The President's Speech.

Gee... who am I going to listen to? The President of the United States who's the most closely scrutinized man in the world and who has a track record of positive change? Or some paranoid two digit IQ piece of shit on the internet who usually gets his ass handed to him in the these conversations?
Where do you get positive change, and why do you put yourself down like that?

Obama opens his mouth and the faithful faint with praise. Positive change, where? What? I see none of it.

I dunno.

You folks are screaming "There no transparency". Yet in this speech, President Obama detailed a covert operation and the reasons behind it. He also admitted to fault with the program.

That's also never happened before.
 
Possibly one of his best:

Now, all these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact — in sometimes unintended ways — the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.

The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.

So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/u...-policy.html?pagewanted=8&_r=2&smid=fb-share&

About fucking time!

:clap2:


he gave speech yesterday

really
 
If right wing whack jobs rallied around a Rethug candidate like they rally around their hatred of Obama, they might become a functioning political party again.

Unbelievable hatred of Obama. And I thought I hated George Bush. I was a hating piker. Now that I have taken lessons from the Rethug professionals, I will do better next time. That is, if there is ever a "next time" for rethugs.
 
He's losing his base of support...he had to rally the troops.

Obama's speech, Reader's Digest concise version "Don't abandon me now...I swear, I'm really just about to do something!"

No he's not.

He's actually up in the polls.

Sure he is.

Totally incompetent.....and up in the polls.


Must be a Media Matters poll.
 
Obama literally had to redefine the definition of terror just to appear like he's winning.

Doesn't matter if you're a lousy manager, a terrible leader, and literally the most uninformed president in our history. He thinks he's winning.
 
Amidst all this outpouring of hatred for the President in this thread,

you can't find one post that contains any better ideas than the policies the President supports.
 
good gawd, anyone else SICK of hearing about this man's speech's..

He's given about A FRIGGEN 1000 of them since he's been in office.

it's not like he WRITES them..he just mouths what has been written FOR HIM..

we know that by how he prounced, CORPS-MAN..

what a joke
 
Last edited:
Obama literally had to redefine the definition of terror just to appear like he's winning.

Doesn't matter if you're a lousy manager, a terrible leader, and literally the most uninformed president in our history. He thinks he's winning.

yup i guess you are right

Obama stretches terror definitions in national security speech, claims 'no large-scale attacks on the United States' since 9/11

Obama stretches terror definitions in national security speech, claims 'no large-scale attacks on the United States' since 9/11 | Mail Online
 
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's an incoherent mess, it just means you're stupid.

Just because you believe it does not make it true.

Like his comment that drones actually cause less hatred, does he actually have evidence for this, or are we simply supposed to believe him? Can anyone explain why we have to change the rules on drones? Does that mean he was wrong before?

Gee... who am I going to listen to? The President of the United States who's the most closely scrutinized man in the world and who has a track record of positive change? Or some paranoid two digit IQ piece of shit on the internet who usually gets his ass handed to him in the these conversations?

Spot on!
 
What's funny is some people STILL believes anything this man says..

and whooboy, we are seeing that, POSITIVE CHANGE alright...lying, using your power to target the citizens and the press in this country

oh yeah, POSITIVE
 
Last edited:
Do all liberals stand in circles when they pat each other on the back for whatever Obama may say?
 
I didn't hear his speech. I can't stand to see his face, hear his voice, and don't believe one word he says. Used to be that "re-caps" by newscasters irritated me - sort of like we were too stupid to understand what the speaker said. Today? It's just easier to listen to the "re-caps" of what was said. At least I don't get sick to my stomach.
 
Last edited:
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's an incoherent mess, it just means you're stupid.

Just because you believe it does not make it true.

Like his comment that drones actually cause less hatred, does he actually have evidence for this, or are we simply supposed to believe him? Can anyone explain why we have to change the rules on drones? Does that mean he was wrong before?

Gee... who am I going to listen to? The President of the United States who's the most closely scrutinized man in the world and who has a track record of positive change? Or some paranoid two digit IQ piece of shit on the internet who usually gets his ass handed to him in the these conversations?

I guess a socialist would think his record is positive. That would cover you and wry.
 
Just because you believe it does not make it true.

Like his comment that drones actually cause less hatred, does he actually have evidence for this, or are we simply supposed to believe him? Can anyone explain why we have to change the rules on drones? Does that mean he was wrong before?

Gee... who am I going to listen to? The President of the United States who's the most closely scrutinized man in the world and who has a track record of positive change? Or some paranoid two digit IQ piece of shit on the internet who usually gets his ass handed to him in the these conversations?

I guess a socialist would think his record is positive. That would cover you and wry.

Name Calling Meister?

For shame..
 

Forum List

Back
Top