Obama is anti-American

Skarekrow said:
Technically, he could run as an Independent and win a third term, that would follow the law, FDR did it…not that Obama will, I severely doubt that.



So who’s interests is he serving then? I’m curious who you believe is pulling the strings?

Personally, I think he is in the pocket of the banks and other personally profitable friendships, but so is almost all of Congress and almost every Presidential candidate.
I really think this 2016 no holds barred on how much can be spent on the election process is going to be a storm of so much obvious pandering to their donors, while ignoring the will of the people that there are going to be some serious problems/reforms/maybe not, maybe everyone is just too apathetic.
I hope not anyhow.
Click to expand...

But realistically, if they don't pander, how can they get elected or re-elected and get anything done? It's not a perfect system. Even the most seemingly pure of heart politician knows they will have make some concessions to get things done. It's not exactly in their control. Compromises, although undesirable and ethically questionable ones will happen unfortunately. Additionally, the assumption of one supreme bad guy manipulating the supposed good guy is a farce. Too much gray. Most people are not that black and white anyway.
 
Gist said:
But realistically, if they don't pander, how can they get elected or re-elected and get anything done? It's not a perfect system. Even the most seemingly pure of heart politician knows they will have make some concessions to get things done. It's not exactly in their control. Compromises, although undesirable and ethically questionable ones will happen unfortunately. Additionally, the assumption of one supreme bad guy manipulating the supposed good guy is a farce. Too much gray. Most people are not that black and white anyway.
Click to expand...

That isn’t how the process is supposed to work. Lobbyists with monetary gains on their mind aren’t supposed to have more influence than the people being represented by those being influenced.
Specifically, I have a very serious problem with the whole idea of the candidates being chosen for us.
We really have ZERO say, other than (if you have money) making donations and showing up at rallies.
But even then…take Bernie Sanders for example…huge crowds, bigger than Hillary, bigger than the Republicans…he’s hardly on the news.
He’s already been written off by whomever actually get to make the call (via $=free speech…though if you have no money, then aren’t you also being denied a Constitutional right?).
That’s my problem with the whole thing…that and there is zero transparency/accountability as to who is donating what to whom and what causes.
And they give them all fake names like “Freedom Council” or something that sounds like it’s a grassroots movement to restore the freedoms being eroded in this nation, but it’s really just a puppet show put on by someone wanting restrictions lifted on clean coal rules.
It’s all a bunch of lies and BS…people are catching on….that is why I think this election will wake some folks up…just the sheer amount of money being wasted on these jokers could be put to so much better use.
The 65,000 “dangerous” bridges in our country comes to mind….or maybe the Vets we send off to fight and die but then screw over with shoddy medical care and hardly any mental health services.
We could feed Africa for years with the money about to be dropped on this election.
That’s what makes my bleeding heart sick.
 
Colt said:
Just out of curiosity, what was your stance on the US Patriot act?
Click to expand...

Mixed. I think its overboard and that people will look back and think "what did we do."
But at the same time the country needs to be protected and how can that happen without making some of those changes. Theres no simple solution.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Anyway the Admiral was in charge of the entire Pacific fleet at one point. Generally you should at least consider the words of someone who has accomplished so much with thietheir life. Rather than dismiss them just because you dont agree with what they say.
Click to expand...

his achievements certainly have provided him with an international forum to broadcast his views.

Eventhorizon said:
What is an expert anyway?
Click to expand...

one common measure of expertise is scholarly achievement that is directly relevant to the field of expertise in question. say for example a degree in theology.

i expect that an expert should display an ability to discriminate between and to articulate details of understanding. his articulations on this matter show nothing fine or discriminating. rather, he makes generalisations about a wide and diverse group of people that are strikingly crude in their breadth. surely you recognise that people who identify with islam are not all identical in their beliefs and practices?
 
Skarekrow said:
Technically, he could run as an Independent and win a third term, that would follow the law, FDR did it…not that Obama will, I severely doubt that.
Click to expand...

It's against the Constitution. FDR did it before the amendment was made which says you can't do it - it was just considered to go against tradition back then. FDR pretty much triggered that amendment to be put through.
 
Skarekrow said:
http://nationalreport.net/constitutional-scholars-obama-free-to-run-as-independent-in-2016/
Click to expand...

Maybe he can legally run but he can't be elected. The 22nd amendment is pretty clear on it:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

It doesn't matter what party he runs for.

Edit:
Also I'd be aware of clickbait articles that don't cite any sources. They like to claim outlandish things just to get you to view their website for hits so they can make a buck or two.
 
Last edited:
See this is why I should have been made moderator of the forum. First it would be INFJ, then America. Rather than Obama pussyfooting around, I would've just bombed Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever the hell it is ISIS comes from. Russia too, but that's just because Putin is a dick.
 
sprinkles said:
Maybe he can legally run but he can't be elected. The 22nd amendment is pretty clear on it:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

It doesn't matter what party he runs for.

Edit:
Also I'd be aware of clickbait articles that don't cite any sources. They like to claim outlandish things just to get you to view their website for hits so they can make a buck or two.
Click to expand...

I’m aware of what it says, I’m saying that this is not the only article that I have read about this subject.
There are ways he could try and do it…he would probably be blocked and would never win, but there are ways to try.
Okay, fair enough on the link here’s a better one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvdelong/2015/08/03/thinking-about-a-third-term/
 
Last edited:
actually, when i read that article i thought that there was something very "un-american" about the attitude of the admiral. the president is the elected leader of the states, he has received the vote of the people to direct the states. the job of a military officer is to follow the directions of their leader, not to direct foreign policy themselves. i do understand that the admiral is now retired from the military, and i respect his freedom to speak and to say whatever he likes. but as far as being "un-american" goes, i think that the admiral made a great effort to undermine the authority of his leader. as far as being a good american goes, for whatever that is supposed to count for, he was way out of line.
 
That's usually seen as a good thing here; what with USA's terrible track record over the last 70 years. Isn't USA one of the reasons "human rights" is such a big deal now? I'm referring here to the Chilean military coup.
 
Aaron Hepi said:
That's usually seen as a good thing here; what with USA's terrible track record over the last 70 years. Isn't USA one of the reasons "human rights" is such a big deal now? I'm referring here to the Chilean military coup.
Click to expand...

Oh man…they don’t teach us about things like that in our general history books here in the US…just like we never learn about places like “Manzanar”.
USA and “human rights” in the same sentence is laughable.
 
Skarekrow said:
Oh man…they don’t teach us about things like that in our general history books here in the US…just like we never learn about places like “Manzanar”.
USA and “human rights” in the same sentence is laughable.
Click to expand...

. Chile had elected a Marxist, Salvador Allende, as president, and Kissinger approved a CIA operation to overthrow him. Allende was murdered, and the Chilean government was taken over by a military dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, who claimed friendship with the U.S. The episode drew criticism in America and around the world for U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. On this descending note, the Nixon/Kissinger era of foreign diplomacy, which had shone so brightly in China, Russia, and the Middle East, faded and exited the stage of world affairs.
Click to expand...
https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/nixon-and-foreign-policy/

current high school ap us history is pretty good
 
Stu said:
https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/nixon-and-foreign-policy/

current high school ap us history is pretty good
Click to expand...

Once you get into college it’s a different story…and I admit it’s been a while since I was in HS haha.
Still, I remember just very short paragraphs on certain subjects like this in the textbooks…for instance, I really was interested in learning about the Vietnam conflict (because my Dad was in it) and when we got to it, we spent like 30 mins. Or maybe a day’s lesson.
I’m really surprised that they actually said -
Chile had elected a Marxist, Salvador Allende, as president, and Kissinger approved a CIA operation to overthrow him.
Click to expand...
My overall point though is, our perception of ourselves as US Americans is one of benevolent leaders/police in the world…it’s just the rest of the world doesn’t see eye to eye with that assumption we are taught growing up.
I was actually given a poor grade (as I mentioned above about Manzanar ((which was NOT in our history books at the time)) when I did a report on it, even though it was perfectly to the directions, my teacher basically told me after class that there are parts of history that we should forget.
I never forgot those words.
He left an impression on me, but not how he probably intended to.
 
Seems like a good place to post this.

Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy.

Maybe Obama is really a conservative in disguise.
 
Sean Hannity: President Crybaby's blame game ends with whimper


By Sean Hannity

Published January 17, 2017
FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email
NOW PLAYING
Hannity: Obama came in a crybaby and is leaving a crybaby

President Obama continues to whine his way out of the Oval Office, continuing to blame everybody but himself for eight years of failed policies.

As he contemplates his own dismal record, the president is taking aim at the usual suspects: talk radio and Fox News.

“Well, what is true is that the ability of Republican leaders to rile up their base -- helped along by folks like Rush Limbaugh and some commentators on Fox News -- I think created an environment in which Republican voters would punish Republicans from cooperating with me,” Obama said in a recent interview. “That hothouse of back-and-forth arguments and really sharp partisanship I think has been harmful to the country.”

President Crybaby is once again blaming everyone else for the divide in the country. It makes for a good talking point, but it's not the truth. He can try to claim the mantle of civility just like he attempted to do in his farewell address last week, but the facts say otherwise. After all, President Obama has led the way when it comes to divisive rhetoric. Consider some of his greatest hits.

“It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren't like them,” he said of Republicans back on April 6, 2008.

Months later, came this piece of soft and civil rhetoric: “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors,” he said. “I want you to talk to them whether they're independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

On Oct. 26, 2010, Obama stated where he thought Republicans belonged.

“We can't -- we don't mind the Republicans joining us, they can come for the ride, but they've got to sit in back,” he said.

And how about this willful mischaracterization of conservatives’ positions on key issues:

“And then you got their plan, which is let's have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance,” he said on Oct. 17, 2011.

As recently as last year’s election, Obama – the same man now decrying what he considers a lack of civility, tried to smear President-elect Donald Trump as a Klan sympathizer.

“If you accept the support of Klan sympathizers before you are president, you will accept their support after you're president,” he said last Nov. 3.

And there's more. While running for president in '07 and '08, Obama blamed George W. Bush for all of America's problems. And not surprisingly, once President Obama got into office, he did the same thing for eight straight years. He never takes responsibility. Here are just a few examples.

“We were inheriting so many challenges... we knew this was going to take time because we got this big, messy, tough democracy,” he complained on Aug. 3, 2011.

On March 4, 2009, Obama complained, “These are far from the best of times. By any measure, my administration inherited a fiscal disaster.”

Obama’s blame game has not spared yours truly. Should I take this personally or feel honored?

“In 2012, Latinos voted in record numbers,” he said on Oct. 2, 2014. “The next day, even Sean Hannity changed his mind and decided immigration reform was a good idea.”

“Rudy Giuliani said Putin is what you call a leader,” he said on April 3, 2014. “Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity keep talking about his bare chest, which is kind of weird.

“With respect Sean Hannity, I didn't know that he had invited me for a beer,” Obama said on Feb. 9, 2009. “His opinion of me does not seem to be very high, but I'm always good for a beer.”

President Obama will officially be out of power in three days. He's leaving behind a huge mess that President-elect Donald Trump is going to be forced to clean up.

But it appears that Donald Trump will be taking a much different approach than Barack Obama. Instead of doing nothing and blaming his predecessor for everything, President-elect Trump looks like he's actually going to try and fix the country's problems.

Adapted from Sean Hannity’s opening monologue airing on “Hannity,” Jan. 16, 2017


Sean Hannity currently serves as host of FOX News Channel's (FNC) Hannity (weekdays 10-11PM/ET). He joined the network in 1996 and is based in New York. Click here for more information on Sean
 
Lol! My balls really can't take anymore. They are seriously like ground beef right now. Like...literally ground beef...
 
Last edited:
ezra said:
wtf is freedom
Click to expand...

You know...lots of money and stuff.
Giant McMansions, gold toilets, etc.
Freedom from regulations that keep us healthy and safe and financially afloat.
Freedom from healthcare we can afford. (just as an example, the medication I take is now going to cost me $10,000 a year...for the one medication...that’s like buying a car every year...so I’ll have to go back onto something that doesn’t work as well and the arthritis will most likely get worse...but big pharma loves to push pain meds. so I guess I'll just get handfuls of those so I don’t put a fucking bullet in my head)
Freedom to be apathetic twits.
Free to “borrow” money from Social Security even though there were laws that said they could specifically NOT do that until Reagan fucked it up - thus making it insolvent and work improperly.
Speaking of SS...free from any cost of living increase. This year it was 0.3%, last year 0.
Free from any kind of vacation time/pay, maternity leave (an actual real amount of time not like the unpaid two weeks most places give), a living wage, raises, pensions, affordable child care, retirement accounts that the banks don’t steal most of.
Freedom from upward mobility (and the Trump tax plan actually raises taxes on the most poor).
Freedom to go into debt for the rest of your life just so you can go to college and hope to find a job that the Baby Boomers won’t retire out of because they can’t afford to either.
Free from any social safety nets that once existed and worked well.
Free to pour $$$ into political pockets, because the Supreme Court ruled money = free speech.
Free to pollute and frack the shit out of protected or Native American lands.
Freedom for just any dumbass to buy a gun(s) without background checks (and yes in person to person sales it is NOT required so you gun owners don’t need to try and tell me the law I already know well)
Free to be good consumers...but also free from consumer protections.
Free to start wars around the world then free to say “We’re spreading democracy.”
Speaking of which...
Freedom from the democracy we once enjoyed.
USA...USA...USA!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stu
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top