Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;917749 wrote:Yeah Obama is kicking ass. Assassinating U.S. citizens without due process is always a great thing. The founders of this country would be thrilled.

  Technically you are correct. What was meant by declaring a formal state of war is that the civilian code of justice would be under suspension for those supporting the entity that war was declared against. Without congresses support in declaring that state or maintaining it who knows what this could morph into.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;917676 wrote:Can at the very least, we all agree that the President is kicking ass on the terrorism front?
  Al-Aulaqi and his number killed in a drone strike.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/eveningnews/main20114151.shtml
  
  I'm shocked this isn't a bigger story on here. This is basically the biggest leader of AQAP and behind the other attacks against the U.S.

  Eh...The Bammer is Commander-in-Chief but I'll give our military the kudos for this. I'd say the same if "W" was still in office.
  
  Bush's policies set the wheels in motion on the War on Terrorism. It's taken time but the military has slowly worn down the AQ infrastructure. BHO is simply in the right place at the right time.
  
  Considering Barry's political situation, it's a no-brainer for him to give the nod to this kind of thing.
• wkfan

  believer;917978 wrote:Eh...The Bammer is Commander-in-Chief but I'll give our military the kudos for this. I'd say the same if "W" was still in office.
  
  Bush's policies set the wheels in motion on the War on Terrorism. It's taken time but the military has slowly worn down the AQ infrastructure. BHO is simply in the right place at the right time.
  
  Considering Barry's political situation, it's a no-brainer for him to give the nod to this kind of thing.

  Isn't it funny how quick BHO is to blame the 'previous administration'.....yes, he never give credit to them.
  
  huh??
• Writerbuckeye

  

  For someone who was as critical of the US wars as Obama when he wasn't in office, he sure has become a killing machine while in the White House.
  
  I don't have a problem with it, and agree we should be killing these scumbags. But it just seems a wee bit hypocritical that Obama's administration at one point was so concerned with making sure terrorists had their day in court, but he has no problem with blowing them away using drones. Remember, this is the same guy who was critical of the last administration for "torturing" prisoners. I guess he figures killing them isn't torture -- and technically he's right.
  
  I'd prefer not to give them a platform to spew their vile views, either, by capturing them and putting them on trial. So the more guts he wants to splatter over there is just fine with me.
• fish82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;917676 wrote:Can at the very least, we all agree that the President is kicking ass on the terrorism front?
  Al-Aulaqi and his number killed in a drone strike.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/eveningnews/main20114151.shtml
  
  I'm shocked this isn't a bigger story on here. This is basically the biggest leader of AQAP and behind the other attacks against the U.S.

  He's doing well at continuing most of the policies he "inherited." "Kicking ass" is a bit of a reach.
• believer

  

  I'm all for Obama approving the use of drones and wiping this human filth from the face of the planet. But he is, in fact, a hypocrite when he does so.
  
  He campaigned on getting us out of the wars, closing GITMO, and never supported the War on Terror when he was in the Senate.
  
  Either Barry has been "enlightened" since he took office or he's taken a play out the Clinton game plan by deciding to be the consummate politician as long as it saves his political ass.
  
  It's a stretch for me to give BHO much credit for military successes.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I'm perplexed as to the regime's stance on America's place in the world:
  
  1. He is acting like a Commander In Chief in a military war: Searching out the enemy, defining targets, and executing a war strategy. Problem - he has declared the War on Terror over and therefore is not in charge of a war effort. Which is it, Barry? Are we in a war or aren't we? Can't have it both ways.
  
  2. If Anwar Al-a-whackjob had surrendered, then he would have been brought to Gitmo and been touted for a criminal trial, not a military tribunal. Once again...are we in a war or not? Why are Barry and Holder hell bent on closing down the military prison and wanting to treat those involved in terrorism as common criminals and then they go after them as military targets and take on the roles of judge, jury, and executioner??? Which is it, Barry?
  
  3. Barry represents the Democratic Party. They have a long standing belief that the USA is not the world's policeman. Aren't these drone flights looking just like we are trying to police the world of terrorists? Which is it, Barry?
  
  While I believe Mr. Al-a-whackjob deserves his meeting at the pearly gates with St. Peter without any virgins, I'm not sure if this was state-sponsored assassination or an act of war. Which was it, Barry?
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;918095 wrote:While I believe Mr. Al-a-whackjob deserves his meeting at the pearly gates with St. Peter without any virgins, I'm not sure if this was state-sponsored assassination or an act of war. Which was it, Barry?

  I doubt Peter is meeting this slime at the pearly gates but I'm confident he's been introduced to the pits of hell. I'm pretty sure there aren't any virgins there.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Asian markets getting destroyed. Hang Seng (Hong Kong) down 4.5%+, this does not bode well for the final quarter of FY '11. Where is the growth? The hope and change? I'm being facetious of course. It was all a facade.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;920384 wrote:Asian markets getting destroyed. Hang Seng (Hong Kong) down 4.5%+, this does not bode well for the final quarter of FY '11. Where is the growth? The hope and change? I'm being facetious of course. It was all a facade.

  Funny you should mention it. The moronic "Wall Street Protesters" are actually wanting MORE Obama and a totalitarian gubmint to "right the ship."
  
  Are these people for real?
  
  http://www.infowars.com/occupy-wall-street-protesters-call-totalitarian-government-re-election-of-obama/
  

  The zeal for totalitarian government amongst some of the “protesters” is shocking. One sign being carried around read, “A government is an entity which holds the monopolistic right to initiate force,” which seems a little ironic when protesters complain about being physically assaulted by police in the same breath.

  Idiots......
• gut

  Well, that explain some of the people who, shockingly, have already decided to vote for Obama. I can't figure that one out. It's not that I hate Obama, I just think he's a failure and I'm "hoping for change". I'd consider voting for a blind monkey instead, just on the basis it probably couldn't be any worse or less effective.
• QuakerOats

  [h=3]Recent NLRB Rulings Raise "Doubts About Its Fairness," President/CEO Of James Madison Institute Writes.[/h]In a blog post on WCTV-TV's Tallahassee, FL (9/30) website, Dr. J. Robert McClure President and CEO of the James Madison Institute, wrote that "recent edicts by the NLRB's General Counsel and the Obama-appointed majority have raised doubts about its fairness. Worse, these edicts fit a troubling pattern in which the Administration – unable to get all of its proposals through Congress – tries to govern by administrative fiat." Perhaps the board's "most notorious ruling, however, was its recent decision preventing Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. Unfortunately that wasn't the NLRB's primary outrage; it also wants to authorize what employers rightly term 'ambush elections' for union representation." McClure wrote, "Consider, for example, the comment of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which represents a major group of job-creating employers: 'The proposed rules impair the right and the ability of employees to make an informed choice ... and deny employers their ... rights to communicate vital information to their employees regarding unionization.'"
  
  
  
  Change we can believe in .........
• BGFalcons82

  

  Here we go again, Boatshoes - http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/10/03/obama-says-he-can-stop-bank-america-making-certain-amount-profit
  
  Another day, another example of socialist/communist thinking from the regime. This time, from his own lips.
  
  In layman's terms, he's convinced the governmental should exert control over a bank's right to charge fees for using their services. Tsk tsk tsk.
• jmog

  Whats funny is that I am the first to say BoA will lose a bunch of business over this STUPID move. But what a surprise that Obama makes a VERY socialistic statement. The government shouldn't tell BoA what fees it can charge, people leaving BoA should tell BoA what it can charge.
• gut

  QuakerOats;920457 wrote:Worse, these edicts fit a troubling pattern in which the Administration – unable to get all of its proposals through Congress – tries to govern by administrative fiat."

  Oh, that's right...I'd forgotten all about Obama's 5-dozen or so specially appointed "czars".
• iclfan2

  

  BGFalcons82;920856 wrote:Here we go again, Boatshoes - http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/10/03/obama-says-he-can-stop-bank-america-making-certain-amount-profit
  
  Another day, another example of socialist/communist thinking from the regime. This time, from his own lips.
  
  In layman's terms, he's convinced the governmental should exert control over a bank's right to charge fees for using their services. Tsk tsk tsk.

  WOW! "You don’t have some inherent right just to get a certain amount of profit if your customers are being mistreated," he said in an interview with ABC News. Are you kidding? The whole point of a business is to make a profit. The point of the free market is that if the customers don't like it, they can leave.
  [LEFT]
  [/LEFT]
• gut

  iclfan2;921068 wrote: The whole point of a business is to make a profit.

  Public servant has never run a business for profit. He thinks you should give shit away and write-off the loss on the rich. "We'll just keep printing money...and the 95% of people with no money - i.e. non-millionaires - couldn't care less.
• believer

  

  iclfan2;921068 wrote:WOW! "You don’t have some inherent right just to get a certain amount of profit if your customers are being mistreated," he said in an interview with ABC News. Are you kidding? The whole point of a business is to make a profit. The point of the free market is that if the customers don't like it, they can leave.

  No, he's not kidding. The folks on here who get their panties in a twist when we label BHO a "socialist" should take note.
  
  Obama loathes capitalism. He was born into socialism and has been surrounded by socialists (and a few bona fide commies) his entire political career. It's what he knows and what he believes.
  
  He clearly sees PROFIT as eeeeevil and something that needs to stop. He is ignorant of the fact that profit is the primary goal of business and that without it businesses don't grow, people don't have jobs, and fewer taxes are collected to fund his Big Government is good government machine.
  
  He also doesn't understand basic capitalist principles. If I think your product is priced too high I simply choose not to buy and seek the product at a lower price from a competitor. Whatever the market will bear.
  
  His wife doesn't mind practicing these principles during photo ops at Target. I wonder if Wal Mart execs appreciated Target's free exposure?
• BGFalcons82

  

  Another day, another communist in the Democrat Party - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/major-democratic-fundraiser-at-van-jones%e2%80%98-take-back-the-american-dream-conference-the-american-dream-is-totally-about-sharing-and-redistributing-the-wealth-because-free-houses-and-healthcare/
  
  These are really too easy to find, Boat. I'll save you a few seconds...go to the 0:45 mark to learn about her utopia.
  
  If you listen, you can hear their words.
• pmoney25

  

  As much as I dislike Obama, some of you are reaching way too far with this commie thing. While I think his idea of what will fix America is wrong. I do not believe he is a Commie or has governed as one.
  
  Also some of you guys have so much blind faith in Corporations, it is disturbing. Take BoA for example, all they are doing is leading the way, once other banks see that BoA customers are paying these fees, the other banks will follow suit.
  
  The issue is that companies have put profits above Customer Service and in a real free market, this would correct itself, however both D's and R's have made it so if these companies screw up, they don't have to worry because the Government will be there to bail them out because they are too big to fail.
  
  In all reality Small business owners and the Middle class are the ones who are going to continue to get screwed. Dems(most) want to continue and expand the welfare state and Republicans(most) will continue to put Corporations and CEO's ahead of the middle class.
• BoatShoes

  believer;920391 wrote:Funny you should mention it. The moronic "Wall Street Protesters" are actually wanting MORE Obama and a totalitarian gubmint to "right the ship."
  
  Are these people for real?
  
  http://www.infowars.com/occupy-wall-street-protesters-call-totalitarian-government-re-election-of-obama/
  
  
  
  Idiots......

  Well I don't pretend to know what these hippies believe but his quote about government is almost directly out of Hobbes which directly influenced the format for our own Republic...Madison and Hamilton believed the same...Granted Locke and the subsequent theorists after Hobbes allowed the populace to retain the right of revolution, but this statement is the essentially the justification for criminal law as we know it...
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;920856 wrote:Here we go again, Boatshoes - http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/10/03/obama-says-he-can-stop-bank-america-making-certain-amount-profit
  
  Another day, another example of socialist/communist thinking from the regime. This time, from his own lips.
  
  In layman's terms, he's convinced the governmental should exert control over a bank's right to charge fees for using their services. Tsk tsk tsk.

  socialist/communist regime eh? I mean let's compare he wants to pass three free trade agreements this week but because he thinks customers ought to be able to freely and easily change to one of BoA's competitors as proposed by Rep. Joe Miller he's a socialist. All because the huge monopolistic banking industry didn't like the Chamber of Commerce and other retailers advocating that they don't get charged fees that give the banks > 150% profit per swipe. <---That's not capitalism when the retailers had no choice but to allow debit cards or lose massive amounts of customers or to accept debit cards and pay ginormous fees.
  
  And consumers weren't switching from BoA to smaller banks because they were unaware that their bank was charging huge fees on retailers and raising their prices.
  
  In fact the subsequent legislation by Joe Miller, were it to be passed would actually improve competition in the retail banking sector were Republicans to support it but of course they would not because a democrat is proposing it.
  
  But anyway, even if this were indicative of his secret desire for socialism (which a libertarian like Cleveland Buck would say a desire to stop the cartel-like practices our huge banks are practicing is not...and he's no Obama supporter) taken in the aggregate with his support for three new free trade agreements this week...you'd think the actual free trade policies that real liberals like Dennis Kucinich are lambasting might be weightier evidence in support of the contrary.
  
  Once again you continue to latch onto statements and warp them to mean the most extreme conclusion instead of focusing on much more indicative policy proposals and actions.
• BoatShoes

  believer;921305 wrote:No, he's not kidding. The folks on here who get their panties in a twist when we label BHO a "socialist" should take note.
  
  Obama loathes capitalism. He was born into socialism and has been surrounded by socialists (and a few bona fide commies) his entire political career. It's what he knows and what he believes.
  
  He clearly sees PROFIT as eeeeevil and something that needs to stop. He is ignorant of the fact that profit is the primary goal of business and that without it businesses don't grow, people don't have jobs, and fewer taxes are collected to fund his Big Government is good government machine.
  
  He also doesn't understand basic capitalist principles. If I think your product is priced too high I simply choose not to buy and seek the product at a lower price from a competitor. Whatever the market will bear.
  
  His wife doesn't mind practicing these principles during photo ops at Target. I wonder if Wal Mart execs appreciated Target's free exposure?

  The guy wants Congress to sign three free trade agreements so we can engage in free market capitalism with other countries and yet he "loathes capitalism." And it's also laughable that you think retail banking is a competitive market. BoA is trying to use its market power to set the price because they've been a crappy bank which should not be able to be done in a freely competitive market. They can no longer transparently raise prices on their customers through retailers when they charge swipe fees > 150% necessary to make a profit off of. That's the thing...before they used their market power to raise your prices by overcharging retailers...and people didn't move banks and probably paid unnecessarily high prices or were paid lower wages...now at least if they want to make more profit off the use of debit cards the cost is transparent to the debit card holder...something you should like.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;921398 wrote:socialist/communist regime eh? I mean let's compare he wants to pass three free trade agreements this week but because he thinks customers ought to be able to freely and easily change to one of BoA's competitors as proposed by Rep. Joe Miller he's a socialist. All because the huge monopolistic banking industry didn't like the Chamber of Commerce and other retailers advocating that they don't get charged fees that give the banks > 150% profit per swipe. <---That's not capitalism when the retailers had no choice but to allow debit cards or lose massive amounts of customers or to accept debit cards and pay ginormous fees.
  
  And consumers weren't switching from BoA to smaller banks because they were unaware that their bank was charging huge fees on retailers and raising their prices.
  
  In fact the subsequent legislation by Joe Miller, were it to be passed would actually improve competition in the retail banking sector were Republicans to support it but of course they would not because a democrat is proposing it.
  
  But anyway, even if this were indicative of his secret desire for socialism (which a libertarian like Cleveland Buck would say a desire to stop the cartel-like practices our huge banks are practicing is not...and he's no Obama supporter) taken in the aggregate with his support for three new free trade agreements this week...you'd think the actual free trade policies that real liberals like Dennis Kucinich are lambasting might be weightier evidence in support of the contrary.
  
  Once again you continue to latch onto statements and warp them to mean the most extreme conclusion instead of focusing on much more indicative policy proposals and actions.

  No part of this post made sense. Particularly the last sentence.
  
  "Once again you continue to latch onto statements and warp them to mean the most extreme conclusion instead of focusing on much more indicative policy proposals and actions."
  
  That isn't English. I see what you did there.
  
  The Chambers of Commerce are beside themselves with the unnecessary government intrusion.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;921364 wrote:Another day, another communist in the Democrat Party - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/major-democratic-fundraiser-at-van-jones&#8216;-take-back-the-american-dream-conference-the-american-dream-is-totally-about-sharing-and-redistributing-the-wealth-because-free-houses-and-healthcare/
  
  These are really too easy to find, Boat. I'll save you a few seconds...go to the 0:45 mark to learn about her utopia.
  
  If you listen, you can hear their words.

  Of course there's going to be some hardcore communists, socialists and marxists that support the democratic party because traditionally its ideals align more with a world they like....it's just like you...a hardcore, radical conservative supporting Republicans the majority of the time...
  
  100% guaranteed that woman is not a big fan of Obama to this point....but who's she going to vote for on the Republican side when every one of them is more conservative than Ronald Reagan?