Weekend Open Thread

By NB Staff | October 22, 2011 | 10:02

A A

For general discussion and debate about whatever the heck you want.

Open Thread

NB Staff's blog
Login to post comments

Comments

Another night

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:16am.

As quickly as Obama/Biden are training murderers and rapists, how much longer do we have left?

If Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney said these things...

Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:18am.

Could you imagine the uproar from the make believe media if Dan Quayle or Dick Cheney said the same kind of stupid stuff Joe Biden is saying? But because Mr. Biden is a good loyal Democrat, he, naturally, gets a free pass.

Or this one

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:29am.

"It's very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine. . . It's the public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers" - Harry Reid

Now, if your whacked-out uncle said that,

Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 12:42pm.

the rest of the family would be at the hospital, getting the committal papers signed, because uncle had lost all touch with reality. But, because Uncle Dingy is a dem, he's allowed to go on prattling, saying insane stuff.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

Hey UpNorth - I sent you that

Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 2:00pm.

Hey UpNorth - I sent you that article that you wanted, and I sent a PM to you also.

Harry 'the Weasel' Reid is as BAD as you can get - he's in the same league as Boy Barry, Ms. Botox, and any number of other traitors, turn-coats, and delusional psycopaths. I wouldn't elevate Plugs Bite-Me into that category, because he's too damned dumb to qualify. Actually, I probably wouldn't even put Boy Barry in that category if he werent' the go***mned President of the United States!!! Because he'd be another useless piece of Kenyan Kow Krap if he were out in the 'real' world.

But you guys are right- since this new Non-Jobs bill hasn't been passed - I'm REALLY watching my backside, and I'm keeping my guns locked and loaded, and I'm not lighting any matches - because I'm deathly afraid of being raped, and then murdered, while my house burns down!!!!

I guess he hears voices......

Submitted by GregE on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 9:26pm.

......since alot of things are clear to him.....and only him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8

Why this lying piece of fecal

Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 9:34pm.

Why this lying piece of fecal matter is elected again and again by the folks of Nevada is beyond me.

Taxation is voluntary?

What a moron Reid is.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." President Ronald Reagan

Rep. Jim Moron thinks

Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:32am.

Rep. Jim Moron thinks President Obama should bypass congress and act unilaterally to refinance every home mortgage in the country

Moran told TheDC that he would “like to see” the Obama administration “refinance every home mortgage at three-and-a-half to four percent” interest, which he said can be accomplished without approval from Congress.

He IS a moron

Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:39am.

He most definitely is a moron, he must not be aware that o'bambi is already acting unilaterally on a lot of things, including going after dictators and violating international laws to do it. He's also a moron that being a rep that he is, that if the dictator in chief bypasses Congress, what the hell is this moron doing in Congress anyway? I know, let's disband Congress! What do we need it for anymore these days, right?

I woke up in a bad mood. The way things are going, it's really hard to attain a good mood.

-Jon

Jon

Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:56am.

You forgot that he put in a law that makes the firearms dealers in the border states do extra paper work for mutiple sells of long guns.

A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

mb-

Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 1:20pm.

This is the North Korean approach to curing our economic ills. Just another communist lettin the cat outta the bag.

(Can you imagine if Joe McCarthy were in office today?)

Another reason........

Submitted by GregE on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:09pm.

..........why the lib politicians love govt owning Freddie and Fannie.

OWS will fade

Submitted by Tjexcite on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:14am.

Bottom up top down to a revolution only works when the top does not use the bottom down as a election ploy to show that the people are angry. If the top wanted to gain power by force in a fascists way the top coming down on the bottom up movement will work. The top we have now want to gain power in the election both and then with the ink of a pen to regulate you with paper not control you with bullets The top want to have power without the evil police state tack so the movement will fade to nothing like the brownshirts which was the intent.

Adolf, Joe and Mao wanted to gain power by the barrel of a gun. OWS creators want to use bullets to utopia and will but there are not enough bullets to control everyone the way some regulation would.

I am getting sick of these

Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 12:01pm.

I am getting sick of these debates. All the moderators are doing is turning the canidates agaisnt each other. What I would like to see was a debate with questions strickly on the Constitution. I want to see where they stand on the 2nd Amendment and the 10th. I could care less if I never heard another word from Huntsman. He needs to mount a challenge to Obama for the Dem nomination. He sure ain't no conservative what's less a Repulbican.

I think that Townhall.com is hosting the next one. If they will let their people be the moderators it should be good. If they keep getting people like Wolfie and Cooper I will refuse to watch.

A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I agree rick, they should all

Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 1:26pm.

I agree rick, they should all be bashing Obama not each other. They need to lay out their platform or the plans they have. Herman Cain has been the only one to do so with his 9-9-9 plan. It is not perfect but it gives the people something more than soundbites and mudslinging.

I would love to see the MRC moderate one of the debates, especially one between the Republican candidate and Odumbo. Have them use some of the questions WE here at NewsBusters would love to ask.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." President Ronald Reagan

Obama Money

Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 1:30pm.

It's true, apparently, Obama money is real. According to a new book by a WaPo reporter, Obama actually writes checks to people in need. I'm guessing they look something like this.

(I like to include some little subtleties in my photoshops, and this one is no different. Note the check number. The account number is that sometimes controversial SSN he carries, and the routing number is that of the Federal Reserve NY.)

Good one,

Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 2:10pm.

Good one, BK...................and I'm sure it will be as easy to find someone who received a monetary gift from Boy BigHeart as it is to find any of his school records, or passports, or SS numbers, or birth certificate, or job history, or any of these other items that are part of 'the most transparent (and historic) Presidency in American history'................

Where does it come from?

Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 2:18pm.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was just some of that redistribution going on by means of taxes coming out fof our pockets at the point of a gun. I can't imagine him giving HIS money away.

-Jon

It comes from the

Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:21pm.

Infrastructure Bank that's printed on the check! LOL

Nice job, but......

Submitted by Dan Diego on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 5:54pm.

A check to Obama supporters should read "and no sense".

Ha

Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 5:57pm.

Good point!

Keyser

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 7:30pm.

Caught your photoshop earlier today. Brilliant.

Your site is bookmarked on my Firefox toolbar

Thanks CA

Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:30pm.

Cain slipping?

Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:29pm.

What's going on with Cain lately? He seems to be slipping and having some troubles, especially with his 9-9-9 coming up with a 9-0-9 plan for poor people and then saying some odd things.

The article I reference comes from AP even though I saw it on Fox News, it lists a few of these troubles.

Cain Stumbling

I know I mentioned not feeling too enthused but had been warming up to him. What's happening?

-Jon

I wish I know jon, but if he

Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 6:09pm.

I wish I knew jon, but if he is stumbling then I wonder why he won the Nevada GOP straw poll?

I liked the idea of the 9-9-9 plan. It wasn't perfect, (the National Sales Tax comes to mind) but it was more than any of the other candidates offered.

I hope this is just a temporary stumble and he straightens up and continues to tell it like it is.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." President Ronald Reagan

Scuba

Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 6:41pm.

I wonder how much that 9-9-9 plan will come up here tonight? http://www.c-span.org/Events/GOP-Candidates-Talk-Faith-and-Freedom-in-Io...

Motor City Madman said it best - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkEbqgbSqs8

Sounds more like media

Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 7:52pm.

Bigotry to me. Compared to their guy he is still a Saint

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

Fox News joins.....

Submitted by GregE on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:46pm.

......the Won't-Read-the-Plan club. From the Fox link......

"....Amid criticism that his 9-9-9 tax overhaul would force the majority of Americans to pay more to the government, he reworked the plan to exclude the poorest people..."

Wrong.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/10/22/weekend-open-t...

Where it came from

Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 12:59am.

The original story came from the AP. Fox News just linked it and put it in just like they do with a lot of other articles by AP or Reuters.

-Jon

More former allies now possible enemies

Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 7:12pm.

Just chalk this up to more of Soetoro's "foreign policy successes."

Afghanistan to back Pakistan if war with US

Why didn't more people pay attention to DuhOne's comments about going to war with Pakistan at the time they were allies of the US?(not that they were the best allies, but this is just more of that wonderful diplomacy that's been helping this country so much!/sarc) To make matters worse, Pakistan has nukes.

Is there a list somewhere of not just the gaffes, but of the foreign policy crapolas that's been going on in the last 3 years? I imagine it's just as bad.

-Jon

jon...would you please link those comments

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 7:52pm.

by Obama about the US "going to war with Pakistan". I guess I missed them.

Thanks...

Jer

I think he actualy used the words of

Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:05pm.

Bunker Buster bombs, and Drone strikes. Not that the libtards would notice?

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

*

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:01pm.

deleted

I requested a link, Boudin....

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:40pm.

Not that conservatards would notice. And, thus, you simply post more of your typical blather.

Jer

Here Jer*

Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:12pm.

Just one link of many

He has referred to military action against Pak. in a speech he gave regarding Iran, a speech he made in Egypt, also Panetta and Clinton as well as Jay Carney have all mentioned the possible increase of hostilities with Pak. Not to mention the billions of dollars we give to Pak. just so they allow us to use drones to kill Taliban. Kind of confusing isn't it? Like that is anything new with Obama.

Sorry Jer*

Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:50pm.

Boudin is correct. If you read several of Obama's speeches during his campaign and after he was elected ( I counted 9), he has mentioned escalating hostilities with Pak. on each of those occasions. He is doing this while negotiating with them, giving them billions of our money, then talks tough to the people. What is his goal and why does he threaten them while sending Hillary and Panetta to "negotiate" with them to fight "terrorism"? Who is doing the blather?

And btw, why are you repeating yourself?

cajun...Boudin is not correct.

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:59pm.

I asked jon for a link to alleged comments by Obama that we would go to war with Pakistan. Boudin piped in as usual without a link but rather a wiseass remark about libtards. He contributes nothing to the dialogue.

I have no idea why my first reply posted. I revised it and then clicked "save", but I must have inadvertently also clicked "save" before editing.

Jer

Oh, so sorry Jer,

Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:15pm.

I thought Obama bombing Pakistan was common knowledge. I forgot that all you libs watch, is mslsd

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

Well, Boudin...

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:58pm.

Since I've debated Obama's Pakistani/terrorism policies on more than one occasion in the past, I suggest you can safely assume I am more than just a little familiar with our use of force--and the manner of delivery--in that region. And in view of your compulsive need to follow me around inserting your vacuous potshots and sarcastic asides after so many of my comments, one would think you might remember my having done so. On the other hand, since your objective is to be a nuisance instead of engaging in constructive dialog, I guess it's not really that surprising that you don't.

Jer

So your familiar,

Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 10:14am.

But you dont acknowledge it.

I see your still name calling, or making accusations of others when you are the one being questioned. Classic elitist lib

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

Alert the admins! I called Boudin a...wait for it...a

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 2:38pm.

nuis*nce!!!

I'll be back after washing my keyboard and my mouth out with soap.

Here's another name for you, Boudin. You're the biggest BABY at this website.

Jer

It would appear, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 7:12pm.

that you have confused Boudin with me - you know, all that stalking - non contributing effort - going on?

And for YOU to state that Boudin is the biggest BABY on this website is hilarious.

Based on your perpetually voiced concerns, your username should be either "The misunderstood Democrat", or, 'the stalkee'. ;o)

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

Very nice,

Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 7:25pm.

Jer, I dont care what you call me. Just understand, when you whine about others/me, your hypocrisy is like a neon light.

So, just to be clear, bombing a sovereign country is not like War? Unless Bush is POTUS right?

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

If you don't care what I call

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:30am.

If you don't care what I call you, then why did you whine about my calling you a nuis*ance? [I'm assuming that was the word you had in mind and defined as "name-calling". I couldn't locate any other word in the post which could even remotely be construed as calling you a "name". But, please correct me if you had another term in mind.]

By the way, your "not caring" about it is sort of like your "not caring" about what I "think" --which you claimed in another post recently. You obviously care very much about what I think, else you wouldn't keep following me around inserting your snide inanities after so many of my comments.

Furthermore, since you have previously announced that "Jer ain't a solid dealer" and is "intellectually dishonest", what is the point in addressing these questions to me--unless you get your kicks from accompanying them with your little sarcastic jabs about 'libtards' and other personal shots directed at me? It seems to me most folks would have no desire to debate someone who is not a straight shooter. Maybe you'll clarify that for me.

Nevertheless, I'll leave you with a few comments and questions which address the substantive issue you have raised. Yes, bombing a sovereign country is "like" what happens during wars. However, we are NOT engaged in a war against Pakistan but rather against the Islamic murderers who have declared war against the United States and who have established sanctuaries in remote regions inside the boundaries of another country. They have done so for the purpose of avoiding being located and killed by our forces so that they can continue their plots to kill more innocent Americans. [In fact, why don't you pose your question to the families of the 3000 victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and elicit their opinion about our methods of liquidating those bastards?]

Finally, if we were in fact currently engaged in a war against Pakistan, does it not seem likely its government would have already sought a UN resolution condemning it and assistance in stopping it? Maybe the Pakistani government will at some point take that position, but unless and until it does, we should continue to work on developing a mutually agreeable strategy for eradicating the threats to OUR security which originate from or reside within the borders of that country, and unless and until the Paskistanis demonstrate a capability and willingness to eliminate that threat themselves, we don't have much choice but to keep killing the bad guys in the areas they are known to inhabit.

Jer

Not whining Jer,

Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 8:52pm.

Just pointing out your hypocrisy. See Jer, I dont have the time to post hundreds of times a day (not that there is anything wrong with that), so my comments tend to be short and to the point. I dont care if you dont like it, I dont care if you resort to name calling. Fact is Jer, your ridicule of others is rather appalling, consider how thin skinned you are. You like to question everyone else, but recuse yourself from the same evaluation.

So you have finally answered my question, (although not very well) but you only did it after acting like a lib and trying to be-little the questioner. Great job, really.

Now I am sure you have more names for me, so fire away, cause I dont care, really.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

Bing - freakin' - O ---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:14pm.

(from another thread) right back atcha, Boudin.

"Fact is, Jer, your ridicule of others is rather appalling, consider(ing) how thin skinned you are."

That scrambled his eggs.

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

Congratulations, Matthew..

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 3:55am.

You and your sidekick Boudin have now "BingOed" one another. You two make a very cute combo. Just like 'ham 'n eggs'.

Jer

Just underlining a point, Jer, that you ---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 6:59am.

either don't get or refuse to acknowledge.

You are a thinnus skinnus Democratus liberalus.

QED

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

Don't fret, Matthew...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 7:21am.

We could hang out here for another ten years and I would never break your record for posting the most thin-skinned reply in the annals of NewsBusters. You know the one: I suggested we save a Scarborough discussion for another thread that was actually about Scarborough, and you went ballistic with a stunning hyperbolic assault on my intellect, my morality, my dog, my favorite color, etc. I printed it out to exhibit to family, friends, and house guests on occasion just for laughs.

Jer

Yeah, I remember that because I am usually---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 12:53am.

quite fond of dogs,

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

Well, Boudin...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 3:57am.

If your allotted time here is so limited, why do you devote so much of it to following me around posting silly, sarcastic asides and whining and bellyaching about my imaginary name-calling? Branch out.

Jer

BTW, that " [answered] not very well" remark: Just an outstanding analysis and deconstruction of my answer regarding our anti-terrorism strategy in the Afghan/Pakistani theater. And you wonder why I'm skeptical of your intent to engage in serious debate and have concluded your only interest is stalking my comments to insert snarky potshots.

How about

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:50am.

You save your suggestions for someone who gives a crap?

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

No thanks.

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 9:31am.

This is at least the fourth time in the past few days you've said you don't care what I think, don't care what I call you, don't give a crap, etc.

So I suggest you act accordingly and simply leave me alone. I can assure you I won't come chasing after you.

Jer

Why should I?

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 12:35pm.

Why should you be free to post your musings without scrutiny? My original comment was perfectly in-line with the discussion. It doesnt matter weather YOU appreciated it.

If you want to be alone, then turn off the puter, and find a new home for the Cat

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

Thanks, cajun...

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:51pm.

I'm familiar with those remarks. However, it's not a threat of a potential war against Pakistan--as jon had characterized it--but a statement that we were prepared to take the war against the terrorists into Pakistan if that nation were unable or unwilling to pursue and eradicate those (e.g. Al Qaeda) who were waging war against us.

In fact, Obama's words were less aggressive than those uttered by Bush after 9/11:

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Jer

War on Terror Jer*

Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 9:10pm.

Planned military action against a sovereign nation is very different from a War on Terrorist. Bush explained his policies well to the world and to the American people. Obama has shown contradictory actions and statements from Panetta and Clinton. So what is the story there Jer? Read what comes out of DOD, SD, and the White House. Look how he has gone into two different countries to assassinate leaders. Then he has interfered in the internal matters now in two more countries, Egypt and Uganda.. We dont even know what he is up to in Syria and Yemen. The very country he should concentrate on, Iran, not a peep. He supported the Libyan rebels who are now sending all their weapons to Hamas. What is he doing other than fomenting further turmoil in the middle east Jer? At least Bush stuck to Iraq and Afghanistan as he promised.

Your analysis is flawed, cajun...

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:37pm.

Framing Obama's policy statements as a "planned military action against a sovereign nation"--presumably Pakistan--is misleading. The appropriate characterization is what I posted in my previous reply: a potentiality for acting against terrorists inside the borders of Pakistan if the latter failed to act on its own. Now, such action may in fact constitute a casus belli, and the wisdom of the policy may be debatable (Clinton and others did indeed contest it during the campaign), but warring against a sworn enemy of the US which has established a sanctuary just inside the boundaries of another country must be distinguished from waging war against the Pakistani state itself. Obama's strategy is precisely what we pursued in the operation which liquidated bin Laden. Do you disagree with that decision?

Bush's foreign policy was anything but clear and consistent--both in enunciation and implementation. His sabre-rattling "you're either with us or against us" threat was heavy on the rattle and light with the sabre, not that we possessed the resources to commence another war or two in addition to the ones in which we were already or were to become engaged. Nor was there uniformity in the application of force vis a vis the Axis of Evil triad. One [Iraq] was pre-emptively invaded, a second [Iran] was the subject of persistent anxiety, and the third [N. Korea] was practically ignored. There may be a certain advantage to unpredictability--keeping one's adversaries guessing--but the claim of consistency turns reality on its head.

Finally, the Bush administration did not stick to Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a couple of examples: It pushed for free elections for the Palestinians which elevated Hamas to the status of ruling authority. It insisted that Mubarek democratize by holding elections in 2006 which resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood gaining a solid political foothold within the Egyptian parliament. As a matter of fact, the Obama administration had tilted more toward Mubarek than had Bush, but, although a strong ally of the U.S, he was on the wrong side of history.

Jer

A long post, Jer,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:05pm.

just to point out your prejudice in favor of Obama while slighting the actions of Bush 43.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that all who side with the purple-lipped wonder are flawed in their thinking.

The man is a fookin' disaster; economically, politically, and specifically in dealing with international relations.

QED

Once before I asked you to mention something, anything, that you would put forth as a GOOD thing he has accomplished (other than, in your opinion - pissing off conservatives and patriots), and I do not recall hearing back on that.

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

Flawed Jer?*

Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:17pm.

Maybe my perspective but not the facts. There is a difference between "going to war" and "fighting terrorism". Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan with the agreement from Congress and the UN as well as agreements with Pakistan. Other nations participated as well. Obama has gotten the US involved in Egypt, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and now Uganda. None of which has been approved by congress.

If you would remember our previous discussions about Bin Laden and Gadaffi, you would know that I have never agreed with the intentional assassination of leadership in other countries. At least with Hussein, he had a trial before his own people.

If Obama feels secure or arrogance, whichever, to use American military force to conduct these kind of activities, then you can understand why Iran did not hesitate to send assassins into the US to kill the Saudi Ambassador. What if Iran decides to use subversive forces to assassinate Obama? What would be the basis for the resulting outrage? Iran would have used the same tactics as Obama has meddling in other countries affairs.

Obama's foreign policy is beginning to show special interest in certain groups in the middle east. I have yet been able to translate his intentions not being familiar enough with the various Muslim radical groups. But his actions are basically why we have a General Council within the UN, Geneva Convention rules, and Treaties with other countries. He is changing America's foreign policy, even dumping Israel, to the point he is becoming another A-Jad. Regardless of your politics, is this the route America should be taking in our activities with other countries?

cajun...Gadaffi wasn't assassinated by the U.S. forces...

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 1:56am.

But I would like to go back and read your posts on killing leaders in other countries. However, I gather you disagreed with Reagan's effort to kill Gadaffi, Clinton's attempt to kill bin Laden [what country was bin Laden the leader of, btw?], and Obama's order to eliminate bin Laden after he had been located in Pakistan. Would it have been okay to take out bin Laden if he had been in Afghanistan? What if he were in the act of crossing the border into Pakistan? Hot pursuit, or are we required to halt at the border and stamp our feet while he turns around and taunts us?

True, NATO, with UN backing, has conducted a bombing campaign in Libya which was initiated, not by Obama, but by France and Great Britain. We know about Pakistan and the drone strikes and the successful SEAL operation against OBL--which have virtually wiped out Al Qaeda's senior command and severely crippled the entire terrorist organization. Now, what military incursions or activities has Obama orchestrated in the other nations you mention?

Jer

Question Jer

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 2:45am.

What authorization did Obama have in to take out OBL? Did he get approval, or did he fall back on W's approval for aggression in Iraq?

Careful, because the way I read it, Congressional approval for Iraq, and yes, it was approved by Congress, also granted approval to take out targets associated with all facets of the war on terror.

Didn't the 0 campaign against such imperialism?

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent

RESTLESS...re approval to take out OBL

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 5:05am.

Clinton had issued a kill or capture directive to the CIA in 1998 about which he later emphasized the "kill" aspect of the order but in reality was tilted toward "capture" with authority to kill in self-defense.

Shortly after 9/11, Bush issued the critical order which provided broad authority to liquidate targeted Al-Qaeda leaders including, of course, bin Laden. This order remained in effect after Obama became president.

A chronology of events and an explanation of how the policy evolved can be found here.

The following is a key excerpt from the article.

But there was one constant in the search for bin Laden. On September 17, 2001, six days after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush issued a still-classified "finding" that gave the CIA "lethal authorities" to deal with the al Qaeda leader and his top lieutenants. Ever since, there was an expectation -- even a preference -- that bin Laden would be killed, not captured, Bush and Obama administration officials said.

Jer

Not fer nuthin or nuthin but nuthin or nuthin nuthin....

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 3:02pm.

But if the finding is still classified, how are we hearing about it? I remember hearing exactly what constituted the waterboarding from every leftist nut that visited this place for years. And then the OLC memo's came out in 2009 and wow, were they ever off. Way off.

Also not fer nuttin or nuttin nuttin or really nuttin nuttins...

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 3:20pm.

But Congress did authorize the President to go after the bad guys a full three days before the President "found" he could go after bad guys.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Yeah, I gotta roll my eyes every time I see a civilian wink wink "reporter" wink wink say "hey here is this document here that I am reading from that is classified and really, I could be put in jail for disclosing what is in it because we have laws about disclosing classified materials in this country but hey I don't care, I am just gonna risk some jail time, NO NO NO, I said I will read from it, you cannot look at it, STOP IT. GET AWAY. Only I can reveal what is in this here classified document that I am not supposed...STOP PUSHING, IT IS MINE......."

Point of order, Vet...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 5:18am.

regarding a semantic but [possibly] significant distinction associated with the term "harbored" as used in section (a) of the Resolution. Would it limit the use of military force against "nations" to only those which on or before 9/11 were harboring "persons", etc. who "planned" etc. the WTC and related attacks, or would the authorization extend to nations which were not harboring those terrorists [Al-Qaeda] at the time but did so subsequently and were continuing to provide sancutary?

The article I linked earlier notes that the SEAL operation against OBL was executed under the auspices of the CIA which is the agency the Bush 9/17 order explicitly addressed. Perhaps the Bush and Obama adminstrations believed it granted broader power [e.g. legitimizing the incursion into Pakistan to eliminate bin Laden] although restricting the application of that power to specifically identified individuals. [On the one hand, it is said to grant sweeping authority vis a vis Al-Qaeda generally, but operationally they were working off of approved lists of named, targeted terrorists.]

Anyway, I'm just throwing that out on the table. I haven't done a lick of research on the harboring issue.

Jer

This is why you gotta love the Uncle Jer.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:00am.

The resolution addresses future determinations of the President. Determines.

2. To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation.

Sometimes evidence comes to light later and you make a new determination. See? Evidence does not always just pop up and say "How you doin'?". So yes, the President can determine Malonasia is harboring Unoma Bin DooDooHed, the Al Qaeda mix tape master of 9/11, based on evidence that came in 2 weeks ago. And based upon that determination, send in teh missiles to MooMoo Palace where the King of Malonasia lives.

Also shame shame shame shame shame shame on you. That is another D mister. Seal Team 6 or whatever the real group was, another eye roller for me. Any special operations teams, be they Seals, Delta, what have you, are under the Joint Special Operations Command, which is under US Special Operations Command, which is under the DOD mister. Department of Defense. Not the CIA. So any findings authorizing the CIA would not pertain to them.

The Department of Defense (DoD) activated U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) April 16, 1987, at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. DoD created the new unified command in response to congressional action in the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Nunn-Cohen Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1987. Congress mandated a new four-star command be activated to prepare Special Operations Forces (SOF) to carry out assigned missions and, if directed by the president or secretary of defense (SECDEF), to plan for and conduct special operations. --- http://www.socom.mil/Pages/AboutUSSOCOM.aspx

Vet...this is classroom discussion...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:51am.

not a friggin' final exam.

Are you saying the excerpt quoted below from the article is inaccurate, or that I am drawing unwarranted inferences from it? [And, by the way, note that I stated "under the auspices of the CIA", which is not to say the special forces were under the direct command of the CIA, but, rather, they were executing a plan devised by or at least in conjuction with the agency. Moreover, Obama instructed Panatta to issue the "go" order to the field commander.]

Bush's September 17, 2001, order, which is still highly classified, authorized the CIA to use all methods at its disposal -- explicitly including deadly force -- to wipe out al Qaeda and its leaders.

Presidential covert action findings never expire unless a president issues a new written order suspending or revoking them, current and former U.S. national security officials told Reuters. So Bush's nine-and-a-half-year-old order remained a key legal authority under which Obama launched the commando raid that led to bin Laden's death. [my emphasis]

Jer

Hey Hey Hey.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 10:08am.

You live under my roof, you live under my roolz. And here is my roolz. Teachers teach. They don't discuss. They take a massive amount of information and cram it into your brain through your earholes. (in this case your eyeholes). There ain't no discussing amongst a bunch of information deficit noobs. Ok, that settled.

Now let's discuss this site. It is about bias in the media. Bias. And what is bias? A presentation of misinformation knowingly or even unknowingly that favors a certain view. Misinformation. So we know from this site that reporters and talking heads present misinformation all the time. And there have been plenty of examples where they present misinformation through stupidity. They are human, and in so very very very many instances where they wander into our selective expertise, the military,US flag,women bands - me, lawyerly stuff - you, firefightin,bar brawlin',womenz, & technocratic stuff - matthewdean, wood workin',hippie stompin',chemicalizin',brew masterin' - boudin, they invariably make mistakes. So yes, they are wrong. They are reporters, not the most intelligent puppies in the litter, they are the ones getting the milk from the hind nipples, smelling butt the whole time.

Yes. In my informed opinion, me being smarter than AP reporters, portions of the article you outlined are inaccurate.

And if the Special Forces were not under direct command of the CIA, then any "findings" of the President issued three days after Congress authorized him to, and I quote, "take that mother out" that authorized the CIA to, and I quote, "take that mother out" would not apply. The CIA may have gathered the information. They may have come up with the plan. But the authority and auspices flowed through the chain of command. In this case, the DOD when it comes to Special Op military teams.

Ah Ah Ah Ah.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 10:25am.

Before you get any bright ideas.

When I say "discuss", I mean sit down, shut up, and listen cuz The Vet has some information dispensin' to do. Not that I will let a bunch of information deficit noobs backward ass guess their way into a correct answer. There. That settled as well.

Ah Ah Ah Ah.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 10:40am.

Before you get another bright idea.

My lawyer trumps your reporter(s).

Yes, The Operation To Kill Osama Bin Laden Was Legal And Constitutional

by Doug Mataconis · Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Both of them, however, seem to have forgotten something called the Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Terrorists, which states:....

I can't take the media idiocy.

Submitted by GregE on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:25pm.

I just finished reading Herman Cain's 9-9-9 scoring report in it's entirety. (And yes, I am still awake).

Scoring report... http://www.hermancain.com/docs/999_Scoring_Report.pdf

Scoring tables... http://www.hermancain.com/docs/999_Scoring_Tables.pdf

The media is claiming he now has a new 9-0-9 plan for those in poverty. NO, this has ALWAYS been the plan. A few minutes READING THE PLAN will show that. He should have been explaining that part all along, but because he hasn't, the derelict media claims it's new.

Read the report, and the accompanying scoring tables, you will see that 2 times the report mentions a tax credit, up to the poverty level (as does the Fair Tax), then near the end the tables show the tax level requirement for each of the parts, IF each part was the ONLY tax. It also shows different 2-part combinations and tax required of each, then the last thing it shows is the level of tax required for each part in a plan that includes all 3 parts, with POVERTY GRANT incorporated, and the final percent is ... 9.1_9.1_9.1. So to achieve the "9-9-9 Plan", and to be able to call it 9-9-9 from day one, the poverty-level exclusion has ALWAYS been there.

The media has not shied away from ripping the plan on other aspects, but they sure have ignored this major piece, and are now saying that is something new. Unfortunate and stupid, but not surprising.

Here's a Google search showing the media calling it a "new" plan ... http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=cain+9-0-9&pbx=1...

Fair Tax

Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 2:28am.

is the best way IMO, but, Cain is close. Takes MORE Gov't out of equation.

"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER

Barack Obama's Radical CZARS

Submitted by Retired Geek on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:01pm.

I simply cannot understand how ANYONE can be surprised about corruption, lying and cheating coming from the Barack Obama Administration?

Barack Obama is an inveterate liar and manipulator and is simply incapable of telling the truth.

Barack Obama has a long sordid history of rewarding failure and punishing success.

I published an article recently about the Obama "CZARS" on my Website and it nearly made me sick in stomach while doing the research for the article.

http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/2011/10/retired-geek-obamas-presidency.html

http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/

I just came back from about 5

Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:31pm.

I just came back from about 5 hours down at the beach - it was KORE day (Kauai Ocean Recreation Experience) at Hanalei Bay, which is a surfing and water sports activity for any and all of the mentally and physically challenged people on the island, if they want to show up. And there was quite a turn-out today, even though it started out kind of rainy, and the surf was rather small.

But the volunteers had everybody in the water - on surfboards, on stand-up boards, on boogie-boards - and the ones who weren't in the water were on the beach, or hanging around under the various tents. There was a lot of BBQ going on, and food and drink, and free shirts,and a lot of 'aloha' for these people. I saw all ages and all types of conditions, as usual, and everybody was having a good time.

I was playing music with another guitarist/singer friend of mine, and also a sax player, and I think we probably played almost 3 straight hours. They wanted to feed us, but we deferred, because if we stopped,we wouldn't get back into our music very readily.
And I saw an older local lady from the other side of the island, and she was moving her body to the music - and her family said that is the first time they'd seen her being so animated!!! And a little boy was sitting right by us - he appeared to be mentally and physically challenged, and in a wheelchair - but he was rockin' and a-boppin' to whatever we were playing,and smiling and laughing and attempting to clap his hands!!! It was really quite inspiring!! We finished a song - and he gave us this look like 'where did the music go'!!!! And when we were playing, his mom actually got him out of his wheelchair and held him, so that he could 'dance' in the sand right in front of us!!! This was worth the whole morning to me!!!

And then after most everybody went home, the organizers and a few others hung out and had a couple beers, and me and my friend probably sat there and 'jammed' for almost a couple of more hours, under the trees!!! Needless to say, my fingers are a little sore, and my voice is a little shredded, but it was a great day - and once again, somebody took a lot of pictures and I'm sure they will be posted on Facebook.

Actually,the mayor of Kauai showed up, and he grabbed a ukulele and did a number with us too - and it came out pretty good!!!

And the weather got very nice, after rain in the morning - so it was a good day, and I think it's really a good thing that these 'unfortunate' people can have such a good time and do things that they wouldn't do on a normal day. I'm glad that I could be of some help.

thank you killa*

Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:35pm.

For you it was a fun day and a small contribution. But for those people, you gave them a gift that will be with them forever. Thank you cher.

I'll tell ya', Ms.

Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:50pm.

I'll tell ya', Ms. Caj..............seeing that little boy smiling and laughing and clapping his hands and rockin' his head and dancing on the sand pretty much did it for me!!! I've got a permanently challenged nephew, so I know that certain things 'get to them'. And we've got the ocean, and surfing, and beautiful scenery, and some music - which are all pretty spiritual types of things - especially if we're talking about people who don't have it as fortunate and lucky as we do to be able to get up everyday and lead a
'normal' life................so I'm rather elated right now from the music and the results. And I gotta say - we DID lay down some pretty listenable material too!!!

Would love your music killa*

Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:59pm.

If somebody taped your music, please share. As for the other stuff, you may be getting to understand the cajun. What you did today was a great feeling right? I did this kind of thing ever day for almost 3 decades with those kind of kids. It has cost me dearly but I would never change a thing.. Thank you again killa...;-)

If you have Facebook

Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 2:16am.

You can see boat-loads of pics here. Look's like tons of fun for everyone.

_____________________________________________________________ I'm not too drunk to dance! It's just that people keep stepping on my hands!

Barack Obama's Economic Record.

Submitted by Retired Geek on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:30pm.

1) First U.S. Debt Downgrade in American History.
2) Highest Level of Federal Spending since WWII (25% of GDP).
3) Highest Budget Deficit since WWII (10% of GDP).
4) Lowest level of Employment since 1983 (58.1% of Adults Working).
5) Highest Long Term Unemployment Rates since the 1930's (45.9% of Total Unemployed for Six Months or Longer).
6) Median Income Is At Its Lowest Level Since 1997.
7) Number Of People (over 16) Who Didn’t Work At All Last Year Increased To 86.7 Million.
8) Number Of Americans Living In Poverty (46.2 Million) the Highest Level On Record.
9) Child poverty rose from 20.7 percent in 2009 to 22 percent last year.
10) Economy added no jobs in August the first time since February, 1945.

Largest wealth destruction in American history: Net Wealth Lost 2009-2011 --$8.7 Trillion

Highest sustained Unemployment in decades: 9.1%

Brutal Unemployment for minorities: Black Americans : 16.7%

Unprecedented Unemployment: Black Teenage Americans :46.5%

Historic loss in American credit: U.S. Credit Rating drops to: AA-plus

Historic jump in Number of people in U.S. on Foodstamps : 45.8 Million

Quixotic investment in mythic Green Jobs : $80 billion

Supposed Number of Green Jobs Created : 255,000

Approximate Cost of each Green Job: $313,725.50

http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/

And Jer will be along shortly to ---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:17pm.

explain how everything on the Retired Geek's list is either a result of Obama continuing the policies of Bush 43; a result of items that were totally out of Obama's control; or how in the reality of Obama's liberal democratic world, the individually listed items are actually a precursor to the good times just around the corner.

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

Toss the crystal ball, Matthew...

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:41pm.

Since Retired Geek has been posting those same or similar lists* for over a month now [maybe longer] without any comment from me, it's unlikely that I will do so now.

*For example...

Barack Obama's Economic Record.

Submitted by Retired Geek on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 2:26am.

Jer

Have to figure, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 12:10am.

that there are certain instances where even you won't waste your time attempting to shine up Obama's image.

Although --- one never knows, do one?

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

With bits of violence springing up

Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:00pm.

at various #occupy protests, is it possible they could take a cue from the riots in Greece? Especially if the city governments start enforcing the law as they've threatened... You can bet there are a bunch of Democratic politicians and media types who will do everything they can to suppress these images. Slideshow. (Click the arrow loacted on the right side of the image to cycle through the 19 pics.)

Does anyone know?

Submitted by GregE on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 11:07pm.

Was there a straw poll done at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference today?

The 2012 election will NOT be a message

Submitted by Retired Geek on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 4:52am.

The movie and Broadway play 'West Side Story' (based on Romeo and Juliet) had two Street Gangs the 'Jets and the Sharks' which were bitter rivals.

When the 'Jets and the Sharks' were fighting each other and the Police came to arrest them they became united and began assailing their 'Common Enemy'.

This is the same principle that is causing those with divergent Political Views to unite against Barack Obama and his Marxist views, his enablers and his supporting Liberal Progressive (Marxists)s in the House and Senate.

Uniting to confront a 'Common Enemy' is a strong fundamental Human Instinct and the Obama-Liberal-Progressive attack on the United States Citizenry will only make OUR resolve more certain and determined.

Since Marxists in general and Liberal Progressive (Marxists) in particular, have little if any understanding of the basics of Human Nature, they continue to spray the 'Fire of Dissent' with verbal flammable materials thinking that will contain the fire and ultimately hoping it will extinguish the 'Fire of Dissent'.

Barack Obama and his Liberal Progressive (Marxists) minions are NOT intelligent enough to understand they are Stoking not extinguishing the 'Fire of Dissent'.

The 2010 election sent a strong message.

The 2012 election will NOT be a message - it will be the fulfillment of that message.

http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/