We need to stop trashing President Obama's accomplishments. - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: We need to stop trashing President Obama's accomplishments.

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by golocx4 View Post
    I may have found a lie!
    Bingo, You sir are the only one who has a glimmer of how things work.
    however it was not a lie it is more an inaccurate interpretation of what is happening.

    what he's done is he's rendered his cabinet impotent by appointing "czars" that cover the same territory as the cabinet members would. the cabinet members are props while his marxists cronies are pulling the strings behind the curtain

  2.   
  3. #22
    CZAR of the BALLET! I like that!
    Quote Originally Posted by golocx4 View Post
    I may have found a lie!

    They didn't replace anybody. They were all given the jobs with a staff and expense accounts to in return for campaign donations at taxpayers expense.
    When the next president gets in I wanna be the Czar of Strip Clubs. We have to close the gap between American Strip Clubs and Canadian Clubs.
    It is gonna be a tough job damn it, but someone has to step up and just do it.

  4. Ever heard of sarcasm? The term "Crimes against America" was in quotations for a reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    First, I saw nothing in the OP that described anything in the list as a "crime." It simply listed items which Barry Dunham aka: Barry Soetero aka: Barack Hussein Obama has "accomplished" so far during his tenure as occupier of the White House.

    Second, there are neither references made to "101" supposed "crimes" nor are there 101 line-items listed. So you are inaccurate at best, biased against the OP at least, and purposeful in your dishonesty at worst. I don't know, nor do I care, which one it is, but any one of them makes your take on the OP untrustworthy because of this demonstrated penchant for exaggeration, bias and hyperbole.

    I am decidedly "right biased." That does not mean that I am motivated to tell lies or ignore provable truths just because they comport best with my conservative leanings. Such is the provenance of leftists and moderates. Can't believe I've felt the need to use this quote twice within the last week or so, but again, it seems apropos:

    "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" Barry Goldwater - 1964

    There is nothing inherently "untrustworthy" about a person or organization being "right biased." In fact, I should be considered more trustworthy than my secretive counterparts who don't/won't admit whatever biases they possess. I have a "right bias" and I say, "I believe the originalist view that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says." Or, "I have a 'right bias' and all the evidence that I've seen and scrutinized informs me that the most well-known, largest, and best-organized gun 'rights' organization is actually a gun control organization." What does my "right bias" have to do either statement first, and would you consider both of them "typical" for a "right biased" person second, and would either be more or less credible if I claimed to be a "moderate" or leftist third? What makes those two statements credible (or not) is the extent to which I can document the assertions made within them.

    When one is discussing the veracity of documents and life experiences that have had well over $1 million spent to keep them from public view, all one can do is weigh the best evidence available and let the scales fall on whichever side of the question they happen to land on. A blind follower of million-dollar secrets is much more* biased than a right-wing activist who accepts that the available evidence points towards fraud. The blind follower seems much less trustworthy to me, as they ignore the available evidence and conclude without question that the person paying to keep his life a secret literally has nothing to hide. It's the classic, "Umm....Huh?" moment.

    So Jason, if you are one of those who believes that spending in excess of $1 million to keep his life secret would lead to a valid conclusion that BarackBarry Hussein DunhamSoeteroObama has nothing to hide, I have to ask, umm....huh?

    Blues

  5. I don't have the time to address the full list of ridiculousness in your post, however your statement below further proves my original point. You and others like you will always be on the fringe because while you are steadily trying to de-legitimize the man, others are discussing the issues of the day. The man has been elected to office twice. The ship has already sailed when it comes to what he has to hide. That is of-course unless you need to prove to yourself that your hatred of him is justified. Otherwise lets talk about the issues of the day, and not what someone put on a college scholarship form 40 years ago. What the hell does that have to do with the economy, or the the healthcare laws, or with unemployment. At the end of the day the only people listening to you are people that already agree with you. Your attitude, demeanor, focus on non-essential issues, and belief in conspiracy theories will never persuade anyone that is not already in the same camp as you to listen to you, which ultimately means that you will never win whatever battle it is that you are fighting. Democracy at the end of the day is a numbers game, and your tactic will never win over enough middle of the road on-extremes to get notices. The liberals are getting more and more people on their side every day and I blame people like you for that.
    In any case, I still don't see how the burden of PROOF falls on me? Where are the supporting documents or links for any of what the OP posted? Until I see them, I will stand by my statement of lies and half truths.
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    So Jason, if you are one of those who believes that spending in excess of $1 million to keep his life secret would lead to a valid conclusion that BarackBarry Hussein DunhamSoeteroObama has nothing to hide, I have to ask, umm....huh?

    Blues

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Parrottsville TN
    Posts
    285

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Parrottsville TN
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Parham View Post
    Okay,
    I just realized that I have an issue. In trying to find sources that either confirm or deny the list of 101 "crimes against America" that the OP listed that the current POTUS has committed I realized that any source that I find that adresses any of the issues the OP listed is going to be a biased source, and thus untrustworthy. They are either going to be right biased (which would be the reason that they would have such a story in the first place), or they are going to be left biased which would be the reason that they feel the need to discredit the obviously right biased story. Any legitimate news source worthy or watching/reading/listening to wouldn't touch most of these issues with a 50ft pole. I would hope the reason behind that would be that they realizes that issues like the ones listed above are meant merely to distract people from the real goings on in the world. Not to mention the fact that if the people that hate the current POTUS so much would stop trying to de-legitimize him and actually fight him on issues, they might actually gain traction with moderates and the undecided. However when they cling to conspiracy theories and other stories they look like crazy right wing conservatives. Wtih that being said... I have plenty of reasons to disagree with the current POTUS (none of which are on the OP's list) however I don't question his legitimacy, nor do I question his citizenship or patriotism.


    Pravda????? is that you?



    Got yer number.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Parham View Post
    I don't have the time to address the full list of ridiculousness in your post, however your statement below further proves my original point. You and others like you will always be on the fringe because while you are steadily trying to de-legitimize the man, others are discussing the issues of the day. The man has been elected to office twice. The ship has already sailed when it comes to what he has to hide. That is of-course unless you need to prove to yourself that your hatred of him is justified. Otherwise lets talk about the issues of the day, and not what someone put on a college scholarship form 40 years ago. What the hell does that have to do with the economy, or the the healthcare laws, or with unemployment. At the end of the day the only people listening to you are people that already agree with you. Your attitude, demeanor, focus on non-essential issues, and belief in conspiracy theories will never persuade anyone that is not already in the same camp as you to listen to you, which ultimately means that you will never win whatever battle it is that you are fighting. Democracy at the end of the day is a numbers game, and your tactic will never win over enough middle of the road on-extremes to get notices. The liberals are getting more and more people on their side every day and I blame people like you for that.
    In any case, I still don't see how the burden of PROOF falls on me? Where are the supporting documents or links for any of what the OP posted? Until I see them, I will stand by my statement of lies and half truths.
    After you've been here for more than, oh, about 10 freakin' minutes, and have had a chance to read the voluminous amount of time and content I have contributed to this forum on the economy especially, but on every other important issue of the day too, maybe then I'll let you get away with blaming all the world's ills on "people like me." But for now newbie, go pound sand. I said specifically in my first post that it wasn't a reader's responsibility to validate or source an OP's material, and said further that this particular person who made the OP was even less responsible than most in that regard.

    By the way, if you live in America, you are not supposed to be living in a democracy. We are constituted as a representative republic. Just another inaccuracy that makes your posts as untrustworthy as you think being an unapologetic conservative makes others.

    Cool your jets.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. I'm going to help you out. I have included a few links that describe our government. Our representative republic, or constitutional democracy is at the end of the day a form of democracy. We do not have a direct democracy, but still a democracy none the less. So I stand by my statement, which is just as accurate now as when I made it!
    CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY
    Representative democracy - Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people

  10. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Parham View Post
    I don't have the time to address the full list of ridiculousness in your post, .
    in other words you cannot back up your claim that the original post was full of lies, you are a typical libertard! you spew out nonsense and when called on to produce some facts to back your claim up like a kid with adhd you try to obfuscate by screaming about some other idiot issue that pops into your head.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,365
    The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
    --- George Washington
    .
    If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its Republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
    --- Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address
    .
    To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.
    --- Thomas Jefferson
    .
    If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws – the first growing out of the last. [...] A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.
    --- Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, 1794
    .
    We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.
    --- James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)
    .
    The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.
    --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Hunter, March 11, 1790
    .
    Woman to Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
    Franklin's reply: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
    --- From the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention
    .
    I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.
    --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor (15 April 1814)
    .
    We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.
    --- Alexander Hamilton, June 26, 1787
    .
    It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.
    --- Alexander Hamilton, speech in New York, urging ratification of the U.S. Constitution, June 21, 1788
    .
    A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
    --- James Madison, Federalist Paper #10.
    .
    Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
    --- James Madison, Federalist No. 10.
    .
    In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had 500 years of democracy and peace -- and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
    --- Orson Welles as Harry Lime in The Third Man, 1949.
    .
    We have a republic, but we're getting hung up on the literal interpretation of democracy, as many people do. According to the strict definition of a democracy, we don't have one. But over the years people have come to use the term democracy in a very loose way and not in the literal sense of the strict definition. The term democracy has come to be loosely used, at least in this country anyway, to describe a form of government in which the power rests in the people rather than in the government itself. Even most dictionary definitions have changed to that loose standard. Those of us who know the true definitions realize that can encompass far more than just a democracy. We also know that a true democracy in it's purest form has never existed, just as a true communist government has never existed in it's purest form. True democracies simply cannot survive. Our founders were well aware of that fact and they said so on several occasions. But I think we can all accept the fact that many people use the terms democracy or democratic in a more loose manner rather than a literal manner when they are referring to our government. Even those who are unaware of the strict definitions are not trying to mischaracterize things. Just are just not aware of all the details. I cut people slack on those points unless it leads them down a very obvously wrong path, such as assuming every citizen votes on legislation, as they would in a true democracy. Besides, as misinformed as our populace is, we wouldn't want a true democracy anyway.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast