Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Can Obama be impeached for sheer incompetence?

page: 15
26
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


I see Obama doing the same as Bush in politicizing science. He is promoting the secular view over all others in regards to research.

For example, evolution vs creationism. I happen to believe in both. Science has many examples of evolutionary progress, however, I do not believe that evolution is responsible for the creation of the elements necessary to create life. I believe the Hand of a Creator created that first carbon element, etc.




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by sos37
 


Wow Sos...are you OK? From you post to your new avatar I get the feeling that Obama winning has pushed you over the edge.

Edit to throw Sos a bone...Pres. Bush did not destroy the economy...he did very little to help it and from an economic policy perspective was a bit of a drunk at the wheel...but he did not destroy it...not all things bad can be laid at GWs feet.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by maybereal11]


Nah, presidents come and go. Policies are made, signed, reversed and remade again. Heck if McCain had won I might have had an avatar with Palin sitting at a desk in fishnets. Politics in this country is little more than a game with each side taking its turn according to whichever side falls into favor with the American public that year. It's a big popularity contest, like the prom king and queen were in high school only on a much larger scale.

What pushes me over the edge are the people that live in this country that claim America is in "ruins". Visiting India for me is an eye-opening experience because that's where you see real poverty. I thought I was poor in college living off Raman noodles, walking to and from the campus and driving to visit the parents on the weekend. What I had then, the present day "welfare" class in India would give anything to have. Those people only in the last few years are being given opportunities to work and prosper that America has had for decades. Our welfare class has a warm, comfortable home with a TV and a phone, clean running water and working sewer systems.

It's frustrating to be one of the ones that actually "get" that America had so much to lose economically because it had so much in the first place. Even now, as far into this recession that we are in, we still have far more than most will ever have.

Though, incidentally, thanks for acknowledging that Bush didn't destroy the country. That actually does mean something to me.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by sos37]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
From Wikipedia...Hmmm any of this sound familiar?
Global warming
Main article: Global warming controversy
Both sides of the controversy over global warming have accused each other of politicizing the science behind climate change.

In 1991, a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations organization called the "Information Council on the Environment" (ICE). ICE launched a $500,000 advertising campaign to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." Critics of industry groups have charged that the claims about a global warming controversy are part of a deliberate effort to reduce the impact any international treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, might have on their business interests.[27]

In June 2005, John Vidal, environment editor of The Guardian, asserted the existence of US State Department papers showing that the Bush administration thanked Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto. Input from the industry advocacy group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.[28] In 2006, The Guardian reported that according data found in official Exxon documents, 124 organizations have taken money from ExxonMobil or worked closely with who that have, and that..

"These organizations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason.

The findings these organisations dislike are labelled 'junk science'. The findings they welcome are labelled 'sound science'."[29][30]

The "selective use of data", cherry picking, is identified as a notable form of scientific abuse by the Pacific Institute, an organization created to provide independent research and policy analysis on issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security.[31]

In December 2007, the Christian Science Monitor reported that at least since 2003, and especially after hurricane Katrina, the George W. Bush administration has broadly attempted to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters, as well as edited scientists' congressional testimony on climate science and key legal opinions[32]

Those who have studied organizations set up to delay action and manufacture uncertainty about well established scientific consensus have [33]divided their tactics into three basic categories:

first deny there is a problem, second, make the case that it's not a problem and may actually be beneficial, and failing that to admit it's a problem but insist there's nothing anyone can do about it.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Okay the Palin and fishnets thing made me laugh. I guess if I can laugh at that then I should be able to grow a sense of humor about Obama
I'll try.

Yes, I have travelled many places in the world...even spent some time with some remote tribes...and yes..even our lower middle class live like lords and kings compared to most of the world.

Everybody screams that their world is crumblimg becuase they have to sell one of their SUVs or find a smaller house. I get it...still there are folks genuinely suffering here at home.

I heard a theologian speaking of the economic "crisis" the other day and he qouted Ephesians “We are members, one of another”

“We are members, one of another” One tribe…politically, economically, socially and believing otherwise is a big part of what got us into this mess.

Some say in times like this that it is every man for himself...I am begining to think it is that attitude that got us here.

We Americans have to remember that we can disagree loudly..but we are still Americans..."members, one of another" during this crisis.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Mental Modulator's statement about re-writing history made me laugh out loud - I mean seriously. JSO, glad you posted and backed it up with fact. The only people trying to re-write history are the ones with tunnel vision - the ones incapable of looking anywhere but where their own hatred allows them to see and that is at George W Bush and his administration.

Mental, why even bother discussing things with you? You already have your mind made up that Bush is the anti-christ and is responsible for all things evil and all things destroyed in this country.


Well SOS... JSO made a statement that allude to the idea that the GOP and GEORGE W BUSH championed government regulation and intervention in regards to the financial sector.

At the same time JSO made assertions that DEM or liberals were against the same regulatory practices.

That statement is what I was refering to...

SO I ask YOU - can you say with a straight face, that CONSERVATIVES believe that GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERFER WITH THE FREE RANGE AND MOVEMENT OF BUSINESS???

I know damn well know that conservatives think the government should let the producers produce. However JSO claims that in this one instant the GOP were the liberal ones asking for massive government intervention...

Then I posted this...


The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999, is an Act of the United States Congress which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. For example, Citibank merged with Travelers Group, an insurance company, and in 1998 formed the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking and insurance underwriting services under brands including Smith-Barney, Shearson, Primerica and Travelers Insurance Corporation. This combination, announced in 1993 and finalized in 1994, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act by combining insurance and securities companies, if not for a temporary waiver process [1]. The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the financial services industry.





GOP RECORD OF DEREGULATION DEMOCRATIC RECORD OF OVERSIGHT
December 28, 2002: A study by Federal Reserve economists reported homeowners taking advantage of falling interest rates and rising home values to extract $131.6 billion via mortgage refinancings in 2001 and early 2002, while consumers spent some of the money, they saved or invested more of it, according to a study published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. Homeowners spent an estimated $20.7 billion of the cash for personal items such as cars, vacations or medical services, the study said. [Chicago Tribune, 12/28/02]

May 2002: Senator Sarbanes introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2002. [S. 2438]

November 2003: Senator Sarbanes, introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003. [S. 1928]

February 23, 2004: Instead of heeding warnings, Federal Reserve leadership promotes non-traditional mortgages over fixed rate products in a speech to the Credit Union National Association annual conference. "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home." [Remarks By Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 2/23/04]

October 8, 2003: Bush administration objected to a proposal to have an independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be an independent unit of Treasury, much like financial regulators housed in the agency that oversee banks and thrifts. The Bush administration also objected to a proposal to have the Department of Housing and Urban Development have oversight over the companies' business activities. The independence provision has broad support from committee Democrats and Republicans. The HUD provision was pushed mostly by Democrats but had been accepted by Oxley and Baker as a compromise needed to move the bill forward. [Washington Post, 10/8/03]

February 24, 2004: At a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Norman Rice, President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle questioned having low-income Americans use ARM's to finance their homes. In addition, Senator Sarbanes questioned the Federal Reserve's promotion of alternative mortgage products over traditional fixed rate mortgages:
* Norman Rice: "Particularly if you're talking about serving an underserved constituency. Adjustable rate mortgages for a low income constituency is a nightmare."
* Senator Sarbanes: "[The Federal Reserve] is pushing adjustable rate mortgages.and throwing this risk back on the consumer." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 2/25/04]

June 30, 2004: After encouraging the use of non-traditional mortgages, many of which re-set with rising interest rates, the Federal Reserve begins to raise rates-17 consecutive, 25 basis point increases that take the Federal Reserve Funds rate from a 46-year low of 1 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006. [Market News International, 4/29/08]

October 26, 2005: House of Representatives passed regulation reforming the GSE's. The bill passed the House 331-90 (Republicans: 209-15; Democrats: 122-74), and would have given the new regulator broad authority over setting capital requirements and limiting portfolio size. Senate Democrats picked that bill up and offered it, but the Administration opposed that legislation. According to Mr. Oxley, the White House gave Congress and the GSE reform legislation "a one-finger salute."
* "We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now, if we hadn't had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed," Mr. Oxley says." [Financial Times, 9/11/08]

February 7, 2007: Federal banking regulators released their voluntary Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Products for mortgage lenders. However, the guidance did not apply to subprime mortgages. [Senate Banking Committee Transcipt, Prepared Statement of Martin Eakes, 2/7/07]

March 22, 2007: Senator Dodd laid out how the Federal Reserve was responsible for the "perfect storm" sweeping over American homeowners. At a Banking committee hearing Dodd said, "By May of 2005, the press was reporting that economists were warning about the risks of these new mortgages. In June of that year, Chairman Greenspan was talking about "froth" in the mortgage market and testified before the Joint Economic Committee that he was troubled by the surge in exotic mortgages." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 3/22/07]

August 6, 2007: At a White House morning press briefing, in response to a question whether the housing market is correcting or in crisis, President Bush says that the economy is stable: "[I]t looks we're headed for a soft landing." [Remarks By President Bush, 8/9/07]

November 15, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 11/15/08]

December 4, 2007: In response to a question about whether the Administration was too slow to recognize the subprime problem, President Bush said: "We've been working on this since August." [Remarks By President Bush, 12/4/07]

December 6, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 12/6/08]

October 4, 2007: At a news conference on Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats outlined a plan to help low- and middle-income families keep their homes." [New York Times, 10/04/07]

January 9, 2008: The Federal Reserve finally proposes rule pursuant to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, to combat abusive and deceptive lending practices. Congress passed the law in 1994. [Federal Reserve System, 1/9/08; Public Law No: 103-325]

February 14, 2008: Senate Democrats announce The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 which would keep families facing foreclosure in their homes, help other families avoid foreclosures in the future, and help communities already harmed by foreclosure to recover. [HR 3221, 2008]

February 26, 2008: After Senate Democrats introduce The Foreclosure Prevention Act, White House issues a veto threat and Senate Republicans block consideration of the bill. [Statement of Administration Policy, 2/26/08; Senate Vote #35, HR 3221]

February 28, 2008: Senate Republicans blocked consideration of the Foreclosure Prevention Act. The bill provided $10 billion in bond authority to refinance subprime loans, $4 billion in grants for the rehabilitation of foreclosed homes and tax relief for struggling homebuilders. The bill also included a provision that would allow bankruptcy courts to modify the terms of a mortgage on a primary residence that could have helped 600,000 families stay in their homes. [Senate Vote #35, HR 3221; CRS Summary; Finance Committee Press Release, 2/15/08; Center for Responsible Lending]

March 14, 2008: Federal Reserve and JP Morgan Chase Bailed Out Bear Stearns. "On the verge of a collapse that could have shaken the very foundations of the U.S. financial system, investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. was bailed out Friday by a rival and the federal government. The near-miss raised new alarm about the credit crisis -- and whether other big firms might be in jeopardy." [AP, 3/15/08]

April 1, 2008: Republicans Stall Housing Bill. Republicans force cloture vote on motion to proceed to energy bill. [Senate Vote 86, HR 3221, 4/1/08]


[edit on 12-3-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I agree completely with you on your combined view of Creationism and Evolution. Put every scientist in the world in a room and they could not create a simple functioning tree...but not build one from scratch the way nature has done an infinite amount of times. Ditto with so many things. In the end they would plant a seed and let nature/god do the rest.

Yes Obama favors "Secular" science as it should be...science IS secular...the spiritual aspects are left to Religions and that is appropriate.

Some "Secular" scientists are also religious...there is a brilliant man heading astronomy for the Vatican...the man who discovered DNA is a Christian evangelical...thats great. It is not religion vs science. You can have both. But if the bible says the world is only 5,000 years old...?

In 1600 Giordono Bruno was the first burned by the Roman Catholic Church at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun...that it was not the center of the universe...

Science does not have all the answers, but when they make a strong case, they should be heard...not silenced.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


You're making several mistakes in your argument.

First, you are equating conservatism with Republican.

One is an ideology, a value system, the other is a political party.

I have made the point many times that I know many Catholic Democrats who are against abortion.

No further explanation should be necessary.

Next, you made the mistake that conservatives think that an economy should have no regulation.

If every man were honest, that would not be necessary. Regulation, like laws, are necessary to set boundaries and define behavior.

And my statements were not 'allusions'. They were backed up by fact, which can be verified through the Congressional Record.

One more thing: the info you supplied does nothing to prove that Bush fought regulation. He objected to who should do the regulation, but did not object to the regulation itself.

It is very telling that the article mentioned Chris Dodd, who just happened to be the single largest recipient of donations from Fannie Mae. In second place was Obama. It's no wonder he was trying to deflect attention for the crisis away from himself and onto the Federal Reserve, much like the tactics Barney Frank continues to use today.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mental modulator
 


You're making several mistakes in your argument.

First, you are equating conservatism with Republican.

One is an ideology, a value system, the other is a political party.

I have made the point many times that I know many Catholic Democrats who are against abortion.

No further explanation should be necessary.

Next, you made the mistake that conservatives think that an economy should have no regulation.

If every man were honest, that would not be necessary. Regulation, like laws, are necessary to set boundaries and define behavior.

And my statements were not 'allusions'. They were backed up by fact, which can be verified through the Congressional Record.



The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1] Some provisions such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.[2][3]


en.wikipedia.org...



according to a summary by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bankers and brokers were sometimes indistinguishable. Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the “commercial” and “investment” banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions’ securities activities. A formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities was then set up by the Glass Steagall Act.[7]






The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[1]
The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[2] On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities"


en.wikipedia.org...

ABOVE is the very piece of legislation that conservatives point to as being the reason Clinton created this whole meltdown...

{NOTE that 100% of voting GOP members voted up or to repeal the GS act of 1933}

AS you can see,



The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia),


This legislation was not a LIBERAL or DEMOCRATIC effort... Considering that 100% of GOP member voted up I assume ( I believe fairly ) that the desire to DEREGULATE and the PUSH to do so was both a GOP and conservative whim...



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
You're crazy...even by ATS standards. Lighten up Francis.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Can a president be impeached for sheer incompetence? If so, Obama should be impeached at the end of his 100 day 'honeymoon'.

Today marks Day 50 of his administration. In that short period of time, he has managed to commit almost a blunder a day. If he were to receive a mid-term grade, it would be a solid F.

Some of his more egregious blunders:

During the first month of his administration, he spent more than Bush did on two wars, and Katrina relief and rebuilding

He has committed diplomatic blunders with UK PM Gordon Brown

He has proposed taxes that will cause an inflationary spiral, when imposed

He has committed to an assault weapon ban

He has targeted private citizens for disagreeing with his policies

He has broken campaign promises on hiring lobbyists

He has broken campaign promises on stopping partisanship

He has used porkulus and earmarks to pay back his political cronies

He has supported the Card Check bill, which eliminates the secret ballot in union votes

He has proposed sitting down with the Taliban

He wants to plunge this nation into a socialist economy.

He is losing support from the electorate every day. Even his loudest supporters are abandoning him. It won't be long before the Democratic Congress turns against him, as the 2010 elections approach.

People were warned about his lack of experience. His incompetence, however, outdoes any lack thereof.


Each and every one of your qualms with the President is highly subjective and interpretable.

1) If it were not him, it would have been John McCain.
2) There were no diplomatic blunders. In fact, they got along just fine. A closer economic relationship is a good thing. They can coordinate their monetary policy through the Central Banks without risk of misinterpretation between governments.
3) We need inflation. Remember, he can cut it off whenever he wants.
4) A ban on assault weapons? That is nothing short of miraculous. You should personally be committed psychiatric correction if you would think otherwise. It's crazy peoples' fault you say? I don't think you can own an assault weapon and not say you're a little off yourself...
5) Military personnel are not private citizens. Court martial is the only justifiable answer.
6) Lobbyists are an important part of democracy. Which lobbyists? Some things just don't get done without lobbyists.
7) He's being as bi-partisan as he can. Unfortunately, the Republicans are in complete denial and refuse to cooperate. The indolence of Republic representatives when we need action the most is the only incompetence being displayed in Washington.
9) This is real life. We all knew those were lies. Everyone else has done it. It doesn't place him on any lower a ranking than any other President in history. This doesn't make him a bad President. This doesn't make him worse than anyone else. This doesn't make him incompetent.
10) Sitting down with the Taliban is the first thing we need to do. They are a reactionary force. The repeated foreign policy blunders of big government and subversive American corporations, since World War II, are more to blame for 9/11 than any actions of certain clerical radicals. We can't afford anymore to appear a ruthless, maniacal global hegemony.
11) Free market economics does not work. Few people have acquired an ability to sustain long-term rational thought. Only the most trained investors display such a quality, and they know they're better off not applying it very liberally. Unfortunately, that quality is worth nothing when the majority of the population are under-trained and unconcerned. We're playing in a constant game of Heave-Ho. It doesn't matter if one side is trying to pull the log out of the way of traffic; they'll only succeed in breaking their backs. You, and the other half of the population, are absolutely useless to positive economic development. Regulation and intermediation is vital in the active correction of human psychological insufficiency. If no one is actively upgrading the system, changing the rules of the game so to speak, it's going to become totally corrupt and nonfunctional.

Then again, all these are just opinions that happen to exist. They, like yours, are crude conceptualizations, and do not reflect much of any sort of reality.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I think you've been listening to that Rush Hannity character too much. He wants him to fail and you are already calling for his impeachment. You had 8 years of Bush's non-sense, can we at least get to 100 days of Obama. There is so much disinformation at this stage of his presidency its obvious whats going on. They are already preparing for the 2012 election because they know that after the way their last two terms went they need a head start and then some. I will not sit here and say that our president will be the best ever, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He has been criticized by conservatives for overturning Bush's old embryonic stem cell research policy and not focusing enough on the economy. Well he knows that the economy wont fix itself overnight and that and as president he has to continue making decisions that don't relate the crisis, that's competent to me. He would be incompetent if he failed to complete other tasks the president is responsible for. So there goes your theory.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by skeptic_al
 



Originally posted by skeptic_al
And you forgot one more reason he should be Impeached,
I don't know if you've noticed, but He's BLACK....


Wow. I don't know what's harder to comprehend - your post, or the fact that people starred you.

What exactly do you mean? Please clarify.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by jsobecky]


You know in the Moofie Blazing Saddles

Where the new sherrif rides into town and the drunken old coot on
the roof yells out the Sherrif is is (Ding)iger(Ding).
Well, It's like that.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Is this a website with the motto deny ignorance or a KKK Gathering?

Anyways, keep blasting Obama because Bush destroyed America. Keep yelling at the repairman and ignore the guy who broke the tely. Keep ranting and raving while your white bedsheets are in the washer about the evil black man who booted all Exxon Mobile CEOs out of office.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by JMasters
Is this a website with the motto deny ignorance or a KKK Gathering?

NONE OF US CARES what color he is. We are discussing what is being done and not done ... not skin color. Continually bringing up his skin color is racist ... and perhaps obsessive.


keep blasting Obama because Bush destroyed America. Keep yelling at the repairman and ignore the guy who broke the tely.

Again with the TV repair man thing.
Already debunked that ...
Bush may have broken the TV, but when the repairman (Obama) doesn't know what he's doing and breaks the TV more ... he makes it worse.


Keep ranting and raving while your white bedsheets are in the washer about the evil black man ...

Jeeeze .. get over the race thing will you?
No one here cares what color the guy's skin happens to be.
Discuss his policies and what he is doing or not doing.


[edit on 3/13/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JMasters
Is this a website with the motto deny ignorance or a KKK Gathering?

Anyways, keep blasting Obama because Bush destroyed America. Keep yelling at the repairman and ignore the guy who broke the tely. Keep ranting and raving while your white bedsheets are in the washer about the evil black man who booted all Exxon Mobile CEOs out of office.


I do get the impression that some people are more concerned about a
Bleck Man in da White House (Maybe a new Paint job will fill that) than
if they will still have job next week (or some states, tomorrow)



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
some people are more concerned about a Bleck Man in da White House


What's really sad is that people here are discussing Obama's incompetence and his policies and why Obama's politics isn't good for America.... and yet some people feel the need to pull the race card out any time Obama is exposed for being wrong or incompetent.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
3 WEEKS AGO -



And now - The crisis 'isn't as bad as we think' - says Obama



[edit on 3/13/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by JMasters
Is this a website with the motto deny ignorance or a KKK Gathering?

Anyways, keep blasting Obama because Bush destroyed America. Keep yelling at the repairman and ignore the guy who broke the tely. Keep ranting and raving while your white bedsheets are in the washer about the evil black man who booted all Exxon Mobile CEOs out of office.


I do get the impression that some people are more concerned about a
Bleck Man in da White House (Maybe a new Paint job will fill that) than
if they will still have job next week (or some states, tomorrow)



You know I am really getting tired of every time I disagree with the man being labeled a racist. I am tired of being told I hate having a black man in the White House just because I won't worship him like a demigod. If Colin Powell had run I would have voted him in, does that make me a racist too? I'm a woman, but I can't stand Hillary Clinton.

Race and competency have absolutely zero to do with anything. Where were all the people calling the blacks racist when they questioned Bush policies? I questioned Bush policies, does that just mean I hate everyone? No it doesn't. Part of our rights as Americans is to stand up and say "Hey, look, our leaders (whomever they may be) are not living up to the standards we expect from them.. It is the responsibility of the Elected, to then listen to what the electorate is saying and then act accordingly.

If this is Obama's "change" branding anyone not willing to submit to his semi-divine will, a racist, then he can have that kind of change. This is 2009, color should not define competence, actions should.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 



Originally posted by skeptic_al
You know in the Moofie Blazing Saddles

Where the new sherrif rides into town and the drunken old coot on
the roof yells out the Sherrif is is (Ding)iger(Ding).
Well, It's like that.


Why does it bother you that Obama is black?

You should be concerned about his fiscal irresponsibility that will bankrupt this nation, not the fact that he is black.

Hating him because he is black will get you nowhere.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by skeptic_al
some people are more concerned about a Bleck Man in da White House


What's really sad is that people here are discussing Obama's incompetence and his policies and why Obama's politics isn't good for America.... and yet some people feel the need to pull the race card out any time Obama is exposed for being wrong or incompetent.


There are lots of people that are blogging any stupid reason what-so-ever
to impeach Obama.

I don't remember reading as many reasons for Impeaching anyone for the previous
10 years as the 2 months Obama has been in office. And that's the Bush in Clinton eras.
And some were already blogging away before he'd even won the Democratic Election.

And you can't Impeach someone before something has actually happened. It would
be like locking somebody up before they commited the crime because we knew
they were going to do that. If that was the case, then Half of Amercia should be locked
up right now.

I think Obama is a far better choice than the previous Numb-Nuts, anyway.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join