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: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I will amend the statement to state "everyone I know".


Patriot act could be changed in a heartbeat. Why is it not?

I hear it said that Bush spent us into oblivion.

Obama is 50 days in and already outspending him.

There was a public outcry when the bailout bill was passed.

Why are they assessing the banks to see if they need MORE money?

The point I am making is that the guy ran on the premise of change, and as far as I can see NOTHING has changed.

I do not believe the president alone has the power to do what he promised.

The change we will get is what the snakes in congress see fit.


edit to add: I would never propogate a known falsehood, I always make an effort to back my claims with research.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by hotrodturbo7]




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I didn't vote in the last election, but I do not see how the OP can make a post about impeaching the current President for incompetence when the last one certainly had every reason to be impeached but wasn't.

I can only assume people who dislike Obama's policies ignore everything that led up to them. Did Bush supporters honestly expect a Republican to make it into office with two ongoing wars and an economic collapse taking place under his watch?

I don't know what the election results in four years will be, but I can tell you this. Obama will not be impeached. Ever.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Mr. Obama better tighten up, or he will be gone. I had no idea that he has been effing up so bad.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by notyavgkat
 


Check the polls... only the sore losers of the right think he's been screwing up. But then again if Jesus himself had beaten the Republican ticket they would still be sore losers.

I think that's called infantile and childish.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by notyavgkat
 


Check the polls... only the sore losers of the right think he's been screwing up. But then again if Jesus himself had beaten the Republican ticket they would still be sore losers.

I think that's called infantile and childish.


Democ rats turn against Obama spending



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by hotrodturbo7
 


That is a lie, the Bush Cheney war on terror brought the deficit in this nation to the record highs that the Obama administration inherited today.

That means that Bush misappropriation of funds while cutting funding to states had the states now suffering in order to support his defense budget spending while keeping the war profiteers coffers full.

Go back and take a walk on the memory line and how Bush screw up us while handling billions to Chaney's Halliburton war machine baby.

Now Obama wants to spend those same billions in America making jobs and fixing the nation and he is now a big spender.

Well I rather have my tax payer money spend on my nation's need that to feed the fat rats in Iraq.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by hotrodturbo7
 


That is a lie, the Bush Cheney war on terror brought the deficit in this nation to the record highs that the Obama administration inherited today.

That means that Bush misappropriation of funds while cutting funding to states had the states now suffering in order to support his defense budget spending while keeping the war profiteers coffers full.

Go back and take a walk on the memory line and how Bush screw up us while handling billions to Chaney's Halliburton war machine baby.

Now Obama wants to spend those same billions in America making jobs and fixing the nation and he is now a big spender.

Well I rather have my tax payer money spend on my nation's need that to feed the fat rats in Iraq.



Please quote my lie when you call me a liar so we can debate.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
To the Bush bashers:

If Bush was incomptetent, is it OK for Obama to be incompetent also?
I thought Obama voters voted for change?
BTW there is nothing incompetent about policies that keep Americans safe.

Now burying our children and grandchildren in massive debt...that's incompentence.

Bush had a part in it...but he did it for national security, and Democrats loaded up every Bush spending bill with pork knowing Bush had no choice to to approve it. Obama is doing it in the name of Socialism, and Democrats once again are loading it up.


Is there even the slightest chance that without the aggressive american attitude percieved by countries such as Afghanistan that the terrorrist threat would be smaller?

Is there a small chance that without the endorsement by the USA Israel would behave in a more cicilized way than they clearly do now?

If Iraq hadn't been invaded (oops - liberated) would the region be more peaceful and the terrorist threat towards USA smaller?

Some people think that the two Bush'es are the very reason the USA is less safe than she should have been.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps, but the evidence is very scetchy. Iran is almost there. Will America intervene by invasion there as well.
Some say the Iraqi people needed rescuing. Why hasn't America helped Zimbabwe? The palestinian people? How did you help the black people of South Africa?

Obama isn't the reason why Americans are going towards bankrupcy. Your legal system is the reason. You allow stinking rich people to suck the common man dry. You allow companies to charge exorbitant fees and impose grave repercussions on those who try to fight back.
You allow large companies the liberty to squash small companies for "infringing" on their trademark.
Think of Disney who has stolen our cultural heritage and our fairy tales and now we can't make films or toys because Disney "owns" the property rights.

Heard a funny joke the other day:
Some people had died and Satan was giving his speach about "this is the place where you pay for your sins blah. blah."
Three guys in the back put up their hands and said; "Excuse us mr. Satan. This doesn't apply to us. We're bankers".

Obama needs the same fair chance to make a difference as any other president does.
The fact that he takes over from a criminally insane and he does that in the middle of a world collapse caused by currupt people (bankers and stock traders) all over the world is a real shame.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I don't understand the presence of threads like this on ATS.
Isn't this supposed to be a place where open-minded people come to discuss their thoughts on conspiracies, the paranormal, etc.?

Aren't we supposed to "DENY IGNORANCE"??!!

Then why is this thread allowed? Of course a President can't be impeached for "incompetence." Especially when his approval rate is above 60%!!

And of course, charges of "incompetence" are subjective, politically motivated, and usually, as the OP has proven, borne of IGNORANCE (or a simple refusal to accept facts).

This has nothing to do with getting us closer to ultimate truths...I'm sure there are plenty of other places where this would be appropriate, like Nazis Anonymous or something...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7
Patriot act could be changed in a heartbeat. Why is it not?


Because Obama supports it to some extent. I disagree with him on that. It's a policy disagreement. These things happen. I certainly don't agree with him on everything. But if finding imperfections is what you're into, I can help you with that.
Because he's not perfect and I doubt very few agree 100% with him.



Obama is 50 days in and already outspending him.


Again, there's no source for this.



The point I am making is that the guy ran on the premise of change, and as far as I can see NOTHING has changed.


I don't think you're looking in the places where change has taken place.

He surrounded himself with people he ran against in the primaries
He has started proceedings to close Guantanamo
He has reinstated our No Torture policy
He expanded eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance
He has a website for us to track the money of the stimulus (transparency)
He has started to end the war in Iraq and is sending troops where they're more needed, to Afghanistan
He put strict restrictions on lobbyists working for him
He signed a bill against pay discrimination
He appointed Republicans to his cabinet
He is VERY open about what he's doing, having press conferences almost every day
He reversed Stem Cell restrictions
He's taxing the wealthy and giving tax breaks to the poor
He's making huge changes in education
He capped the salaries of his aides
He capped the salaries of CEOs that receive bailout funds
He did his best at bipartisanship on the stimulus bill and vows to continue (though I'm not sure why)
The whole demeanor of the White House has changed. It's less formal and more approachable.

Yeah, no change at all that I can see.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I see you have no sources whatsoever at all for these ridiculous allegations, but I just wanted to let people know about the disinfo and outright lies that the Republican party is spreading about the Employee Free Choice Act. Then you can carry on with your Bash Obama thread.

Good luck getting him impeached.



Originally posted by jsobecky
He has supported the Card Check bill, which eliminates the secret ballot in union votes


Not True.

Key Facts about EFCA



Corporate front groups have mounted a massive campaign to block the Employee Free Choice Act. ... The core of their campaign is lies and distortions about the Employee Free Choice Act—especially the lie that it takes away “secret ballot” elections. In fact, the act would let workers choose whether to decide on a union through majority sign-up or an election.


It's all about choice. But see, the corporate big wigs don't want their employees to have so much power (to form a union) so they're making it look like they have sympathy with the workers. That right there should be a giveaway.


Actually, you are mistaken, BH. As ususal, you only delve into the part of the issue that you want to see and don't get to the actual truth.

Read this, concerning EFCA:


EFCA strips workers of their freedom to choose in privacy. It requires companies to recognize unions without an election once unions collect cards publicly signed by a majority of employees. Unions contend that because the union could file for an election with signatures from 30 to 50 per­cent of the workers in the company, EFCA does not end secret ballot elections. This is highly mislead­ing. Unions do not file for elections with cards signed by a minority of employees because they know they will probably lose. Their leaders openly state they have no intention of seeking elections if they can avoid them. Once unions have the majority of cards they need for card-check recognition, unions would demand immediate recognition, not request an election.


Source: www.heritage.org...

That's the next to last paragraph in the article. If you read the last paragraph in the article, it clearly states how the secret ballot process is eliminated but how EFCA claims that it isn't. The only reason I didn't quote the last paragraph is because Intrepid would most likely delete this post for excessive quoting.

This was written by the expert in labor policy at the Heritage Foundation and cites many sources. I suppose you're going to say he's biased now?



[edit on 11-3-2009 by sos37]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Okay, this is a bit radical, but it's worth a try....

Let's have complete transparency for all the things that all the living presidents did during their administrations - good and bad.
Let's have the trial of the century where each one gets judged on their actions.
All the things that are illegal are prosecuted to the letter of the law.

Do you honestly, deep down, really believe that the democrats would get the stiff sentences?

Give the current president a break. He's been in office for less than two months, and you're hounding him like he's broken every promise he made.

If you feel the need to criticize the current administration, then to be fair they should be given eight years to make things good. Then, and only then can you make any comparisons.

By the way, wasn't there a surplus before Monica and Bill got jiggy?
What happened to that?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Obama is 50 days in and already outspending him.



That is the part of the post that I am referring, while I agree with other issues you posted in the same post I disagree with this one.

Sorry I should not have used the word lie without giving you the chance to prove your stance.

I don't agree with everything Obama has done but I do see some of his issues that I agree with strongly.


[edit on 11-3-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


You don't need to pull any punches with these folks. Call a LIE what it is. The ridiculous claim that Obama has outspent Bush is a flat out LIE.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by The Lass
 




It's easy being pedantic from thousands of miles away ... like me ... but your President has to be both impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate on a charge of bribery, treason or other high crimes & misdemeanors before he can be removed from office.



Thanks for enlightening the originator of this thread. I can bet you that "J" does not know what "natural born" means in our constitutional context either. We are faced with the Palin-Limbaugh Axis of Ignorance.

A PhD in Clinical Psychology informed me what Rush Limbauth suffers from: it is known in the profession as: "logorrhea (“word-flux”) and is defined as an “excessive flow of words” and, when used medically, refers to incoherent talkativeness occurring in certain kinds of mental illness, such as mania. Logomania is the medical condition and mania with the underlying symptom logorrhea.

The non-medical definition is a spoken form of logorrhea, a kind of verbosity which uses superfluous (or fancy) words to disguise an otherwise useless message as useful or intellectual, and is commonly known as “verbal diarrhea” or “diarrhea of the mouth”.

Here are two websites that give the facts about our National Debt.
en.wikipedia.org...
zfacts.com...


[edit on 3/11/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
This was written by the expert in labor policy at the Heritage Foundation and cites many sources. I suppose you're going to say he's biased now?


Well... yeah.

Source



The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[1] Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is widely considered to be one of the most influential research organizations in the United States, especially during the Republican administration of President George W. Bush.


EFCA would allow a union to be certified by secret ballot OR card check method.



Under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), private elections are the hallmark of union representation campaigns. However, EFCA would mark a fundamental reshaping of traditional labor law by changing the presumption that a secret ballot election is the only method for certification of a union by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”). Specifically, it would permit the NLRB to certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative, and consequently require an employer to recognize and bargain with that union, solely based on authorization cards. Once the Board certifies a union through this card check process, employers would be forced to negotiate a first contract in a hostile mediation and arbitration environment


Source



Thus, the Employee Free Choice Act is intended to guarantee workers their right to choose a bargaining representative through either majority sign-up or an election process. Instead of companies determining the method of organization, workers would have the ability to make that decision for themselves.


Source



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Well, Marg, here are some particularly damning articles for you to read. Maybe you will realize that there is cause for alarm.

Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending

Obama's Spend, Tax and Borrow Policies Will Wreck the U.S. Economy

And finally, even the uber-liberal New York Times is waking up:

Spend. Tax. Borrow. Repeat.




[edit on 11-3-2009 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I don't care what propaganda the unions are using to try to sell Card Check. Secret ballot works just fine. Why do they want to use publicly signed cards?

I'll tell you why...to identify and intimidate those who may not want to sign the card for whatever reason. Privacy being one of them.

It is none of your business how I cast my vote, whether for POTUS or for union membership.

Intimidation. Coercion. The unions want to return to their strongarm tactics of the 20's and 30's.

And why do you feel necessary to point out the Heritage Foundation's conservative bent? Are people supposed to automatically disregard anything they say just because they are conservative?

[edit on 11-3-2009 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


JSO you are doing a great job here stating facts, and providing links. I love how this thread started with them complaining about that as their topic, then after you started placing the info infront of them, (much like i said it would) they ignore it, redirect their arguement and start Bush bashing. Come on people, I already have a 3 year old. Get off the Bush bashing, stop blaming him already and start holding the current president accountable for his actions. You cant continue to blame Bush for everything Obama is doing, hes responsible for himself.

P.S. As fars as what JfJ said about bush putting family member is the ground. I fought 4 tours over there, 2 were manditory and i volunteered for the other 2, I know the good weve done in that country, so dont sit behind your computer and spew that disrespectful rhetoric.

You wanted facts and websites, you guys got facts and websites, dont dismiss them just because you dont like it, and man up, this administrations first 100 days has been a farce. You are now forced to see Obama for what he is, a self indulgent, selfish, incompetent P O L I T I C I A N!



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join