Is Obama the weakest Commander-in-Chief in US history?

Regionite · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:06 am **Posts:** 698

edge540 wrote:

Quote:

Fine but the comment is just as valid so nitpicking over 1 rank doesn't change a damned thing

You got that right, it does not change any thing, you're still a stupid, ignorant fool who makes up nonsense.
Now what part of the factcheck don't you comperhend?
John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org, agreed. "This is a silly statement," Pike said. "The only clearance the president needs is the mandate of the people....The other interpretation -- that West's clearance, either today or in the past -- was higher than any president's is ridiculously false. The president has the highest security clearance in the land."

Quote:

Now Moby you know by now that when Dems can't win an argument...

right...
How about backing up your nonsense, genius?... link please.

The funny thing is I was not speaking of West's comments. You just assumed I was and you reminded me that he had said something similar. As for the so-called fact check site run by Dems who gave them clearance to check these security facts? :lol:

To phrase it like this, "The president has the highest security clearance in the land." clearly shows the guy either is telling a half truth or he has no idea what he's talking about.

As for your name calling I gather you oppose anti bullying laws, right? What other purpose could you have to make such claims other than to intimidate? I think you are a cyberbully. No link needed you did it again.

Regionite · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:06 am **Posts:** 698

Moby Grape wrote:

edge540 wrote:

I don't waste time with garbage from Fox "News."

Too busy sucking democrat dick and kissing democrat ass just to keep the entitlement checks coming in eh?

This useful idiot is still rooting for obama with a 25% approval rating and double digit unemployment and can't come up with one single accomplishment by his messiah.

you really need to click the "I'M STILL IN DENIAL" button at the top of the screen.

If I said more people believe Elvis is alive and aliens have visited us combined than fully support Obama he'd say that's a complete lie! at last check there is 1 person more that believes in Obama.

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Quote:

To phrase it like this, "The president has the highest security clearance in the land." clearly shows the guy either is telling a half truth or he has no idea what he's talking about...

Here's a clear fact, genius.
There is no one on the planet that would agree with your idiotic claim. No one.
End of story.

suzyq · **Joined:** Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:00 pm **Posts:** 993

Maybe this will help some of the dimwits to get it !!!

Someone has done a pretty clever job on this:

Johnny Cash gets IT!!.... http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=8n8K5b3gFvI

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

If you belong to a union or you are on welfare, 0bama is your man.

Those who don't belong to a union or are on welfare?

we get the bill...

Quote:

The Great Obama Welfare State
American Thinker, by Chad Stafko

Much has changed in America since Barack Obama was sworn into office as the 44th president of the United States on January 20, 2009. In less than 1,000 days as chief executive of the U.S., President Obama's failed policies and initiatives have resulted in a dizzying array of dismal economic statistics. As it stands now, Obama appears headed toward an economic legacy that may very well surpass Jimmy Carter in its level of failure.

We have seen under this president an expanding number of citizens who are partially or wholly dependent on the government for their very livelihood, as the data show that the U.S. has become an ever-growing welfare state under Obama.

Government dependence, which is defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is at a staggering 47%, its highest level in American history, while 21 million households are reliant on food stamps. In fact, government spending on food stamps in 2010 ($68 billion) was double what it was in 2007, with the 2011 figure likely to be even higher.

According to the August employment report from the Department of Labor, the nation's unemployment rate remained at 9.1% with a total of zero jobs added to the economy during the month. Among demographic groups, Latinos had an unemployment rate of 11.3%, while African-Americans posted a rate of 16.7%. For blacks, that represents the highest unemployment rate for this group since 1984 and a rate more than double that of whites (8%).

When Obama took office in January 2009, the nation's unemployment rate stood at 7.8%, a rate higher than the historic norm, yet far below the current rate, and above any rate during the Bush administration. Since June 2009, six months into Obama's term, the nation's unemployment rate has been at or above 9% during 25 of 27 consecutive months.

Those are the official unemployment rates. The real unemployment rate, as it is sometimes referred to, rose to a seasonally adjusted 16.2% in August. That rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, includes those in the official unemployment rate plus those who have given up looking for a job and those who are working part-time but wish to work full-time. This figure is now at its highest rate since August 2010 and represents about one out of every six potential American workers now without a job.

The economic numbers are especially poor for the demographic groups that most supported Barack Obama at the polling booth in November 2008.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/ ... state.html

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

edge540 wrote:

You seriously expect me to believe this utter nonsense from a batsh!t crazy loon like you?

How about the Military Times?

But don't fret edge...the democrats will make every effort they can to block or ignore or delay all the overseas ballots.

Quote:

Poll: Troops Losing Confidence
in Obama Commander-in-Chief
Big Peace, by Elaine Donnelly

President Barack Obama is working hard to shore up his liberal political base, but military voters may be less likely to lend support for his re-election. According to the 2011 Military Times Poll of active-duty subscribers, confidence in the overall job performance of the Commander-in-Chief has plummeted from 70% to 25%. The steep decline was illustrated with a multi-color bar graph on a page 10 of the September 19, 2011, Navy Times print edition, and in a secondary link in the web-posted article available to non-subscribers, titled â€œA Souring Mood.â€

http://bigpeace.com/edonnelly/2011/11/1 ... -in-chief/

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Quote:

How about the Military Times?

The Military Times admits the poll is bullshit:

These respondents do not effectively represent the demographics of the military as a whole. Few junior enlisted members responded, and officers and career-oriented troops are over-represented in our results. White service members, American Indians/Alaska Natives and males were slightly over-represented in our responses, while black troops were severely under-represented when compared with Defense Department demographic data from March 2010. Given the skewed nature of our data toward certain demographics, it is impossible to accurately calculate statistical margins of error for this survey.

Nice try

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

edge540 wrote:

The Military Times admits the poll is bullshit:

Nice try

you left out some parts edge.

Quote:

HOW WE DID IT

From July 22 to Aug. 8, Military Times conducted a voluntary and confidential online survey of subscribers. Respondents included active-duty, reserve-component and retired service members, as well as military family members and defense contractors. Of the more than 50,000 people who received invitations to participate, more than 4,600 took the time to answer.

Unless specified otherwise, the results discussed here are based on the answers of 1,109 respondents who said they were active-duty military (1,012) or reservists currently mobilized for federal active duty (97).

These respondents do not effectively represent the demographics of the military as a whole. Few junior enlisted members responded, and officers and career-oriented troops are over-represented in our results. White service members, American Indians/Alaska Natives and males were slightly over-represented in our responses, while black troops were severely under-represented when compared with Defense Department demographic data from March 2010. Given the skewed nature of our data toward certain demographics, it is impossible to accurately calculate statistical margins of error for this survey.

However, given that the demographics represented in this survey have held relatively steady for the past several years, we believe the trends in our data can serve as a bellwether for changing attitudes and experiences among military personnel as a whole. It may also be possible to gauge the sentiments among senior and career-oriented service members who are responsible for carrying out policy changes from these results.

I looked and looked and looked but nowhere did I find the part where you claim they admitted the poll was bullshit.

nice try.

-={ARCLIGHT}=- · **Posted:** Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:06 pm

Canadian PM Stephen Harper Meeting With China About Selling Their Oil After Obama Drags Feet on Keystone Pipeline

comedian · **Joined:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:15 am **Posts:** 3630

Quote:

debkafile's sources disclose exclusively that, contrary to recent reports published in Washington, Jerusalem - and this site too - it was Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, not the Obama administration, who decided to call off the biggest ever joint US-Israeli military exercise Austere Challenge 12 scheduled for April 2012.
Washington was taken aback by the decision. It was perceived as a mark of Israel's disapproval for the administration's apparent hesitancy in going through with the only tough sanctions with any chance of working against Iran's nuclear weapon program: penalizing its central bank and blocking payments for its petroleum exports.
This was the first time Israel had ever postponed a joint military exercise; it generated a seismic moment in relations between the US and Israel at a time when Iran has never been so close to producing a nuclear weapon.

http://www.debka.com/article/21656/

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Israel can't launch strike against Iran on its own

translation:
Bibi can't do sh!t without Barry.

comedian · **Joined:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:15 am **Posts:** 3630

March 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqMtqADOlP0

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

Quote:

Taliban-U.S. peace talks look
more likely; military worried
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) â€“ The Obama administration is moving ahead with plans for negotiating with the Taliban, confident that talks offer the best chance to end the 10-year-old war in Afghanistan. But the military worries things are moving too fast, and intelligence agencies offered a gloomy prognosis in their latest Afghanistan report.

Several current and former U.S. officials said the most substantive give-and-take to date between U.S. and Taliban negotiators could happen in the next week, with the goal of establishing what the U.S. calls confidence-building measures â€” specific steps that the U.S. and the insurgents agree to take ahead of formal talks. Those talks, if they ever take place, would include the United States, the Taliban and the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai, a senior U.S. official said.

Like others interviewed, the official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive diplomacy. Elements of the U.S. outreach to the Taliban are also classified.

The diplomatic, military and intelligence branches of the U.S. government differ over the value of talks with the Taliban or whether now is the right time to so publicly shift focus away from the ongoing military campaign that primarily targets Taliban insurgents.

wrote:

Four more years,YESSS!

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8981&p=113441&hilit=four+more+years#p113441

dumbignorantfuk540 wrote:

Obama wins in 2012

http://204.2.104.194/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3557&p=136191&hilit=2012#p136191

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

this must be one of those reasons dumbfuk540 believes DUMBO is such a great ''commander''...

Quote:

Obamaâ€™s deadly new PR firm
Washington Times, by J.D. Gordon

The dramatic rescue of an American aid worker and her Danish colleague in Somalia by Navy commandos was a terrific encore to the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan nine months ago. However, all the White House-driven publicity for both events has helped turn the once-secret SEAL Team 6 into a household term, with likely negative consequences.

Although SEAL Team 6 and its official successor, the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, have been around since the 1980s, their missions always were kept secret to shield their membersâ€™ identities and protect operational security.

Every president since the teamâ€™s founding has deployed this â€œelite of the elitesâ€ unit, created as one remedy to fix the hollowed-out military under President Carter - specifically to prevent more incidents like the botched hostage rescue attempt of hostages from the U.S. Embassy in Iran. Its ranks are made of highly specialized and seasoned professionals, traditionally handpicked from existing SEAL teams.

President Reagan sent them into Grenada in 1983. President George H.W. Bush ordered them into Panama in 1989. President Clinton deployed them to Bosnia in the mid-1990s. President George W. Bush relied on them extensively in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And theyâ€™ve been sent on countless other operations weâ€™ll never know about. Yet those presidents didnâ€™t talk about them.

So whatâ€™s changed? Officially, nothing.

The military still avoids discussion of the unit and its highly classified missions. On Wednesday, the Pentagon merely referred to â€œU.S. special operations forcesâ€ in its just-the-facts statement from Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta on the rescue.

The one and only reason why there has been so much recent publicity on SEAL Team 6 rests with the commander in chief.

Casting aside decades of careful leadership to keep these stealth warriors out of the public eye, away from would-be revenge-seekers and assorted far-left protesters, Mr. Obama has discussed their exploits to such an extent that their mystique is largely diminished - and their identities closer to being disclosed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... #pagebreak

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Yes, I agree it's about time the Commander in Chief gives credit where credit is due.
Well done

Northwest Indiana Discussion

Is Obama the weakest Commander-in-Chief in US history?

Who is online