Topic: Hahaha another precious nugget of joy from the Obammy admin. | |
---|---|
he is in charge of the military, right? well, in the military, the leader is always responsible for what the people below him do... the captain goes down with the ship... meaning now matter what, it is the captains fault....
|
|
|
|
he is in charge of the military, right? well, in the military, the leader is always responsible for what the people below him do... the captain goes down with the ship... meaning now matter what, it is the captains fault.... so if its the captains fault,,, how many captains can you have and does his FAULT supercede or negate the FAULT of the actual captain of the ship,,,,? |
|
|
|
he is in charge of the military, right? well, in the military, the leader is always responsible for what the people below him do... the captain goes down with the ship... meaning now matter what, it is the captains fault.... so if its the captains fault,,, how many captains can you have and does his FAULT supercede or negate the FAULT of the actual captain of the ship,,,,? only one captain, and he gets the blame... simple as that...he should have had better people around him...no excuses, they get everything they need to run their command... **** rolls down hill.. |
|
|
|
he is in charge of the military, right? well, in the military, the leader is always responsible for what the people below him do... the captain goes down with the ship... meaning now matter what, it is the captains fault.... so if its the captains fault,,, how many captains can you have and does his FAULT supercede or negate the FAULT of the actual captain of the ship,,,,? only one captain, and he gets the blame... simple as that...he should have had better people around him...no excuses, they get everything they need to run their command... **** rolls down hill.. being that my brother was a naval captain, I would disagree,, if something went wrong on the ship,,if it 'went down' it would be his arse, not the presidents,,, |
|
|
|
A couple of things struck me about this "article".
One, using Fox news as a resource. Two, Use of the term assault weapon. Assault weapons are not for sale over the counter in Arizona or any other state. |
|
|
|
for review The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons. As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons So since he enforces law as chief executive then why is it so hard to believe he knew about the gun smuggling? for the same reason that all crooks arent in jail, the same reason that police havent ARRESTED (or even know) about all crimes that are happening because he is human enough not to know EVERYTHING happening everywhere and he may have other PRIORITIES keeping him occupied as president, being that there are people PAID SALARIES to do NOTHING BUT keep on top of those thing in their departments This guy could kick you in the teeth and you would defend him. |
|
|
|
he is in charge of the military, right? well, in the military, the leader is always responsible for what the people below him do... the captain goes down with the ship... meaning now matter what, it is the captains fault.... so if its the captains fault,,, how many captains can you have and does his FAULT supercede or negate the FAULT of the actual captain of the ship,,,,? only one captain, and he gets the blame... simple as that...he should have had better people around him...no excuses, they get everything they need to run their command... **** rolls down hill.. being that my brother was a naval captain, I would disagree,, if something went wrong on the ship,,if it 'went down' it would be his arse, not the presidents,,, it would be his arse, regardless of what you think |
|
|
|
he is in charge of the military, right? well, in the military, the leader is always responsible for what the people below him do... the captain goes down with the ship... meaning now matter what, it is the captains fault.... so if its the captains fault,,, how many captains can you have and does his FAULT supercede or negate the FAULT of the actual captain of the ship,,,,? only one captain, and he gets the blame... simple as that...he should have had better people around him...no excuses, they get everything they need to run their command... **** rolls down hill.. being that my brother was a naval captain, I would disagree,, if something went wrong on the ship,,if it 'went down' it would be his arse, not the presidents,,, it would be his arse, regardless of what you think lol,,,if you say so,,, |
|
|
|
for review The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons. As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons well, I posted both of these in our last debate about this topic. You said he was like a pageant winner or something.. I am happy to see that you are coming around to my point of view on this matter.. |
|
|
|
A couple of things struck me about this "article". One, using Fox news as a resource. Two, Use of the term assault weapon. Assault weapons are not for sale over the counter in Arizona or any other state. You ever heard of an AR-15? or know what AR stands for? they are not illegal i just finished cleaning one about 45 minutes ago |
|
|
|
A couple of things struck me about this "article". One, using Fox news as a resource. Two, Use of the term assault weapon. Assault weapons are not for sale over the counter in Arizona or any other state. You ever heard of an AR-15? or know what AR stands for? they are not illegal i just finished cleaning one about 45 minutes ago Part of the confusion is the media use of the word "assault rifle". They call an AK 47 an assault rifle in any form, even the non-automatic sporting version. They think any semi-automatic rifle is an assault rifle which is incorrect. It is used as an assault rifle by the drug lords but that doesn't make it suitable for military use. |
|
|
|
A couple of things struck me about this "article". One, using Fox news as a resource. Two, Use of the term assault weapon. Assault weapons are not for sale over the counter in Arizona or any other state. You ever heard of an AR-15? or know what AR stands for? they are not illegal i just finished cleaning one about 45 minutes ago Part of the confusion is the media use of the word "assault rifle". They call an AK 47 an assault rifle in any form, even the non-automatic sporting version. They think any semi-automatic rifle is an assault rifle which is incorrect. It is used as an assault rifle by the drug lords but that doesn't make it suitable for military use. the term they are looking for is FULLY automatic |
|
|
|
The OP is really kinda stupid.
Why wasn't Bush held fully responsible for the border problems when he was in office? Maybe it was Fox News Channel garbage being passed off as news again. |
|
|
|
Because President Bush didn't give weapons to Drug Cartels.
|
|
|
|
Because President Bush didn't give weapons to Drug Cartels. bull shyte..lol You think this is the only instance of something like this happening? Also there were border patrol killed on Bush's watch and all other kinds of baffoonery. If you do believe this crap, I have some land with a big bridge on it to sell you. |
|
|
|
The OP is really kinda stupid. Why wasn't Bush held fully responsible for the border problems when he was in office? Maybe it was Fox News Channel garbage being passed off as news again. lol...you libs blamed him for everything, did you forget already? |
|
|
|
Because President Bush didn't give weapons to Drug Cartels. This article is from 2009, whenObama became President. It didn't get a lot of headlines, so It isn't surprising that you missed it.Obama Supports an Inter-American Arms Treaty
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090416205058tsop.nb/topstory.html
0 0digg Buzz up!vote now By Merle David Kellerhals Jr. Washington - Stemming the flow of illegal firearms into Latin America and the Caribbean from the United States is a significant concern because of the threat these weapons pose to people's personal security and well-being, President Obama says. Obama said during a late-afternoon press conference in Mexico City April 16 that he will seek U.S. Senate ratification of an inter-American arms trafficking treaty that is designed to curb the flow of illegal firearms and ammunition to drug cartels and other armed groups operating in the Western Hemisphere. "We are absolutely committed to working in partnership with Mexico to make sure that we are dealing with this scourge on both sides of the border," Obama said after meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Obama's visit, the first by a U.S. president to the capital in 13 years, was designed to send a strong signal that the United States stands with Calderon and his administration, which is engaged in a conflict against heavily armed drug cartels. "At a time when the Mexican government has so courageously taken on the drug cartels that have plagued both sides of the borders, it is absolutely critical that the United States joins as a full partner in dealing with this issue, both through initiatives like the Merida Initiative, but also on our side of the border, in dealing with the flow of guns and cash south," Obama said during an arrival ceremony in Mexico City. Personal security is one of a number of issues that will be discussed at the Summit of the Americas April 17-19 in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. Leaders from the 34 democratically elected nations of the hemisphere are meeting to consider an array of issues that directly affect them such as the current economic crisis, energy issues and climate change and security. The Organization of American States (OAS) adopted the international convention on November 14, 1997, and the Clinton administration signed the treaty after that. The treaty is formally known as the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials - it is known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA. The White House submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate on June 9, 1998, but it has not yet been ratified by the Senate. U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, have asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to take up and pass the pact as a way to help stem a recent escalation in violence from Mexican drug cartels. In addition, Feinstein also sent a letter to the president, urging him to support ratification. The convention helps members of the Organization of American States combat the illicit trade in firearms that fuels drug violence, terrorism and organized crime, the senators said in a prepared statement. It requires signatories to criminalize the illegal manufacture and sale of weapons and establishes a marking and licensing system for the export and import of firearms. The convention, which entered into force in July 1998, has been ratified by 29 OAS states, and four others, including the United States, have signed it. "The convention will make the citizens of the hemisphere safer by helping shut down the illicit transnational arms market that fuels the violence associated with drug trafficking, terrorism, and international organized crime," a State Department fact sheet says. "While strengthening states' ability to eradicate illicit arms trafficking, this regional agreement is modeled on U.S. laws, regulations, and practices and protects the legal trade in firearms as well as their lawful ownership and use." The three-year, $1.4 billion Merida Initiative was developed by Mexico, Central American nations and the United States to help fight the drug cartels by enhancing law-enforcement training and military equipment and improving intelligence cooperation. To further assist Mexico, the White House on April 15 named a former U.S. Justice Department official to lead efforts to crack down on drug-related violence along the U.S. side of its southwest border with Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the appointment of Alan Bersin, a former federal prosecutor, during a visit to El Paso, Texas. Bersin held the same post - dubbed "border czar" - during the Clinton administration. And three Mexican drug gangs - the Sinaloa cartel, Los Zetas and La Familia Michoacana - have been placed on a list of significant foreign narcotics traffickers targeted for special sanctions, the White House said April 15. This action allows the United States to freeze all cartel assets in U.S. jurisdiction and bars Americans from dealing with organizations that may be linked or associated with these groups and their operatives. For more information on the Inter-American Convention, please see this State Department fact sheet ( http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/February/20090209133840xjsnommis0.771557.html ) on America.gov. What foreign affairs decisions should President Obama consider? Comment on America.gov's blog. ( http://blogs.america.gov/campaign/2009/01/21/day-2-what-should-obama%e2%80%99s-top-priorities-be/ ) |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 03/29/11 04:01 AM
|
|
for review The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons. As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons well, I posted both of these in our last debate about this topic. You said he was like a pageant winner or something.. I am happy to see that you are coming around to my point of view on this matter.. I am not sure what point of view you have, but I still believe the Presidents REAL authority and responsibility is as a mouthpiece for america internationally The way I SEE it, he has authority over the troops, but its a LIMITED authority reliant on CONGRESS SUPPORT he can veto and pardon without congressional support,and appoint certain officials but thats about it the rest 'he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials.' is mostly authority on PAPER and not real authority,,,when was the last time a president enforced a traffic violation instead of a COP? when was the last time a president ENFORCED a court ruling? or developed a federal policy WITHOUT congressional backup, or a budget wITHOUT congressional backup the way the checks and balances were set up gives a president much less REAL (exclusive) authority than I believe the majority have cared to think about when they see that office as so all powerful and all responsible |
|
|
|
I swear, yalls momma could fall into a coma and you would find a tie to OBAMA....lol I'm pretty sure ya'lls momma could have fallen into a coma 4 years ago and it would have been GWBush's fault. Before that, it was Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford... |
|
|
|
I swear, yalls momma could fall into a coma and you would find a tie to OBAMA....lol I'm pretty sure ya'lls momma could have fallen into a coma 4 years ago and it would have been GWBush's fault. Before that, it was Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford... I wasnt in the forums four years ago, so I cant quite be sure,,,,I didnt Blame bush for much except his horrid public stature and the rush to war with no PLAN |
|
|