Obama: Dead in the Water...is it true?

[LilRed]

WBU:


Jes one li'l example of angry obfuscation:

And that's what THAT individual does. I didn't call him a name or make a cute joke about him. I observed his behaviors and motivations and stated what they ARE. If your posts and ideas match those of socialists, then you're a socialist. You've put that label on yourself. If your posts and ideas match those of a big spender, then you're a big spender. You've put that label on yourself.

Uh, your "behaviors and motivations" have done a right fine job a portrayin jes as another unbalanced rightist... I realize that this is likely a kinda "tone of emails" thang, as uv assured us many times that u r a very passionate and sincere person...

I ignored your story about your civics teacher and their concern about the ACLU never defending the KKK. I viewed it as an attempt to label your teacher and me as racist -- even though there is no evidence of that where I am concerned. It is crap like that which makes something PERSONAL, and it is definitely unfounded and had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the discussion. You ran out of facts to support your argument, so you insinuate something disgusting about me that isn't true. THAT is what I mean by PERSONAL.

And, once again, u decided I was labelin u as a racist... And, made more ill considered angry statements... My comment was directed at an earlier comment on the ACLU representin Snowden... Not u, WBU...

As I mentioned b4, ur "behaviors and motivations" are not supportin ur positions...

IMHO u are quick to "make it personal", and very quick to opine that others are the ones makin it personal...


IMHO, dude, you dish it but jes cain't take it...

In closing, regarding ur comment on the drones:

Drones without due process or probable cause on American citizens at home and abroad..... My objection was NOT to the use of drones, but how they were being used.

Apparently, u havin a hard time understandin that the use of the drones is in accordance with our laws... That "due process or probably cause" is NOT a statutory requirement when fighting a war... that inside CONUS, the use of drones involving AmCits, IS subject to "due process or probable cause"... And, they have, undeniably, been very, very effective... I reckon that's why the bad folks are raisin so much hell about 'em... Go do a search, dude... There's gazillions of pages of documentation on the drones' effectiveness...


BR

[WBU ALUM]

All of what you post here is about me, and I still fail to see how you or anyone else can determine anger in any of what I describe. Questions are anger? Explanations are anger? Describing someone's motive for posting is anger? Maybe you just don't think anyone's position should ever be challenged. Maybe that's anger to you. That's fine. Or maybe I need to put smiley faces behind every sentence so that you know that I'm happily disagreeing?


Don't bother trying to elaborate on any of this. I have a hard time following your word usage and writing style, so maybe it's just me. Maybe I just don't understand anything that you're trying to say.

Regarding your drone position, I don't know if I can agree or disagree for the same reason stated above. What I do know is my own position on drones, and I've stated it.

Mai phen lai.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

I have a hard time following your word usage and writing style, so maybe it's just me. Maybe I just don't understand anything that you're trying to say. Mai phen lai.

Yes, I have this problem with LilRed's writing style too, and, I would add, it is really annoying to try to follow.

[Astana]

Its called Alabama BS script!

[Laan Yaa Mo]

I thought it was an attempt at the accent of West Virginia, Kentucky, rural Ohio or rural Pennsylvania. Bear Bryant, originally from Arkansas with stints in Kentucky and Texas, never spoke like that nor did George Wallace.

By the way, this is not a personal attack of Khun LilRed, it is just a note that his style of writing English is difficult to follow.

[Astana]

Of course its not, just like BS means Best Scribble!

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Here is an excellent article by that Newfoundlander, Rex Murphy, on the demise in popularity and effectiveness of the Nobel Winning President, Mr. Obama:

Rex Murphy: The ordinary president
13/06/22 | Last Updated: 13/06/21 2:52 PM ET

When candidate Barack Obama visited Berlin to make a speech some five years ago, half the world was in a Hope and Change swoon. Europe loved the yet-to-be president, and the people of Berlin gave an index of just how much. Could any other contender for president even presume to speak — and expect and get a mass audience! — in a foreign capital? They swarmed to candidate Barack, at least 200,000 strong, drawn by the great force of his charisma and the near tidal draw of his startling and almost instant status as a world celebrity.

The visit to Berlin in 2008 was meant to provoke two comparisons, one with John F. Kennedy who (then) 45 years earlier had shown up in the wall-divided city with his famous “I am a Berliner” declaration, and that perhaps even more famous occasion when President Reagan stood and challenged Mr. Gorbachev to, “Tear down this wall.”

On Mr. Obama’s first visit he was, almost, up to the challenge of bearing a comparison with these illustrious predecessors, both of them in their time genuine charismatic presences. Mr. Kennedy, tragically by virtue of the terrible day in Dallas, is still something of an absolute lodestar as a symbol of youth and idealism. Mr. Reagan’s standing in the memory of many Americans rises with each passing year.

Watching and listening to Obama at the Brandenberg Gate this week, that sad line of Hamlet almost inevitably recurred: “Oh … what a falling off was there…”

Only 6,000 people showed this time, a mere scattering, and these by invitation. The president himself seemed also much diminished. He could not even really bear a comparison with himself the candidate, never mind Reagan and Kennedy. He stumbled in his delivery (the teleprompter and he were not quite in sync for all the speech), wilted in the heat, and looked, this is the key term, so ordinary.

Simply stated, the remarkable charisma of Barack Obama has fled. Fled, mainly because it was in large measure artificial from the beginning, embedded in external circumstances and fuelled in large measure by the media hyperdrive that attended his campaign.

As the first black candidate for president, he was for very many people symbolic of the great advance beyond race prejudice that has been the hallmark of most Western societies. Thus his world popularity. There was also the natural drama of his great contest with Hillary Clinton. He was a “star” in the greatest real reality show the world knows — the competition for the U.S. presidency.

And finally, the candidacy of Mr. Obama completed a great arc of American history, the drive to exoricse the complicity with slavery that sullied the very foundation of the United States. Significance was written into his campaign. To very many, he was more an emblem than an actual person, with all every person’s faults and limitations.

Indeed in the week that saw the mediocre and fumbling performance in Berlin, a poll showed for the first time that George W. Bush is more popular than Obama
.
Looking back it’s obviously easier to see that much of Mr. Obama’s charisma came from without, from these “storylines,” not himself. He was a vessel, not a generator. He was himself aware of people taking him as a (this is his phrase) “blank slate,” projecting their aspirations and ideals onto him. People really did wish he was a “great man.”

Now five years in office, the inevitable grind of politics has dissipated most of the atmosphere and aura that propelled his rise. Indeed in the week that saw the mediocre and fumbling performance in Berlin, a poll showed for the first time that George W. Bush is more popular than Obama. The sitting president was at 45% and he, whom so many saw as hapless George, at 47%.

We might take from this some caution about the very idea of charisma, and even more so some caution about those who come on the scene in not much more than a vague cloud of appeal, who can draw the crowds and churn even the affections of portions of the normally cynical fourth estate. Unless charisma, as I think it was in the case of Mr. Reagan, or Mrs. Thatcher, or Pope John Paul II, is a function of character, an intrinsic or internal quality of the person, as opposed to a quality of the moment or a press-fevered narrative, it will fade as swiftly and inexplicably as it rises.

Obama’s example, in fact, might be something of a parable, something close to a caution sign, for candidates and electorates. It will not be as easy now that Hope and Change have lost their lustre, and another charismatic politician has proved to be a disappointment, to ride those airy themes again, or to make celebrity and a kind of charisma-light a real engine for any campaign.

National Post

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... president/

[papaguido]

I thought it was an attempt at the accent of West Virginia, Kentucky, rural Ohio or rural Pennsylvania. Bear Bryant, originally from Arkansas with stints in Kentucky and Texas, never spoke like that nor did George Wallace.

By the way, this is not a personal attack of Khun LilRed, it is just a note that his style of writing English is difficult to follow.

Yes sir, I agree and since I'm not fluent in "ghettneck" I find it a tad difficult to follow his post. Much of the time I lose interest after the first sentence.

BTW,

Excellent article, The ordinary president, good read...

[gudtymchuk]

Its called Alabama BS script!

Hmm, what ever lilred attempted writing dialect is, must not be working as I was under the impression he was simulating a cajon...... but as Papa says, after a couple lines his jibberjabber isn't worth trying to decipher.

[papaguido]

Its called Alabama BS script!

Hmm, what ever lilred attempted writing dialect is, must not be working as I was under the impression he was simulating a cajon...... but as Papa says, after a couple lines his jibberjabber isn't worth trying to decipher.

Hmm Cajon...I missed that and probably a better description than ghettneck

[gudtymchuk]

Obama hits a wall in Berlin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... s_opinions

The question of whether Barack Obama’s second term will be a failure was answered in the affirmative before his Berlin debacle, which has recast the question, which now is: Will this term be silly, even scary in its detachment from reality?

Here is an excellent article by that Newfoundlander, Rex Murphy, on the demise in popularity and effectiveness of the Nobel Winning President, Mr. Obama:

Rex Murphy: The ordinary president
13/06/22 | Last Updated: 13/06/21 2:52 PM ET

When candidate Barack Obama visited Berlin to make a speech some five years ago, half the world was in a Hope and Change swoon. Europe loved the yet-to-be president, and the people of Berlin gave an index of just how much. Could any other contender for president even presume to speak — and expect and get a mass audience! — in a foreign capital? They swarmed to candidate Barack, at least 200,000 strong, drawn by the great force of his charisma and the near tidal draw of his startling and almost instant status as a world celebrity.

With both the article posted by WBU and LYM the theme is the same. The persona is fake and the promises are lies. The shine on Obama is gone.

[LilRed]

Alright, gentlemen, I admit it, my use of ebonics in this failed.


So, how about some proper English?


How's this?:

Astana - You well know what my problem with you is. Why don't we leave it up here in the village, between us?


WBU, GTC, and, the rest:

I am not aware that I have any personal problem with any of you.

I do most strongly object to denigrating a standing US President, in this environment. I strongly believe that the manner of your discussion of President Obama, is divisive to the point of helping the bad guys. I served in bad places under 6 different presidents. I saw the results from this sort of diviseness.

Clear enough?


WBU:

About President Obama's use of the drones, your position regarding "due process...", et.al., implies that President Obama's use of the drones has been without "due process...", et. al. Your opinion, but, I don't see even one instance cited. Using the drones overseas in a war is legal, and does NOT require approval by other than the executive branch.

I understand and agree with your concern regarding using drones with AmCits in CONUS. I note that such use has "due process...", et. al. statutory requirements. I have seen no reports, that President Obama has violated the law.

I, am much more concerned about drone use by states, municipalities, and, even, private citizens.

Your position on the drones sure sounds like the Pakis to me:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opini ... hpt=us_mid


atb

[gudtymchuk]

WBU, GTC, and, the rest:

I am not aware that I have any personal problem with any of you.

I do most strongly object to denigrating a standing US President, in this environment. I strongly believe that the manner of your discussion of President Obama, is divisive to the point of helping the bad guys. I served in bad places under 6 different presidents. I saw the results from this sort of diviseness.

Clear enough?

LilRed, here's a NEWS FLASH for in plain English. It's called Freedom of Speech. And Obama is the bad guy! Clear enough?

[WBU ALUM]

Your position on the drones sure sounds like the Pakis to me:

You still don't get it, haven't read it or don't care to get it.

Do this by yourself:

Mai phen lai.

[WBU ALUM]

WBU, GTC, and, the rest:

I am not aware that I have any personal problem with any of you.

I do most strongly object to denigrating a standing US President, in this environment. I strongly believe that the manner of your discussion of President Obama, is divisive to the point of helping the bad guys. I served in bad places under 6 different presidents. I saw the results from this sort of diviseness.

Clear enough?

As for this Marxist Playbook attempt to silence dissent, I refer you to your girl Hillary. She's not the best example, but I figured it would be someone who you would bother to listen to ... It should be crystal clear to you now.



Yes, we have a RIGHT to disagree and debate.

[Quanteen]

I do most strongly object to denigrating a standing US President, in this environment.

Good one!

[merchant seaman]

Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice state that it is a punishable offense to make unfavorable comments by any military member about the Preident, Vice President of the U.S. or any other elected politician. That in itself limits many to be able to say what they believe.

[FrazeeDK]

well, since I am not and never was a commissioned officer during my 21 1/2 years in the military, Article 88 doesn't apply..

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

[WBU ALUM]

All of that is true about the military, but we're not talking about the military. This is a public forum.

Americans have free speech. They have a right to criticize policies with which they don't agree. They have a right to discuss the effectiveness of a president -- In or out of office.

I've never seen those attempting to silence that free speech step up and defend their country when others on the forum attack it. That is telling -- and very inconsistent.

"Our loyalty is due entirely to the United States. It is due to the President only and exactly to the degree in which he efficiently serves the United States. It is our duty to support him when he serves the United States well. It is our duty to oppose him when he serves it badly. This is true about Mr. Wilson now and it has been true about all our Presidents in the past. It is our duty at all times to tell the truth about the President and about every one else, save in the cases where to tell the truth at the moment would benefit the public enemy." - Theodore Roosevelt

[WBU ALUM]

Nancy Pelosi booed, heckled at Netroots Nation 2013
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/n ... 93193.html

Booed for what, you may ask? For defending Barack Obama's surveillance programs. Who was booing? The Left. The base of the Left.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was booed by progressive activists Saturday for defending President Obama on the NSA’s surveillance programs and suggesting that alleged leaker Edward Snowden broke the law…

As Pelosi was saying the country needs a “balance” between security and privacy, Marc Perkel, a 57-year-old activist from Gilroy, Calif., started shouting at Pelosi during her answer and was escorted out of the room.

“It’s not a balance. It’s not constitutional!” he yelled. “No secret laws!”

Others in the room began shouting as well, saying things like “Leave him alone!” or “That’s what a police state looks like right there!”

Nancy has always been a big fan of unfettered free speech, and she got an earful of it at Netroots Nation. And of course, Libs only promote free speech when YOU AGREE WITH THEM. Otherwise, they want you to shut up and get in line -- and be respectful.