[GTA_stu]

Why would Obama allow himself to be photographed looking like that? I've got to say I thought he was an ok leader, but after seeing that picture of him with a Hitler stash and 666 on his forehead and an Islamic symbol on his nose I'm starting to question his judgement.

[EscoLehGo]

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 14:24)

Why would Obama allow himself to be photographed looking like that? I've got to say I thought he was an ok leader, but after seeing that picture of him with a Hitler stash and 666 on his forehead and an Islamic symbol on his nose I'm starting to question his judgement.

Pssshhhh, it's just another pathetic libtard attempt on his part to appeal to everyone, even the fringe groups because he's so "cool" and "ethnic", what a poser.

[Stefche]

The lack of any Jewish symbolism in that photo really makes my blood boil; I thought the mass Zionist pledge to rid the US of any anti-Jewish elements was working quite well, but to put a f*cking star and crescent instead of the Star of David? I mean, what the f*ck is up with that? I hope he hasn't taken down that menorah we placed on George DoubleJew Bush's desk a few years back. If he has, then he's f*cking gone.

[IM_YOUR_GOD]

Sigh*

Do you know what 666 means? i doubt it.

Do you know Hitler stash is not a trademark?

So Obama a Shriner now?

[Vercetti27]

why photoshop the muslim crescent and star on his nose?

[*MURDOC*]

QUOTE (Vercetti27 @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 10:10)

why photoshop the muslim crescent and star on his nose?

The real question is why give him an Oliver Hardy 'stache?

[S5L3T0]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 13:59)

I'll add to this later in relation to specific points, but much of it is factually incorrect. Not that you'd have bothered to check facts when you blatantly plagiarised it, but you should have removed the absolute stinkers (Iraq being the premier amongst those).

Yea, but some of it's correct. And if even 20% of it's correct, why would we trust him to be president? And don't forget about NDAA-If that isn't a violation of our rights, then idk what is.

But..for as bad of a president Obama is, I can't say he's the worst choice. IDK how you can think Obama's bad and then want someone like Romney. It's like the South Park episode, it's hard to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich. The lesser of two evils, I guess? lol

@whatsstrength: Putting up pictures like that makes you look uneducated and throws all of your points out the window. Who's gonna take you seriously if they think it's a 12 year old typing?

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (S5L3T0 @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:52)

Yea, but some of it's correct. And if even 20% of it's correct, why would we trust him to be president?

Is it? I'm not that well-versed on US domestic politics so I can't judge whether some of those are true/accurate, but as an objective observer the idiotic, misleading and entirely inaccurate comments regarding:

>Iraq (correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm not, but this is entirely irrelevant because the US has withdrawn from combat operations in Iraq, and the additional deployments to Iraq were at the behest of military commanders rather than political decisions- and who knows better the strategic realities of a conflict zone than those leading the operations?)

>Afghanistan (again, both surges and increased frequency of combat operations have been at the behest of military figures, and in the context of the strategic aims of the conflict were absolutely vital; have improved the security situation in large parts of the country and were of paramount importance in damaging the combat ability of the Taliban as a cohesive fighting force. What would you rather, a politician who didn't listen to his generals expert opinion on the conduct of a foreign military conflict?)

>UAV strikes (the author of the original piece seems to be of the belief that national interests end at the border- its very difficult for anyone versed on strategic theory to dispute the effectiveness of targeted strikes at severely damaging the leadership and functionality of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, for instance. And as an aside, anyone who refers to them as "drones" clearly has absolutely no idea what they are talking about)

>Yemen (pretty sure that the War Powers Act refers only to formal decelerations of war; UN sanctioned military operations other than war do not require congressional approval and there are numerous case studies to indicate this as the case)

>CIA rendition (the CIA operate largely independently from political influences in their direct action capability, enshrined by law as an "Executive agency" and therefore with the capability to carry out operations without the direct input of any branch of government)

I can safely say that I do not trust the accuracy and validity of any other statements that source makes.

QUOTE (S5L3T0 @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:52)

And don't forget about NDAA-If that isn't a violation of our rights, then idk what is

NDAA Section 1021/2 has been covered extensively in other threads. It poses a legal challenge in the confines of the Geneva Convention (3), Article 4, but does not, as some would have you believe, legitimise detention without trial for infinite periods of time. The issue arises based on the classification of "terrorists" regardless of their nationality of origin as either prisoners of war (in which case, the Geneva Convention permits indefinite detention for as long as a conflict continues) or illegal combatants (who are entitled to no special rights under the Geneva Convention)- the US seems unsure of whether to classify violent non-state actors as legitimate combatants (permitting indefinite detention) or illegal combatants (meaning the laws of the nation of detention are applicable) and that's the only legal issue I can see with it. The fact that detention under these provisos must be carried out by military authorities indicates to me that in this context they are treated as prisoners of war; there is even a caveat indicating that such legislation cannot be applied to US citizens whilst on US soil. ("Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.")

[Irviding]

The war powers act is unconstitutional and no President has ever believed it to be. Please tell me in your own words how it is constitutional. Also tell me why Hilary Clinton's appointment is unconstitutional, once again in your own words, not some link. Hint - if you're claiming the 27th amendment, you're wrong.


The tarp funds were not forced upon banks, they took it willingly. Also note that was under the Bush administration though I support it either way.

QUOTE

28. Converting federal loans to common stock - In a sneaky, underhanded, unconstitutional power play, Obama moved to convert U.S. Federal loans to banking institutions into common stock, effectively nationalizing major portions of the U.S. banking industry.

Yup, allowing capital to be injected into the banks and allowing the government to supervise them more carefully. Go get educated on economics and then come back in here.

Elaborate as to how czars are unconstitutional. In fact, I refuse to address any of these bogus unconstitutionality claims until you come in here and tell us specifically why you believe any of these things to be unconstitutional, otherwise, you've effectively forfeited the claim.

A fascist healthcare system? Please elaborate.

Justify that controlling parts of the census through the white house is unconstitutional. The commerce department did not even exist at the time of the ratifying of the constitution, and all federal departments are under the authority of the President.

Anyone who doesn't want to raise the debt ceiling is dumb.

The President can say whatever he wants about the SCOTUS, and in fact, as he is a constitutional law professor himself, he is fully within his prerogative to rebuke them.

I'm not going trhough all of these. If you're willing to answer the questions I posed, I will be happy to go back and rebuke you on the rest. Otherwise, this combined with sivis' post is enough for now./

[Djdevin10]

<snip>



This post has been edited by Waddy on Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 20:57

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (whatsstrength @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 06:09)

They put Obama in power to complete the globalists' plan for a one world government. They'll be rounding us up for the FEMA camps soon...

congratulations.

you're an idiot.

[zoo3891]

Obama supporters aren't as bad as you paint them. At least they haven't made themselves none as Obamaites. I've never seen an Obama supporter say something like "Mr. Obama will end the war on terror, and fight world hunger before he even glances at big business." Well at least not in the past two years, but that's proabbly for another reason.

[ryuclan]

I fond this thread to be highly ironic seeing how there are two threads on the first page that pretty much deal in bitching about things he's done. It seems to me that who disagree with him and what he does are the ones who are annoying and borderline full of sh*t. Granted there are many valid reasons to not support obama but you artards are too busy playing "who has the largest gas leak" to change anyone's minds on the matter. And "voted in because he's black" sh*t is getting annoying as well. Its too late now to even care. Anyway stop googling "obama's bad m'kay" and form your own opinions.

[Moonshield]

Hope? MORE LIKE NOPE, RIGHT! HIGH FIVE WHATSSTRENGTH HANNITY!