Jimmie Carter got to wear a white suit very cool
for a southern gentleman.
This suit was almost white! Where was the outrage............
Ut Oh I don't think Sr Bush is happy in his suit............
Can't figure it out. Is this tan or yellowish?
What is obvious is that Bill is on a roll...................
WTF>>>>>>>>
Very presidential don't you think maybe he is a
closet Mexican...........................
And my all time favorite this hideous plaid
Many presidents have worn tan suits in the past Both Bushes, Reagan wore them along with his hideous plaid Number and there was no outrage. GW Bush wore the little number shown above and although I wasn't a fan I didn't say a word and I can't remember that anyone did. Clinton wore a tan suit on many occasions.
But now it is the next scandal of the Obama administration. HE wore a TAN SUIT! OMG!
Please repubs don't waste my tax money with numerous futile investigations of this.
It's okay Abu al Baghdadi really doesn't care what the President is wearing.
KingstonAugust 31, 2014 at 4:16 PM
ReplyDeleteWhy the furore over the color of the suit the man wears to work.? At the Philadelphia congress, John Adams wore breeches and a hat on sideways, Adams did sterling work and the hat did nothing to diminish his efforts. In fact, the hat appears to be a rallying point for the Tea Party, or at least in the cartoons we occasionally see in the Australian media. Surely you are clutching at straws if you define a man by the color of his suit. Does anyone honestly believe that the ISIS lot or any other group will be emboldened by the tan suit worn by your President? Time to take a cold shower perhaps my friends. No need to worry, our Prime Minister has this morning committed RAAF aircraft transporters to fly in weapons from Europe to help the good guys. Interestingly, our PM has bypassed the Parliament and has directly authorized this action. That is what I believe government should be. Abbott took the action in response to a request from your President and here we have something of a lesson. Your man is left wing, ours is very right wing. Yet they work together. If only the same could be said for the congress.Before anyone feels the need to point out that the Pres as CinC has the authority,I believe he does need congressional support for the funding of any military action.
Cheers from Aussie
Before anyone feels the need to point out that the Pres as CinC has the authority,I believe he does need congressional support for the funding of any military action.
Delete(Nov. 7, 1973) Law passed by the U.S. Congress over the veto of Pres. Richard Nixon. The act restrained the president's ability to commit U.S. forces overseas by requiring the executive branch to consult with and report to Congress before involving U.S. forces in foreign hostilities. Widely considered a measure for preventing future Vietnams, it was nonetheless resisted or ignored by subsequent presidents, most of whom regarded it as an unconstitutional usurpation of their executive authority.
Among the notable presidential flouters were Gerald Ford in 1975, at the time of the Mayaguez operation; Jimmy Carter in 1980 with the Desert One hostage rescue attempt; Ronald Reagan in 1983 with the intervention in Grenada and in 1986 with the air attack on Libya; and George Bush with the 1989 invasion of Panama. Even the U.S. military response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 lacked a congressional mandate. President Bush relied on executive authority in ordering the U.S. buildup of 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf, showing more interest in the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council than of the U.S. Congress. Only when U.S. forces were in place and the decision to use force had been made did Bush consult Congress, less for constitutional than for political reasons.
Including this president, reference the use of military force in Libya.
Well done Lew, always a factual effort but you leave a gap in my understanding.viz
Deleterequiring the executive branch to consult with and report to Congress before involving U.S. forces in foreign hostilities.
Consult with, yes; but to be bound by congress I think not but am ready to be corrected. As for the occasions the executive has ignored the congressional vote of 77, in my view the actions of the respective Presidents all had merit at the time the decision was made to act. It is of course easy to be wise after the event and in fact, I guess the same proportion of Americans would think Vietnam and Iraq were mistakes as do Australians. In the present circumstances I can see the argument to support the Kurds as they have always been pro Western in their allegiance do not however think either US or Australia should again put boots on the ground without full congressional and Parliamentary approval from our respective nations.
Cheers
King only our congress has the right to declare war but then we have not fought a declared war since WW 2 against Germany and Japan. Now some on the right will state that the fiasco in Iraq was a declared war but it was not it was however fought with the approval of congress as was Korea and Vietnam although war was not officially declared.
DeleteKing welcome to the party it is good to see others stand up to this fight. It is about ridding the earth of it's latest scourge ISIL. We have the fighters in place in the Kurds but they need help. They have outdated weapons because the so called democratic government in Baghdad did share equally what we gave them, but they had no problem leaving it to ISIL.
King as to war since it is the democratic black man in power everything it will be demanded go exactly by the book. Otherwise it will be another scandal with endless hours and taxpayer money wasted on endless congressional hearings. So I guess it's don't feed the poor man but we can waste millions on futile investigations.
P S King as lou says above it takes congress also to approve funding for war.
DeleteP>S>S King why the furor over the suit. Didn't you know that Obama is a communist ,muslim, America hating black man who wants to be a dictator? Surely you haven't missed all that over the years posting here and on MW.
DeleteRick:
Delete“The Audacity of Taupe”
This emporer has no clothes.
DeleteRick and other friends.
ReplyDeleteMy thanks as always. Your President a Muslim American hater etc. Yes I have heard it all before, I also heard live broadcasts from Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw during WW2. I managed to give all three about the same level of credibility.
About six years ago I posted on the old MW, or possibly its predecessor my feelings when your Pres was first elected. It was during the time that there remained overt racism in your country, the clan then pretty well hidden, still played a role. I posted an apolitical opinion that I thought this election may break the nexus which had been such a millstone around the reputation of the American people for centuries. I offered the opinion that this result was not a normal election between Red and Blue but a genuine chance for the nation to finally embrace everyone as Americans first and always. Not sure how it has progressed to date but the terms you use, more in frustration than anything; does give rise to the question, just how much better off is the nation for the election, not of a Democrat, but of a colored Democrat. By the way, I was vilified by the Right wing and also the racists. It was then that I learned how difficult it is to be a political on a Political site such as this.
Cheers from Aussie
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteK,
DeleteShould have given you a bit more info:
Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.
The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.
The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe real divisive politics are rooted in the house of representatives by the party of NO and their romper room wing AKA the tea party. Oh yeah Lou talk of the million bills that Reid won't bring to the Senate floor but don't forget to mention that's it's the same ten or fifteen bills that the repubs know are non starters but just keep passing over and over. It was the repub leader of the senate who said " make him a one term president" that was job one. Failing that they decided to just make him a failure by their obstructionist actions, futile endless investigations that have turned up nothing and eaten up taxpayer money, and disagreement with Ideas many of which were actually started in the repub think tanks. Next up common core, a set of educational guidelines agreed upon by a republican majority of governors now lambasted as a waste since the president has embraced it. The only ones standing with no clothes are republicans and yes lou it is definitely about race. Covert racism may be the only thing worse then overt racism. But many repubs are very bad at concealing it. Just the list posted above by louman ongoing investigations many of which Obama is not even involved in says it all. Some of these have been going on since day 1. And still nothing has been found to pin anything on this president. So hell let's just have another investigation on the same old shit over and over and over again
DeleteChallenged the patriotism of his opponents? That is almost laughable that lou would even post that. It was lou’s party King, that demanded a birth certificate and then when they got it still clammered for more. It was lou’s party that said he was a muslim while at the same time claiming that he walked the walk of the activist minister Rev Jeremiah Wright who preached the gospel of black victimhood from the black church, the United Church of Christ, the whitest congregational church in America.
While jobs have been somewhat lagging the recovery lou forgets to mention that America has 3-4 million open jobs, employers can't find enough qualified help. Lou also fails to mention that we are in the midst of the retirement of the baby boomers. Up to 10,000 a day leaving the work force voluntarily. Yes you can find a few who haven't found what they want but the majority of Americans are better off today then they were in 2009. Now as for Bush lou, I didn't hate him. My problem with G W Bush is I like it when my president is better spoken then I. I like a president who can at least give the impression that he is smarter than the average beer swigging guy. Bush didn't fit that bill. AND Bush lied to this country to fulfill his vendetta against Saddam Hussein who tried to assassinate Bush the elder. Thanks to our wonderful spy agency it didn't happen. All the while the real culprit of our 911 debacle was allowed to slip free while we spent blood lives and treasure on an unnecessary war. It took Obama less than two years to complete the task of bringing the real culprit to justice.
Maybe had the tea party groups not tried to file for exemption as 501 (c) (3) tax exempt charities they would have had more luck getting through the IRS system. Obviously they don't know the government like they think they do.
King, the election of a black president has probably actually set race relations back in America. The whole tan suit thing is just more proof of the feelings of many repubs. My friend King, America will keep it's black eye for another generation
Kingston,
DeleteI deleted my comments as it's a total waste of time as Ricky out shouts everyone. He will never see the failings of his dear leader and will always blame all problems on Bush, the GOP, the Tea Party or any one else he can dump on.
20% of die hard republicans supported Nixon to the end claiming he did no wrong, blaming everyone else. 20% of democrats will support Obama to the end claiming he has done no wrong blaming everyone else for his failings.
Rick is one of the 20% of the die hards. Claims racism at every chance. Blames the GOP in the House for Obama's lack of ability to compromise.
The American people elected the Republicans to take control of the House and the purpose was to block the Democrats including Obama from doing further damage. They have had limited success.
you deleted them because I told the real truth about everyone of them. Two sides, two opinions to everything lou. the republicans were gerrymandered into safe districts to block alright. To block our government from accomplishing anything as long as a democrat occupies the white house. We'll see how you handle the woman next go 'round. I bet it will be no differently. It's our way or the highway with you repubs especially the T's. That's why there is no compromise.
DeleteReal is a perception known to you.
DeleteIt's not worth your shouting discourse, your always right or in this case left and never wrong.
Until the next election anyway.
Compromise means both sides gives, Obama gives nothing. What did the House gain by giving bama his tax increases after his re-election? Nothing. What did the House get for giving Bama an unlimited debt ceiling, NOTHING.
The my way or the highway president. You will always be a 20 percenter finding no fault as you remain a fawning minion claiming racism, blaming others for a weak president.
Calvin Coolidge said it best:
“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshippers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness.
“They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation that sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.”
Of presidents who served eight years in office, he said, “in almost every instance” the last years of their terms show few “constructive accomplishments” and those years are often “clouded with grave disappointments.”
Another president chosen for demographic representation (whether by race, sex, or whatever), is the last thing we need. But it's Hillary's turn so FORWARD into oblivion.
And Louman Obama has done a lot of things that I don't necessarily approve of much of it having to do with his executive orders. But lou being a realist I see him trying to advance our culture advance our government advance our country over the obstructionism he faces. If I had to rate his presidency, 1-10, I would give it a 6. I agree that he could be more compromising but I also clearly understand why he long ago gave up that noble concept. I think he failed us on health care in 2 ways. First he should have not settled for anything less then universal healthcare. And lou that was his first big compromise, he settled for a plan encompassing many republican ideas from the past that were refuted now because he embraced them trying to get a consensus. I don't like the way he dealt away the plan he did get trying again to appease everyone. I think like most Americans that he is dragging his feet on Iraq although I don't think it was wrong to completely leave earlier. They didn't want us there or we would have easily gotten the agreements from that government to protect our soldiers from civil and criminal liability. And really Lou I would have rather had Hilary in 2009 although I think today she is probably one of the most qualified, more qualified to be our next president. The role that Obama gave her in his first term was invaluable in today's world. Why don't you try to look at both sides of the coin you may be enlightened.
DeleteYour a party hack, a fawning mindless minion who would never criticism the great one. You claim obstructionism, I see failure to lead, unwillingness to compromise. That was what the government shutdown was all about.
DeleteYou claim the GOP and the House is at fault, I see Americans blocking Obama from causing further damage to the country.
You see no problem with immigration, I see Americans taking a backseat to illegals.
You see Hillary as the most qualified, as you love Obama. There are so many far more qualified that are not party animals both liberals and conservatives.
You will continue to be a fawning party animal oblivious to the reality of America living in your management bubble claiming Hillary is the only person to save us and instead we will have the 3rd term of Bama only she doesn't appear to golf.
p.s. Your healthcare republican ideas is as thin as it's Bush's fault. Never read the position paper did you as Mandate was the onl;y similarity to the original Heritage plan.
so your an opinionless %^&*& but we will both get by somehow. I just criticized him in the piece you just responded to. Learn to read and comprehend. Of course when you spout your "You know everything mantra" I know I have hit a nerve and a point that you have no FOX NEWS rebuttal for. It's okay lou I'm having fun. How "bout you? Delete away Louman I love it.
DeleteBy the way Louman Hilary would not be a demographic choice. She happens to be one of the most qualified and experienced people to lead our country at this time. Name me one repub that is at least as experienced and qualified. You can Trot out Mitt one more time I guess. I am really looking forward to the upcoming primary season and the new look repub clown show. It can't get here fast enough.
DeleteAnd that would be your opinion only.
DeleteAnd you are a party hack, a fawning minion.
You look but do not see.
Listen but do not hear.
You can only see your party as the answer, nothing else matters or is a consideration.
Yes you should read and comprehend what;s happening in the world, read Hilary's latest work of fiction.
Hillary is a demographic choice of the demo party. Time for a Woman president, nothing else matters. No thanks 1 Clinton was more than enough. Your as pathetic as the people who want jeb to run.
I have read Hilary's book have you? Read it. it might enlighten you a bit about the world as it really is.
Delete