Huckabee on the end of Obama

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
No chance of taking down Obama given the sycophantic media and other tards....Conservatives shouldn't even think of it. The real target should be Hillary - take her down and 2016 is within reach.

I would caution Conservatives to choose wisely. Although I can't stand Obama, I'm more disgusted with McCain and Graham to be honest.

Just some observations:
- Rubio is a RINO
- Rand Paul pissed me off with his drone comments
- P. Ryan is great but I'm not sure he has the charisma to handle it yet.
- Cruz is good but is a lightning rod as is Palin

Far from 100% certain on this but my choice so far is Nikki Haley.




posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by cholo
 

Oh my, have you looked deeply into any of your claims?

No republicans are not good at governing at a national level.

Both Clinton and Obama have turned around economies that suffered from republican policies.

The Dow was over 15,000, in three and a half years the economy will be singing.
There are many people and significant amounts of evidence questioning all of those positions.

Well, on second thought I'm wrong. The idea that Republicans are not good at governing nationally is an opinion. It depends on what is meant by "good." So, lacking a definition, I can't say whether you're right or wrong. You may want to consider Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter as not being "good" as well.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by cholo
 

Oh my, have you looked deeply into any of your claims?

No republicans are not good at governing at a national level.

Both Clinton and Obama have turned around economies that suffered from republican policies.

The Dow was over 15,000, in three and a half years the economy will be singing.
There are many people and significant amounts of evidence questioning all of those positions.

Well, on second thought I'm wrong. The idea that Republicans are not good at governing nationally is an opinion. It depends on what is meant by "good." So, lacking a definition, I can't say whether you're right or wrong. You may want to consider Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter as not being "good" as well.




Oh my, yes I have, my opinion reflects reality.

The Dow was at 7,600 when Obama took office, it is at 15,000 today.

The economy shed 750,000 jobs in Bush's last month.

If you would like to interface with reality we can go.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by cholo
 

Dear cholo,

I have not researched things thoroughly, so I expect you will teach me many things.

ON JOBS

The latest unemployment data is actually the most visible, most disturbing of several recent indicators highlighting the fundamental weakness and instability of the current economy “recovery.”

For starters the U.S. economy created only 88,000 jobs in March — the lowest total in nine months. That’s less than half what analysts were projecting (190,000), less than a third of the previous month’s total (268,000) and well below the 130,000 total needed to keep pace with population growth.

“This is a punch to the gut,” Obama’s former top economic advisor Austan Goolsbee said of the figure. “This is not a good number.”

Of course this sharp drop-off in hiring wasn’t the only bad news contained in the report. A whopping 663,000 Americans dropped out of the workforce in March — plunging the country’s labor participation rate to a 34-year-low of 63.3 percent. By comparison, the labor participation rate was 65.7 percent when U.S. President Barack Obama took office and 67.2 percent when former president George W. Bush took office.

netrightdaily.com...

PERSONAL INCOME

The New York Times delivers some news so grim that it had to cook the headline to hide it: “Median Household Income Down 7.3% Since Start of Recession.”

Well, yes, but as the Times reluctantly admits in the very last paragraph of the story, 5.6 percent of that decline has occurred since the Obama “recovery” began. And median annual household income just fell by 1.1 percent in a single month – February 2013 – after the Obama “recovery” has supposedly been in progress for years. That’s after $6 trillion in deficit spending to “stimulate” the economy, supposedly for the benefit of the average household.

www.humanevents.com...

GDP

Using inflation-adjusted GDP figures from BEA and business cycle dates from the National Bureau of Economic Research (the organization used by the government to date when recessions and recoveries begin and end), CNSNews.com calculated how much the economy grew in each recovery since 1949, the earliest full recovery period for which BEA data is available.

In three and a half years from the end of the last recession in June 2009 until the fourth quarter of 2012, the economy grew only 7.5 percent, increasing from $12.7 trillion to $13.6 trillion.

The absolute worst post-war recovery lasted just 12 months, from July 1980 to July 1981 when the economy grew just 4.4 percent before falling into recession again until November of 1982.

Obama’s is by far the worst multi-year recovery since World War II, including recoveries of similar lengths that occurred in the 1950’s and 1970’s.

cnsnews.com...
STOCK MARKET

The stock market is not a leading indicator of the economy. Rather, the stock market is a coincident indicator of sentiment towards equities.

Far from being a leading indicator, on an absolute basis the S&P has a perfect track record of peaking right before or just as a recession starts. This is just as one might expect from a gauge of equity sentiment which tends to peak right before a downturn in the economy (with everyone extrapolating good times forever into the future).

finance.townhall.com...

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Sorry Clinton didn't do crap!!!!! All he did was capitalize on what Reagan did. Reagan was a republican The deficit was well on its way to being paid before he took office. unemployment fell from a high of 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan link
Clinton did nothing more than live off the economy that Reagan created
Obama on the other hand took office when unemployment was 4.6% by 2010 it was up to 9.6%.
I fail to see how either of these clowns have helped this country in any fashion.
Furthermore with Bill Clinton there was the whitewater scandal which showed poor moral character . And lets not forget Monica. Then you have Obama and the whole A.C.O.R.N. thing., and now Benghazi. together they have about as much moral fiber as Charles Manson .
So no they haven't done any thing good for this country. You are simply delusional.
edit on 8-5-2013 by Diisenchanted because: Edit to add obama



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Diisenchanted
 
Sorry Charles1952 that reply was supposed to go to Cholo.
Peace



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
Could this be a reality? One could only hope.
Anyway I found this today while I was checking the news. Mike seems to think that this whole Benghazi affair will be the undoing of a tyrannical regime. Well at least their leader. He goes on to say that he doubts that Obama will finish this term.
I done a quick search and found nothing on this story. So if this is a repeat
post mods please delete
I have to go to work so I wont be able to respond until lunch. Just wanted to put this out there
link


There will be a fall guy...you can already sort of see it developing.

The State Dept is heavily involved and will take the heat....Hillary will not take it but there will be a flunky under her who was the culprit and there it will end.

"Hey Bob..if you fall on your sword over this Benghazi problem I promise you that you and your family will be rich beyond comprehension"



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by amazing
 

Is it your opinion that there is no Republican who would be better than Hillary Clinton? While there is a small chance that this will flush Obama, shouldn't it put an end to Hillary's career?


I don't see how being shackled to the current administration could ever be used to justify dereliction of duty. I am Independent who has voted ~55/40 - R/D that would have voted Hillary over Obama, given the chance. There's just no way I see her EVER getting past the clip of the Red Phone ringing at 2:30AM and nobody picking it up...

Her position, Her responsibility!

-----
Added:
Lest anyone misunderstand, I did something so distasteful that I've only done it thrice in my life. I stayed home. If you want to throw a shoe at me, I understand but I can't, in good conscience vote for someone I don't support. Too many fail to see the reality of voting for the lesser of two evils. You are still voting for evil.
edit on 8-5-2013 by CornShucker because: Added afterthought



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I believe Benghazi will be the biggest challenge Obama has yet to face.

Too many things point DIRECTLY at the malfeasance and ineptitude of the current Commander in Chief. In the late afternoon of 9/11/12 Obama had a scheduled meeting with Leon Panetta (during which time the Benghazi attack started). After the meeting ended, BHO had nothing on his schedule til he left the White House the morning of 9/12 for a flight to Las Vegas for a scheduled fundraiser. While the Embasssy burned, and the body of the US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was dragged thru the streets, we are to believe that no one in the State Department or Administration thought "maybe we should inform the President ?" And now, with four dead Americans (and three Whistleblowers) we are to further believe that all of these underlings (up to HRC and BHO) are willing to fall on their swords for the political careers of those two?

Couple that with reportedly TWO of the Whistleblowers stating that "stand down orders" were given (and can only come from the Commander in Chief) and things get mighty ugly for the Administration.


Would BHO ever be impeached? No....but could he be talked into resigning (to save his bacon) I think so. As thin skinned and narcassistic as BHO is, heavy criticism and ridicule could render him useless to those who put him into power. So a sudden "medical resignation" could save face all around.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by cholo
 

Oh my, have you looked deeply into any of your claims?

No republicans are not good at governing at a national level.

Both Clinton and Obama have turned around economies that suffered from republican policies.

The Dow was over 15,000, in three and a half years the economy will be singing.
There are many people and significant amounts of evidence questioning all of those positions.

Well, on second thought I'm wrong. The idea that Republicans are not good at governing nationally is an opinion. It depends on what is meant by "good." So, lacking a definition, I can't say whether you're right or wrong. You may want to consider Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter as not being "good" as well.


Just to add two cents... I have a feeling the lion's share of modern Democrats would consider JFK a conservative. Many of the things he believed deeply are at odds with the current mindset.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oldsguy

Originally posted by amazing

Originally posted by Bilk22
Then we get stuck with Uncle Joe. That's no bargain either, afaik.


Even worse it will ensure a Republican in the white house next term. On the surface that doesn't sound too bad, but then...did you see who ran last time?? Do you remember? LOL Oh God!

I don't care what party the next Prez is from, Dummycrats or Repubtards. I want someone who is a patriot and will follow the Constitution that they take an oath to uphold.


Sad to think that a patriotic American would even have to express that sentiment. [applauding] I stand beside you on this. Party affiliation means less to me than genuine knowledge of the responsibilities that go with the position you've been elected into.

My biggest frustration with most of my "Progressive" friends is their lack of recognition that every change comes with consequences. Change for the sake of change is NOT necessarily Progress.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by Diisenchanted
 


Huckabee is dredged from the same scum as Obama.


You took the words right out of my mouth.

I vehemently opposed Obama in both elections, but Huckabee is his own uniquely yet equally offensive brand of scum.

And for any animal lovers out there, remember what that son of his did to a dog at that summer camp he was a 'counselor' at? Tortured and hung that poor dog- and Papa Huckabee did what any respectable public servant would do- threatened everyone close to the situation to keep quiet or they'd lose their jobs or possibly even worse. Stand-up guy, really.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Impeachment, a term that we are all familiar with, yet no sitting president in recent history has ever been removed, but has gone through the process. Only 3 Presidents before have been impeached, 2 got off with the failure of one vote, and the other resigned. That is all, so this is not something that should be done at the whim or the will of the people, but given serious thought to.

Before we go into the reasons why, and how, the first thing is to look at what all is involved. A sitting President has to have comitted the following: Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The charges have to be agreed on and supported by the House of Representatives and then is held in the Senate, under the supervision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Of which, the following is what most of the previous impeachment hearings have been on is the High Crimes and Misdemeanors. That is mostly covered as the following: allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The problem is that it has to be proved, in a court of law that the sitting President, knowingly and willingly broke the law. And that is at the heart of the matter. Did he know what was going on, was it his order, or did someone else make that order, leaving him out of the loop on this one? Those are the kinds of questions that have to be answered before such can go forward. Executive privledge only goes so far, and here recently has been just borderlined abused, maybe making it law that the President can not use that when it is a point of interest, to deny the congress the right to check out his activities, and to form a comittie, from both housese to sit on and review information.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by cholo
 
And ended it when they found it did not work, but then like good socialist that think they know better no matter how bad something is Obama and his lackey Holder do it there way.

Hay I understand your point, two wrongs make it right.......................in a liberal socialist mind.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 
Polls only not done by the Huff Post and MSNBC.

Show me some neutral posts that showed Obama would win, you admitted that Romney was ahead in one of your posts. Did you get all your info from people in New Zealand?

Boring in that cubical?????

edit on 8-5-2013 by Battleline because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-5-2013 by Battleline because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-5-2013 by Battleline because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Lets not put the blinders on here. You're missing half the picture if you think that one party is better than the other and especially if you think that republicans are better than democrats. They are both equally to blame for all of our problems. If you think that Obama is a worse president than Bush...you haven't done your research.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Diisenchanted
 


LOL @ tyrannical Regime. Wow, first world problems indeed. Google Tyrannical Regime right now, hurry, you can still save some face.

Anyhoo, this late in the 2nd term? Nothing is going to happen, just ride it out, the next puppet will be installed and you can pick a side in the fake fight and pretend you are important.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
Could this be a reality? One could only hope.
Anyway I found this today while I was checking the news. Mike seems to think that this whole Benghazi affair will be the undoing of a tyrannical regime. Well at least their leader. He goes on to say that he doubts that Obama will finish this term.
I done a quick search and found nothing on this story. So if this is a repeat
post mods please delete
I have to go to work so I wont be able to respond until lunch. Just wanted to put this out there
link



If this were to be true we could end up with Biden as president. Think of the horrors that would follow.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 





If this were to be true we could end up with Biden as president. Think of the horrors that
would follow.


Not necessarily. Biden would be considerd complicit as well. It could go to Speaker.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I beleive Obama will not be impeached, unfortunetly. Nixon decided to resign rather than toss the country into an all out fight to impeach. I dont see Obama doing the same ethically choice, he is a tryannt, backed by an evil that wants America in a war with itself.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join