myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Obama's Epic Failures
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 192, 193, 194 ... 198, 199, 200  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So uninformed. Obama definitely suffers from not having served in the military, and thus being unused to the military approach--and blind spots--and to being distrusted by the military. But if anyone has read anything about the last 7 years of Obama's administration, it would be clear that the military has had Obama's ear far more than the diplomatic side of the administration. (Watch the documentary on Richard Holbrooke and you would see--an hour a week for Hillary, nearly unlimited time for the military.)

The point that one of my wisest mentors made is that Obama lacks the experience with the military to know how best to push back, and how best to get the political and diplomatic issues that must be resolved to end wars attended to. Mike suffers from tone deafness and selective hearing, where he gets even less than half the viewpoints.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freaking DUH!



Despite its anti-constitutional mandate (Roberts clearly played word games with it) and subsidies even for the upper middle class, Obamacare is rapidly spiraling towards bankruptcy at both state and national levels. What did its sponsors expect when they decreed regular-priced coverage for preexisting conditions (aka welfare, not insurance), blocked interstate competition, gave legislators no time to read it, changed it from top to bottom in secret after it was approved by one Democrat vote bought with a lie, lied to us about its costs and benefits, effectively allowed (to get it past Roberts) people to refuse it until they get sick, and based its funding on young/healthy people who would be fools to buy it before their brain cancer diagnosis?

Sources include the WSJ, the nation's biggest insurance company (which is on the verge of rejecting OCare altogether), the bankruptcy of more than half the state exchanges already, and millions of customers whose costs are already skyrocketing,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not every bill that BHO signs comes with cameras, lights, press, and a bunch of fan fair. Sometimes he likes to do it a bit more quietly, on a day full of distractions, like today. First he had to pardon a couple of turkeys, then he had to go sign this turkey (in his opinion).

Not sure where to put this, it's good that he signed it, but he doesn't have to like it. Gitmo stays open for business.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama signs defense bill despite Guantanamo provisions

Published November 25, 2015
Associated Press

President Obama on Wednesday signed a $607 billion defense policy bill despite his opposition to restrictions in the legislation that ban him from moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States and making good on a long unfulfilled campaign promise.

Obama has opposed provisions preventing detainee transfers since Congress first attached the measures to spending bills in an attempt block Obama's plans. The dispute has taken on added intensity this year because the White House has launched a final push to close to the prison before Obama leaves office.

In a statement, Obama said the bill "includes vital benefits for military personnel and their families, authorities to facilitate ongoing operations around the globe, and important reforms to the military retirement system" as well as other measures.

He added, however, that he is "deeply disappointed that the Congress has again failed to take productive action toward closing the detention facility at Guantanamo." Keeping the prison open, Obama said, "is not consistent with our interests as a Nation and undermines our standing in the world."

The White House and the Pentagon are preparing to send to Congress a plan outlining more precisely how it would shutter the prison and where in the U.S. might transfer detainees. The proposal, however, was not expected to overcome sizable opposition among Republicans and some Democrats.

That's put the defense policy bill at the center of the debate over whether Obama would move some detainees from the detention center in Cuba to U.S. facilities without congressional approval. Some legal experts and Obama administration allies argue the restrictions are unconstitutional and are urging Obama to move the detainees and close the prison despite the provisions. The White House has said it is focused on working with Congress, but has not ruled out other options.

"As I have said repeatedly, the executive branch must have the flexibility, with regard to the detainees who remain at Guantanamo, to determine when and where to prosecute them, based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our national security interests, and when and where to transfer them consistent with our national security and our humane treatment policy," Obama said in the statement.

But after Obama signed the bill, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said his approval "reaffirms longstanding prohibitions on the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States."

The legislation will guide Pentagon policy for nearly all of the remainder of Obama's tenure. In addition to the detainee ban, it includes a 1.3 percent pay increase for service members, authorization for lethal assistance to forces fighting Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine and funding to help Iraqi forces fight Islamic State militants.

Obama vetoed an earlier version of the bill over a dispute — later resolved — about the way defense programs would be financed. He did not repeat the threat over the Guantanamo provisions, mindful that he would not have the votes to sustain a veto. The legislation passed with overwhelming support in both the House and Senate approval.

The White House announced the signing Wednesday afternoon along with five other bills. Obama has signed a $607 billion defense authorization bill despite his objection to provisions that ban him from moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States.

As a candidate, Obama promised to close the prison immediately if he was elected. But opposition from Congress to moving detainees to the U.S. has thwarted his attempts for years.

The White House has promised to make a final push to close the prison before Obama leaves office.

The defense policy bill had become a flash point in the debate over whether Obama can move some of the remaining 107 detainees from the detention center in Cuba without congressional approval.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When and where did Obama last say from the dais, to the world, that "We have contained ISIS" and "Mass shootings do nor occur outside the United States"?

YESTERDAY.

In PARIS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We should just bury ISIS in masses of solar panels and windmills, dropped out of bombers, to crush their miserable sculls, that will show them!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know United Health Care? Of course you do, they are the main supplier of healthcare ins. thru AARP. Do you know AARP? Of course you do, they are one of the most supportive organizations that came out in favor of Obamacare! Yay, well if AARP is in favor of Obamacare, it must be great!
They aren't so happy now, they got suckered.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UnitedHealth CEO regrets entering ObamaCare

By Sarah Ferris - 12/01/15 11:05 AM EST

The CEO of UnitedHealthCare on Tuesday said he regretted the decision to enter the ObamaCare marketplace last year, which the company says has resulted in millions of dollars in losses.

“It was for us a bad decision,” UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley said at an investor’s meeting in New York, according to Bloomberg Business.

UnitedHealth, the country’s largest insurer, announced last month that it would no longer advertise its ObamaCare plans over the next year and may pull out completely in 2016 — a move that sent shockwaves across the healthcare sector.

Hemsley’s remarks double down on his earlier warning that the ObamaCare exchanges remain weaker than expected after two years and that it will take far longer for insurers to profit from the millions of new enrollees.

The company had already eyed ObamaCare’s federal marketplace cautiously since it launched in 2013. UnitedHealth only began selling plans on the exchanges last year.

Now, UnitedHealth officials have said that move will result in a half-billion dollars in losses over two years.

Hemsley said it was smart to sit out of the exchanges for the first year, but that the company should have held out another year.

“In retrospect, we should have stayed out longer,” he said, adding that he believes the marketplace will take more than “a season or two” to develop.

“We did not believe it would form this slowly, be this porous, or become this severe,” he said.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/261617-unitedhealth-ceo-regrets-entering-obamacare-marketplace
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We had a huge ISIS oil truck convoy in our sights, but because they had ISIS drivers, Obama's rules of engagement prohibited the attack. That kind of politically correct (aka cowardly) BS plays a big part of our battle and war failures for the last 15 years, and it's gotten MUCH worse since 2008.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The US Air Force retired isobars many years ago, and there's a clear reason why. He's totally nuts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528

PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
We had a huge ISIS oil truck convoy in our sights, but because they had ISIS drivers, Obama's rules of engagement prohibited the attack. That kind of politically correct (aka cowardly) BS plays a big part of our battle...

Does this mean that current rules of engagement prohibit destroying tanker trucks with drivers in them? That would indeed seem unreasonable, which makes me worry that it is not exactly true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LHDR wrote:
That would indeed seem unreasonable, which makes me worry that it is not exactly true.

Let me get this straight. You think that reasonableness -- or defending the free world, or winning even this global war [Obama openly stated that this war is not about America winning or leading (if not us, then WHO?)] -- outweighs politics AND political correctness in defining our rules of engagement? As just one of countless examples, why do we drop leaflets warning ISIS to run before we attack a building, or a truck convoy, or a weapons armory? If you're not willing to watch the news --- pick any halfway honest network -- then Google it.

ISIS beheads, burns alive, mass rapes, and worse ... and that's schoolgirls. We in turn drop warning leaflets to ISIS soldiers to save their lives, are afraid to profile, add >150 BILLION frozen dollars to their coffer in a dictatorial illegal TREATY that allows them to develop and/or acquire nuclear weapons, issue empty threats about lines in the sand, and are told not to even say RADICAL ISLAM.

Who do you think is going to win THAT war? And what 2016 candidate with a bleached possum on his head is going to win a nomination, maybe even the presidency, by taking a heartfelt, boisterous, bold position against such pussyfooting?

I don't know about you, but some of our forum regulars ADMIT they don't watch TV news. Like many of today's youth, they not only get their "news" from "friends", social media, Jon Stewart, etc. but they actually swallow it hook, line, and sinker without vetting any of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 192, 193, 194 ... 198, 199, 200  Next
Page 193 of 200

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group