Comments on: For Obama, diplomacy gets back seat to campaign
Add a Comment
- Boy, I underestimated him. Apparently he's got it all under control. Amazing.
- Reply to this comment
- One would think, that in a world filled with Islamic extremists and Taliban militants, Afghan "allies" killing the ones we sent to help them, innocent Americans and our diplomats being murdered, riots happening all around the world, a Chinese leader bent on destruction, and all the crap the Israeli prime minister is pulling, AND a country filled with people who are getting ready to suffer another economic meltdown (thanks to HIS mistakes on his first term), our "President" would have better things to do with his time than sitting on some stupid talk show, "chatting" about being 'eye candy' with the commoners.
We are the last of the superpowers on this earth and we DESERVE a leader that understands that position- not some idiot acting like he's running for Homecoming Queen.
He is the PIED PIPER and he is hell-bent on destroying this country, inside and out, and the middle class is going to find out just how far that destruction reaches after the election when the government publicly announces the TRUE changes his ObamaCare has made in our tax code.
Welcome to the results of Obama.
The accountants are calling 2012 "Taxmageddon". - Reply to this comment
- How is this 'article' objective?!
If I wanted to read spin, I could go to MSNBC or FOX.
The headline ITSELF opines about what topics are taking a backseat to others, APPARENTLY based on the time schedule of the President.
If you read the article, there is a clear implication that the writer makes depicting the President as weak toward Israel.
Now if you BELIEVE the President is weak or wrong, then the article is suddenly 'objective'.
However, if you rate the article purely on journalistic merit, it is an editorial......
If I wanted to state that Mrs Cordes may have changed her name from Weiner to hide her Pro-Jewish loyalties, then I would be editorializing and possibly stereotyping.
See? - Reply to this comment
- He is "eye candy". Doesn't just watching him and Michelle on the view make you feel better.
- Reply to this comment
- Fire this guy.....
- Reply to this comment
- Mitt Romney is right. Iran is a huge issue. If they develop nuclear capability and use it, no side will win. There will only be losers.
- Reply to this comment
- After driving the U.S. more deeply into debt than any other President, this should make you shake your head. If George Bush's daughters or Bill Clinton's daughter had done this, it would have been all over the news and the voter's would have been calling for heads to roll 24/7. But with the "chosen one", you hear nothing in the major media.
Want to know where Obama's 13 year-old daughter went with 12 friends?
On "spring break" in Oaxaca, Mexico; on your dime, she took two jets, 12 friends and 25 secret service men.
A thirteen year-old?
Why haven't you heard about it?
The Obama Administration has had the Secret Service scouring the web ordering that any website mentioning this be taken down because letting the travel plans out could have endangered the president's daughter's security.
Nonsense, the "royal couple" just want to hide the way they are ripping off the U.S. taxpayer. Only a few Canadian Web-sites still have it up. (both below)
The Obama's are laughing at the "suckers" who are funding their Imperial Lifestyle.
This trip cost more than most Americans make in their entire lifetimes. - Reply to this comment
- Obama should meet with Ahmadinejad to talk about his nuclear program.
- Reply to this comment
- Clinto inherited a pi$$ poor economy. 7.8% uneployment. Rising govt. debt. He returned us 4.4% unemployment and zero additional debt. He actually balanced the budget. Reagan inherited a 10% unemployment economy with a side order of stagflation (yes, a new term had to be invented to understand what Carter had done to the economy). We had a 21.5% Prime Rate!!!! That meant your APR on a home loan would have been close to 24%!!! He brought it back to a manageable 11%. What did these two great presidents have in common? Neither one publically cried and lamented his predecessor. Why? Because they were both men with a plan and they actually had a positive impact on the hand they were dealt.
- Reply to this comment
- ZionistCensorship: "I try to balance..." Hey Komrad, I though we all agreed Bush was no good! So you are saying Obama is just as 'no good' as Bush was? Interesting!
- Reply to this comment
