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.

 

For Christ's sake, stop blaming Obama for everything under the sun!

page: 4
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glinda
I do agree with one sentiment in the original post--this President DOES have (profoundly) limited capabilities. This becomes apparent anytime he goes off TOTuS.

Trouble is he campaigned for this job...and all it entails. Did he actually think HE COULD 'heal the planet, lower the seas, yada yada?' Has he NOT been out campaigning and raising money? Why is he doing THAT if he can't (or his supporters can't) handle criticism?

Truman said the 'buck stopped with him' Obama complains that its not his buck (but he will gladly take YOURS for his next campaign.)


He can handle criticism, and so can his supporters(btw, I didn't vote for him even though everyone I knew did, and I think he could be doing a much better job)
It's just the Obama bashers just shout loudly and don't actually criticize him. They just say stuff like "He's the antichrist" or "how's that hope and change stuff working out for you?" or "Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to this country" or "Libtards are destroying this country"

It's not criticism. They don't bother to discuss why his policies are bad. They just say his policies are destroying the country. To democrats and moderates, the Obama bashers actually make Obama look better than he is, just because they never bother arguing their viewpoint. Just look at the comments on foxnews.com on any political article to see exactly what I'm talking about.

And EVERY president who is up for another term has to campaign...that's a terrible criticism to say he's doing bad by campaigning...



edit on 21-8-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I don't blame Obama any more than I blame Bush, after all on policy decisions that matter, they are basically the same.

Obama Fact Sheet

Obama = Bush's 3rd term.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Obama is no worse than any other fraud. And, no better.
He does what he is told to do. He reads the teleprompter very well. So, as far as being a public figure, he is no doubt a total fraud. He represents himself as being something he is not, but that is no different than most any other president we have ever had.
I just hate the fact that he pushes an agenda that I totally disagree with.

I have no clue what kind of father he is. Maybe his kids love him. They probably do. His public "service" should serve him and his family very well. They travel the world, see place most people on see in magazines. So, they should love him.

Do I wish him well? Hell no. I hope the kids experience what a typical child in America would experience. Nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You have an excellent point, I didn't see your earlier post. He was the first to set and (mostly) uphold a date for ending combat ops in Iraq/Afgan. ObamaCare would actually be a great thing if congress hadn't jacked it up so badly. Try as some might, things like the Dodd-Frank Act and the CPA Act have great intentions, and if done properly, can truly help to limit the treachery that goes on on Wall Street. Just a few examples in between laundry and dinner
. Thanks for challenging - that's what I wanted in this thread. Good on ya. Thoughts?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Count Chocula
 


Wow, there's some reading. Looks intriguing, I'll definitely give this a thorough examination. On first glance, it seems like it could be somewhat embellished, with a pretty obvious bias. But it's data nonetheless. Thanks much.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CriticalCK
I beg to differ. These are no acts of war. the US is not in war with yemen, somalia and pakistan. lybia could be interpreted as war, but its much different in terms of scale, cost, deathtoll, foresight, insight and justness as compared to the wars the hawks in the GWB era started.


You can't argue that the U.S. wouldn't consider ANY bombings to be an act of war if they were carried out by a foreign government. To do so would be completely ignorant. Bombing sovereign nations with military equipment is definitely an act of war, regardless of "scale, size, death toll, foresight, insight and justness."
edit on 21-8-2011 by EagleTalonZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CriticalCK
 


You're both right. They are absolutely considered ACTS of war. This, however, does not mean we are at war, have declared war, or anything. We're not technically 'at war' with anyone, including Iraq and Afgan. Never were. Ya'll also seem to be forgetting that Bush used EXACTLY the same loophole to start the 'conflicts' in Iraq and Afgan as Obama is now using to get involved with these other Arab countries. Huge ding against him, for sure, but at least they're isolated bombings and drone strikes, as opposed to full-on invasion and occupation.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by alexbassguy
reply to post by CriticalCK
 


You're both right. They are absolutely considered ACTS of war. This, however, does not mean we are at war, have declared war, or anything. We're not technically 'at war' with anyone, including Iraq and Afgan. Never were. Ya'll also seem to be forgetting that Bush used EXACTLY the same loophole to start the 'conflicts' in Iraq and Afgan as Obama is now using to get involved with these other Arab countries. Huge ding against him, for sure, but at least they're isolated bombings and drone strikes, as opposed to full-on invasion and occupation.


Well, you're sort of right. Bush did have a resolution to go into Iraq.

Iraq Resolution

But you are right that the rest of these aggressive actions have not received Congressional approval nor been declared. This is a huge reason why I have so much against both Obama and Bush. (and several previous presidents!)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EagleTalonZ

You can't argue that the U.S. wouldn't consider ANY bombings to be an act of war if they were carried out by a foreign government. To do so would be completely ignorant. Bombing sovereign nations with military equipment is definitely an act of war, regardless of "scale, size, death toll, foresight, insight and justness."
edit on 21-8-2011 by EagleTalonZ because: (no reason given)


Even if they are acts of war, which by definition they are not (nation vs nation), you originally stated that the US started four additional wars, not "acts of war", under the Obama administration. As I said not the US nor any of the nations declared a war.
These alleged acts of war are merely cases of breached sovereignity. But most bombings do not even qualify for breached sovereignity because they happen with the consent of the local authorities (except the OBL operation in Pakistan).



edit on 21-8-2011 by CriticalCK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by EagleTalonZ
 


More good points. Wasn't sure if he ever actually got the approval, but I'm sure it was substantially after-the-fact. Also didn't know it had to specifically be nation-on-nation (ooh, sounds dirty!) to be considered an act of war, in which case it comes down to which attacks were UN or NATO-sanctioned. I don't think Pakistan was, was it?

And besides, I believe the three of us can agree on Ron Paul, no? Or was it you, CritCK, who said his voting record was just a bit out for your taste?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CriticalCK
 


That, my friend, is semantics. A play on words. Did the U.S. not consider the actions of 9-11 an act of war? Well, I suppose since Afghanistan was ran by the Taliban, it can be construed that it was nation vs. nation. Ironically, Iraq did nothing involving 9-11 but faced the infamous 'Shock and Awe!' campaign.

Anyway, regardless of how you want to play it, the U.S. has started bombing 4 sovereign nations since Obama took office. For these actions, he is fully responsible since he is the Commander in Chief. He was more than willing to get the honors for taking out Osama all by himself.


Out of a 1400 word speech, a whopping 84+ times he mentioned, "me", "I" and other forms of self-praise.
Source
Just sayin'... the guy is a jerk.

reply to post by alexbassguy
 


Ron Paul brings us all together. The force is strong in this One. haha



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CriticalCK
Even if they are acts of war, which by definition they are not (nation vs nation), you originally stated that the US started four additional wars, not "acts of war", under the Obama administration.


I decided to look up this definition you mentioned...
Acts of War


act of war   noun an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.



World English Dictionary act of war — n an aggressive act, usually employing military force, which constitutes an immediate threat to peace


Considering the U.S. would definitely consider another nation bombing territory within their borders an act of war if done by another nation's military, these are definitely acts of war. Just clarifying.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EagleTalonZ
Out of a 1400 word speech, a whopping 84+ times he mentioned, "me", "I" and other forms of self-praise.



Maybe his speech writer has a crush on him.




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Maybe his speech writer has a crush on him.



lol he is a charming man!
He and Michelle certainly don't lack on style. The 'Hollywood President' nickname is well fitting, huh. lol



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Hi. The bunny with the teary eye here. I'm as critical of Obama as I was to Bush. Funny thing though, never did I see anyone write, "Stop blaming Bush for everything under the sun."

This flavour of whine is consumed by every progressive liberal occupying America right now. (I should have purchased stock!)
He's the president. He's in charge. Get over it.

When someone else is sitting in the big chair after 2012, they'll get the same level of scrutiny.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EagleTalonZ

Originally posted by CriticalCK
Even if they are acts of war, which by definition they are not (nation vs nation), you originally stated that the US started four additional wars, not "acts of war", under the Obama administration.


I decided to look up this definition you mentioned...
Acts of War


act of war   noun an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.



World English Dictionary act of war — n an aggressive act, usually employing military force, which constitutes an immediate threat to peace


Considering the U.S. would definitely consider another nation bombing territory within their borders an act of war if done by another nation's military, these are definitely acts of war. Just clarifying.


I really don't mean to be pedantic. Your quotes are correct. But they only second what I said before.

For sake of the argument, the US would most likely consider a foreign power bombing without its consent sth. within its sovereign territory an act of war. However, apple and oranges. In most cases consent is given, so there cannot be a shred of a doubt, that these are no acts of war.
Just to clarify my position, Iraq and Afgahnistan are wars, with war declarations by the US prior to invasion.

You may disagree with these bombings. I might aswell, but that is off topic. I'm just saying calling these bombings wars or acts of war and setting them in a straight line with the invasion of afghanistan and iraq is blowing things out of proportion and in the context of this thread it serves a biased purpose.
edit on 21-8-2011 by CriticalCK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by EagleTalonZ

Originally posted by Annee
Maybe his speech writer has a crush on him.



lol he is a charming man!
He and Michelle certainly don't lack on style. The 'Hollywood President' nickname is well fitting, huh. lol


They are a charming/charismatic couple. But I don't see Hollywood in them.

That belongs to JFK.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I know! They r all racist! becuz they don't like black people like our dear leader OBAMA!



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm as critical of Obama as I was to Bush. Funny thing though, never did I see anyone write, "Stop blaming Bush for everything under the sun."


I have. Many times.

But - it wasn't on ATS.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ILoveJesusAndIslam
I know! They r all racist! becuz they don't like black people like our dear leader OBAMA!


Oh - I definitely think there is a lot of racism in regards to Obama.

From both whites and blacks.


edit on 21-8-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join