Obama: Dead in the Water...is it true?

Post by TJ » May 16, 2013, 10:41 am

Obama is the most powerful politician in history.

The following sums it up: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/20 ... orse-nixon

Post by **LilRed** » May 16, 2013, 6:26 pm

Not a very good article, IMHO.

I am reminded of the ol hamburger ad, that started out. "Where's the beef?"

Post by **gudtymchuk** » May 16, 2013, 9:03 pm

Looks like another Liberal Media celebrity, Chris 'He sends a thrill down my leg' Matthews has jumped ship with his buddy the POTUS. A Liberal loosing MSNBC couldn't be a good sign....
By DYLAN BYERS | 5/15/13 7:05 PM EDT
President Obama "obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch," Chris Matthews said tonight.

Yes, you read that right: The MSNBC host who in 2008 felt a "thrill going up my leg" after hearing Obama speak has grown disenchanted. Tonight's episode of Hardball saw Matthews delivering a rare, unforgiving grilling of the president as severe as anything that might appear on Fox News.

"What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing with other politicians -- that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft," Matthews said.

"So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning, visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or somewhere," Matthews continued. "But what part does he like? He doesn't like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn't like selling to the press. He doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn't seem to like being an executive.”

On Tuesday's program, Matthews similarly called Obama "a ship with the engine off."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 64095.html

Post by **gudtymchuk** » May 17, 2013, 6:30 am

Is Obama the teflon president?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ing-apart/

Post by **jackspratt** » May 17, 2013, 7:56 am

Teflon is not needed when there is nothing to stick.

Post by **tigerryan** » May 17, 2013, 10:49 am

Obama is going to melt down this summer. He's lazy and can't get the respect from the folks he wants it from the most. He has just tossed his third rail the media under the bus. Watch the amature unrefined, unrespected collapse of man child. I can't wait for his crazy ass wife to start with the angry black woman ---- again. I've got my feet up and watching with laughter. The heat of Thailand aint got nothing on what ahead for our a*s clown leader.

Post by **LilRed** » May 18, 2013, 9:46 am

TR:

Outta curiousity, who do ya like on the conservative side?

The only credible Republican candidate (IMHO) appears to be Jeb Bush... I kinda think that'd be one too many Bushs... Maybe Conde?

I most strongly doubt Hillary will run. She appears to be ill... Check her out yestiddy, in an interview with Harrison Ford, done yesterday for da Huffington Post...

Post by **WBU ALUM** » May 18, 2013, 4:20 pm

LilRed wrote:The only credible Republican candidate (IMHO) appears to be Jeb Bush...

First, Jeb Bush is nowhere near a Conservative in his philosophy. He's part of the weak, mushy Establishment Republicans content on managing the decay and bargaining away liberty like it was a slice of salami.

Second, if Jeb Bush is the GOP candidate, he will lose a in landslide. Not because he is a Bush, but because Conservatives will stay home just like they did with Romney as the candidate. If the GOP doesn't embrace their conservative base, they will never win another national election.

Third, it's way too early to start promoting anyone on either side. Lots of time.

Post by **LilRed** » May 19, 2013, 8:57 am

I am still interested in identifying credible, conservative candidates... WBU, got ur thoughts on JB... But, other than Conde, who bears watchin? Maybe Sarah "Hot Lips" Palin? At least Mitt was sorta credible, until he picked his runnin mate...

President Obama has nominated Sri Srinivasan for the Supreme Court. Seems like credentialed guy. Born and raised in the heartland... Great academic creds from Stanford University (Conde's current gig...)... Great professional creds in the federal judicial system... Served with distinction under Jr. Bush, etc... and, Obama...

Ur opinion?

Post by **WBU ALUM** » May 19, 2013, 10:56 am

LilRed wrote:I am still interested in identifying credible, conservative candidates... WBU, got ur thoughts on JB... But, other than Conde, who bears watchin? Maybe Sarah "Hot Lips" Palin? At least Mitt was sorta credible, until he picked his runnin mate...

President Obama has nominated Sri Srinivasan for the Supreme Court. Seems like credentialed guy. Born and raised in the heartland... Great academic creds from Stanford University (Conde's current gig...)... Great professional creds in the federal judicial system... Served with distinction under Jr. Bush, etc... and, Obama...

Ur opinion?

Dole was a weak, mushy Establishment Republican who got his turn to run. McCain got his turn and wouldn't have even had a showing had he not picked Palin. Mitt Romney would have been thrashed even worse had he not picked Ryan.

No Bushes. No people from the Bush Establishment Republican administration. I'm not getting on anyone's bandwagon now. Too early.

One thing is certain, and that is the Lib Media will trash anyone personally -- directly and indirectly -- who looks as though they may rise to the top.

Srinivasan is not a SCOTUS nominee. There are no vacancies on the Supreme Court. I don't have an opinion on Srinivasan.

Credentials mean nothing regarding judges if they are not Constitutionalists. We don't need anymore judges legislating from the bench and rewriting laws under the guise of judicial review. Too many decisions are being made by judges based on their "feelings" and wacky interpretations and not what is in the Constitution.

Post by **WBU ALUM** » May 20, 2013, 4:06 pm

Benghazi Stand Down Denials Don't Stand Up To Reason
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... to-reason/

During an October 16 interview, Denver’s WUSA-TV reporter Kyle Clark asked President Obama a two-part question: “Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya denied requests for help during that attack, and is it fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation until after the election?” Expressing his regret about the casualties and sympathy for their families, plus a determination to bring the perpetrators to justice, the president didn’t answer either question.

After dodging, Clark asked the first and most important part again: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” And once again Obama offered a non-answer, saying: “I can tell you as I have said over the last couple of months since this happened, that the minute I found out this was going on, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.” He continued, “I guarantee you that everybody in the State Department, our military, CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe. These are our folks. And we’re going to find out exactly what happened.”

So are we to take it from this that President Obama expressly said that in the very beginning he issued a clear directive instructing that all possible means be employed by his National Security Council to secure our personnel? Such a directive would constitute an “Execute Order”, an official mandate that would carry the inviolate authority of our nation’s commander-in-chief. Where is that document?

Why did the Department of Defense ignore Obama's order to secure our personnel?

Frankly, I contend that they had their orders when Obama left them and went to sleep, which is why he never bothered to contact them again to see how it was going. I contend that Obama told them not to use any military force.

Yet the administration had already put our people in harm’s way…and did so without providing adequate protection. So if the president had issued a formal order to “employ all possible means to secure our personnel”, then wouldn’t the correct decision be to deploy aid to save them? And in not doing so, didn’t the defense secretary countermand the alleged direct order? On the other hand, it wouldn’t seem very likely for that to occur when his military superior, the president, was right there in the Oval Office with him.

Yet if President Obama is offended that people suspect he hasn’t been forthcoming, there’s a very simple solution. Just provide real evidence to back up his administration’s claims…perhaps starting with that three point order he purportedly issued immediately upon learning of the attack.

And before he went to sleep to rest up for the fund-raiser in Las Vegas.

Post by **papaguido** » May 20, 2013, 5:52 pm

And once again Obama offered a non-answer, saying: “I can tell you as I have said over the last couple of months since this happened, that the minute I found out this was going on, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.

Well someone's lying or Panetta screwed the pooch, because General Ham, AFICOM never got the order. This according to Gen Ham when asked by Congressman Chavizz.

Chaffetz also told van Susteren that Gen. Carter Ham, former head of U.S. Africa command, "personally" told him that “he did not get a directive from the White House, from the president of the United States to engage in the fire fight to help protect those people.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/report- ... k-got-none

But hey "what difference does it make"

Post by **jackspratt** » May 20, 2013, 7:18 pm

It seems we are being treated to "reports" from late last year.

Is there anything more contemporary to back up the speculation, innuendo and opinion contained therein?

Post by **papaguido** » May 20, 2013, 8:44 pm

jackspratt wrote:It seems we are being treated to "reports" from late last year.

Is there anything more contemporary to back up the speculation, innuendo and opinion contained therein?

The report dates are "irrelevant" (where have I heard that word being thrown around today) it's the content that matters.

Post by **papaguido** » May 20, 2013, 9:02 pm

Oh yeah I remember now...

WH Advisor: It's an 'Irrelevant Fact' Where Obama Was on Night of Benghazi Attack

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said that it was “largely irrelevant” who edited the talking points the Obama administration trotted out in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Benghazi

Pfeiffer said the law governing the targeting of conservative groups was “irrelevant."

Right up there with Hilary's "what difference does it make"...

Post by **jackspratt** » May 20, 2013, 9:55 pm

Given that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the reports from last year, it would be reasonable to expect some credible substantiation in the following 6 months.

Hasn't happened as far as I am aware.

I also understand that AFICOM commander (Gen. Ham) has subsequently retired. Given that (I would guess) he is no longer constrained by the military, surely he will speak out soon to confirm all the speculation, innuendo, opinion and contention is correct.

That really would be something of substance.

Post by TJ » May 21, 2013, 4:45 am

It's time for the corrupt President to ask the corrupt Justice Department to investigate the corrupt Internal Revenue Service. But as Hillary says, "What Does It Matter?"

Post by **farlong68** » May 21, 2013, 5:04 am

it doesn't matter to Hillary or Obama it wasn't their sons/ brothers /fathers /husbands that died... while Obama napped and Hillary was keeping a close eye on billy goat to make sure he was doing another intern.... and im sure the attorney general mister holder will police up the irs but he and Obama the president and chief law enforcement officer of the country have no knowledge... that's the first truthful thing I have ever heard from either of them lol hope the county and world survives these two idiots and there Chicago thugs running it for another term....oh yeah they didn't know about gathering phone records of the press either just unbelievable my fellow countrymen elected this guy TWICE!!!!! it time for my bp pill I think ill take 2 one for each term...john

Post by **LilRed** » May 21, 2013, 8:44 am

Le's get this stuff fully investigated. If da Big O did all this nasty stuff, punish him...

If, however, after full investigation, we find that folks on either side have been "stirring the pot" for blatant politcal gain, le's punish them too...

Post by **WBU ALUM** » May 21, 2013, 10:35 am

farlong68 wrote:it doesn't matter to Hillary or Obama it wasn't their sons/ brothers /fathers /husbands that died... while Obama napped and Hillary was keeping a close eye on billy goat to make sure he was doing another intern.... and im sure the attorney general mister holder will police up the irs but he and Obama the president and chief law enforcement officer of the country have no knowledge... that's the first truthful thing I have ever heard from either of them lol hope the county and world survives these two idiots and there Chicago thugs running it for another term....oh yeah they didn't know about gathering phone records of the press either just unbelievable my fellow countrymen elected this guy TWICE!!!!! it time for my bp pill I think ill take 2 one for each term...john

As one of my good friends and Patriots in NYC says all the time: "Of course it comes from the top. Does big government work any other way?"

There are too many of these specifically targeted citizens by too many different departments for this to be just rogue, mid-level federal employees going astray or being incompetent. You mean there are no rogue conservative federal employees targeting Liberals? All of these things don't happen by coincidence.