Hawktawk wrote:He would have been impeached a long time ago.
Richard Nixon is turning 7000 RPMs in his grave, bouncing off the rev limiter. Carter is breathing a sigh of relief at being off the hook as the weakest president in modern American history.
If you still support Obama tell me why. Is it the thousands of illegals flooding across the southern border? Obama-care? The 6 years of an absolutely terrible economy. The embarrassing repeated gaffes in foreign policy including getting long C@cked by Putin on a regular basis. The repeated lies to the American people? The attack on personal liberties and the right of privacy? Or is it because he was black(well half black) and so that's kind of cool, never mind the ramifications.
So just tell me Obama supporters. What has this man done that makes you still support him?
Hawktawk wrote:Hey I may have been venting but what did I say that was untrue? Is it OK to get lathered up when U think America is going down the tank? Sorry I don't think theres time to be polite....
For starters, that he should be impeached. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination did Obama commit "bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" as defined by the Constitution.
The stock market has performed rather well and inflation has been under control, coming in at 1.3%.
For example, unemployment has been on a steady decline since he took office and is currently at 6.3%. Anytime you tickle 5%, you're doing great.
burrrton wrote:For starters, that he should be impeached. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination did Obama commit "bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" as defined by the Constitution.
This^^.The stock market has performed rather well and inflation has been under control, coming in at 1.3%.
I'm no expert, but I think this is due almost entirely to QEs 1 through, what are we on now, 273?
Inflation has thankfully stayed low, but I think there's some truth to the argument that a bubble's been created (again, though, the complexities of that are emphatically *not* in my wheelhouse).For example, unemployment has been on a steady decline since he took office and is currently at 6.3%. Anytime you tickle 5%, you're doing great.
I think your statement that we're not all the way down the crapper (paraphrasing) is also true, but the recession officially ended in June 2009.
When you're still bouncing along the bottom, teetering on another recession, fully 5 years later, with most of the UE improvement due to people leaving the labor force (no, that's not all Obama's fault- rich, retiring guys like you account for a percentage of it ), somebody did something wrong.
RiverDog wrote:Hawktawk wrote:Hey I may have been venting but what did I say that was untrue? Is it OK to get lathered up when U think America is going down the tank? Sorry I don't think theres time to be polite....
For starters, that he should be impeached. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination did Obama commit "bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" as defined by the Constitution.
Secondly, the economy has been a rather mixed bag, not "absolutely terrible" as you characterize it. For example, unemployment has been on a steady decline since he took office and is currently at 6.3%. Anytime you tickle 5%, you're doing great. The stock market has performed rather well and inflation has been under control, coming in at 1.3%. This baby boomer remembers well the double digit inflation component of the infamous "misery index" of the late 70's and early 80's.
The requirements of a good, civil debate is that you not come into it with an agenda and try to keep an open mind.
You act like there is a way out for everyone and there is not.
RiverDog wrote:The real unemployment rate is nearer to 20 percent when you count all the underemployed people, people who gave up, people who have weaseled their way onto some sort of disability.
Let's take a calculator to that statement. According to the BLS, there are currently 9.8 million unemployed, which amounts to 6.3% of the work force, which would peg total of employed and unemployed at about 155M.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
A 20% unemployment rate would equal 31 million people, and 31 minus the reported 9.8M equals 21.2. So what you are saying is that there are an additional 21.2 million people that have "given up or weaseled their way onto some sort of disability", which if true, would be 1.5M more people than currently live in the entire state of New York, which I find a little hard to believe. Do you have any credible sources by which to support such a claim?
Inflation sure looks bad to me when I buy gas or groceries.
The president, liberal and conservatives, have very little control over the price of gas. The major component of the price of a gallon of gas is crude oil, which is determined by the world wide market which can be influenced by things such as instability in the Middle East or a cold winter on the east coast. While I do agree that he's not doing a great job on energy policy by resisting attempts to establish pipelines and expand the exploration for crude oil and the insistence on some of these so called green power initiatives that liberals love so much, but it's unfair to blame Obama, as it was for liberals 6 years ago when they blamed George Bush, for high gas prices. Besides, they aren't any higher today than they were for the vast majority of the Bush administration. Here's a chart showing how volatile they've been:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/busin ... html?_r=1&
As far as what you're seeing at the supermarket, it depends on what groceries you're buying and when you're buying them, but overall, food prices haven't changed much since Obama took office..."Food prices may fluctuate from season to season, but overall they have risen at only a 2% compound rate since 2009"
http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if- ... p-so-much/
Food stamp use has nearly tripled in the last 6 years.
Last February, Obama signed a bill that cut $8.7 billion from the food stamp program.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-signs-food-stamp-cut
I repeat my question, if you still support him and like him as president, why? Anybody?
I support him and respect him in that he's our President even though I don't agree with very much of his politics. What I don't understand is where you're getting your information as you seem to be just pulling numbers off the top of your head and I'm having a hard time figuring out what the real source of your rage is. You're not making a logical, fact based argument.
Edit: I've never voted for a Dem as President since I first voted for Nixon in '72. WTF's going on with me defending a Dem prez?...lol.
Edit: I've never voted for a Dem as President since I first voted for Nixon in '72. WTF's going on with me defending a Dem prez?...lol.
Hawktawk wrote:Quoting a government agency about labor statistics is like letting the fox guard the hen house. Its common knowledge that these agencies have simply stopped counting millions of people who have given up. More workers have left the workforce than have found jobs in the last 6 years. And U tout the Pres signing his 8.9 Billion in welfare cuts. The same article says the republicans wanted 30 to 40 billion in cuts . Quoting the NYT about anything related to their hero Obama is naive at best.
But I see you completely ignored the biggest problems Ive had with Obama, namely Obama-care, Benghazi,The disaster on the southern border and the suppression of media and patrol agents reporting or showing pictures. And the topper for me, trading 5 Taliban commanders including two who were mass murderers for a deserter and then misrepresenting his actions in Afghanistan to make the deal look better. This deal was rejected the last two years by the democratically controlled senate and so Obama simply went around them, breaking a promise to come before them about any prisoner swap.
And let me add on the complete anarchy which is gripping much of the middle east because Obama leads from the rear and consequently nations and bad actors do not fear America anymore.
What part of me having issues with these things is an irrational argument? RD you may have never voted Democratic but you might as well start. Your exactly the kind of guy Obama needs right now. As for me, I cant support or respect a man who has trampled the constitution 6 ways to Sunday. But you go for it....
FolkCrusader wrote:That was a nice try RD, but I don't see that Hawktalk is willing to change his mind. You confront him with facts that show half of his theories are wrong and irrational. The counter argument? The facts are wrong and my other arguments are stronger.
Here's my response Hawktalk. When you make an irrational and factually incorrect statement it tends to make all of your statements sound irrational and factually incorrect.
Would I hold up Obama as the epitome of Presidential success? Heck no. He has had some victories, but many let downs. I'm as critical of him as I was of Bush II. In fact, if you really look at the facts the same can be said about every President I've studied. The Presidents who were in office during good economic times tend to be remembered with more reverence. But most have some colossal failures to go with their successes. I think this President takes the job very seriously, but in the end I think his judgement on large issues is lacking and I think he has trouble taking advice from those that oppose him.
Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors? Please, that just crybaby talk from a person disappointed that his party is not in power and decisions aren't going the way they would like.
Eaglehawk wrote:I agree with Hawktawk sentiments.
I voted for Obama and I don't understand why proceedings have not commenced against him. If you asked me that a US President would release 5 terrorists for a questionable soldier and not inform Congress, he would spy on Americans and conservative groups(IRS), he would encourage a flood of illegals to the US, and that we would watch Vets die while waiting for medical treatment and that Congress would do nothing about this, I would say you are crazy.
I think most Americans are not informed as yet for whatever reason.
I think in the future you will see extremists from the left and the right organize into separate groups that may or may not work together. Its happening now. Elizabeth Warren is surging on the Democratic side, which I find interesting.
Nice article.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... n-20140611
But I do accept his explanation for not telling Congress about it.
Old but Slow wrote:Benghasi? Oh, the outrage. How about the Bush (the younger) years? Shall I list them? OK, I will.
On 1/22/02 the US consulate in Kolkata attacked, 5 Americans killed. On 6/14/02, Karachi, 12 Americans dead. On 2/28/03 the embassy in Islamibad, 2 dead. 6/30/04, embassy in Tashkent, 2 dead. 12/6/04, the US compound Saudi Arabia, 9 killed. 3/2/06, consulate in Karachi (again), 2 dead. 9/12/06, the embassy in Syria, 4 deaths. 3/18/08, the embassy in Yemen, 2 dead. 7/9/08, the consulate in Istanbul, with 6 dead. And on 9/17/08, the embassy in Yemen (again), with 16 dead. That comes to 60 American deaths.
Several ambassadors and other high officials have been killed when on duty overseas over the last several decades. It is a risk they take.
FolkCrusader wrote:Well, since OBS took on Benghasi I guess I can try to take on Berghasi.
First off, I have read the same accounts that you all have read and it does appear that Bergdahl walked away from his post just prior to his being captured. None the less, there is no doubt the Taliban treated him like a captured soldier for five years. Two of those years he spent in isolation. Some of you may know what effects long term isolation has on a person. I can only say that they are severe and in most cases irreversible. The final decision to trade for him was made because military sources (they had drones that monitored even the conversations in his prison) determined that he was extremely ill and probably could be dead in as soon as a month given his current condition. The White House quickly pulled the trigger and exchanged him for 5 Taliban prisoners.
So there are three primary issues that get brought up about this trade. 1) It was illegal given a law that was passed recently that required congress be notified before an exchange of prisoners. 2) The prisoners were all highly placed Taliban operatives and should not have been released. 3) Bergdahl is a deserter and therefore was not worthy to be traded.
As far as the exchange, it may have been illegal. The reality is the President has very broad powers to act in that situation. I'm sure there will be hearings over it and an answer will be had at some point. As far as congress not being informed? They had been informed, many times. And each time they chose to try and politicize it to the point of inaction. They clearly were not informed at the point of the transaction. I think in the end the President realized that if he was going to pull the trigger he would have to act unilaterally.
Regarding the Taliban members that were exchanged. Interestingly the GTMO files for each of these guys are available on wikileaks. I have read them all and although a bit dry, they explain how each of them were captured and for what purpose they have been detained. Most were turned over by Pakistanis for the very large rewards that were being offered post 9/11. Although lots of cooks and valets named as "high level agents" were also turned over by Pakistanis all of these guys were involved with Taliban at some notable level. One had risen to be a division level commander in the Taliban militia. Two had been province governors. One held a key intelligence position. Most had political connections to Iran, Bin Laden, or other key people in the middle east. Most of them were said to have been very cooperative during interviews. They have also been cut off from the Taliban for over 10 years. Are they a dream team of terrorists? Maybe, but at this point they have been photographed 6 ways to Sunday. They may be welcomed home as martyrs, but they will never be trusted with high level positions again. And even if they were accepted back they know what would hunt them and how quickly they could be located and killed. Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan is due to end in the next year. These guys are all members of what is going to be the de facto ruling party when we leave. They would have been released anyway.
The Bergdahl story the political right and the media have labeled him a deserter and a traitor. The fact that no courts martial has occurred and that Bergdahl has had no chance to speak for himself matters little to his disparagers. I agree the facts of the case that we know look grim, but the guy deserves his day in court before he is hung by the country. The reality is now that it's too late for that. He has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Personally I think that is sad but it's clear most Americans do not. Whatever the amount of sins Bergdahl committed, they had nothing to do with the choice to get him back. He was coming back either in a body bag or like this. If you prefer he came back in a bag, go ahead, stand up, be counted.
Just Friday the IRS informed the house committee investigating the IRS scandal that they had lost ALL the Emails between Lois Lerner and DOJ,white house, etc. They blamed it on a computer crash.
Old but Slow wrote:Did Obama sell weapons to Iran to start a war in Central America? Did he start a war in Iraq because of lies about weapons of mass destruction? Did he refuse to pursue Bin Laden because he didn't really matter?
The country is in the thrall of corporate money, the people have nothing to say, and you are blaming the black man. Shame on you.
Old but Slow wrote:Benghasi? Oh, the outrage. How about the Bush (the younger) years? Shall I list them? OK, I will.
...
Several ambassadors and other high officials have been killed when on duty overseas over the last several decades. It is a risk they take.
burrrton wrote:Just Friday the IRS informed the house committee investigating the IRS scandal that they had lost ALL the Emails between Lois Lerner and DOJ,white house, etc. They blamed it on a computer crash.
And every IT guy on the planet simultaneously went "How stupid does he think we are?!?"
This stuff is starting to get very creepy.
Eaglehawk wrote:Maybe you are correct Riv. What do you think about Benghazi? Do you think any impeachable offenses were committed during that fiasco?
RiverDog wrote:Eaglehawk wrote:Maybe you are correct Riv. What do you think about Benghazi? Do you think any impeachable offenses were committed during that fiasco?
The short answer is no. Although in general I am not at all happy with Obama, I have not seen anything that rises to the level of impeachment, which I regard as having an extremely high bar. It is not a means of which was designed to overturn an election simply because we don't like certain management decisions that were made. It is for very serious, felony level crimes or blatantly treasonous behavior.
As a matter of fact, in retrospect, I am beginning to change my mind about Clinton's impeachment, mainly because he was not even disbarred for what I had believed to have been perjured testimony in a court of law. If it were that serious of a crime, he would have been prosecuted for it after he left office as Nixon surely would have had Ford not pardoned him. Impeachment is not an option that we should be so easily tossing around.
If you guys don't like Obama, fine. Instead of wasting time on a sports orientated internet forum whining about impeaching him, you should be out there finding an opposition candidate in preparation for the 2016 election. Impeachment ain't gonna happen, and even if it did, you'd still be saddled with Joe Biden, which could be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Old but Slow wrote:Hawktown, I would take your point a step further. Public officials should be held to a higher standard, especially police, elected officials, and judges. Automatically tougher penalties. But, not football players (j/k).
Hawktown wrote:[Unfortunately, there is ZERO way of voting our way out of this mess. If you can impeach a president for a BJ, then you should DAMN WELL want a president impeached for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.
If any president does ANYTHING ILLEGAL, he should be removed from his post IMMEDIATELY, and then tried for the offense and serve TWICE the punishment an everyday Joe would spend!!! The president should be held to higher standard but can get away with ANYTHING without punishment, I call BS!!! Past presidents should have been as well and ford should have not been able to pardon nixon either.
RiverDog wrote:Hawktown wrote:[Unfortunately, there is ZERO way of voting our way out of this mess. If you can impeach a president for a BJ, then you should DAMN WELL want a president impeached for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.
If any president does ANYTHING ILLEGAL, he should be removed from his post IMMEDIATELY, and then tried for the offense and serve TWICE the punishment an everyday Joe would spend!!! The president should be held to higher standard but can get away with ANYTHING without punishment, I call BS!!! Past presidents should have been as well and ford should have not been able to pardon nixon either.
Clinton was not impeached for a BJ. He was impeached for perjury. I don't care if he was asked if he jacks off and said no and it was later proven that he did. A lie is a lie and perjury is perjury. Once you raise your hand and swear, it changes little white lies to perjured testimony. The only reason I have soften my position is that the courts did not pursue Clinton after he left office even though I thought they should have, so I yield to their judgment. Not knowing what I do know now, I still would have advocated impeachment and removal from office.
I do not believe a President should be impeached for ANY crime, only "high crimes". For example, I would not have wanted to impeach Reagan over Iran Contra because he circumvented Congress. It was a foreign policy struggle between the Executive and Legislative Branches and although technically illegal, did not rise to the "high crimes" standard. It was just some phony, meddling legislation passed by a pack of babbling idiots that had no business interfering with foreign policy. But I do think Nixon should have been impeached for obstruction of justice and abuse of power as they IMO most certainly did involve "high crimes". As the saying goes, the punishment must fit the crime.
Thanks for the compliment, Hawktown. One of the highest compliments anyone can pay another is that their objective.
Hawktown wrote:RiverDog wrote:Hawktown wrote:[Unfortunately, there is ZERO way of voting our way out of this mess. If you can impeach a president for a BJ, then you should DAMN WELL want a president impeached for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.
If any president does ANYTHING ILLEGAL, he should be removed from his post IMMEDIATELY, and then tried for the offense and serve TWICE the punishment an everyday Joe would spend!!! The president should be held to higher standard but can get away with ANYTHING without punishment, I call BS!!! Past presidents should have been as well and ford should have not been able to pardon nixon either.
Clinton was not impeached for a BJ. He was impeached for perjury. I don't care if he was asked if he jacks off and said no and it was later proven that he did. A lie is a lie and perjury is perjury. Once you raise your hand and swear, it changes little white lies to perjured testimony. The only reason I have soften my position is that the courts did not pursue Clinton after he left office even though I thought they should have, so I yield to their judgment. Not knowing what I do know now, I still would have advocated impeachment and removal from office.
I do not believe a President should be impeached for ANY crime, only "high crimes". For example, I would not have wanted to impeach Reagan over Iran Contra because he circumvented Congress. It was a foreign policy struggle between the Executive and Legislative Branches and although technically illegal, did not rise to the "high crimes" standard. It was just some phony, meddling legislation passed by a pack of babbling idiots that had no business interfering with foreign policy. But I do think Nixon should have been impeached for obstruction of justice and abuse of power as they IMO most certainly did involve "high crimes". As the saying goes, the punishment must fit the crime.
Thanks for the compliment, Hawktown. One of the highest compliments anyone can pay another is that their objective.
I hear and understand your stance here RD. I would have to disagree though because how can you have a person who is to oversee that the country is run as the law says go and break the law without consequence no matter how little the crime. I personally think that is completely inexcusable.
I know clinton wasn't impeached for a BJ however, a BJ is a personal matter and not anything me or you should be worrying about, IMO, and does not affect me in any way what so ever. Unless he was getting a BJ instead of you know, protecting america when the call comes. Everyone deserves a little break.I don't think the courts needed to know about his extra curricular activities. Certainly they would not care if i was receiving or not nor would i let them know. I can see though how some may feel different about that situation and not want our president doing such thing in the oval office. I also see how some may think hypocrite in my this part of my belief system by saying that gov. officials should be held to a higher standard but i don't see a BJ as a crime.
I also think that MOST ALL issues should be voted on BY THE PEOPLE OF THE USA and not reps. People would feel like they are more in control of their environment and the ones who do not vote would really have zero excuse to complain when things do not go their way. At the same time more people would be informed on political issues.
Just an FYI RD, I think the compliment was from someone else but I too would not mind you on my jury. If that is the compliment you refer to.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests