Obama signs order to protect troops f...

Obama signs order to protect troops from college deceptive practices

There are 60 comments on the The Washington Post story from Apr 27, 2012, titled Obama signs order to protect troops from college deceptive practices. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

The medal is the highest civilian honor in the United States. FORT STEWART, Ga. - Surrounded by thousands of uniformed members of the Army's Third Infantry Division, President Obama Friday signed an executive order cracking down on for-profit colleges that prey on service members and veterans to collect tuition dollars without providing meaningful ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#44 May 1, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Farrakhan: Joining U.S. Military Is Fighting 'for the Enemy'....so loon, are you going to block tunnels today.

No banking, no walmart ,no fuel, no big box grocery and no chain restaurants.

Going to my local general store to purchase a sandwiches, soft drinks and beer.

Going to my local tire store to purchase 4 brand new ones.

Going to a local diner for dinner tonight.

Most like I try and do everyday, you purchase local, money stays local.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#45 May 1, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>WIRE: Obama Fails to Stem Middle-Class Slide He Blamed on Bush...
And you think Romney will stem it. Romney is openly promoting the admiration and reward of the wealthy and he has never said he gives a rats left leg about the middle class. What is his plan to stop the slide of the middle class. Just live in the white house and not be black I guess. He has and will not lay out any plans. Is he by belief conservative? Hardly, The etch a sketch plan works well taking a far left liberal and actually selling him to the tea party. That is good marketing right there.

“Leonardo Di Vinci died here”

Since: Nov 08

Perpignan

#46 May 1, 2012
David Ash Burroughs wrote:
<quoted text>And you think Romney will stem it. Romney is openly promoting the admiration and reward of the wealthy and he has never said he gives a rats left leg about the middle class. What is his plan to stop the slide of the middle class. Just live in the white house and not be black I guess. He has and will not lay out any plans. Is he by belief conservative? Hardly, The etch a sketch plan works well taking a far left liberal and actually selling him to the tea party. That is good marketing right there.
DECEIT-LIES-DECEPTION--------- -THE ROAD TO MARXISM.

PAPER: Obama's new slogan has long socialist past...

'Hitler Youth Marching Tune'...

Ex-CIA chief says Pelosi lied about waterboarding knowledge...

REPORT: Obama arrives in Afghanistan; White House says president 'not in Kabul'...OK, OK, OK WHERE IS THE NEAREST GOLF COURSE.

Media ignore year's bloodiest month...OBAMA’S POLICY IS CREATING DEATH.

WIRE: US not reporting all Afghan attacks...

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#47 May 1, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>DECEIT-LIES-DECEPTION- ---------THE ROAD TO MARXISM.
PAPER: Obama's new slogan has long socialist past...
'Hitler Youth Marching Tune'...
Ex-CIA chief says Pelosi lied about waterboarding knowledge...
REPORT: Obama arrives in Afghanistan; White House says president 'not in Kabul'...OK, OK, OK WHERE IS THE NEAREST GOLF COURSE.
Media ignore year's bloodiest month...OBAMA’S POLICY IS CREATING DEATH.
WIRE: US not reporting all Afghan attacks...
Monsters under the bed much? Oh brother. You got to quit listening to Savage before going to bed.

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Port Isabel, TX

#49 May 2, 2012
David Ash Burroughs,
The reason for changing presidents is much simpler than you imply. A first termer has less power and more to lose than a second termer.

That alone is worth the change.

Obama with nothing to lose will be extremely expensive, while a tentative Romney will be far more affordable.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#50 May 3, 2012
allcladrad wrote:
David Ash Burroughs,
The reason for changing presidents is much simpler than you imply. A first termer has less power and more to lose than a second termer.
That alone is worth the change.
Obama with nothing to lose will be extremely expensive, while a tentative Romney will be far more affordable.
That is reasonable justification for an independent to consider the change and much more effective than the Obaba is a Nazi Cannable and anything else you can think up.

That argument is much more effective at saying we should consider a one term limit for presidents and members of congress which I would support. The opposing argument is that the many of the issues involved in both jobs are complex and take a learning curve and that by retaining good legislators who know the job, we can cash in on that training. So if those arguments cancel each other out, I am more than open to considering Romney's argument that he is the experienced man to fix the economy when he presents a detailed plan on how he is going to do it. Just the fact that he is rich which means successful is not enough. Even that he is a good businessman isn't enough because running the government is not like running a business. Romney has a credibility problem because he changes positions depending on the audience and he has a big problem with women, hispanics, blacks and the Christian right. Those are his problems. Obama has made some mistakes and if someone better is offered, I would vote for that guy. But I would vote FOR that guy and not just against Obama. Romney has yet to overcome his credibility problems and show that he is that guy.

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Port Isabel, TX

#51 May 3, 2012
David Ash Burroughs,
A couple of problems with the thoughts you presented, at least in my mind.

We can make one term limit a reality, no law is required, just stop voting for incumbents.

More incumbents become criminals than first termers, staggering the elections lessens the learning curve situation and there is no factual support that serving more than one term is better than just one.

Obama was in the same position as Romney when Obama was elected, sans as much, almost none, experience. Everything Obama knows he learned in his first 3, 3 1/2 years on the job.

Obama has as many if not more problems as Romney, some of those same flip flop problems, war, transparency and the Mid East.

His apparent lack of leadership skills alone should be cause for serious doubt about returning him to office.

There are more loose cannons under him than anyone one since Nixon. His hands off style leaves the czars with too little oversight and has brought about some serious consequences, Justice is an example, Secret Service, Homeland Security and ICE to name a few.

I think the message isn't getting rid of Obama, it is getting rid of everybody until they decide to work together. Reelecting Obama will not have any positive effect on governing the country. While not reelecting him might.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#52 May 3, 2012
allcladrad wrote:
David Ash Burroughs,
A couple of problems with the thoughts you presented, at least in my mind.
We can make one term limit a reality, no law is required, just stop voting for incumbents.
More incumbents become criminals than first termers, staggering the elections lessens the learning curve situation and there is no factual support that serving more than one term is better than just one.
Obama was in the same position as Romney when Obama was elected, sans as much, almost none, experience. Everything Obama knows he learned in his first 3, 3 1/2 years on the job.
Obama has as many if not more problems as Romney, some of those same flip flop problems, war, transparency and the Mid East.
His apparent lack of leadership skills alone should be cause for serious doubt about returning him to office.
There are more loose cannons under him than anyone one since Nixon. His hands off style leaves the czars with too little oversight and has brought about some serious consequences, Justice is an example, Secret Service, Homeland Security and ICE to name a few.
I think the message isn't getting rid of Obama, it is getting rid of everybody until they decide to work together. Reelecting Obama will not have any positive effect on governing the country. While not reelecting him might.
A couple problems with your presentation at least in my mind. To not elect every politician, you must get the uninimous participation of every voter in the country on every election. Incumbants tend to be popular and they know how to win elections. Without a law to stop career politicians, your plan to get everyone to just stop voting them back in just is not practical.

Your arguments are like all that I have seen that have a right wing slant which is this election is only about getting rid of one guy and not about voting for one guy. This reflects a marching order on the right to never focus on Romney because he is not a great republican candiate. The focus that is desired is to vote for anybody just to get rid of Obama and who gives a rats leg who we have in there after.

If I had a right wing slant, I would join your versus and stanza of aint obama evil and we have to vote for any name other than his. If I had a left wing slant, I would argue for Obama but at no point does anything having to do with Romney enter the conversation. For those in the middle who want to vote FOR someone, not just against the funny looking guy with the weird name, this is an arguement that falls flat. And yes there is a large middle that are not 100% dug in on teh left and the right and in truth, that group is much larger than either of the two extremes.

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Port Isabel, TX

#53 May 3, 2012
David Ash Burroughs,
My idea will not work, but not for the reasons stated. Partisan politics rules this country. Getting deeply entrenched Rs or Ds to do anything other than the party line is almost impossible. But not as difficult as getting a single term law enacted.

I don't believe we should get rid of a guy named Obama, I believe we should not reelect a president. Clinton and Bush are two good examples of why.

We are lacking leadership and the state of the nation reflects that. Kerry was a terrible choice, but would have been better in the long run than the second term of Bush.

Leadership doesn't stem from right or left leanings, I never implied Obama was any kind of evil, just that he is not a leader. So why would I want to reelect a person who has not displayed the ability to lead?

We don't know if Romney has the ability to lead, just that Obama doesn't. That isn't right or left, just an opinion based on what I have seen.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#54 May 4, 2012
allcladrad wrote:
David Ash Burroughs,
My idea will not work, but not for the reasons stated. Partisan politics rules this country. Getting deeply entrenched Rs or Ds to do anything other than the party line is almost impossible. But not as difficult as getting a single term law enacted.
I don't believe we should get rid of a guy named Obama, I believe we should not reelect a president. Clinton and Bush are two good examples of why.
We are lacking leadership and the state of the nation reflects that. Kerry was a terrible choice, but would have been better in the long run than the second term of Bush.
Leadership doesn't stem from right or left leanings, I never implied Obama was any kind of evil, just that he is not a leader. So why would I want to reelect a person who has not displayed the ability to lead?
We don't know if Romney has the ability to lead, just that Obama doesn't. That isn't right or left, just an opinion based on what I have seen.
You are quite correct about the impossibility of getting away from the party system. Even the concept of more parties or even a viable third party has gone nowhere. So in that we agree.

This is why the fastest growing political affiiliation is no party or independent and that group is at such large numbers that they will largely decide the next election. There is no box on the ballot for do not reelect this guy but not elect the other guy. I think the reason McCain lost the indendents was he began to change position with each new day to please anyone that would give him an edge. Obama for whatever else is wrong with him is firmly out there with his beleifs and he takes action on them. We see far too much McCain in Romney and that may be his undoing.

It is my opinion that the election will not be simply to unelect Obama but it will go for Romney only if people want to vote FOR him. The current campaign by the worthly oppostion to Obama is who cares who the other guy is, lets just unelect Obama is not going to fly with the independents. Only if enough fear and hatred for Obama can be generated not just in the right but in the middle will people be willing to simply vote to unelect someone and take anyone else even if the other guy has no real ideas. That is why until that one criteria is met, I will remain undecided. Romney has to show us who to vote FOR, not who to vote against.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#55 May 4, 2012
David Ash Burroughs wrote:
<quoted text>You are quite correct about the impossibility of getting away from the party system. Even the concept of more parties or even a viable third party has gone nowhere. So in that we agree.
This is why the fastest growing political affiiliation is no party or independent and that group is at such large numbers that they will largely decide the next election. There is no box on the ballot for do not reelect this guy but not elect the other guy. I think the reason McCain lost the indendents was he began to change position with each new day to please anyone that would give him an edge. Obama for whatever else is wrong with him is firmly out there with his beleifs and he takes action on them. We see far too much McCain in Romney and that may be his undoing.
It is my opinion that the election will not be simply to unelect Obama but it will go for Romney only if people want to vote FOR him. The current campaign by the worthly oppostion to Obama is who cares who the other guy is, lets just unelect Obama is not going to fly with the independents. Only if enough fear and hatred for Obama can be generated not just in the right but in the middle will people be willing to simply vote to unelect someone and take anyone else even if the other guy has no real ideas. That is why until that one criteria is met, I will remain undecided. Romney has to show us who to vote FOR, not who to vote against.


There hasn't been one politician that has shown he/she is the one to vote FOR in the 32 years I've been voting.

They damned sure have shown who to vote against and it's usually them.

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Port Isabel, TX

#56 May 4, 2012
David Ash Burroughs,
I think you have a point regarding the independents, they have another advantage, as their numbers grow.

Those seeking office need to work on sending a message that is more than just the party line. They will more and more be required to address a broader range of issues. Issues that the voters feel are important, not just ones the politicians feel are important.

You and I differ on the effectiveness of Obama, I see a man who only runs for office, who has applied band aid solutions to existing problems that will come back in the form of much higher taxes, while solving little if anything in the long run.

But, again I agree, this is an election that Romney has to win; it is not going to be given to him.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#57 May 4, 2012
allcladrad wrote:
David Ash Burroughs,
I think you have a point regarding the independents, they have another advantage, as their numbers grow.
Those seeking office need to work on sending a message that is more than just the party line. They will more and more be required to address a broader range of issues. Issues that the voters feel are important, not just ones the politicians feel are important.
You and I differ on the effectiveness of Obama, I see a man who only runs for office, who has applied band aid solutions to existing problems that will come back in the form of much higher taxes, while solving little if anything in the long run.
But, again I agree, this is an election that Romney has to win; it is not going to be given to him.
Thank you for the civil dialog. This could be an example of two persons who did not agree in everything discussing the matter with mutual respect. And I do respect your outlook on Obama as he has been far from perfect. It will interesting to see if Romney can grow into the role of a real leader and sell himself to the independents and other groups who currently do not trust him. If he does, more power to him. It is my policy that even if the man that gets elected was not the one I voted for, I will give him (or her if that occurs) a fair chance no mattter what party.

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Port Isabel, TX

#58 May 4, 2012
David Ash Burroughs,
I seem to learn more during civil debate.

Civility is a vanishing part of our culture.

Thank you in return.
Cross

Mississauga, Canada

#59 May 5, 2012
Soldier

Carlsbad, CA

#60 May 5, 2012
Gravediggers wrote:
Romney or Obama who will win the military vote?
Obama, without a doubt.
Soldier

Carlsbad, CA

#61 May 5, 2012
Romney like Bush, just wants to drag us into more absurd middle eastern wars.

“Leonardo Di Vinci died here”

Since: Nov 08

Perpignan

#62 May 5, 2012
Soldier wrote:
<quoted text> Obama, without a doubt.
hahahahah he has to have his commanders hand pick who will be in the crowds when he addresses the troops. It is just as staged as when he hires students to show up at the schools. Most in the military things he is a lunitic who it trying his best to get them killed.
Crow

Toronto, Canada

#63 May 6, 2012
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#64 May 6, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>hahahahah he has to have his commanders hand pick who will be in the crowds when he addresses the troops. It is just as staged as when he hires students to show up at the schools. Most in the military things he is a lunitic who it trying his best to get them killed.
WASHINGTON - President Bush sought yesterday to rally U.S. troops behind his Iraq strategy - and he and his aides left little to chance.

Before the president spoke via a video link, his event planners hand-picked 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry and one Iraqi soldier, told them what topics the president would ask about, and watched them briefly rehearse their presentations before going live.

The soldiers did not disappoint. Each one praised the president, the war and the progress in training Iraqi troops.

This isn't a new technique for Bush; his White House has perfected the strategy of holding scripted events featuring the president's supporters. Earlier this year, when Bush traveled the country to discuss his Social Security plan, aides stacked the audience with Republicans and tutored participants in town hall events on what to say.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charles Taylor Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Does America Hate Islam? (Jan '15) Jan '15 Just Wondering 4
News Why Pat Robertson is responsible for Ebola (Oct '14) Oct '14 Cordwainer Trout 5
News Mechanic who built first aircraft engine for Wr... (Jul '14) Jul '14 Loony Lib 1
News Wright brothers' mechanic honored at Ohio museum (Jul '14) Jul '14 Charles Taylor 1
News Why Does America Hate Islam? (Jul '14) Jul '14 Take Your Country... 4
News Seth Banks to run for District Attorney (Aug '13) Aug '13 joebob 1
News McCrory to headline Dec. 8 Charles Taylor Holid... (Nov '12) Nov '12 Lisa Anderson 3
More from around the web