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.

 

NEW YORK TIMES: The Obama Administration 'Has Now Lost All Credibility'

page: 9
69
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


My opinion is he will impeached over the IRS ordeal.


im tired

but i got one more....HA DO KEN

impeach these bro...impeach these

never heard anyone use that word for bush...that little signature of his that allowed the greatest ever army to fight a rag tag war like iraq...and all those other singatures as a result of the war....impeachable? well its about how high your standards are




posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by thePharaoh
ok you want a new president next term...i dont get it

but listen up reps....this is how you use logic!

beating the man...highly improbable

destroying his image... this will have an adverse effect...support will grow


my advice...dont "fight" the man

leave him....

side step past him

and most importantly..stop with these bs stories blaming the president for people dying in a war zone

im tired
edit on 8-6-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)


Dude - the Left will take him down not the Right.

Watch & Learn. It's never your enemie's - it's your friends.

Et Tu Brute

edit on 8-6-2013 by BABYBULL24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I am hearing that some lawmakers are saying no new gun laws will pass till Obama and Atty. Gen. Holder come clean on Fast and Furious.

And any other government Gunwalking programs out there. IE Operation Wide Receiver, The Hernandez Case, The Medrano Case. and a number of other one target gun walking operations.


On December 2, 2011, the Justice Department formally withdrew its statement from February 4, 2011 denying gunwalking due to inaccuracies.

Later that month, documents showed that some ATF agents discussed using Fast and Furious to provide anecdotal cases to support controversial new rules about gun sales. The regulation, called Demand Letter 3, would require 8,500 firearms dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas that "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico" to report multiple rifle sales

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BABYBULL24

Dude - the Left will take him down not the Right.

Watch & Learn. It's never your enemy's - it's your friends.

Et Tu Brute


deep...nice post


hows that gonna happen

scandal..making him right wing

interesting
edit on 8-6-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thePharaoh

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
Just like Bush, Obama is a horrible president, why won't dems see this?
edit on 6-6-2013 by terriblyvexed because: (no reason given)


democrats are pragmatic

republicans are activists


just a perception


Death, wars, torture, rendition, summary executions, erosion of constitutional protections are not...pragmatic, unless you are a cold, calculating sociopath. Ends justify the means is subjectively pragmatic, but I don't see a valid set of "ends" being presented...and, personally, with the laundry list I mentioned above, them ends best be pretty damn justifiable.

Partisans seem to have party blindness for four or eight years, then they can reel back the fervor and be more critical in hindsight (a la Laura Inghram on another thread). In four or five years time, when President What's-his-face (R) is furthering this insanity of throwing all the elements of totalitarianism into the pot and see if roses and rainbows come out this time (126th time is the charm, right?), then we'll hear the "I've seen the light" from some Democrats about Obama, amnesiac indignation from other Democrats about this future Republican President Fulano, and a chorus of screaming Republicans saying Obama started it. Vice Versa a term or two later when a new President from the Centracratic party comes on the seen. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. (It's a cliche expression for a genuinely tacky system of civics).



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


i just meant...the personality of the voters



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 

I would question your claim that you're not an Obama supporter:

im not an "obama" supporter ... i just think your all in some brain washed hysteria

since you say in the same post that he is:


one of the most genuine presidents...who got into the job for all the right reasons... worked his way up..and is trying to hand america back to the people
What in the world would you say about a president that you did support, that he was a god?

That leads me to the problem with this:

never heard anyone use that word for bush...that little signature of his that allowed the greatest ever army to fight a rag tag war like iraq...and all those other singatures as a result of the war....impeachable? well its about how high your standards are

The top half of the first page of my search engine yielded this:

Impeach Bush

www.impeachbush.org/
A campaign of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to hold Bush and his joint co-conspirators accountable for the High Crimes of launching a war of ...

27 of 35 Bush Articles of Impeachment Apply to Obama ...
www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/27-of-35-bush-articles-...
Feb 2, 2012 ... When Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush on June 9, 2008, the 35 had ...

But I had supposed you had heard about Dennis Kucinich and Ramsey Clark.

I'm also confused about why you say that it was his little signature that got us into war. What did he sign? Approval from 97 Senators who had the chance to debate and vote on it. Wherever you set the standards, he couldn't be impeached for doing the Senate's will.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota

Originally posted by thePharaoh

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
Just like Bush, Obama is a horrible president, why won't dems see this?
edit on 6-6-2013 by terriblyvexed because: (no reason given)


democrats are pragmatic

republicans are activists


just a perception


Death, wars, torture, rendition, summary executions, erosion of constitutional protections are not...pragmatic, unless you are a cold, calculating sociopath. Ends justify the means is subjectively pragmatic, but I don't see a valid set of "ends" being presented...and, personally, with the laundry list I mentioned above, them ends best be pretty damn justifiable.

Partisans seem to have party blindness for four or eight years, then they can reel back the fervor and be more critical in hindsight (a la Laura Inghram on another thread). In four or five years time, when President What's-his-face (R) is furthering this insanity of throwing all the elements of totalitarianism into the pot and see if roses and rainbows come out this time (126th time is the charm, right?), then we'll hear the "I've seen the light" from some Democrats about Obama, amnesiac indignation from other Democrats about this future Republican President Fulano, and a chorus of screaming Republicans saying Obama started it. Vice Versa a term or two later when a new President from the Centracratic party comes on the seen. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. (It's a cliche expression for a genuinely tacky system of civics).




“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

John Adams
1789



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by thePharaoh
 

I would question your claim that you're not an Obama supporter


What in the world would you say about a president that you did support, that he was a god?


no support.. just saying what i see

i wouldnt call anyone a god...





But I had supposed you had heard about Dennis Kucinich and Ramsey Clark.


nope..now i have..thanks




I'm also confused about why you say that it was his little signature that got us into war. What did he sign? Approval from 97 Senators who had the chance to debate and vote on it. Wherever you set the standards, he couldn't be impeached for doing the Senate's will.


so now you can see the senate....

how did the senate see that iraq was our problem

bush wanted that war..he got that war...and daddy was proud

nothing wrong..just be honest
edit on 8-6-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
A message from your President:




posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 

Dear thePharaoh,

Someone sent me this and I thought it would be good to remind you of it. You told me in your response "no support.. just saying what i see i wouldnt call anyone a god..." And yet, less than three months ago you wrote:

they need to calm down, because

1) Gulick is 100% wrong

2)
BEST
PRESIDENT
EVER!!!!!!


Personally, I place a high value on honesty, consistency and reliability. Don't always live up to them, but I try. You seem to have a different set of values. Not ones that I would have chosen, but hey, you are who you are.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

John Adams
1789





Adams is a personal hero of mine. We need men like this again they understood why democracies are doomed to fail and that is why they gave us a republic ruled by law.


Progressives will run this country and dare I say world into the ground. It is a disease of the mind and soul.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


[tongue in cheek]
Yes, well, since a corporation is looked upon as a person, I'd say he was right, Obama is just trying to hand America back to the [right] people...look at the affordable care act....people like Mr. S. Farm, Mr. B. Shields & his friend, a certain Mr. B. Cross, Miss Zeneca and her colleagues Mr. Merck and the Johnson Twins.
[/tongue out of cheek]

When Kerry ran I voted for him. My partisan politics were strongest as a reaction to Bush. Then I realized (read for either "grew up" or "embraced cynicism") that I was some other ideology in Democrat's clothing. But, when 2007 rolled around, I voted for Obama because of what several others had said. I felt like...maybe he's the real deal, and that you could subvert the two party system through the two party system.

Here's what I don't get. ...I want to feel like people like Obama, Kucinich, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and others are intelligent people and supporters of the public...but why do they continue to embrace this sham of a two-party system? So, at the end of the day, I would agree that Obama and other Democrats are probably pragmatists...

...they strike just the right balance of warm, fuzzy (but ultimately vacuous) rhetoric about helping women, helping Black people, helping gay people, championing human rights, the environment....

...but in praxis (the root of "pragmatic") they just go ahead and shelve the dangling-carrots til the next election cycle, sign any old deal that can at least make them sound good to their voters (Obamacare) but upon even a cursory review becomes rather clear it was a calculated financial transaction.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Finally figured it out, there was change, it is just no one wants / likes this change.




posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


Nobody mentioned impeachment when Bush was in office?


You Dem supporters just can't get over Bush, can you? Can you folks not see that Obama is Bush 2.0?
And yeah, I hated Bush. Still do. He is a damn war criminal. As is Obama. TONS of folks on here were screaming for Bush to be impeached. Myself included.

A lot of us don't buy into your false dichotomy. Left vs. Right.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by okyouwin
 


If you did your homework, you would know that "on this issue" was not part of the original headline. It was added later for some unknown(but obvious) reason. Why do you even ..oooops I'm speaking the wrong language to you. Baaaaa baa baaaaaa baa baa baaaaaaaa. Now do you understand?



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by okyouwin

Originally posted by IAMTAT

NEW YORK TIMES: The Obama Administration 'Has Now Lost All Credibility'


www.businessinsider.com

Mr. Obama clearly had no intention of revealing this eavesdropping, just as he would not have acknowledged the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, had it not been reported in the press. Even then, it took him more than a year and a half to acknowledge the killing, and he is still keeping secret the protocol by which he makes such decisions.
We are not questioning the legality under the Patriot Act of the court order disclosed by The Guardian. But we strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said i
(visit the link for the full news article)



The administration has now lost all credibility.
The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.

www.nytimes.com...


Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com
edit on 6-6-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2013 by IAMTAT because: Link added


I think you left out part. The part where it says "on this issue."

Why do people feel they have to misrepresent what's said to make a point. For me you lose all credibility when you do this.


Please actually 'think' before you accuse me of misrepresenting the New York Times article.
The additional "on this issue" was LATER added by the NYT...obviously because their editorial board felt they were being just a little too tough on their favorite hypocrite, Barack Obama.

An apology would be appreciated, though certainly not expected.
-TAT



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

your post made me smile




BEST
PRESIDENT
EVER!!!!!!



its just an observation

for me he runs in close behind lincoln




, but hey, you are who you are.


yep... I AM PHARAOH
edit on 8-6-2013 by thePharaoh because: my ass itched



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


Obama and Lincoln the best? You forgot about the other two tyrants: FDR and GW Bush.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by riffraff
 


May as well throw in Woodrow Wilson too.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join