|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 18 2013 00:44 Noro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 00:40 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:34 Noro wrote:On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote:House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. If you knew pretty well what the outcome would be before casting a ballot, does that make your vote irrelevant? It's the principle of the thing. In America, you have the right to vote, the right to voice an opinion, and the right to "PR statements for voters." The moment when you start dismissing rights because one group thinks it doesn't matter, is a defeat for democracy and the constitution.
He is not dismissing their rights, he is ridiculing their motivations and questioning what they are trying to achieve.
|
On May 17 2013 15:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- The war authorization that Congress passed after 9/11 will be needed for at least 10 to 20 more years, and can be used to put the United States military on the ground anywhere, from Syria to the Congo to Boston, military officials argued Thursday.
The revelations came during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee and surprised even experts in America's use of force stemming from the terrorist attacks in 2001.
"This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today," Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told four senior U.S. military officials who testified about the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force and what it allows the White House to do.
King and others were stunned by answers to specific questions about where President Barack Obama could use force under the key provision of the AUMF -- a 60-word paragraph that targeted those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
"I learned more in this hearing about the scope of the AUMF than in all of my study in the last four or five years," said Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, who was called by the committee to offer independent comments on the issue. "I thought I knew what the application [of the AUMF] meant, but I'm less confident now," he added later. Source
This government is out of control, and American's don't give a shit. We deserve what's coming. I hate this place.
|
On May 18 2013 00:46 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 00:44 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:40 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:34 Noro wrote:On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote:House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. If you knew pretty well what the outcome would be before casting a ballot, does that make your vote irrelevant? It's the principle of the thing. In America, you have the right to vote, the right to voice an opinion, and the right to "PR statements for voters." The moment when you start dismissing rights because one group thinks it doesn't matter, is a defeat for democracy and the constitution. He is not dismissing their rights, he is ridiculing their motivations and questioning what they are trying to achieve.
I'd wager that they are trying to achieve voicing an opinion over a health care plan, which in their opinion, is not a good thing for the country.
People are so fast to penalize the other side for wanting to voice opposition, and I am merely remarking that democracy is dependant on understanding what each group wants. If either side is silenced based on what their "motives" are for wanting to vote, then what's the point?
|
On May 18 2013 00:46 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 00:44 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:40 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:34 Noro wrote:On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote:House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. If you knew pretty well what the outcome would be before casting a ballot, does that make your vote irrelevant? It's the principle of the thing. In America, you have the right to vote, the right to voice an opinion, and the right to "PR statements for voters." The moment when you start dismissing rights because one group thinks it doesn't matter, is a defeat for democracy and the constitution. He is not dismissing their rights, he is ridiculing their motivations and questioning what they are trying to achieve.
Exactly, I never said they should be prevented from voting to repeal Obamacare. I'm just pointing out how childish it is.
|
|
|
On May 18 2013 00:51 Noro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 00:46 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:44 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:40 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:34 Noro wrote:On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote:House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. If you knew pretty well what the outcome would be before casting a ballot, does that make your vote irrelevant? It's the principle of the thing. In America, you have the right to vote, the right to voice an opinion, and the right to "PR statements for voters." The moment when you start dismissing rights because one group thinks it doesn't matter, is a defeat for democracy and the constitution. He is not dismissing their rights, he is ridiculing their motivations and questioning what they are trying to achieve. I'd wager that they are trying to achieve voicing an opinion over a health care plan, which in their opinion, is not a good thing for the country. People are so fast to penalize the other side for wanting to voice opposition, and I am merely remarking that democracy is dependant on understanding what each group wants. If either side is silenced based on what their "motives" are for wanting to vote, then what's the point?
They harping on it in every media outlet they have, everyone knows their opinion and they can voice it over and over again. Do they really have to appropriate time of the legislative body to make PR statements instead of actually trying to achieve things. They are not paid to be useless PR machines, they are paid to create legislation.
|
|
|
On May 18 2013 01:04 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 00:51 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:46 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:44 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:40 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:34 Noro wrote:On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote:House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. If you knew pretty well what the outcome would be before casting a ballot, does that make your vote irrelevant? It's the principle of the thing. In America, you have the right to vote, the right to voice an opinion, and the right to "PR statements for voters." The moment when you start dismissing rights because one group thinks it doesn't matter, is a defeat for democracy and the constitution. He is not dismissing their rights, he is ridiculing their motivations and questioning what they are trying to achieve. I'd wager that they are trying to achieve voicing an opinion over a health care plan, which in their opinion, is not a good thing for the country. People are so fast to penalize the other side for wanting to voice opposition, and I am merely remarking that democracy is dependant on understanding what each group wants. If either side is silenced based on what their "motives" are for wanting to vote, then what's the point? They harping on it in every media outlet they have, everyone knows their opinion and they can voice it over and over again. Do they really have to appropriate time of the legislative body to make PR statements instead of actually trying to achieve things. They are not paid to be useless PR machines, they are paid to create legislation.
But their motives are a moot point. What you guys should be arguing for is an ammendment to how the Sennate opperates. Yeah voting on something 37 times is probably overkill, but that's a problem with the Sennate as an institution, and yet fingers are pointed at opposing political views instead.
If this is the logic being used, why is Obama after 37 votes to repeal still trying to push this agenda? Why is he still trying to push gun legislation or anything else that keeps getting denyed by the Sennate? Because in a democratic society, they have the right to try. And, in turn, people have the right to vote yes or no.
|
On May 18 2013 00:50 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2013 15:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- The war authorization that Congress passed after 9/11 will be needed for at least 10 to 20 more years, and can be used to put the United States military on the ground anywhere, from Syria to the Congo to Boston, military officials argued Thursday.
The revelations came during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee and surprised even experts in America's use of force stemming from the terrorist attacks in 2001.
"This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today," Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told four senior U.S. military officials who testified about the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force and what it allows the White House to do.
King and others were stunned by answers to specific questions about where President Barack Obama could use force under the key provision of the AUMF -- a 60-word paragraph that targeted those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
"I learned more in this hearing about the scope of the AUMF than in all of my study in the last four or five years," said Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, who was called by the committee to offer independent comments on the issue. "I thought I knew what the application [of the AUMF] meant, but I'm less confident now," he added later. Source This government is out of control, and American's don't give a shit. We deserve what's coming. I hate this place.
I wonder if posts like this get flagged in some NSA terror threat database.
|
|
|
United States6277 Posts
US Consumer Sentiment Surges; Leading Indicators Rise
...
The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's preliminary reading on the overall index on consumer sentiment rose to 83.7 from 76.4 in April, topping economists' expectations for 78.
It was the highest level since July 2007.
The barometer of current economic conditions jumped to 97.5 from 89.9, the highest since October 2007, while the gauge of consumer expectations gained to 74.8 from 67.8. ...
The Conference Board said on Friday that its Leading Economic Index increased 0.6 percent to 95.0 last month, the highest level since June 2008.
Link
Pretty damn good given what's going on with our trading partners in Europe.
|
On May 18 2013 01:25 Noro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 01:04 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:51 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:46 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:44 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:40 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:34 Noro wrote:On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote:House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. If you knew pretty well what the outcome would be before casting a ballot, does that make your vote irrelevant? It's the principle of the thing. In America, you have the right to vote, the right to voice an opinion, and the right to "PR statements for voters." The moment when you start dismissing rights because one group thinks it doesn't matter, is a defeat for democracy and the constitution. He is not dismissing their rights, he is ridiculing their motivations and questioning what they are trying to achieve. I'd wager that they are trying to achieve voicing an opinion over a health care plan, which in their opinion, is not a good thing for the country. People are so fast to penalize the other side for wanting to voice opposition, and I am merely remarking that democracy is dependant on understanding what each group wants. If either side is silenced based on what their "motives" are for wanting to vote, then what's the point? They harping on it in every media outlet they have, everyone knows their opinion and they can voice it over and over again. Do they really have to appropriate time of the legislative body to make PR statements instead of actually trying to achieve things. They are not paid to be useless PR machines, they are paid to create legislation. But their motives are a moot point. What you guys should be arguing for is an ammendment to how the Sennate opperates. Yeah voting on something 37 times is probably overkill, but that's a problem with the Sennate as an institution, and yet fingers are pointed at opposing political views instead. If this is the logic being used, why is Obama after 37 votes to repeal still trying to push this agenda? Why is he still trying to push gun legislation or anything else that keeps getting denyed by the Sennate? Because in a democratic society, they have the right to try. And, in turn, people have the right to vote yes or no.
It's not the Senate, it's the House. Obama isn't "pushing" anything with regards to the health care law - it's already the law of the land. The gun legislation had a chance to pass, but it didn't, so right now they aren't trying to push it again - they'll wait until they have the votes. The House, meanwhile, voted for the 37 times for a repeal they know has no chance to pass the Senate.
|
On May 18 2013 01:25 Noro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 01:04 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:51 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:46 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:44 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:40 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:34 Noro wrote:On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote:House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. If you knew pretty well what the outcome would be before casting a ballot, does that make your vote irrelevant? It's the principle of the thing. In America, you have the right to vote, the right to voice an opinion, and the right to "PR statements for voters." The moment when you start dismissing rights because one group thinks it doesn't matter, is a defeat for democracy and the constitution. He is not dismissing their rights, he is ridiculing their motivations and questioning what they are trying to achieve. I'd wager that they are trying to achieve voicing an opinion over a health care plan, which in their opinion, is not a good thing for the country. People are so fast to penalize the other side for wanting to voice opposition, and I am merely remarking that democracy is dependant on understanding what each group wants. If either side is silenced based on what their "motives" are for wanting to vote, then what's the point? They harping on it in every media outlet they have, everyone knows their opinion and they can voice it over and over again. Do they really have to appropriate time of the legislative body to make PR statements instead of actually trying to achieve things. They are not paid to be useless PR machines, they are paid to create legislation. But their motives are a moot point. What you guys should be arguing for is an ammendment to how the Sennate opperates. Yeah voting on something 37 times is probably overkill, but that's a problem with the Sennate as an institution, and yet fingers are pointed at opposing political views instead. If this is the logic being used, why is Obama after 37 votes to repeal still trying to push this agenda? Why is he still trying to push gun legislation or anything else that keeps getting denyed by the Sennate? Because in a democratic society, they have the right to try. And, in turn, people have the right to vote yes or no.
Obama is not pushing agenda after 37 votes. Obamacare is already through and is a law. Obama is not pushing his gun proposals over and over again just to make a statement. They have the right to try and I have the right to ridicule them when they show they are more interested in posturing instead of actually doing something constructive.
|
On May 18 2013 00:13 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 00:03 Sermokala wrote:
so logically what the republicans were doing was forceing the white house to release the correct emails to prove them wrong. Yeah, right. It's so logical, how can anyone deny it. So your logical story is this: Republicans had the emails before the White House released them, and despite them having the emails, they had to force the White House to release the emails which they already had, by publicly releasing the emails with slightly altered content. Make sense.
In order for it to be a joke you have to have a punchline. What part about that doesn't make sense to you? Just beacuse you live in a blinkered "lets ignore anything that doesn't prove my ideology" doesn't mean the rest of us do.
It doesn't help that the union that services the IRS gives so wildly disproportionaly to anti tea party democrats. People arn't angry that the IRS did something wrong people are angry that the people in the IRS just continued their partisan ways inside the office as they do outside of it. And beacuse Obama wants to just shuffle this under the rug like the other scandels refusing to actually do anything at all about them the shit is just going to keep pileing up for 2014.
You thought the tea party was a firestorm of idological fury before? just imagine how strong they're gona be when the government is literally out to get them.
|
On May 18 2013 02:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 01:25 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 01:04 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:51 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:46 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:44 Noro wrote:On May 18 2013 00:40 mcc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:34 Noro wrote:On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote:House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. If you knew pretty well what the outcome would be before casting a ballot, does that make your vote irrelevant? It's the principle of the thing. In America, you have the right to vote, the right to voice an opinion, and the right to "PR statements for voters." The moment when you start dismissing rights because one group thinks it doesn't matter, is a defeat for democracy and the constitution. He is not dismissing their rights, he is ridiculing their motivations and questioning what they are trying to achieve. I'd wager that they are trying to achieve voicing an opinion over a health care plan, which in their opinion, is not a good thing for the country. People are so fast to penalize the other side for wanting to voice opposition, and I am merely remarking that democracy is dependant on understanding what each group wants. If either side is silenced based on what their "motives" are for wanting to vote, then what's the point? They harping on it in every media outlet they have, everyone knows their opinion and they can voice it over and over again. Do they really have to appropriate time of the legislative body to make PR statements instead of actually trying to achieve things. They are not paid to be useless PR machines, they are paid to create legislation. But their motives are a moot point. What you guys should be arguing for is an ammendment to how the Sennate opperates. Yeah voting on something 37 times is probably overkill, but that's a problem with the Sennate as an institution, and yet fingers are pointed at opposing political views instead. If this is the logic being used, why is Obama after 37 votes to repeal still trying to push this agenda? Why is he still trying to push gun legislation or anything else that keeps getting denyed by the Sennate? Because in a democratic society, they have the right to try. And, in turn, people have the right to vote yes or no. It's not the Senate, it's the House. Obama isn't "pushing" anything with regards to the health care law - it's already the law of the land. The gun legislation had a chance to pass, but it didn't, so right now they aren't trying to push it again - they'll wait until they have the votes. The House, meanwhile, voted for the 37 times for a repeal they know has no chance to pass the Senate.
Thanks for the clarification on House vs Senate.
Obama is not pushing agenda after 37 votes. Obamacare is already through and is a law. Obama is not pushing his gun proposals over and over again just to make a statement. They have the right to try and I have the right to ridicule them when they show they are more interested in posturing instead of actually doing something constructive.
How can you say that he isn't pushing gun laws to make a statement, when at the same time you're saying it's wrong to keep fighting against Obamacare? Do you not see the hypocracy? Obviously with the partisanship of the the President vs the House, these things aren't going to pass, but of course they are still going to try.
Yes you have the right, but I'm merely suggesting that you should consider the fact that this isn't something that is isolated to one party.
|
On May 18 2013 02:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 00:13 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 00:03 Sermokala wrote:
so logically what the republicans were doing was forceing the white house to release the correct emails to prove them wrong. Yeah, right. It's so logical, how can anyone deny it. So your logical story is this: Republicans had the emails before the White House released them, and despite them having the emails, they had to force the White House to release the emails which they already had, by publicly releasing the emails with slightly altered content. Make sense. In order for it to be a joke you have to have a punchline. What part about that doesn't make sense to you? Just beacuse you live in a blinkered "lets ignore anything that doesn't prove my ideology" doesn't mean the rest of us do. It doesn't help that the union that services the IRS gives so wildly disproportionaly to anti tea party democrats. People arn't angry that the IRS did something wrong people are angry that the people in the IRS just continued their partisan ways inside the office as they do outside of it. And beacuse Obama wants to just shuffle this under the rug like the other scandels refusing to actually do anything at all about them the shit is just going to keep pileing up for 2014. You thought the tea party was a firestorm of idological fury before? just imagine how strong they're gona be when the government is literally out to get them.
You realize you just switched topics, right? This was about the Republicans altering the official Benghazi e-mails to score political points.
|
On May 18 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I have to say, the lack of concern being shown by Democrats over the death of four Americans, is a bit disturbing. I would say it's Fast and Furious all over again, but that was only onetwo Americans and a bunch of Mexicans (who cares about Mexicans anyway, right?). In Benghazi, we lost an Ambassador. Though I guess in this day and age, losing an ambassador is nothing compared to the tragedy that would be holding Obama responsible for what occurs under his watch.
I'd say deliberately altering things related to the death of four Americans purely to attempt to score political points is even more disturbing, but what do I know?
|
On May 18 2013 02:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I have to say, the lack of concern being shown by Democrats over the death of four Americans, is a bit disturbing. I would say it's Fast and Furious all over again, but that was only onetwo Americans and a bunch of Mexicans (who cares about Mexicans anyway, right?). In Benghazi, we lost an Ambassador. Though I guess in this day and age, losing an ambassador is nothing compared to the tragedy that would be holding Obama responsible for what occurs under his watch. I'd say deliberately altering things related to the death of four Americans purely to attempt to score political points is even more disturbing, but what do I know?
You mean like the White House and State dept. did?
|
On May 18 2013 03:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 02:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 18 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I have to say, the lack of concern being shown by Democrats over the death of four Americans, is a bit disturbing. I would say it's Fast and Furious all over again, but that was only onetwo Americans and a bunch of Mexicans (who cares about Mexicans anyway, right?). In Benghazi, we lost an Ambassador. Though I guess in this day and age, losing an ambassador is nothing compared to the tragedy that would be holding Obama responsible for what occurs under his watch. I'd say deliberately altering things related to the death of four Americans purely to attempt to score political points is even more disturbing, but what do I know? You mean like the White House and State dept. did?
The White House and State Department had more in mind than politics, which is pretty obvious if you compare before/after. The GOP did it purely for political gains.
But nice deflection!
Edit: I mean, are you seriously comparing the normal process for a release going from CIA -> State to people taking emails, editing them to make it look worse for the state department, then RELEASING them as the original? Seriously?
|
On May 18 2013 00:45 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I have to say, the lack of concern being shown by Democrats over the death of four Americans, is a bit disturbing. I would say it's Fast and Furious all over again, but that was only onetwo Americans and a bunch of Mexicans (who cares about Mexicans anyway, right?). In Benghazi, we lost an Ambassador. Though I guess in this day and age, losing an ambassador is nothing compared to the tragedy that would be holding Obama responsible for what occurs under his watch. I hope you are not hypocrite and you demand previous administration to be held responsible for death of thousands of Americans for which they were much more responsible than Obama is for Benghazi. If you are, good for you. I am still unclear if Obama is actually responsible in any reasonable way for what happened in Benghazi.
There is a difference between a loss of soldiers in a war, an inevitability, and the loss of an ambassador. Obama is responsible in that his State dept. ignored warnings that could have prevented the attack, his administration has tried to cover-up what happened, and his administration did not respond in any kind of adequate way to the attack while it was occurring. Further, the old sayings: "The buck stops here" and "Shit rolls up-hill" should at least, to any responsible leader, be a motivation to take responsibility for the failings of the people the leader instated. So far all we've gotten out of Obama is "I had nothing to do with it, it was that person/organization" on every scandal that arises. David Axlerod is even going out saying that he couldn't have anything to do with any of it because the federal government is just too big for him to control. Obama and his high-level friends/associates/underlings have taken no responsibility for any failing or wrongdoing that has occurred in the entire 4+ years of his presidency. It's a sickening example of cowardly leadership, if calling it "leadership" could even be considered to be accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
