Clint I agreed with you until you last comment about being the first Black President. Why does race have to be an issue? Why can’t he just be a bad President regardless of whether he’s white or black. You lost all credibility with that last comment. I grew up in the south and racism is disgusting. That’s why I moved my “black” family to Juneau, Alaska to get the hell away from the south. And yes I know it’s in other parts of the U.S. I love Alaska because most people judge me based on the content of my character and not by the color of my skin. I’m glad my kids can go to school and be the only “black” kid in their class and never get told they can get away with stuff because they’re black. My Dad held me accountable and it bothers me that you would ignorantly stereotype all “black” people like that. Fortunately, my kids “white” teachers in Alaska are beyond that ignorance. Also, I’m serving my Country proudly and I will honor and defend the Constitution of the U.S. whether it’s a white or black President in office.
Babypips has people of many races and I can’t believe that they would sit back and allow you to use their site to spread your racist message. I agree with you on ISIS and the policies of President Obama but I can’t believe you actually had to express your racist stereotype about his ability to do whatever he wants because he’s “black”. That was not necessary and I know you will probably have many followers that will jump on your bandwagon and attack me but I rather stand alone for something I believe in than fall for anything.
Obama is worse than “a bad president”. He is a rogue president. He has violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. He is an arrogant narcissist, who has no respect for the limits on presidential power designed into our legal system. Instead, he believes it’s “his way or the highway”. And he lies habitually. He cannot be believed, and he cannot be trusted.
None of his character flaws, and none of his dismal performance as president, have anything to do with his race. They have to do with his failings as a man, as a citizen, and as a leader.
Personally, I couldn’t care less whether Obama is black, white, green or purple. But, I care passionately about the destruction he is bringing upon this nation. It might take a generation to undo the damage Obama has done in two terms as America’s worst president.
If he were white, he would have been impeached before now. But, as the nation’s first black president, he has virtual immunity from impeachment. Most of the nation feel that it would just be unseemly for our first black president to be impeached and removed from office.
Such an impeachment, if it were to occur, would not be racist; but, it would be seen as racially motivated by many. And, sad to say, there are elements in our society that would deliberately stoke those fires, in order to advance their own agendas.
Re-read the parody that I wrote. I did not say, nor imply, that Obama is a bad president [I]because he is black.[/I] I said that [I]he cannot, and will not, be impeached precisely because he is black.[/I] That is not a racist statement. It’s simply a political reality.
Indeed. In some situations, your kids may be held to [I]an even higher standard[/I] than their white classmates — simply because they are black. And, if that occurs, it is every bit as inexcusable as holding them to a lower standard, simply because they are black.
Sorry, but I reject your accusation of stereotyping. There is nothing in my criticism of Obama that ties his dismal performance as president to his race. And there is absolutely nothing in my criticism of Obama that can be extended to [I]any[/I] other black person, let alone to “all black people”.
Again, there is nothing racist, and there is no stereotyping, in anything that I said.
To the extent that Obama knows that [I]he is immune from impeachment because he is black,[/I] he gains the ability to do things he could never get away with, if he faced the ultimate Constitutional accountability of impeachment.
You said that your Dad held you accountable. It must trouble you that Obama is immune from accountability. And you must have to acknowledge to yourself that you know exactly why that is.
I said you lost all credibility when you used his race to make a statement. I agreed with 80% of what you said, especially your stance on ISIS. I voted for Bush twice and was glad when he won but most people were calling for him to be impeached. It was the same nonsense with Clinton, he actually lied about having an affair and people wanted to impeached him. This is not the first time we wanted to or should have impeached a president and didn’t. Why do you feel like President Obama is getting a pass because he’s black. The House of Representatives tried to impeach two prior Presidents, Johnson in 1868 and Clinton in 1998, both were acquitted so we haven’t impeached any of the Presidents prior to him. What if I said they were acquitted because they were white, that would show my ignorance.
I think our Country’s political situation is messed up on both sides right now, I don’t care how they got in office or whether they are democrat or republican. We need a super cleansing. To many politicians are pushing their own agendas and forgot that they work for us and that we don’t work for them. My superior officer told me that to succeed as a junior officer, I must always remember that I work for the junior members, they don’t work for me. I think D.C. Needs to take that approach. We get so caught up on judging someone based on their race.
No one thinks that while he may have not been the best president, he was served a dog’s dinner of a beginning when he came into office.
A great quote that I read long ago said "The president of today is fixing the problems of the previous presidents time slot"
And our last one was… well, no words can describe it.
[QUOTE=“Clint;668577”]
Obama is worse than “a bad president”. He is a rogue president. He has violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. He is an arrogant narcissist, who has no respect for the limits on presidential power designed into our legal system. Instead, he believes it’s “his way or the highway”. And he lies habitually. He cannot be believed, and he cannot be trusted.
None of his character flaws, and none of his dismal performance as president, have anything to do with his race. They have to do with his failings as a man, as a citizen, and as a leader.
Personally, I couldn’t care less whether Obama is black, white, green or purple. But, I care passionately about the destruction he is bringing upon this nation. It might take a generation to undo the damage Obama has done in two terms as America’s worst president.
If he were white, he would have been impeached before now. But, as the nation’s first black president, he has virtual immunity from impeachment. Most of the nation feel that it would just be unseemly for our first black president to be impeached and removed from office.
Such an impeachment, if it were to occur, would not be racist; but, it would be seen as racially motivated by many. And, sad to say, there are elements in our society that would deliberately stoke those fires, in order to advance their own agendas.
Re-read the parody that I wrote. I did not say, nor imply, that Obama is a bad president because he is black. I said that he cannot, and will not, be impeached precisely because he is black. That is not a racist statement. It’s simply a political reality.
Indeed. In some situations, your kids may be held to an even higher standard than their white classmates — simply because they are black. And, if that occurs, it is every bit as inexcusable as holding them to a lower standard, simply because they are black.
Sorry, but I reject your accusation of stereotyping. There is nothing in my criticism of Obama that ties his dismal performance as president to his race. And there is absolutely nothing in my criticism of Obama that can be extended to any other black person, let alone to “all black people”.
Again, there is nothing racist, and there is no stereotyping, in anything that I said.
To the extent that Obama knows that he is immune from impeachment because he is black, he gains the ability to do things he could never get away with, if he faced the ultimate Constitutional accountability of impeachment.
You said that your Dad held you accountable. It must trouble you that Obama is immune from accountability. And you must have to acknowledge to yourself that you know exactly why that is.[/QUOTE]
Well said.
It’s kind of amusing to see the race card thrown around so freely during his first campaign when there was so much excitement and hope, yet now that his approval rating is in the toilet it is suddenly taboo… The beginning of the campaign it was something like “This is a huge step for our country to have a black president! We need this as a symbol of progress regardless if he is the best candidate.”
Now that it is crystal clear what the ramifications are of having an unqualified and inept president, mentioning his race becomes taboo again. A clear demonstration of the one sidedness of the liberally brainwashed portion of our country.
If you truly want a discussion on racism, why don’t we discuss the demographic that voted Obama in with a 90% approval rating. It is absolutely inarguable that the single biggest factor in the black communities voting decision for Obama was simply that he was black. That is in and of itself racism. The irony of the clear demonstration of racism within the community that is the biggest opponent of the issue needs to be noted.
After his immigration policies… he is now officially one of the worst presidents we have ever had. I used to defend him too.
U.S. Dictator Barak Obama has usurped the law-making authority of the United States Congress.
Congress has the power to take back their authority, and to put Obama in his place.
In fact, Congress has the power to dispose of this rogue dictator,
and restore Constitutional separation-of-powers to this nation’s government.
Unfortunately, the Boehner-led Republican Congress doesn’t have the balls to defend the Constitution.
Clint don’t let Boehner hear you, he might start crying . The man is spineless .
Almost makes me feel sorry for the guy.
"France has one of the worst records of fighting terrorism, particularly when it’s terrorism that doesn’t affect its own people. For years and years, France played footsie with Middle East terrorists, as long as they didn’t come to France.
“Their idea was to export terrorism and of course the end result is they imported it. You either have to fight all terrorism or you’re not going to be successful in fighting any terrorism.”
attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, on [I]Newsmax TV[/I]
"France has had a long, long history of cozying up to terrorists, of facilitating them, of freeing them, as long as they don’t attack France. It is the most selfish and hypocritical foreign policy among many hypocritical and selfish European foreign policies.
"The idea was that they would do anything to prevent the importation of terrorism — they wanted to export terrorism. It’s okay if terrorists hit other countries.
“You can’t pick and choose among terrorists. You have to be opposed to all terrorists. If you say it’s okay in the Middle East, it’s okay when they attack Israel, but it’s not okay when they attack France, that doesn’t work. And the events [in Paris] recently proved that. But France hasn’t learned its lesson.”
Alan Dershowitz, on [I]The Steve Malzberg Show[/I]
Clint i agree and we in the USA better get our sh*t together too.
One cannot reliably, no matter how much money or manpower is thrown at a problem, anticipate and prevent all attacks. Its ridiculous to think that people could. Well, it IS possible, is we all want to live in a hyper locked down police state. But then the people who would have been clamoring for more protection before would most likely be the ones carrying out the attacks… against the state.
Political opinions are based on philosophy. People have different opinions because they have very different paradigms about existence which lead them necessarily to different answers on specific questions. Before one can say whether an elected official has performed well or poorly or whether a given policy or law should be passed or repealed, one must first determine the basis whereby such conclusions can be reached.
The vast majority of people do not have an informed thought out world paradigm as a basis to make these evaluations. The vast majority are simply engaged in tribalism. They have somehow, through birth or random social events, come into the fold of some group espousing themselves as having the right world paradigm, the right diagnosis, and the right solutions to the ills of humanity. They accept these solutions and the rationalizations for the actions of these groups and most importantly their politically privileged and defend them against all objective analysis on the basis of simple tribal lines to the level of the infliction of violence against their neighbors who otherwise would coexist with them peacefully.
The real question is not whether some politician has performed well or whether some law is a good idea. The question is what is existence, what is life, what is society, what is good? What does it mean to be human?
The enlightenment period brought a large rejection of the concept that humans are a family of individuals incapable of virtue established by deity and blessed with righteous kings to compensate for the disability of the family to without them produce anything worthy of the description “good”. For its popularity, the classical philosophy of liberalism was adored by those who sought to replace the monarchs with a new political rulership of one form or another, one wherein they (whoever they were) would become the rulership. They like the end of monarchy but are not so hip on the liberal idea of the right of the individual to remain sovereign over his own life. “Replace the king with me and my friends” is their request. “Let me control you and everyone else and I will make life better for all” is their promise. “Put us in control and we will give you liberalism.” But what is liberalism without individual freedom? What is water without oxygen? Not water. Liberalism without individual freedom is not liberalism.
The centuries of human history chronicle failure after failure by each of those making such claims to make good on their promise and great track record for their own enrichment and enjoyment of the fruits of the labor of their politically disfavored neighbors.
My understanding of life and of the human condition recognizes that all claims of rulership are a rejection of my personal sovereignty. I reject all rulers. I own me and my neighbors own themselves. To those tribalists who ask for my obedience, for my support, my answer is simple: “Fucx you, I think for myself and you have no authority over me because I do not grant it.”
On Tuesday evening, some of you will be watching The State of the Union Address …
… better described as [B]Barak Obama’s Dog and Pony Show.[/B]
I won’t be wasting my time with that. Watching Barak Obama makes my skin crawl.
Article II of The Constitution of the United States lays out the powers and duties of the president.
Section 3 of that Article specifies the president’s duty to report to Congress on the state of the union.
Article II, Section 3 reads, in part:
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient …”
The Constitution does not specify [I]one report per year in January;[/I] and it definitely does not specify a Presidential Dog and Pony Show for the self-promotion of ego-maniac presidents.
I wish that the new Congress had contacted Obama immediately after they were sworn in —
• to tell him that a Dog and Pony Show will not be convened this year
• and to instruct him to submit his State of the Union report in writing.
Further down in Article II, Section 3, the Constitution says of the president:
“…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, …”
Obama has flouted that requirement of the Constitution, because be [I]despises[/I] the Constitution. He is the first (and God willing, the last) [I]rogue president[/I] in this nation’s history.
The new Congress should do everything in its power to oppose, restrict, and stifle this rogue president.
:42:
This is why appointments “for life” are totally stupid.
Here’s Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Supreme Court Justice,
too old and too incompetent to hold the office she’s been appointed to “for life”.
The old biddy had some wine with dinner,
and couldn’t stay awake during the State of the Union Dog and Pony Show.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals she wasn’t ‘100 percent sober’ | Daily Mail Online
Why do I call Ruth Biddy Ginsberg “incompetent”?
Because she has lately been running her mouth in public about the issue of homosèxual “marriage” — an issue which the Supreme Court will deal with this summer.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Americans Are Ready for Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Business
In other words, one of the “judges” in this matter is making personal, political statements about the substance of the case, BEFORE it is heard and decided.
This is judicial malpractice at the highest level of the American judiciary.
The old bag has rendered herself unfit to rule on this issue, and should recuse herself immediately.
Failing that, she should be removed from her position on the Court.
The term of a Supreme Court Justice should expire after 20 years on the Court, or at age 70, whichever occurs first.
.
I agree in this matter NO life term in any government office.
I agree in all matters NO term whatsoever in any government office.
Obama, Netanyahu on Collision Course 6 Years in the Making
Saturday, 28 Feb 2015 09:28 AM
For six years, President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been on a collision course over how to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a high-stakes endeavor both men see as a centerpiece of their legacies.
The coming weeks will put the relationship between their countries, which otherwise remain stalwart allies, to one of its toughest tests.
Netanyahu is bound for Washington for an address to Congress on Tuesday aimed squarely at derailing Obama’s cherished bid for a diplomatic deal with Tehran. At the same time, Secretary of State John Kerry and other international negotiators will be in Switzerland for talks with the Iranians, trying for a framework agreement before a late March deadline.
In between are Israel’s elections March 17, which have heightened the political overtones of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington.
The prime minister is speaking to Congress at the request of Republicans. His visit was coordinated without the Obama administration’s knowledge, deepening tensions between two leaders who have never shown much affection for each other.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the liberal Jewish advocacy group J Street, said Netanyahu was “crossing some lines that haven’t been crossed before and is putting Israel into the partisan crossfire in a way it has not been before.”
But the largest pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has tried to play down the partisanship.
“AIPAC welcomes the prime minister’s speech to Congress and we believe that this is a very important address,” spokesman Marshall Wittmann said. “We have been actively encouraging senators and representatives to attend and we have received an overwhelmingly positive response from both sides of the aisle.”
Nearly a dozen Democratic lawmakers plan to sit out Netanyahu’s speech, calling it an affront to the president.
Stopping Iran from building a nuclear bomb has become a defining challenge for both Obama and Netanyahu, yet one they have approached far differently.
For Obama, getting Iran to verifiably prove it is not pursuing nuclear weapons would be a bright spot in a foreign policy arena in which numerous outcomes are uncertain and would validate his early political promise to negotiate with Iran without conditions.
Netanyahu considers unacceptable any deal with Iran that doesn’t end its nuclear program entirely and opposes the diplomatic pursuit as one that minimizes what he considers an existential threat to Israel.
Tehran says its nuclear program is peaceful and exists only to produce energy for civilian use.
U.S. and Iranian officials reported progress in the latest talks on a deal that would freeze Tehran’s nuclear program for 10 years, but allow it to slowly ramp up in the final years of the accord.
Obama has refused to meet Netanyahu during his visit, with the White House citing its policy of not meeting with foreign leaders soon before their elections. Vice President Joe Biden and Kerry will both be out of the country on trips announced only after Netanyahu accepted the GOP offer to speak on Capitol Hill.
The prime minister is scheduled to speak Monday at AIPAC’s annual policy conference. The Obama administration will be represented at the event by U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and national security adviser Susan Rice, who criticized Netanyahu’s plans to address Congress as “destructive” to the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
The Iran dispute has heightened a relationship between the two leaders that has been frosty from the start. They lack any personal chemistry, leaving them with virtually no reservoir of goodwill to get them through their policy disagreements.
Within months of taking office, Obama irritated Israel when, in an address to the Arab world, he challenged the legitimacy of Jewish settlements on Palestinian-claimed land and cited the Holocaust as the justification for Israel’s existence, not any historical Jewish tie to the land.
The White House was furious when Netanyahu’s government defied Obama and announced plans to construct new housing units in East Jerusalem while Biden was visiting Israel in 2010. Additional housing plans that year upended U.S. efforts to restart peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The tension between Obama and Netanyahu was laid bare in an unusually public manner during an Oval Office meeting in 2011. In front of a crowd of journalists, the prime minister lectured Obama at length on Israel’s history and dismissed the president’s conditions for restarting peace talks.
Later that year, a microphone caught Obama telling his then-French counterpart in a private conversation that while he may be fed up with Netanyahu, “You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day.”
Despite suspecting that Netanyahu was cheering for his rival in the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama tried to reset relations with the prime minister after his re-election. He made his first trip as president to Israel and the two leaders went to great lengths to put on a happy front, referring to each other by their first names and touring some of the region’s holy sites together.
The healing period was to be short-lived.
Another attempt at Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed. Israeli officials were withering in their criticism of Kerry, who had shepherded the talks, with the country’s defense minister calling him “obsessive” and “messianic.” The Obama administration returned the favor last summer with its own unusually unsparing criticism of Israel for causing civilian deaths when war broke out in Gaza.
The U.S. and Israel have hit rocky patches before.
The settlement issue has been a persistent thorn in relations, compounded by profound unhappiness in Washington over Israeli military operations in the Sinai, Iraq and Lebanon during the Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations that led those presidents to take or consider direct punitive measures. Yet through it all, the United States has remained Israel’s prime benefactor, providing it with $3 billion a year in assistance and defending it from criticism at the United Nations and elsewhere.
“We have brought relations back in the past and we will do it again now because at the end of the day they are based on mutual interests,” said Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and informal adviser to Netanyahu. “The interests of Israel and the U.S. are similar and sometime identical and I think that is what will determine in the end and not feelings of one kind or another.”
© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press.
It’s no wonder that Netanyahu has no respect for Obama.
Here’s Barack Hussein Obama, Peace Be Upon Him,
bowing down to the Grand Pooh Bah of Saudi Arabia
You’ll never see Netanyahu making a fool of himself in this fashion.
I agree about the old biddy. 10 years or something maybe.