Embarrassing: Obama Receives Standing Ovation From Less Than 25% Of West Point Cadets

[Politico]

"fired"

Or were they about to retire too?

Why would you need to ask me? You act as though you know what's going on. You state, unequivocally, that no one has been held accountable.

How much research did you do before you decided to state as fact something that wasn't true?

Seeing as how Eric Shinseki still holds his position, it is.

Not anymore thank God.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Didn't you learn anything from the Nuremberg Trials?

Did you learn anything from Terry Lakin being courtmartialed and convicted for refusing deployment to Afghanistan because he claimed the President wasn't eligible to be president?

So, if Obama orders soldiers to fire on unarmed American citizens, they should obey?

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

 

[Meathead]

Demanding the loyalty of soldiers to a president as an argument that the president is respected is self-defeating.

 

[S.J.]

Did you learn anything from Terry Lakin being courtmartialed and convicted for refusing deployment to Afghanistan because he claimed the President wasn't eligible to be president?

So, if Obama orders soldiers to fire on unarmed American citizens, they should obey?

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

Apples and oranges. Answer my question. If Obama ordered troops to fire on American citizens, should they obey those orders or not?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why would you need to ask me? You act as though you know what's going on. You state, unequivocally, that no one has been held accountable.

How much research did you do before you decided to state as fact something that wasn't true?

Seeing as how Eric Shinseki still holds his position, it is.

Not anymore thank God.

Was that a throwaway " thank god", or are you that heavily in a trance that you think this guy is somehow unholy?

I am guessing the former. In which case your desire to demonstrate your alliance with USMB idiots is amusing.

 

[P@triot]

Did you learn anything from Terry Lakin being courtmartialed and convicted for refusing deployment to Afghanistan because he claimed the President wasn't eligible to be president?

So, if Obama orders soldiers to fire on unarmed American citizens, they should obey?

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

Here's the problem chief - the U.S. Constitution trumps the president. And since Obama has violated the Constitution on dozens of occassions (you and I know both know he should have been impeached and prosecuted a long time ago), the soldiers can only keep their oath to one. Any decent soldier would keep their oath to the Constitution since it is the highest law in the land and since man (especially Dumbocrats and marxists like Obama) can be corrupt.

It speaks volumes that the U.S. military has such deep contempt for this piece of shit while you worship him. You guys cry all the time about the Iraq war, but our military always showed George W.. Bush tremendous respect. They have none for Obama because they know he is an anti-American, marxist piece of shit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So, if Obama orders soldiers to fire on unarmed American citizens, they should obey?

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

Here's the problem chief - the U.S. Constitution trumps the president. And since Obama has violated the Constitution on dozens of occassions (you and I know both know he should have been impeached and prosecuted a long time ago), the soldiers can only keep their oath to one. Any decent soldier would keep their oath to the Constitution since it is the highest law in the land and since man (especially Dumbocrats and marxists like Obama) can be corrupt.

It speaks volumes that the U.S. military has such deep contempt for this piece of shit while you worship him. You guys cry all the time about the Iraq war, but our military always showed George W.. Bush tremendous respect. They have none for Obama because they know he is an anti-American, marxist piece of shit.

The best thing about you is your obvious disdain for overblown rhetoric.

 

[P@triot]

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

Here's the problem chief - the U.S. Constitution trumps the president. And since Obama has violated the Constitution on dozens of occassions (you and I know both know he should have been impeached and prosecuted a long time ago), the soldiers can only keep their oath to one. Any decent soldier would keep their oath to the Constitution since it is the highest law in the land and since man (especially Dumbocrats and marxists like Obama) can be corrupt.

It speaks volumes that the U.S. military has such deep contempt for this piece of shit while you worship him. You guys cry all the time about the Iraq war, but our military always showed George W.. Bush tremendous respect. They have none for Obama because they know he is an anti-American, marxist piece of shit.

The best thing about you is your obvious disdain for overblown rhetoric.

The best thing about you is the "value" you add to USMB with your "deep" and "intelligent" posts full of "facts"...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here's the problem chief - the U.S. Constitution trumps the president. And since Obama has violated the Constitution on dozens of occassions (you and I know both know he should have been impeached and prosecuted a long time ago), the soldiers can only keep their oath to one. Any decent soldier would keep their oath to the Constitution since it is the highest law in the land and since man (especially Dumbocrats and marxists like Obama) can be corrupt.

It speaks volumes that the U.S. military has such deep contempt for this piece of shit while you worship him. You guys cry all the time about the Iraq war, but our military always showed George W.. Bush tremendous respect. They have none for Obama because they know he is an anti-American, marxist piece of shit.

The best thing about you is your obvious disdain for overblown rhetoric.

The best thing about you is the "value" you add to USMB with your "deep" and "intelligent" posts full of "facts"...

Hmmmm. Depth is not required here. Facts are a matter of habit for me and I am cursed with intelligence. Nothing can be done about that.

Now....a simple question. Do you believe that you are guilty of using overblown rhetoric?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, if Obama orders soldiers to fire on unarmed American citizens, they should obey?

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

Here's the problem chief - the U.S. Constitution trumps the president. And since Obama has violated the Constitution on dozens of occassions (you and I know both know he should have been impeached and prosecuted a long time ago), the soldiers can only keep their oath to one. Any decent soldier would keep their oath to the Constitution since it is the highest law in the land and since man (especially Dumbocrats and marxists like Obama) can be corrupt.

It speaks volumes that the U.S. military has such deep contempt for this piece of shit while you worship him. You guys cry all the time about the Iraq war, but our military always showed George W.. Bush tremendous respect. They have none for Obama because they know he is an anti-American, marxist piece of shit.

Where in the enlistee's oath or in the UCMJ for that matter is that enlistee given the power to find the President guilty of unconstitutional actions and therefore free that enlistee from his pledge of loyal obedience?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, if Obama orders soldiers to fire on unarmed American citizens, they should obey?

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

Apples and oranges. Answer my question. If Obama ordered troops to fire on American citizens, should they obey those orders or not?

The President is responsible for putting down insurrections. Insurrections are most likely the work of a country's citizens. Of course the President has the right to use force, and of course the troops are bound by their oath and the UCMJ to obey,

unless they are willing to face the consequences of disobeying orders.

 

[Stephanie]

the cadets showed great strength and loyalty to WE THE PEOPLE not puking while sitting through this speech.
links from newspapers at site

Snip:
WaPo, NYT, WSJ agree: Obama speech “ludicrous … uninspiring … disturbing”


posted at 10:01 am on May 29, 2014 by Ed Morrissey



Actually, all of those adjectives come from the New York Times — and that’s the most sympathetic take on Barack Obama’s big pivot/comeback speech on foreign policy. The West Point address accomplished a rarity in media and politics by creating a consensus between the editorial boards of the NYT, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. That consensus, however, is that Obama flopped in his straw-man approach to criticism and his utter incoherence on American policy. When a President can’t convince one of these three on policy, it may be time to find a new approach — or perhaps a new team (via AoSHQ).

The open from the NYT hints at what’s coming:

President Obama and his aides heralded his commencement speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Wednesday as a big moment, when he would lay out his foreign policy vision for the remainder of his term and refute his critics. The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.

Yes, that’s the most sympathetic read. The NYT editorial turns harsh toward the end:

[H]e provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years, and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world. Falling back on hackneyed phrases like America is the “indispensable nation” told us little.

The president said he wanted to spend $5 billion to train and support armies in places like Libya, Mali, Yemen and Somalia to combat terrorists. The aim is to avoid having to use American troops, and, in theory, it makes sense. But the United States has a checkered history in such endeavors, and Mr. Obama made only a cursory mention of other factors crucial to success, including responsible governance and education for all. It was disturbing to hear him gloss over the return of military rule in Egypt.

Mr. Obama’s talk of the need for more transparency about drone strikes and intelligence gathering, including abusive surveillance practices, was ludicrous. His administration had to be dragged into even minimal disclosures on both topics. Just Tuesday, the administration said it wanted to make further deletions from a legal memo on drone strikes that a court ordered it to make public.

The Washington Post’s editors could hardly contain their scorn for the army of straw men Obama attempted to battle:

all of it here
WaPo, NYT, WSJ agree: Obama speech ?ludicrous ? uninspiring ? disturbing? « Hot Air

 

[Gremlin-USA]

I don't blame them for not giving him a standing ovation. These cadets know the president is a phoney.


Obama receives standing ovation from less than 25% of West Point cadets: report - Washington Times

Did the Cadets see this 1st?

 

[Stephanie]

I don't blame them for not giving him a standing ovation. These cadets know the president is a phoney.


Obama receives standing ovation from less than 25% of West Point cadets: report - Washington Times

Did the Cadets see this 1st?

about right, remember she wasn't proud of us until her radical hubby got elected

 

[Freewill]

How uniting it would have been had Obama started his speech with "I am sorry." Sorry that he promised to reform the VA but by all accounts his efforts were not enough. He could have pledged then to do what was necessary to correct what he promised but failed.

He could have taken the humble road but instead he took the narcissist road and people wonder why we on the right say he doesn't know how to get along with people nor does he know how to work with those who may not be in full agreement with him. His rhetoric has alienated the opposition to the point that there is no way they wish to work with him, can anyone blame them. Working with a person or people is NOT getting your own way every time. Carter didn't understand and now Obama doesn't understand that is why his presidency will go down the same road as Carter.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Did you learn anything from Terry Lakin being courtmartialed and convicted for refusing deployment to Afghanistan because he claimed the President wasn't eligible to be president?

So, if Obama orders soldiers to fire on unarmed American citizens, they should obey?

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

Obamashitforbrains swore an oath to the constitution also and violates it constantly, lets hold him to his word.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

Apples and oranges. Answer my question. If Obama ordered troops to fire on American citizens, should they obey those orders or not?

The President is responsible for putting down insurrections. Insurrections are most likely the work of a country's citizens. Of course the President has the right to use force, and of course the troops are bound by their oath and the UCMJ to obey,

unless they are willing to face the consequences of disobeying orders.

Orders from an incompetent anti American fool don't count.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Nothing you're saying changes that fact that enlistees must take a loyalty oath to the Constitution and the President as their Commander in Chief;

the fact that there may be instances where a refusal to obey orders could be legally defensible in no way changes that.

The fact that you cannot legally publish child pornography does not change the fact that you have free press rights.

Here's the problem chief - the U.S. Constitution trumps the president. And since Obama has violated the Constitution on dozens of occassions (you and I know both know he should have been impeached and prosecuted a long time ago), the soldiers can only keep their oath to one. Any decent soldier would keep their oath to the Constitution since it is the highest law in the land and since man (especially Dumbocrats and marxists like Obama) can be corrupt.

It speaks volumes that the U.S. military has such deep contempt for this piece of shit while you worship him. You guys cry all the time about the Iraq war, but our military always showed George W.. Bush tremendous respect. They have none for Obama because they know he is an anti-American, marxist piece of shit.

Where in the enlistee's oath or in the UCMJ for that matter is that enlistee given the power to find the President guilty of unconstitutional actions and therefore free that enlistee from his pledge of loyal obedience?

Read much? He said constitution. Idiot.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Seeing as how Eric Shinseki still holds his position, it is.

Not anymore thank God.

Was that a throwaway " thank god", or are you that heavily in a trance that you think this guy is somehow unholy?

I am guessing the former. In which case your desire to demonstrate your alliance with USMB idiots is amusing.

Yeah, the libtards on this board are usmb idiots, glad you got that correct.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the problem chief - the U.S. Constitution trumps the president. And since Obama has violated the Constitution on dozens of occassions (you and I know both know he should have been impeached and prosecuted a long time ago), the soldiers can only keep their oath to one. Any decent soldier would keep their oath to the Constitution since it is the highest law in the land and since man (especially Dumbocrats and marxists like Obama) can be corrupt.

It speaks volumes that the U.S. military has such deep contempt for this piece of shit while you worship him. You guys cry all the time about the Iraq war, but our military always showed George W.. Bush tremendous respect. They have none for Obama because they know he is an anti-American, marxist piece of shit.

Where in the enlistee's oath or in the UCMJ for that matter is that enlistee given the power to find the President guilty of unconstitutional actions and therefore free that enlistee from his pledge of loyal obedience?

Read much? He said constitution. Idiot.

The Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief. Do you dispute that? lol