Quote from: Purplelady1040 on April 20, 2014, 08:00:38 PM
No, I didn't vote for Obama this last time because he has had 4 years to get the country in shape and couldn't do it. Every single one of his plans are a failure.
Don't take this personal, PL, but just as an example of a mindset.
<short rant>
I don't get it how SO many Americans evince the appearance of ignorance of how our Government actually works. Did no one EVER take Government/Civics etc. in High School? Does no one understand the Separation of Powers or the functions of our three part Government? How can we govern ourselves if we don't know squat about our Government and how it works?
</rant>
The President - in this case Barack Obama - only has the real power to: (a) sign or veto legislation; (b) use Executive Order; (c) direct the Military; (d) propose legislation; (e) use the Presidential 'Bully Pulpit'.
All his 'plans' - read: propose legislation - require the two Houses of Congress to work with him and NOT against him. That, has hardly happened. In fact, especially the House of Representatives, Congress has far more often than not worked directly against him. Therefore, the President's plans coming to failure is actually the failure of the Congress -again, especially the House of Representatives - not the failure of the President.
Now you might say - and the RW often touts this - that it's the President's failure to 'work' with Congress, but a President cannot work with an opposition directly and concretely set against anything and everything a President proposes.
There are always things to be criticized about every President, and this President is no exception, but that his plans are failures is not one of them.
As far as 'whipping this Country into shape', once again, the President only proposes legislation. It is up to the Congress to create and enact legislation. Once again, not the President's failure due to the same reasons outlined above.
Therefore, the 'reasoning' and 'logic' in the quoted post at the top is faulty, and not a reasonable conclusion to prevent voting for the re-election of President Obama.
No dissenters? Nice to know my argument was that compelling! :biggrin:
It would be nice if he would stay in Washington instead of going around making stump speeches and taking vacations and do what he is supposed to be doing. He is a delegater not a leader.
Quote from: me on April 29, 2014, 10:00:02 PM
It would be nice if he would stay in Washington instead of going around making stump speeches and taking vacations and do what he is supposed to be doing. He is a delegater not a leader.
Honey Buns, just how many vacations did George W. take to cut wood and drive his truck around the ranch. And he was the decider. :haha: Just like Henry you don't know shit. :rolleyes:
:pink: :pink: :zoners: :pink: :pink:
Quote from: me on April 29, 2014, 10:00:02 PM
It would be nice if he would stay in Washington instead of going around making stump speeches and taking vacations and do what he is supposed to be doing. He is a delegater not a leader.
Never let facts stand in your way. :rolleyes:
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=11135
Obama's average of 21.5 vacation days per year makes him look like a workaholic compared to Bush's 110 day average per year – more than five times Obama's.
I am so sure of myself, I'll will bet anyone on the Unknown Zone $100, the Republican attempts to make something out of Benghazi :kooks: trial will fail. :yes: :yes: :biggrin:
Quote from: Y on May 11, 2014, 03:06:44 PM
Never let facts stand in your way. :rolleyes:
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=11135
Obama's average of 21.5 vacation days per year makes him look like a workaholic compared to Bush's 110 day average per year – more than five times Obama's.
Bush was at his ranch and he was conducting business from there. He never went on a vacation where the press wasn't allowed and he was always able to be reached during a crisis.
Quote from: me on May 12, 2014, 07:58:17 AM
Bush was at his ranch...
Quote from: me on April 29, 2014, 10:00:02 PM
It would be nice if he would stay in Washington...
Was Bush's ranch in Washington?
Quote from: Exterminator on May 12, 2014, 09:01:43 AM
Was Bush's ranch in Washington?
If he was conducting business it doesn't matter. Did the press still have access to him? Yes Was he always there when a crisis arose? Yes Were his whereabouts ever in question? No
Quote from: me on May 12, 2014, 10:07:18 AM
If he was conducting business it doesn't matter.
And you would know this how?
QuoteDid the press still have access to him? Yes Was he always there when a crisis arose? Yes Were his whereabouts ever in question? No
Whatever...you clearly have different rules for the two of them...just more of your racist bullshit.
Quote from: me on May 12, 2014, 10:07:18 AM
If he was conducting business it doesn't matter. Did the press still have access to him? Yes Was he always there when a crisis arose? Yes Were his whereabouts ever in question? No
Can you name a crisis when Obama wasn't available?
When have Obama's whereabouts ever been in question?
Quote from: Bo D on May 12, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
Can you name a crisis when Obama wasn't available?
When have Obama's whereabouts ever been in question?
Benghazi Nuf said?
Quote from: me on May 12, 2014, 01:35:45 PM
Benghazi Nuf said?
No! Not enough said! I ask again ....
Can you name a crisis when Obama wasn't available? Give me proof that Obama "wasn't available"
When have Obama's whereabouts ever been in question? Give me rational proof if that's possible with you.
Quote from: me on May 12, 2014, 01:35:45 PM
Benghazi Nuf said?
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0118/59494_cartoon_main.jpg?204)
Quote from: me on May 12, 2014, 01:35:45 PM
Benghazi Nuf said?
Hey Numb Nuts, you want to bet a hundred dollar bill that your Benghazi Witch Trial will prove that Hillery or Obama could have done something to prevent this. Or caused it. :confused:
Don't be a chicken shit, put up some money or SHUT UP, Mrs. Mumbie. :haha: :haha:
Quote from: Bo D on May 12, 2014, 02:07:55 PM
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0118/59494_cartoon_main.jpg?204)
How soon they forget.
At least Reagan could be found and took action immediately. My SIL was there and part of an amphib assult unit so don't even try to give me news accounts which may or may not be accurate depending on your source. Also pointing the finger at something that happened years ago does not excuse what happened in Benghazi it is two totally separate and different things.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2014, 10:40:47 AM
At least Reagan could be found and took action immediately.
What should Obama have done that he did not?
QuoteMy SIL was there and part of an amphib assult unit so don't even try to give me news accounts which may or may not be accurate depending on your source.
Are we supposed to be impressed (if this is even true)?
QuoteAlso pointing the finger at something that happened years ago does not excuse what happened in Benghazi it is two totally separate and different things.
Yep, completely different. Four people killed in a pretty much unpreventable attack vs. hundreds killed my missiles illegally sold to a country against which there was an arms embargo. Amazing what a white guy can get away with; isn't it?
Quote from: Exterminator on May 13, 2014, 10:58:25 AM
What should Obama have done that he did not?
Telling the truth about it being a terrorist attack instead of lying about it being because of some stupid film would have been helpful for starters.
Are we supposed to be impressed (if this is even true)?
No, and it is true. He had a front row seat and knew what was going on and how it was handled.
Yep, completely different. Four people killed in a pretty much unpreventable attack vs. hundreds killed my missiles illegally sold to a country against which there was an arms embargo. Amazing what a white guy can get away with; isn't it?
Unpreventable attack? The anniversary of 9/11, extra protection was requested and ignored, Obama was unavailable, the cause was lied about from the get go, help was not sent even after the attack started and no one wants to talk about it. Like old Hillary said, "At this point what difference does it make", pretty uncaring if ya ask me. It makes a lot of difference to the families involved.
I know you won't give two licks about my opinion, but I think the REAL controversy regarding Benghazi has MORE to do with the way it was all handled.
If the four deaths could have been prevented was NOT the real question....it was the phony, BS that the attack was because of a movie. I think it was close to an election, and they (the WH) was in no position for any negative press.......so, the developed a lie.
I'm sure that Obama did NOT want anybody to die.....I think he had other things on his mind (an election) that kept him from focusing on the severity of this event.
The WH did what they felt was proper to keep bad press away at this crucial point of the election season.
All in all, just another reason I think POTUS Obama is NOT a good leader. I think we as a nation are lacking in that department in finding a REAL leader (from both sides of the aisle).
Do you two live under a rock? (http://rt.com/usa/benghazi-consulate-al-qaeda-929/)
Quote from: Exterminator on May 13, 2014, 12:42:37 PM
Do you two live under a rock? (http://rt.com/usa/benghazi-consulate-al-qaeda-929/)
You really need to take off those blinders Ex.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2014, 12:45:48 PM
You really need to take off those blinders Ex.
Perhaps you should tell the bipartisan Senate committee that investigated the attack that they need to take off their blinders as well. (http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/15/fox-benghazi-myths-dispelled-by-new-bipartisan/197609)
Do you live under a rock? (http://time.com/89144/a-benghazi-scandal-thats-already-been-revealed-the-cia-believed-a-media-mistake/)
on Sept 15 the CIA's chief of station in Tripoli sent top CIA officials an e-mail that said the attacks were "not/not an escalation of protests"
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 13, 2014, 12:59:08 PM
on Sept 15 the CIA's chief of station in Tripoli sent top CIA officials an e-mail that said the attacks were "not/not an escalation of protests"
That has since been disproven. :rolleyes:
"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning." [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 13, 2014, 12:39:52 PM
I think it was close to an election, and they (the WH) was in no position for any negative press.......so, the developed a lie.
"The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, "They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking points-go through." In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination. Furthermore, such coordination processes were also standardized, often at the urging of Congress, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the explicit goal of reducing information "stovepipes" between and among agencies." [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Quote from: Exterminator on May 13, 2014, 01:17:08 PM
"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning." [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Really? THAT is your evidence that what a TOP CIA official stated had been disproven?
He clearly stated
the attacks were "not/not an escalation of protests"
"Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." -- New York Times Investigation (http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0)
Quote from: Exterminator on May 13, 2014, 01:27:19 PM
"Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." -- New York Times Investigation (http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0)
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi
By David D. Kirkpatrick
December 28, 2013
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 13, 2014, 12:59:08 PM
Do you live under a rock? (http://time.com/89144/a-benghazi-scandal-thats-already-been-revealed-the-cia-believed-a-media-mistake/)
on Sept 15 the CIA's chief of station in Tripoli sent top CIA officials an e-mail that said the attacks were "not/not an escalation of protests"
A Benghazi Scandal That's Already Been Revealed: The CIA Believed A Media Mistake
Massimo Calabresi @calabresim
May 8, 2014
What I heard speculated late last week which makes sense and is supported by interviews with Libyans who were there is that is was probably a combination of both. There were protests all over the middle east over the movie and there was reportedly a small one in Benghazi as well. Heavily armed militants then took advantage of that chaos to launch their attack.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 13, 2014, 03:57:11 PM
What I heard speculated late last week which makes sense and is supported by interviews with Libyans who were there is that is was probably a combination of both. There were protests all over the middle east over the movie and there was reportedly a small one in Benghazi as well. Heavily armed militants then took advantage of that chaos to launch their attack.
Now that sounds reasonable...which is why I think, the WH was playing politics........and I know it works both ways.....but, at the time they RAN with the story of the movie as to the sole reason. Obama was tight in the polls and something like a terrorist attack would/could have been devastating to his re-election.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 13, 2014, 04:16:14 PM
Now that sounds reasonable...which is why I think, the WH was playing politics........and I know it works both ways.....but, at the time they RAN with the story of the movie as to the sole reason. Obama was tight in the polls and something like a terrorist attack would/could have been devastating to his re-election.
I don't think he was quite as tight in the polls as you thought at the time. :no: :razz: :biggrin:
Quote from: Locutus on May 13, 2014, 04:22:15 PM
I don't think he was quite as tight in the polls as you thought at the time. :no: :razz: :biggrin:
Yeah, I think it WAS indeed VERY freakin tight...in several states. Florida is one that was very close as was Ohio...but THIS is an argument for another time and place.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 13, 2014, 04:43:26 PM
Yeah, I think it WAS indeed VERY freakin tight...in several states. Florida is one that was very close as was Ohio...but THIS is an argument for another time and place.
:no: ;D
Quote from: me on May 12, 2014, 07:58:17 AM
Bush was at his ranch and he was conducting business from there. He never went on a vacation where the press wasn't allowed and he was always able to be reached during a crisis.
http://youtu.be/jOjfxEejS2Y
:koolaid:
Quote from: Huntington Guy on May 17, 2014, 10:38:49 PM
http://youtu.be/jOjfxEejS2Y
:koolaid:
Love Will Ferrell!!! :yes:
:biggrin:
Quote from: Huntington Guy on May 17, 2014, 10:38:49 PM
http://youtu.be/jOjfxEejS2Y
:koolaid:
Spoof by Will Ferrell
https://www.youtube.com/v/l_YAxCACz-8
https://www.youtube.com/v/_OgkrEXQCVA
Quote from: me on May 18, 2014, 01:25:26 PM
https://www.youtube.com/v/l_YAxCACz-8
:rolleyes: :kickcan: