Obama does it again

[Brittanyman]

Did you hear, Obama sent Congress a letter today informing them that he is sending Americans troops into the Sudan. Remember when Clinton sent troops into Africa for humanitarian reasons. Does Somolia ring a bell.

Our soldiers went in their with one hand tied behind their back. The Military leaders wanted Clinton to send our own armor along with our soldiers. Instead our military had to rely on NATO for the armor.

When the **** hit the fan in Mogadishu, we had to rely on the Pakistanese for Armor support. It took our military leaders hours to convince the Pakistans to use their armor, and when then finally started to roll they eventually chickened out when the going got tough.

Obama said these troops are going into the Sudan not for military reasons, but if attacked they will be permitted to defend themselves. Our soldiers are going into a region that is ruled by Moslem terrorist thugs who are starving and slaughtering people by the thousands.

I pray to God this doesn't blow up in our faces. By the way letter was not asking Congress for the permission to do this, but just to inform them of his actions.

[jmurch]

Worst president EVER.....................

[Popeye]

Empty suit reading from a teleprompter.:31:

[Bawanna]

Empty suit reading from a teleprompter.:31:

With big ears and an ugly wife. Dogs not bad but ruined now.

[Popeye]

With big ears and an ugly wife. Dogs not bad but ruined now.

Couldn't agree more.:(

[jlottmc]

That's just like Bosnia. Nothing good will you hear me say about these asshats.

[aray]

Well it's worse than that. He announced their presence, their size, their location, and their objective. 100 US Special Forces might be an intimidating team under any circumstances, but they also excel in part due to speed and surprise. By announcing this to the world Obama has stripped them of one of their most important weapons, painted a bulls-eye on their backs, and told the world: "come and kill a small number of Americans isolated and surrounded in a Muslim nation".

When the infamous Black Hawk Down disaster in Mogadishu happened, Clinton said that he "took full responsibility". That exactly do those words mean? And what will they mean if, God forbid, these current troops suffer the same fate? The only ones who paid any price were the brave American soldiers who died following the orders of the Commander in Chief.

[aray]

Oh, and how's that Nobel Peace Prize working out for him, eh?

[johnh]

Basically they are hunting a local kidnapping gang. Now that is a morally worthy cause, but think about how many countries have such groups running around. Are we going to deploy SF to most of latin America? SE Asia? Talk about an endless crusade....

[Thunder71]

I hope he keeps screwing up, more reassurance that we don't have to deal with him next term.

I just wish he'd keep human lives out of his mistakes.

[ltxi]

I hope he keeps screwing up, more reassurance that we don't have to deal with him next term.

I just wish he'd keep human lives out of his mistakes.

Unless the GOP gets their act together, increasingly unlikely, he's easily a two term president. The upside...thanks Ike!...he's term limited.

[ORSalesRep]

That douche bag- putts (Obama), will not get re-elected no matter what. I bet, with his approval rating sooooooo low, that his own party backs Hilary over him and he doesn't even get the nomination from the DNC to re-run. Seventeen times in history a sitting President did not receive their own party's nomination to seek re-election and this will be eighteen.

The country is going to be soooo starved for change that they will likely swing in the complete opposite direction and the DNC knows this, so they will figure that a revolver with one bullet (Hilary) is better than a empty one. This is also why Bill Clinton has been so overtly open about disagreeing with Obumbler's tax increases, etc., it is all positioning.

[yqtszhj]

Basically they are hunting a local kidnapping gang. Now that is a morally worthy cause, but think about how many countries have such groups running around. Are we going to deploy SF to most of latin America? SE Asia? Talk about an endless crusade....

Well he has to send them there to those far away places to find those kind of gangs. We don't have anything like that around here except for............ THE U.S./MEXICO BORDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WMD]

With big ears and an ugly wife. Dogs not bad but ruined now.

The wife reminds me of the "Bride of Chucky"! :D

[WMD]

The guy definitely has to go. He is an embarrassment to our country. :mad: Keep hoarding all that ammo guys and gals... With all our troops in foreign countries, you may need it! :D

[Rainman48314]

Empty suit reading from a teleprompter.:31:Telprompter: old tired "argument" against a President who, based on his record, is very vulnerable in so many ways. Even the name calling (Socialist, Marxist, Kenyan etc) is pointless...unless you don't have an argument. I won't be voting for him but neither of the above is a reason.

[Rainman48314]

That douche bag- putts (Obama), will not get re-elected no matter what. I bet, with his approval rating sooooooo low, that his own party backs Hilary over him and he doesn't even get the nomination from the DNC to re-run. Seventeen times in history a sitting President did not receive their own party's nomination to seek re-election and this will be eighteen.

The country is going to be soooo starved for change that they will likely swing in the complete opposite direction and the DNC knows this, so they will figure that a revolver with one bullet (Hilary) is better than a empty one. This is also why Bill Clinton has been so overtly open about disagreeing with Obumbler's tax increases, etc., it is all positioning.I agree there is a significant chance the Dem Party will abandon Obama. I don't think this means a Republican victory. We'll see. I like Ron Paul more everyday. The rest seem to be typical liars.

[Rainman48314]

The guy definitely has to go. He is an embarrassment to our country. :mad: Keep hoarding all that ammo guys and gals... With all our troops in foreign countries, you may need it! :DEvery time I think I have set aside a sufficient cache, I end up shooting it up. Dang, politics is getting expensive.

[Rainman48314]

Unless the GOP gets their act together, increasingly unlikely, he's easily a two term president. The upside...thanks Ike!...he's term limited.The Oval Office is there for the taking. I think Obama's supporters will give him a pass on broken promises, including his stance on deploying troops. The Repubs are side tracking themselves with social issues bleeding into religious issues. They are taking extreme intrasigent stances and failing to govern. The masses really believe they are the party of "No"...hell, I believe it. Send them there to work, they sit on their hands waiting for an election.

[JFootin]

The Republicans have again and again put forward sensible legislation to address the major issues, but Harry Reid has not even brought them up for debate or a vote. The man is rewriting the rules for the Senate so that the Democrats don't have to show their stand on anything! Then, Obama and his Koolaid drinkers say the Republicans don't have any plans and are just saying 'NO'. Shoot, the Democrats haven't even tried to create a budget for the last few years! Talk about 'NO' and do-nothing! And if you honestly research and compare the sensible legislation put forward by the Republicans with Obama's huge, useless, budget breaking bills, and the Democrat's crony favoring legislation such as the one that is shifting the fees for debit cards from the businesses to the consumers, the truth becomes ever so clear: the "Party of 'NO'" designation is a total lie! Stop drinking the Koolaid!

[Rainman48314]

The Republicans have again and again put forward sensible legislation to address the major issues, but Harry Reid has not even brought them up for debate or a vote. The man is rewriting the rules for the Senate so that the Democrats don't have to show their stand on anything! Then, Obama and his Koolaid drinkers say the Republicans don't have any plans and are just saying 'NO'. Shoot, the Democrats haven't even tried to create a budget for the last few years! Talk about 'NO' and do-nothing! And if you honestly research and compare the sensible legislation put forward by the Republicans with Obama's huge, useless, budget breaking bills, and the Democrat's crony favoring legislation such as the one that is shifting the fees for debit cards from the businesses to the consumers, the truth becomes ever so clear: the "Party of 'NO'" designation is a total lie! Stop drinking the Koolaid!
If I remember as a kid, there was blue kool-aid and there was red kool-aid. I haven't had any in 50 years.

Show me the current JOBS bill the Republicans have on the table. Show me the bill that would replace ObamaCare. We have rhetoric and legal actions, no EFFECTIVE governance. Both sides suck when you look past Fox and CNN.

I agree with no on the budget fiasco.

[JFootin]

If I remember as a kid, there was blue kool-aid and there was red kool-aid. I haven't had any in 50 years.

Show me the current JOBS bill the Republicans have on the table. Show me the bill that would replace ObamaCare. We have rhetoric and legal actions, no EFFECTIVE governance. Both sides suck when you look past Fox and CNN.

I agree with no on the budget fiasco.

Agreed, both sides suck. I line up more with Tea Party ideals than RNC, and label myself conservative with libertarian leanings.

The concept of a bill where the government creates jobs by becoming larger and spending more is anti-jobs. The record of the last 3 years has proven that. The 'jobs' bills that the other side have presented include the budget plan presented by Paul Ryan (Ron Paul has some ideas, too), numerous (but not enough) attempts to strip the growing regulatory quicksand, and tax reform ideas that don't just try to take enough away from the rich to fix everything (and there aren't enough rich people to make a dent in it), but rather enable business, and investment and entrepreneurship where real jobs and economic growth come from.

[JFootin]

Oh, and small fixes to the existing healthcare system, not a one size fits all, legally mandated, inefficient Federal monstrosity that is strangling business growth, investment and hiring.

[O'Dell]

Oh, and small fixes to the existing healthcare system, not a one size fits all, legally mandated, inefficient Federal monstrosity that is strangling business growth, investment and hiring.

Absolutely! We don't need a "jobs bill". There are billions of dollars that were allocated for expansions and new jobs just sitting in thousands of corporations and small businesses. Why is this money not being spent for it's intended purposes? Because no one wants to expand with the threat of more asinine regulations coming out of Washington and the Obama administration. The biggest threat of all is ObamaCare. No one, not business, not even government, knows the ramifications that will take effect under this absurdly stupid piece of legislation. So no jobs get created and production does not increase, and it's all because of government.

[MikeyKahr]

An illegal alien, a Communist and a Muslim walk into a bar. The bartender asks, "What can I get for you Mr. President?"

Sent using Tapatalk

[JFootin]

An illegal alien, a Communist and a Muslim walk into a bar. The bartender asks, "What can I get for you Mr. President?"

Sent using Tapatalk

Now that's funny right there, cuz!
http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee486/John_England/Misc/laugh.gif

[WMD]

Absolutely! We don't need a "jobs bill". There are billions of dollars that were allocated for expansions and new jobs just sitting in thousands of corporations and small businesses. Why is this money not being spent for it's intended purposes? Because no one wants to expand with the threat of more asinine regulations coming out of Washington and the Obama administration. The biggest threat of all is ObamaCare. No one, not business, not even government, knows the ramifications that will take effect under this absurdly stupid piece of legislation. So no jobs get created and production does not increase, and it's all because of government.

Why not deport the 10 to 12 million ilegal immigrants? That would create a whole bunch of jobs! please do not give me the argument that ilegals are doing jobs that Americans will noto d. That is just nonsense. :rolleyes:

By removing the ilegals would also stop the flow of government dollars to them. We might actually save a few (billions of) bucks. If I recall, Arnie in the great state of CA said they were paying out 6 billion to ilegals per year.

That is a serious chunck of change.

[Finnster]

Correction it was Papa Bush who sent American troops to Somalia. About six months before he left office.

Cheers,

[Finnster]

An illegal alien, a Communist and a Muslim walk into a bar. The bartender asks, "What can I get for you Mr. President?"

Sent using Tapatalk
Just proves that a complete lack of truth never hurts a funny joke.:)

[O'Dell]

Why not deport the 10 to 12 million ilegal immigrants? That would create a whole bunch of jobs! please do not give me the argument that ilegals are doing jobs that Americans will noto d. That is just nonsense. :rolleyes:

By removing the ilegals would also stop the flow of government dollars to them. We might actually save a few (billions of) bucks. If I recall, Arnie in the great state of CA said they were paying out 6 billion to ilegals per year.

That is a serious chunck of change.

I can't really disagree, and no, I wouldn't give that tired old argument, but I'm just not sure it would be possible at this late date.

I would much rather remove the shackles from the industrial might of this country, and let the economy grow to the point that a "Jobs Bill" would be laughable. The FairTax would do that, but even if it was passed tomorrow, it would take a couple of years to implement, and don't have the time to wait.

[mr surveyor]

as long as the discussion is related to political policy, could someone explain to me when it was deemed to be the responsibility of the federal government to fund local teachers, policemen and firemen? What part of the Constitution actually supports that notion? For that matter, where in the Constitution is the Federal Healthcare For All Clause?

We are turning into Europe by way of progressive (what an oxymoron) policies.

surv

[O'Dell]

I think Washington politicians started usurping the power of the constitution the day after ratification and it's been getting worst ever since. Tenth Amendment Convention, anyone?

[tv_racin_fan]

as long as the discussion is related to political policy, could someone explain to me when it was deemed to be the responsibility of the federal government to fund local teachers, policemen and firemen? What part of the Constitution actually supports that notion? For that matter, where in the Constitution is the Federal Healthcare For All Clause?

We are turning into Europe by way of progressive (what an oxymoron) policies.

surv

Well... I assume you seriously don't want an answer or at the very least don't want THIS answer.

However the progressives have and will continue to point to this single line (a mistake in my opinion, tho it has been put forth that it was indeed not a mistake but done so on purpose) in Article 1 Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and PROVIDE for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The offending portion of that line is the "PROVIDE for the common defence AND general welfare" segment. There are those who would argue that that line only explains what the rest of the section is about (I tended to agree with them except when you look at other sections they do not seem to be formed in this manner).

In any event IF you agree that Congress has the duty to levy and collect taxes to PROVIDE for the general welfare then one would have to agree that everything Congress and the govt has done and can do could easily be justifed as such.

Is not fire protection indeed providing for the general welfare? Are not police services providing for the general welfare? Would not national healthcare also be deemed as providing for the general welfare?

I do not have issue with having a national healthcare system in and of itself. So long as that system is paid for by everyone who enjoys the benefits of that system (ok within reason of course, children without income could not pay for their portion). The issue I have with this obamination of a healthcare system is the democrats in general and President Obama in specific claimed that it could be paid for by taxes on those making over $200K. Ask anyone who supported the effort by the democrats why they do not ask their representatives in congress why they did not offer a system much like the Canadian system and they look at you with dead eyes. They really do not seem to have a clue.

[tv_racin_fan]

I think Washington politicians started usurping the power of the constitution the day after ratification and it's been getting worst ever since.

You sir would be 100% correct.

[jocko]

Well if I was an iron worker or a "laborer" I would be offendeed tot hink we hav eto aligate money to hire teachers and cops just becuase obama thinks it is the thing todo. That is thye responsibility of the city's and towns to hire firemen and cops . Teachers are paid throught he state and local county tax base. 50% of my local taxes goes towards our school;s, state picks up the rest. governmenbt should stay out of it.

the kicker to all this is that this hiring of cops and fireman and teachers when the stimulus "benefit" money runs out they will loose their jobs. IS THIS RIGHT.

I know inb our small town of 4500+,we just took on 3 cops under the fast cops federal program. they pay their salary for 3 years and then WEMUST HIRE THEM OR PAY BACK ALL THAT MONEY. Now there is nbo way we willbe able to do this or we would have hired them without the fast cops money, so who will loose their jobs in our town in order to keep these 3 fast cops on the job. some one sure i hell wll.

I don't buy the goverhment getting into our hiri8ng of cops or fireman stuff. been a responsibility of the towns and big cities for all this time. and to mne it seems like class warefare to say we nee dthis money for more cops and teachers while u laborers, and pipe fitters and everyone else fights for themselves...

[les strat]

Well... I assume you seriously don't want an answer or at the very least don't want THIS answer.

However the progressives have and will continue to point to this single line (a mistake in my opinion, tho it has been put forth that it was indeed not a mistake but done so on purpose) in Article 1 Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and PROVIDE for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The offending portion of that line is the "PROVIDE for the common defence AND general welfare" segment. There are those who would argue that that line only explains what the rest of the section is about (I tended to agree with them except when you look at other sections they do not seem to be formed in this manner).

In any event IF you agree that Congress has the duty to levy and collect taxes to PROVIDE for the general welfare then one would have to agree that everything Congress and the govt has done and can do could easily be justifed as such.

Is not fire protection indeed providing for the general welfare? Are not police services providing for the general welfare? Would not national healthcare also be deemed as providing for the general welfare?

I do not have issue with having a national healthcare system in and of itself. So long as that system is paid for by everyone who enjoys the benefits of that system (ok within reason of course, children without income could not pay for their portion). The issue I have with this obamination of a healthcare system is the democrats in general and President Obama in specific claimed that it could be paid for by taxes on those making over $200K. Ask anyone who supported the effort by the democrats why they do not ask their representatives in congress why they did not offer a system much like the Canadian system and they look at you with dead eyes. They really do not seem to have a clue.

Well..... the job bill Obama was shoving down Congress' throat was to spend a half trillion (of our great grandchildren's money) on funding for teachers, cops, and firemen, but the part not-so-pubilicized was the fact that it was only for one year. Afterward, the state and local governent would have been left with the funding and the taxpayers owe for decades for a job act that was a re-election ploy with no concern for the well being of our presnt or future. At this point, any spending Obama and Congress do is not in the best interest of providing for the general welfare of our people and country and is nothing more than a destruction ploy. If they can't control their own out of control spending and bring this debt down, they should be forced to. By the people. By any means. Enough is enough.

[mr surveyor]

I believe that the terms "Common defense and general welfare" were/are used in a very specific collective sense referring to the nation as a single unit and has nothing to do with the individual persons.

Time to dig out the Federalists Papers, I guess.

[O'Dell]

Well... I assume you seriously don't want an answer or at the very least don't want THIS answer.

However the progressives have and will continue to point to this single line (a mistake in my opinion, tho it has been put forth that it was indeed not a mistake but done so on purpose) in Article 1 Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and PROVIDE for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The offending portion of that line is the "PROVIDE for the common defence AND general welfare" segment. There are those who would argue that that line only explains what the rest of the section is about (I tended to agree with them except when you look at other sections they do not seem to be formed in this manner).

In any event IF you agree that Congress has the duty to levy and collect taxes to PROVIDE for the general welfare then one would have to agree that everything Congress and the govt has done and can do could easily be justifed as such.

Is not fire protection indeed providing for the general welfare? Are not police services providing for the general welfare? Would not national healthcare also be deemed as providing for the general welfare?

I do not have issue with having a national healthcare system in and of itself. So long as that system is paid for by everyone who enjoys the benefits of that system (ok within reason of course, children without income could not pay for their portion). The issue I have with this obamination of a healthcare system is the democrats in general and President Obama in specific claimed that it could be paid for by taxes on those making over $200K. Ask anyone who supported the effort by the democrats why they do not ask their representatives in congress why they did not offer a system much like the Canadian system and they look at you with dead eyes. They really do not seem to have a clue.

Every constitutional scholar I have read define the "general welfare" clause in Article 1, Section 8 as the general welfare of the nation, and does not refer to the general welfare of the people. There a many quotes from Madison, Adams, Jefferson, etc that bear this out. If you read the whole article you will understand that it referred to operations governing the nation and not the people.

[mr surveyor]

in most cases, the left has a way of viewing the phrase "general welfare" to mean "individual welfare" through the same rose colored glasses that they tend to view "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as being a collective right rather than an individual right.

[O'Dell]

in most cases, the left has a way of viewing the phrase "general welfare" to mean "individual welfare" through the same rose colored glasses that they tend to view "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as being a collective right rather than an individual right.

Correct - they reverse it to suit their agenda.

[jocko]

we have a very arogant president and senate majority leader and a real jewel with the house minority leader. In all my years of watching this country mnove along, I have never seen anything like it. It is all about getting reelected, not in doing a good job and therefore u will get elected on ur merits..

[popgoestheweasel]

i agree with michelle bachman about obama, he put our military in libya and now he's putting them in africa. it's just wrong. it was either michelle bachman or sara palen but in either case it just dosn't make sense. not only is he screwing up our military, he's responsible for putting our economy in the terlet. if he remains potus much longer, we'll have legalized gay marriage and abortions. next will be the loss of our guns. the only thing obama has done is to take credit for killing bin laden and he didn't have anything to do with it. i suppose he's NOW responsible for killing gadhafy?

[jocko]

he blew his chanced two years ago to take our guns, he woj't touch that issue until after Nov 2012 and then he will be gone anyways.

[tv_racin_fan]

The people ARE the Nation and providing for the PEOPLE is indeed providing for the general welfare of the Nation, in my opinion. Or so that is how the progressives would argue that.

In my opinion the issue there is it never should have said PROVIDE for the General Welfare it should have said PROMOTE as it does in the Preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I dunno if promote was left out accidentally or on purpose.

[jocko]

u gotta know that back then, they didn't figure we would have assholes running this country and interpreting the constitution and our laws any damn way they want.. With people like Obama, reed and pelosi, the constitution is definitely outdated. It really doesnt matter to them if u recite the constitution in a legal matter or not, .. They pay no attention..

[jocko]

found this. kinda cute but so so true:

SIMPLY AMAZING WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT

Isn't it amazing that, within only one week of Tiger Woods crashing his Escalade, the press found every woman with whom Tiger has had an affair during the last few years?
And, they even uncovered photos, text messages, recorded phone calls, etc.!
Furthermore, they not only know the cause of the family fight, but they even know it was a wedge from his golf bag that his wife used to break out the windows in the Escalade.
Not only that, they know which wedge!
And, each & every day, they were able to continue to provide America with
updates on Tiger's sex rehab stay, his wife's plans for divorce, as well as the
dates & tournaments in which he will play.
Now, Barack Hussein Obama has been in office for two years, yet this very same press:
· Can not find any of his childhood friends or neighbors;
· Or find any of Obama's high school or college classmates;
· Or locate any of his college papers or grades;
· Or determine how he paid for both a Columbia & a Harvard education;
· Or discover which country issued his visa to travel to Pakistan in the 1980's;
· Or even find Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis on racism.
They just can't seem to uncover any of this.
Yet, the public still trusts that same press to give them the whole truth!
I find that totally amazing, don't you

[jocko]

found anpther one:

The Italian Virginity Test
Mario is planning to marry and asks his family doctor how he could tell if
his Bride-to-be is still a Virgin.

His doctor says .... "Mario, all the Italian men I know use three things for what we call
a Do-It-Yourself Virginity Test Kit ~~~ a small can of Red paint,
a small can of Blue paint, and a Shovel."

Mario asks ... "And what do I do with these things, doc?"

The doctor replies .... "Before you climb into bed on your wedding night,
you paint one of your balls Red and the other ball Blue.

If she says ... 'That's the strangest pair of balls I've ever seen!',

..........you hit her with the Shovel

[getsome]

Well said....But with the likes of Diane Sawyer in the media whom I'm certain had a major gimongously big orgasm when Obummer was elected it doesn't surprise me one bit about all that baggage somehow just getting lost in the shuffle...:mad:

[tv_racin_fan]

Well..... the job bill Obama was shoving down Congress' throat was to spend a half trillion (of our great grandchildren's money) on funding for teachers, cops, and firemen, but the part not-so-pubilicized was the fact that it was only for one year. Afterward, the state and local governent would have been left with the funding and the taxpayers owe for decades for a job act that was a re-election ploy with no concern for the well being of our presnt or future. At this point, any spending Obama and Congress do is not in the best interest of providing for the general welfare of our people and country and is nothing more than a destruction ploy. If they can't control their own out of control spending and bring this debt down, they should be forced to. By the people. By any means. Enough is enough.

The part about any spending not being for the well being of the people or nation is an opinion... I happen to agree with it mostly. Progressives wont agree tho because they believe that any spending is stimulative and therefor for the well being or general welfare.

Heck the bulk of the first so called stimulus package was the same thing. It may have saved some jobs but they were GOVT jobs that should not have been saved. The GOVT both state and federal can not afford them and while the stimulus spending may have temporarily saved some it wont save them forever.

Seems like the democrats follow the Keyensian theory of economics when it benefits them and abandon it when it doesn't. I believe the theory says that the govt should spend massively when the economy is on a downward turn but it also says that the govt should not be spending so massively when the economy is good in fact it should save some for the downturns that will come. Democrats on the other hand seem to want to spend to stimulate the economy on the downturn and then they seem to believe that govt can afford to spend when the economy is doing well because tax revenues are up.

Anytime the federal govt gives money to the state govts it has strings attached such as the unemployment extensions.

Democrats love to talk about how FL wanted the highspeed rail money and then they didn't but they wont report that those funds were contingent on the state govt spending tremendously as well. Made sense to me that FL would not want the funds since it would mean that FL would have to spend more than it could afford.

[jocko]

Well said....But with the likes of Diane Sawyer in the media whom I'm certain had a major gimongously big orgasm when Obummer was elected it doesn't surprise me one bit about all that baggage somehow just getting lost in the shuffle...:mad:

than butt ugly Peloisi, Diane Sawyer ranks very high on my list of Mrs.Ugly for 2011.

[Zebulun]

Does anyone find it the least bit curious that Team 6 takes out Oslami and then members of Team 6 perish in a chopper crash a week later?
Now OboMao is sending 100 SpecOps troops to Africa. Personally I believe he hates and fears SpecOps and he may have made a deal to trade off Team 6 for Osilliama for his political currency.
I put nothing at all aside when considering this friend of William Ayers, Jerry Wright, Frank Marshall Davis and whose gorilla has only once been proud of my country.
I know it may be pure speculation but these people are filthy deep dirty, lying. cheating MARXIST elitists.

[yqtszhj]

I dont think the current pres is stupid but more something like devious. To your point did he pull a David sending Bathsheba's husband to the front for a reason we don't know yet or is he playing God with the military for his own means. I don't know if he fears spec ops guys but I'm sure they have no fear of him. They can survive whatever. Is he using them as gladiators for Caesars entertainment? Quite possibly so. "Rome is the mob, give the mob what they want and they will love him for it" or something like that is a quote from a movie and I think to an extent it is true. Look at some in our country today. I cant answer those questions but I don't trust him or many of the others either to work for the benefit of the country, mostly for the benefit of themselves.