When Will IT End?

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   YET ANOTHER 'FIASCO'  IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, EGAD!
   
   
   It seems that President Obama is having a bad luck spell.   The latest news (9/1/2012) according to NBCnews.com is that Suzanne Barr, a senior Obama administration political appointee, has been accused of gross sexual misconduct toward her subordinate employees.   As a result of these accusations, Ms. Barr, Chief of Staff to ICE( a division of Homeland Security) John Morton, resigned her position. 
   
   According to reports, Ms. Barr was accused of calling a male employee "sexy".   She was further alleged of asking a second male employee to perform a sexual act while on a business trip to Bogota, Columbia.   It is also averred that she called a male employee from a hotel to have sex.   Ms. Barr strongly denied the allegations, stating that this is a smear campaign with the ultimate intention to irrevocably damage her character, reputation, and career.   First, it was Attorney General Eric H. Holder, who was held in contempt and repeatedly asked to resign for the Operation Fast and Furious incident, now it is Ms. Barr!    When will this EVER end?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Obama's administration could hardly be called 'scandal ridden' when compared to the musical chairs that was the rule under the Bushwacker II

      replyreport
   2. 56

      American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      When will it end? It will only end we have a government with no politicians, and that is not going to happen anytime soon.
      
      I know it may seem like the Obama administration is scandal ridden, in reality it's not. It just seems worse and is over amplified due to the current state of the economy. So as long as there are politicians there will be something. At least in this scandal the person involved smart enough to resign quick enough so will blow over fast.

      replyreport
2. 63

   quatrainposted 5 years ago

   Not until you change the tone at the top. I vividly remember how the press overlooked Obama's inappropriate manner of addressing female reporters as "honey" and "sweetie". He also started this practice of kissing female professionals whenevr he addressed them.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Xenonlitposted 5 years ago

   This is just desperate. Let's talk about the near destruction by our country by the Bush II regime. It will help to put things into perspective.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Totally concur with your premise, Xenonlit.   Bush II was totally disastrous for this country.  First of all, he rigged the election in his favor and then he invaded Iraq.   The war in Iraq was for oil, not for "democratizing" Iraq.   Bush II had his own insidious agenda of war and  profits at the cost of almost bankrupting the country.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         GM,
         
         Since the Iraqi war was for oil, where is it? I don't see our country sitting in pools of oil, with so much gasoline that the prices like $.25 a gallon. The Iraqi war was nothing about oil, if it was we would be in control of all the oil fields and we do not control any of them. The Iraqi war was about a lot of things, oil was the least of it

         replyreport
   2. 69

      innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, and let's talk about how Obama is continuing Bush II's tyrannical regime.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         thelizposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Please tell me how Obama is a tyrant??

         replyreport
         1. 69

            innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Passed NDAA which gives the President the right to detain citizens indefinitely, and target them for assassination, extension to the Patriot act, starting an illegal war with Libya and imposing illegal sanctions on Syria and Iran which will surely lead to another war. Continued support for economic policies that destroys the purchasing power of the citizenry. Continued support for bail-outs and corporate subsidies.
            
            If Bush did all that, the left would (hopefully) be calling for impeachment. When it's their guy, they are strangely silent.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               thelizposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Bush II helped his buddies get us in a position to need bailouts in the first place. Obama has been catching hell fire about that from jump yet he had to do what was going to be most effective for the most people to clean up that situation.  That's not tyranny that's common sense.  As for the NDAA and extension to Patriot act, these may seem like tyranny, but sometimes the leader has to have a heavy hand in order to let it be known what their expectations are and that they have power and will use it if pushed. As a mom I let my children know that they will be punished if they behave contrary to my expectations Nd outline exactly what that punishment will be. Am I a tyrant, or just a parent trying to do what is best for my kids? I'm not saying that Obama is our father, but his role as commander in chief requires him to lead in such a way that the world knows he means business.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  A leader having a 'heavy hand' over his populace is the strict definition of a tyrant - aggressive violence and threat of violence over the citizenry without trial. Western civilization has built itself on the policy of 'innocent before proven guilty'. We seem to have forgotten about that.
                  
                  So we're not arguing about whether he's a tyrant - it's fact. You simply agree with the tyranny. I wonder what you think a tyranny looks like if you cannot recognise it here.
                  
                  Bail-outs are about as 'needed' as slavery. Both can be effective for special interests but both are immoral.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     thelizposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     To me tyranny is a blind belief in the fact that one is the only voice to be considered in the decision making and shaping of things. The President of the US has to answer to the Senate, House and citizenry and therefore can not be a tyrant.  Idi Amin was a tyrant. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant.
                     
                     Comparing bail outs to slavery is unfair play. Of course slavery wasn't and isn't necessary and it has zero to do with bailouts. Did massa bail out the slaves after he set them free? What is the alternative to bailouts? They suck, but what else is there, allowing the entire system to collapse even further so we can be even broker than we are? Even Average Joe can file for bankruptcy.

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Even by your standards, Obama is a tyrant, because in many of the above instances he has bypassed those measures and enacted his will as a dictator. The NDAA even gives him, and him personally, the right to assassinate citizens, with no input from anybody else. But really, tyrannical policies with a senate and congress are still tyrannical, not matter how much you dress it up.
                        
                        How is it unfair? The slaves had their freedom taken away from them, we have had our money taken away from us to be given to companies who have failed. Both practices are severe infringements on liberty and therefore both immoral.
                        
                        Bailing out banks and businesses is simply patching up an economy that was built incorrectly to begin with, and the collapse of those banks and businesses is the painful but necessary result of that. All of those jobs 'saved' are simply delaying the inevitable. Giving money to failures is incentivising them to do it again, it will happen again, and then there will be no money left. The right solution is to let the failed banks fail, as it happened in the most stable economy in Europe: Iceland. Re-build the economy from a free-market perspective. I don't see this happening under Obama as I don't believe he believes in the free market.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           thelizposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Ok, while I can see your point on the tyranny issue, I'm still not going with you on slavery and bailouts being on equal ground.  Slavery took life, home, culture, identity from generations and generations of people based on the premise that the enslaved weren't people but sub-human and therefore had no right to the above mentioned things.  Bailouts take money, which admittedly hurts those most in need, but come on, there is no comparison.  And if bailouts incentivize the bailees to repeat the same mishandlings of the money of the people then to quote GWB "Fool me once . . . Shame on . . .you? Fool me twice . . . You can't get fooled again".

                           replyreport