It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Obama be impeached for sheer incompetence?

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nicholaswa
 


Learn to read what is posted in the thread.
Oh ... and clean up your language or the mods will nail you.
(and you'll deserve it)

Repeating -

Bloomberg


March 2 (Bloomberg) -- The gap between rhetoric and hype in President Barack Obama’s budget is as wide as the Pacific Ocean. Obama has not offered change; he has offered a continuation of George W. Bush’s policies.

Obama is not the anti-Bush. He is Bush on steroids.

Bush’s policies could be summarized in one sentence: Spend like a drunken sailor and don’t pay for it. Obama’s policies can be summarized by the same sentence, except that Obama goes beyond drunk to alcohol poisoning. If Bush policies were disastrous, as Obama claims, then why is he continuing them?




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


The correct title is President Obama not Mr. Obama or Barry or Socialist it's President Obama just try to wrap you're mind around that for a moment because I know it pains you to admit that he is the President of this nation.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


That Bloomberg article is pretty short on facts, long on statements of opinion.
We could go back & forth like this all day...I could cite liberal sources, and you could cite right-wing sources...we could start a fire with the friction.

The truth is, when presented with factual contradiction to the claims made in the OP, you guys have resorted to playing make-believe with the facts...

Bush's illegal war, just to name one blunder, has done more harm to American welfare than anything his predecessor did. He spent more than any President in American history, and the targets of his spending did nothing to stimulate the economy...Obama is targeting his spending in an effort to improve the situation for everyone.

Have you even taken a second to consider that his approach might actually work? It might not, but we don't know yet. At least he is addressing the issue, and attempting to do so in a bi-partisan manner - as opposed to Bush's approach, which was hardline idealism - cut taxes, regardless of the harm done to our economy, just cut taxes....

Again, you're making a ridiculous statement - that our President is incompetent, and should be impeached, when the last President let a major U.S. city practically drown, and spent 8 years in an all-out assault on our civil liberties...

Funny thing about conservatives, a lot of em don't even know what they stand for, just what they want to stand against.

And, as for my language...you should grow up. It's not like I've used any phrases that should be new to you. I'm sure the Mods will take some eventual action, but, like I said, it looks like ATS is becoming a haven for ignorance rather than a hangout for the open-minded, so even getting banned might actually be a good thing - at least as far as my blood pressure is concerned!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

Everyone chill out and take a deep breath.

No more off topic uncivil posts.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Flyersfan,

You cite a neocon's commentary on Obama as an objective source who more importantly was Bush's economic advisor during his 2004 campaign.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I

Originally posted by kommunist
I read your post with great interest, however I do have a question. You stated that:

"Even his loudest supporters are abandoning him. "

Are there any specific examples of his supporters abandoning him? I was not aware of that. Or, are you simply referring to citizens who initially supported Obama and voted for him are now having "buyers remorse"?

There is this article...

From NEWSWEEK

A Turning Tide? Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.



[edit on 11-3-2009 by GuyverUnit I]


Well since he's been in office for a couple years now and he hasn't done what he said he would...... wait a minute....How long has he been in office now?
Seems like an extremely unreasonable comment to me.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


You know...........
should look into everything the OP posted instead of using the "no links" excuse, 20 years ago we didnt have this dis-info tool called the internet, and just because the internet doesnt say its so doesnt mean information is irrelevant, all of these topics have been hashed out by people who actually think and know the issues that deal with OUR countrys politics, while i agree with Rush i dont need him to see what this empty suit is doing to OUR country, not yours..



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is, there is NO WAY to be fully competent of how to run the country. It's all ideology and speculation until you're actually dealing with situations and trying to fix an economy. You wouldn't be a competent president. Washington wasn't a competent president. It is impossible to be competent in the highest job. Acting as a senetor, a mayor, a war chief, a mom, a dad, none of that trains you in how to be a president. There are no presidency classes.

Bush was incompetent, Obama is incompetent, Clinton was incompetent, Kennedy was incompetent.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by XD9611
 



I can say anything without links or valid information. If people want to generate an insightful and meaningful critique into the Obama Presidency then provide the information to back up claims. Otherwise it just comes off as a disenfranchised neo-cons looking for an audience to spout off their hate.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mmkid
 


There we go with the Neocon stuff again.......drop the name calling, im not nor have i ever been a lib converted to conservatism.........ive always been a conservative...........

2. We have repeatedly throughout this thread provided links and information to support the OPs Post.........



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mmkid
 


Dude, go reply to someone else, i dont need to hear your hate and name calling because you dont like or agree with conservatism. Again i dont need links to think, the MSM tends to spin this out to unintelligable garble anyway, who can believe what???



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Thank you Mask!!!

My thoughts exactly..



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


You've provided commentary from columnist you do realize what an Op Ed is correct? There is a difference between providing information as opposed to providing someone's opinion.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mmkid
 


Ill reference you to look through ALL of the websites i have posted......filled with facts and figures.......most of which are not opinion.......just because you dont agree, doesnt make it less fact.....



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XD9611
reply to post by mmkid
 


Dude, go reply to someone else, i dont need to hear your hate and name calling because you dont like or agree with conservatism. Again i dont need links to think, the MSM tends to spin this out to unintelligable garble anyway, who can believe what???


Okay however you would like to identify yourself politically I still stand by the opinion that if you are going to discuss political policy you should cite sources legitimate sources not like manbehindthemask who uses political commentary but actual information. You must not be familiar with newspapers or own a television because there is more out there then MSM LOL.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Don't agree with what that Obama should be impeached for not fixing the worst economic crisis this country has seen in the last 60 years if not ever? You mean that information. Look around my friend the rest of the world is being hit big-time to is that also President Obama's fault?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mmkid
 



you use television and newspaper as a factual reference, but call my websites just opinion? You are aware of the hypocrisy there right? lol are you saying that newspapers and other media outlets arent biased? Hmmm interesting, then where would you like us to get our facts from? According to you everything thats written is opinion.......you just dont LIKE what the links say......end of discussion and stay on subject



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mmkid
 


that politcal commentary has more thought process behind it than all the newspapers and drive-by media sources you so belovedly depend on for the basis of your arguments, so you can go ahead, keep stating who YOU are politically, we are really not hearing you.......



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Wow. I just don't know where to begin with this load of crap. You can only impeach the President for breaking the law. Not for making decisions that are unpopular with the opposing political party. If that were true, then Bush could have been impeached many times over for all the unpopular decisions he made, let alone all the times he actually broke the law (just goes to show you that so long as you claim to champion freedom, no one seems to care when you piss all over it.)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join