make much sense. But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans, including me: What was this national security question? You just can’t raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason and the same thing applies to the IRS.”

Rangel is a member of the House Ways And Means Committee, which will hold a hearing on why the IRS gave tougher scrutiny to conservative groups’ non-profits applications on Friday morning.

“In Watergate, Senator Baker said it all, everybody uses this: ‘What did he know and when did he know it?’” Rangel said. “I am confident that the President is angry as hell about this, as he should be. The IRS is no place for partisanship, Democrat or Republican.”
Click to expand...

Charlie Rangel: Obama answers not enough - POLITICO.com

msnbc, believe me, has been twice as tuff on obama this week as the neanderthal network

there's nothing like betrayal

Joe Scarborough Blows Up At David Axelrod Over AP (VIDEO)

barack obama---he'll break your heart
 
Fenton said:
Unbelievable. You think Benghazi was simply mishandled in reference to crisis management ???
Click to expand...

Yes. The military doesn't have the manpower to grant every request to every embassy for more resources. A tragedy happened, people were killed, and instead of responding to it somberly and with respect Obama freaked out and panicked. As I said, it was embarrassing to watch.

Dont' know where the hell you got "benign" from.
 
Fenton said:
IT happened on his watch, BUT I suppose the buck doesn't stop with this President.

If I criticize this President, I give reasons. So I'm not simply a partisan ranting, I didn't vote for him, and the his policies have led to near economic ruin for our Country and have effected people I know personally.

If you want to debate the specifics of any of my criticisms then let's go. Personally I don't like liars, people that think so less of you they would look you in the face and make false statements assuming your'e dim witted enough to accept their misinformation. A President who is a nearly pathological liar, must think the majority of Americans are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Up until now he's had good reason to think that.

I expect the leader of the free world NOT to have the Character of a Meth Addict, not to lie to to protect his ass or his cabinets ass when something is clearly awry. To have the integrity to stand up and lead, which means accepting responsibility for your actions......( there is no way he "went to bed" during the 9 hour Benghazi Circus )

The thing is, we warned you folks. 2007-8. Remember ? I mean in walks a Junior Senator with radical ties, past affiliations to radical groups, who immediately starts lying to the voters.

About Reverend Wright. Of course he sat in those pews for 20 years but never heard anything questionable. Who lied about his association with Bill Ayers.
Unbelievable. HE WROTE TWO BOOKS ( had written ) and none of the low information voters payed any attention to any of it. The Constitution " was a charter of negative liberties " ???? Fuc*** REALLY ???!!

So don't be surprised after 4.5 years of economic destruction when 3 huge scandals pop up and the best The President of the United States of America can do is to ....lie to save his sorry ass.

You folks claimed GW Bush did almost irreparable damage to the US's standing in the World. Bull Sh** ! Obama is a joke internationally now. Now Hillary has exposed herself as a low life too, putting her political aspirations ahead of the truth about four dead Americans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this post is pretty crazy.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes. The military doesn't have the manpower to grant every request to every embassy for more resources. A tragedy happened, people were killed, and instead of responding to it somberly and with respect Obama freaked out and panicked. As I said, it was embarrassing to watch.

Dont' know where the hell you got "benign" from.
Click to expand...

After a 12 foot hole was blown in their perimeter wall...IN JUNE ? After repeated request for more security ? After other Western Nations had pulled their personnel out ? The most powerful, technologically advanced military in the world, couldn't protect that one Consulate ?

You realize how ridiculous that sounds don't you ?

Valerie Jarret was at the time walking around with more security personnel than the Libyan Consulate AFTER a terrorist attack on their compound wall. Unbelievable.

Your'e not making any sense.
 
Valerie Jarret was at the time walking around with more security personnel than the Libyan Consulate AFTER a terrorist attack on their compound wall
Click to expand...

according to nyt 10 days before ambassador stevens was assassinated what you are saying is true

A case in point is her full-time Secret Service detail. The White House refuses to disclose the number of agents or their cost, citing security concerns. But the appearance so worried some aides that two were dispatched to urge her to give the detail up.

She listened politely, one said, but the agents stayed.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/u...power-in-the-west-wing.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
 
Cardinal said:
Yes. The military doesn't have the manpower to grant every request to every embassy for more resources. A tragedy happened, people were killed, and instead of responding to it somberly and with respect Obama freaked out and panicked. As I said, it was embarrassing to watch.

Dont' know where the hell you got "benign" from.
Click to expand...

Yes, and no. A tragedy was exacerbated, and then the administration was in the middle of an election, and decided it couldn't afford bad press. Lies compounded the original and then real-time errors.
 
cpwill said:
Yes, and no. A tragedy was exacerbated, and then the administration was in the middle of an election, and decided it couldn't afford bad press. Lies compounded the original and then real-time errors.
Click to expand...

What is really embarrassing is to watch Obama in the midst of all this. Today in the Rose Garden he joked and made small talk with and about a couple of uniformed Marines as though everything was fine, just another cookout at the big house. Yesterday I watched a clip from Jon Stewart (who is funny no matter who his target is and is actually pretty politically sharp) with a montage of Obama on 4 different occasions over the past year relaxed and calm telling reporters that he has no knowledge of (whatever today's scandal is) and that he finds out about them the same we do... on the news. Flat out straight faced lying. And yet his worshipers (because that is the only way to describe those who so adamantly defend him no matter what he does) are blind to any consequences of his decisions to the point of dismissing the lost lives of Americans, short or long term.
 
tererun said:
At least they found a new scandal to latch onto. This one is much better anyway, because no one likes the IRS so associating obama with that ends up being much better for them. Still nothing on the illegal front for obama, but this will certainly make sure he doesn't get elected next time. you guys have totally stopped his chances in 2016. Congratulations you have done well, and all of that effort has been well worth this hard won victory for you.
Click to expand...

Just how many more shoes will drop? Benghazi will not go away, and I hope that the illegal AP wiretapping along with the IRS scandal grow and finally expose this corrupt government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom