do we keep him or not?

[waterdog101]

with 120 some days left to make up our mind, where to keep President Obama or not. has America had enough time to forget the nightmare of George junior Bush.

[GeoFisher]

with 120 some days left to make up our mind, where to keep President Obama or not. has America had enough time to forget the nightmare of George junior Bush.

Why make it out to be a "Bush" issue.

Bush has been out of office for 4 years, and out of power, in reality for 6.

In 4 years, (2 under bush, 2 under obama), the Democrats have had a super majority and basically accomplished NOTHING for the American public.

* Health care is still a mess.
* The economy is still a mess.
* Spending is still a mess.
* Transparency in politics is still a mess.
* Partisan politics are worse than they have ever been.
* Race relations are a mess.
* Gubment entitlements are at an all time high.

There are many other things on this list...but since I agree with those, I will leave them alone.

So yea, throw his good for nothing, sorry butt out.

Let someone else take the heat for a while.

I will tell you this.........If we don't get a politician in office, WHO can bring both sides together, and MAKE **** happen, we're in for years and years of this.

Finally, in my opinion, Obama will go down in history as the single worst president in the history of this great nation.

[bassin_bug]

with 120 some days left to make up our mind, where to keep President Obama or not. has America had enough time to forget the nightmare of George junior Bush.

Whether to re-elect Obama is a no-brainer. Why would a suffering person want to continue in his pain and misery? It's idiotic to continue chewing the same old roadkill and keep blaming Bush. Each president must stand or fall on his own actions. Just grow some balls and admit that Obama will go down in history as one of the worst presidents the United States has ever had. I didn't vote for Obama the first time and won't do it this time.

[DJD]

with 120 some days left to make up our mind, where to keep President Obama or not. has America had enough time to forget the nightmare of George junior Bush.

Hahaha I'll take this post as a jab at anyone who considers themselves a conservative! So I'll lean back, side step it and just ask you point blank.....do you like the potus and his accomplishments, vision and policies to re-elect him?
I don't.

[Chubminnow]

In my opinion...I'd say judging from the lack of postive and forward moving leadership he has shown...and the financial damage he has done to this great country of our's, I'm saying dump him ASAP!!

[Tom523]

In my opinion...I'd say judging from the lack of postive and forward moving leadership he has shown...and the financial damage he has done to this great country of our's, I'm saying dump him ASAP!!

We may not get the chance to dump him if Issa gets the documents he wants through a court order, Obama may be impeached.

[GeoFisher]

We may not get the chance to dump him if Issa gets the documents he wants through a court order, Obama may be impeached.

I think THAT is where this is all going, but I believe the Justice department has already stated they will not investigate Holder.

I'm SICK of Obama, I'm sick of Holder, I'm Sick of Pelosi, I'm sick of Harry Reid.

I'm SICK of every **** democrat on the hill.

Later,

Geo

[RoadToad]

We may not get the chance to dump him if Issa gets the documents he wants through a court order, Obama may be impeached.

For what??? Issa himself has said that he has no evidence whatsoever that Holder know about Fast & Furious ahead of time, or that he did anything but the right thing when he learned about it. The documents are internal to the Justice Dept, and have to do with them formulating their responses to Congress. So are you saying that somewhere in there is evidence that Obama had some involvement, and that whatever it was is impeachable? HOGWASH. Holder would have asserted executive privilege himself, except for the fact that Ronald Reagan said that any claim of executive privilege had to be authorized by the White House. That's the only reason Obama has to be involved. Issa's claim that the fact that Obama has asserted executive privilege shows he's involved is crazy, and ignores the legal precedents set ever since Reagan was in office.

Hate Obama for ObamaCare; I won't (can't) defend him there. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision that it's Constitutional, but I also agree that, as Roberts all but came out and said when rendering the decision, it's BAD POLICY. But what's going on now over Fast & Furious is nothing but Republicans pandering to their base, and it's disgusting. It proves that they're more interested in slinging mud than in doing the work of the people.

[Tom523]

For what??? Issa himself has said that he has no evidence whatsoever that Holder know about Fast & Furious ahead of time, or that he did anything but the right thing when he learned about it. The documents are internal to the Justice Dept, and have to do with them formulating their responses to Congress. So are you saying that somewhere in there is evidence that Obama had some involvement, and that whatever it was is impeachable? HOGWASH. Holder would have asserted executive privilege himself, except for the fact that Ronald Reagan said that any claim of executive privilege had to be authorized by the White House. That's the only reason Obama has to be involved. Issa's claim that the fact that Obama has asserted executive privilege shows he's involved is crazy, and ignores the legal precedents set ever since Reagan was in office.

Hate Obama for ObamaCare; I won't (can't) defend him there. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision that it's Constitutional, but I also agree that, as Roberts all but came out and said when rendering the decision, it's BAD POLICY. But what's going on now over Fast & Furious is nothing but Republicans pandering to their base, and it's disgusting. It proves that they're more interested in slinging mud than in doing the work of the people.

The republicans have been gathering evidence on Obama for awhile. There are two instances of bribing candidates not to run in an election by offering a higher paid position in the administration. One in Pennsylvania and one in Colorado that they have been holding in there hip pocket. Interference with a congressional investigation would be considered a high crime or misdemeanor. If evidence is uncovered that Fast and furious was started to give the administration support for stricter gun laws, which they kept hammering ("90% of the guns confiscated in Mexico came from U.S. gun dealers") while they were shipping guns to Mexico it could get ugly here in America. We all know that Obama and the majority of his advisers are from the most politically corrupt state in the union. It would be hard to believe that out of all the crooked politicians from Illinois that his group is squeaky clean.

[Chubminnow]

Despite as much as it's been in the news and talked about...for some reason I'm behind on what Fast and Fuurious is all about...can someone give it to me in laymen's terms (one sentence) that describes what Fast and Furious is? Judging from what I'm reading...it sounds like Fast and Furious is a way for the democrats to eliminate guns in the United States, is this true?

[know1]

We may not get the chance to dump him if Issa gets the documents he wants through a court order, Obama may be impeached.

I learned during the Clinton years that impeachment really has no meaning.

[RoadToad]

Despite as much as it's been in the news and talked about...for some reason I'm behind on what Fast and Fuurious is all about...can someone give it to me in laymen's terms (one sentence) that describes what Fast and Furious is? Judging from what I'm reading...it sounds like Fast and Furious is a way for the democrats to eliminate guns in the United States, is this true?

Basically, the ATF allowed some suspected gun smugglers to buy guns and transport them across the border to Mexico, with the idea that they would track the guns as they made their way up to the high-level traffickers and cartel leaders, and this would lead to the dismantling of the cartels, a practice known a "gun-walking." They did indict a few gun smugglers over it, but no cartel leaders. But what's worse (and was totally predictable), some of the guns that they stood by and watched get smuggled across the border have showed up at crime scenes, both in the U.S. and in Mexico, including at the scene of the murder of a federal agent.

The dispute now is over some Justice Department documents that relate to how they were going to respond to Congress on questions about the operation. In particular, Republicans are interested in what led up to a February 2011 (quickly retracted) letter from then-Assistant AG Ron Weich denying that guns were ever allowed to walk. Congress has subpoenaed these documents, but Holder has refused to release them, and asked President Obama to assert Executive Privilege over them, saying "the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have significant, damaging consequences: It would inhibit the candor of such Executive Branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the Executive Branch’s ability to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight. This would raise substantial separation of powers concerns and potentially create an imbalance in the relationship between these two co-equal branches of the Government." Obama agreed and claimed executive privilege, and, since the subpoena doesn't claim that the documents may contain evidence of criminal behavior, that claim can't be overturned.

Hope this helps. I'm trying to confine this response to an objective account of the facts, so I'd better just stop here.