Quantcast

How they view Obama overseas - just recieved the forwarded email.

Mike56 2012/05/02 22:35:50
You!
Add Photos & Videos
This is translation of a funny story about Obama, circulating in Eastern Europe:

At a meeting with the Queen of England, Barack Obama, asks her: "Your Majesty,
how do you create an effective government? Is there any advice you can give me?
Well, said the queen," the most important thing - surround yourself with smart people.Obama frowned, and then asked: "How do I know that people around me
really smart?
Took a sip of tea, the Queen replies: "Oh, it's easy. You just
ask them to solve the intellectual puzzle. "Queen of the presses
intercom button. Please send Tony Blair here.
Tony Blair walks into the room and said, "Yes, my queen?"
The Queen smiled and said: "Tell me, please, Tony - your
mother and father have a child. This is not your brother or your sister ...
Who is it? "Without hesitating for a moment, Tony Blair replied:" It would be I"
"Yes, very well," said the Queen.

Obama returns home and asks Joe Biden, his vice
President, the same question: "Joe, please answer this question for me.
Your mother and father have a child. This is not your brother or your sister... Who is it? "
"I'm not sure," said Biden. "Let me get back to you later on
this issue. "He goes to his advisors and asks everyone, but
no one can give him an answer. Finally, he finds himself in the men's room,
and recognizes Colin Powell's shoes in the next stall.
Biden asked Powell: "Colin, if you can solve for me
this problem? Your mother and father have a child. This is not your brother and it is not
Your sister ... Who is it? "
Colin Powell yells: "It's simple: - It's me."
Biden smiles and says, "Thank you." Then he goes back to Obama.
"So I did some research and I have a response to this
puzzle. This is - Colin Powell! "
Obama stands up, jumps up to Biden, and angrily yells into his face:
"No, you idiot! ... It's Tony Blair!"

На встрече с королевой Англии Барак Обама спрашивает ее: "Вашe
Величество, как вы создаете такое эффективное правительство? Есть ли
какие – либо советы, которые вы можете дать мне?
"Ну, говорит королева", самое главное - окружить себя умными людьми ".
Обама нахмурился, а потом спросил: "Откуда я знаю, что люди вокруг меня
действительно умны?
Сделав глоток чая, королева отвечает: "О, это просто. Вы только
попросите их разгадать интеллектуальную загадку. "Королева нажимает на
кнопку переговорного устройства. Пожалуйста, пришлите сюда Тони Блэра.
Тони Блэр входит в комнату и говорит: "Да, моя королева?"
Королева улыбается и говорит: "Ответьте мне, пожалуйста, Тони - Ваши
мать и отец имеют ребенка. Это не Ваш брат и это не Ваша сестра ...
Кто это? " Не задумываясь ни на минуту, Тони Блэр отвечает: "Это был
бы я".
"Да! Очень хорошо", говорит Королева.

Обама возвращается домой и задает Джо Байдену, своему вице
-президенту, тот же вопрос: "Джо, ответьте на этот вопрос для меня.
Ваши мать и отец имеют ребенка. Это не Ваш брат и это не Ваша сестра
... Кто это? "
"Я не уверен", говорит Байден. "Позвольте мне вернуться к вам позже по
этому вопросу". Он идет к его советникам и спрашивает каждого, но
никто не может дать ему ответ. Наконец, он попадает в мужской туалет,
и по обуви узнает Колина Пауэлла в соседней кабинке.
Байден спрашивает Пауэлла: "Колин, можете ли вы ответить для меня на
этот вопрос? Ваши мать и отец имеют ребенка. Это не Ваш брат и это не
Ваша сестра ... Кто это? "
Колин Пауэлл кричит: "Это просто: - Это я!".
Байден улыбается, и говорит: "Спасибо". Тогда он возвращается к Обаме.
"Так вот, я провел небольшое исследование и у меня есть ответ на эту
загадку. Это - Колин Пауэлл! "
Обама встает, подскакивает к Байдену и сердито кричит ему в лицо:
"Нет! Вы идиот! ... Это Тони Блэр!"
obama kissing
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Cal 2012/05/02 23:27:02
    They know what real Obama is worth
    Cal
    +29
    Our allies think Obama is a joke.....

    We think Obama is a joke...

    The sheeple can't seem to figure it out, they keep missing the memo.....

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Veni Vidi dallas 2012/05/05 07:03:05
    Veni Vidi
    I don't think you understood my point.
    I am saying that during Clintons administration, he was trying all the time to kill OBL, but the republicans were criticizing him for it.
    When W. came to power, after 9/11 he just plainly said he was not going after OBL and nobody cared.
  • dallas Veni Vidi 2012/05/05 07:20:10
  • Mike56 dallas 2012/05/05 10:08:06
    Mike56
    if the attack happened in Sept 1993, that would have been mostly Bush-father's fault. After 8 years of Clinton's appeasment of Islamo-Nazis, he earned the bulk of responsibilities for the 9-11
  • Veni Vidi dallas 2012/05/05 16:22:14
    Veni Vidi
    Well, first attack on US soil masterminded by OBL did happen just thirty-six days after Clinton took office (a car bomb under the Tower One of WTC). But nobody at the time knew it was OBL. Clinton proposed new counter terrorism legislation, increased the budget enormously, assigned best and the brightest to find out what happened, established a special unit of officers to analyze intelligence received about bin Laden and plan operations against him, coined the "Bin Laden Issue Station".... and did his best to kill OBL. One strike missed him just by few hours, while others were cancelled due to too high collateral damage. You know, women, children and innocent bystanders.

    And all the time republicans were claiming that he is doing that just to divert attention from that idiotic invented "scandal" with Monica Lewinsky. They did all they could to stop him from hunting OBL and now they dare to say he didn't do enough.

    The point is that Clinton did everything he could, in spite of the republicans who tried to stop him.

    W. stopped looking for OBL a month or two after 9/11 and told everybody he didn't care if he lives or dies, effectively pardoning OBL. And according to the republicans, that is no problem.

    So when Obama started looking for OBL again, found him and killed him, suddenly ...

    Well, first attack on US soil masterminded by OBL did happen just thirty-six days after Clinton took office (a car bomb under the Tower One of WTC). But nobody at the time knew it was OBL. Clinton proposed new counter terrorism legislation, increased the budget enormously, assigned best and the brightest to find out what happened, established a special unit of officers to analyze intelligence received about bin Laden and plan operations against him, coined the "Bin Laden Issue Station".... and did his best to kill OBL. One strike missed him just by few hours, while others were cancelled due to too high collateral damage. You know, women, children and innocent bystanders.

    And all the time republicans were claiming that he is doing that just to divert attention from that idiotic invented "scandal" with Monica Lewinsky. They did all they could to stop him from hunting OBL and now they dare to say he didn't do enough.

    The point is that Clinton did everything he could, in spite of the republicans who tried to stop him.

    W. stopped looking for OBL a month or two after 9/11 and told everybody he didn't care if he lives or dies, effectively pardoning OBL. And according to the republicans, that is no problem.

    So when Obama started looking for OBL again, found him and killed him, suddenly it was W.'s achievement. The guy who never looked for OBL was credited with killing him, while the guy that killed him is accused of not being thankful to W. who pardoned OBL. They are outrages.

    Republicans: always on the wrong side of history.
    (more)
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/10/25 15:22:16
    Mike56
    W. stopped looking for OBL a month or two after 9/11" --- another lie of yours - he was locked in Tora-Bora in Dec.
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/11/08 16:55:50
    Veni Vidi
    No, I don't lie. I leave that to you.
    Here is Collin Powell's former chief of staff who went on record to say W was not interested in capturing OBL.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rawre...

    In 2006, conservative Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes told Hannity’s Fox News that in a recent meeting with Bush, the president had told him “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said Bush told him that capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”

    And just six months after 9/11, Bush suggested in a press conference that Bin Laden was not a top priority for his administration. Asked whether Bush thought capturing Bin Laden was important, Bush scolded those who cared about Bin Laden for not “understand[ing] the scope of the mission” because Bin Laden was just “one person,” whom Bush said, “I really just don’t spend that much time on“: Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

    You can watch it your...
    No, I don't lie. I leave that to you.
    Here is Collin Powell's former chief of staff who went on record to say W was not interested in capturing OBL.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rawre...

    In 2006, conservative Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes told Hannity’s Fox News that in a recent meeting with Bush, the president had told him “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said Bush told him that capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”

    And just six months after 9/11, Bush suggested in a press conference that Bin Laden was not a top priority for his administration. Asked whether Bush thought capturing Bin Laden was important, Bush scolded those who cared about Bin Laden for not “understand[ing] the scope of the mission” because Bin Laden was just “one person,” whom Bush said, “I really just don’t spend that much time on“: Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

    You can watch it yourself. This conference in only 6 MONTHS after 9/11
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    (more)
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/11/12 18:15:30
    Mike56
    Indeed, Islamo-Nazism has been much larger threat than the trapped in the caves sick criminal. Since Obama is not willing to fight his Islamist opinion allies, on the contrary, he is personally delivering them one "victory" after another, he was interested in that symbolic “killing”. That didn’t cause any serious damage to terrorism and Islamo-Nazism, but boosted the pathetic “president’s” political score.
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/05/05 10:09:03
    Mike56
    "the republicans were criticizing him for it" ------ not for trying but rather for faking the efforts.
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/05/05 16:25:59
    Veni Vidi
    You are such a liar...

    Here, educate yourself.

    On February 26, 1993—thirty-six days after Clinton took office, terrorists who the CIA would later reveal were working under the direction of Osama bin Laden detonated a timed car bomb in the parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. (See World Trade Center bombing) Clinton responded by ordering his National Security Council, under the direction of Anthony Lake, and the FBI to find and punish those responsible. The FBI was able to quickly identify the vehicle used in the bomb from a remnant found in the rubble: a Ryder rental van, which had been reported stolen in Jersey City, New Jersey the day before. The truck was rented by Mohammed Salameh, whom the FBI immediately detained. Similar evidence led to the arrests of other plotters behind the attack, including Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ahmad Ajaj, and Ramzi Yousef—who was identified as the key player in the bombing. All men were tried and convicted for the bombing and other terrorists activities.

    In his 1995 State of the Union address, Clinton proposed "comprehensive legislation to strengthen our hand in combating terrorists, whether they strike at home or abroad." He sent legislation to Congress to extend federal criminal jurisdiction, make it...
































    You are such a liar...

    Here, educate yourself.

    On February 26, 1993—thirty-six days after Clinton took office, terrorists who the CIA would later reveal were working under the direction of Osama bin Laden detonated a timed car bomb in the parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. (See World Trade Center bombing) Clinton responded by ordering his National Security Council, under the direction of Anthony Lake, and the FBI to find and punish those responsible. The FBI was able to quickly identify the vehicle used in the bomb from a remnant found in the rubble: a Ryder rental van, which had been reported stolen in Jersey City, New Jersey the day before. The truck was rented by Mohammed Salameh, whom the FBI immediately detained. Similar evidence led to the arrests of other plotters behind the attack, including Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ahmad Ajaj, and Ramzi Yousef—who was identified as the key player in the bombing. All men were tried and convicted for the bombing and other terrorists activities.

    In his 1995 State of the Union address, Clinton proposed "comprehensive legislation to strengthen our hand in combating terrorists, whether they strike at home or abroad." He sent legislation to Congress to extend federal criminal jurisdiction, make it easier to deport terrorists, and act against terrorist fund-raising.
    Following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Clinton amended that legislation to increase wiretap and electronic surveillance authority for the FBI, require explosives to be equipped with traceable taggants, and appropriate more funds to the FBI, CIA, and local police.

    In June 1995, Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 39, which stated that the United States "should deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens." Furthermore, it called terrorism both a "matter of national security" and a crime. The implementation of his proposals led to a substantial increase in counter-terrorism funds for the FBI and CIA.

    In 1996, the CIA established a special unit of officers to analyze intelligence received about bin Laden and plan operations against him, coined the "Bin Laden Issue Station". It was this unit that first realized bin Laden was more than just a terrorist financier, but a leader of a global network with operations based in Afghanistan. Given these findings, the NSC encouraged the Department of State to "pay more attention" to Afghanistan and its governing unit, the Taliban, which had received funding from bin Laden. The State Department requested the Taliban to expel bin Laden from the country, noting that he was a sponsor of terrorism and publicly urged Muslims to kill Americans. The Taliban responded that they did not know his whereabouts and, even if they did, he was "not a threat to the United States." The CIA's counter-terrorism division quickly began drafting plans to capture and remove bin Laden from the country. However, Marine General Anthony Zinni and some in the State Department protested the move, saying that the United States should focus instead on ending the Afghan civil war and the Taliban's human rights abuses.

    In 1998, Clinton appointed Richard Clarke—who until then served in a drugs and counter-terrorism division of the CIA—to lead an interagency comprehensive counter-terrorism operation, the Counter-terrorism Security Group (CSG). The goal of the CSG was to "detect, deter, and defend against" terrorist attacks. Additionally, Clinton appointed Clarke to sit on the cabinet-level Principals Committee when it met on terrorism issues.

    Clinton’s Counter-terrorism Center began drafting a plan to ambush bin Laden’s compound in Kandahar. The CIA mapped the compound and identified the houses of bin Laden’s wives and the location where he most likely slept. The plan was relatively simple, at least on paper. Tribals would “subdue” the guards, enter the compound, take bin Laden to a desert outside Kandahar, and hand him over to another group of tribals. This second group would carry him to a desert landing strip—which had already been tested—where a CIA plane would take him to New York for arraignment. When they completed a draft plan, they ran through two rehearsals in the United States. Confident that the plan would work, the Counter-terrorism Center of the CIA sought the approval of the White House. While they acknowledged that the plan was risky, they stated that there was “a risk in not acting” because “sooner or later, bin Laden will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD.”

    Clarke reviewed the plans for Sandy Berger, the National Security Director, and told him that it was in the “very early stages of development” and stressed the importance of only targeting bin Laden, not the entire compound. The NSC told the CIA to begin preparing the necessary legal documents to execute the raid.

    The senior management of the CIA was skeptical of the plan, and despite objections, canceled the operation, fearing that the risk to their operatives and financial costs were too high. It is unclear whether or not Clinton was aware of the plan.

    As the Counter-terrorism Center continued to track bin Laden, they learned in 1998 that the Saudi government had bin Laden cells within the country that were planning attacks on U.S. forces. CIA Director George Tenet, encouraged by the Saudi’s show of force against bin Laden, asked them to assist in the fight against bin Laden. Clinton named Tenet as his informal “personal representative” to work with Saudi Arabia on terrorism. The Saudis promised Tenet that they would do everything they could to convince the Taliban to release bin Laden for trial in America or elsewhere. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, held various meetings with Taliban chief Mullah Omar and other leaders and received assurance that bin Laden would be removed. Omar, however, reneged on that promise.

    On August 7, 1998, Bin Laden struck again, this time with simultaneous bombings on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. (see above) The CIA, having confirmed bin Laden was behind the attack, informed Clinton that terrorist leaders were planning to meet at a camp near Khowst, to plan future attacks. According to Tenet, “several hundred,” including bin Laden, would attend. On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sundan, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by “a few hours.”

    At the time of the attacks, Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal (see below). This led many Republicans in Congress to accuse the president of “wagging the dog”—launching a military attack simply to distract the public from his personal problems. Clinton and his principals, however, insist that the decision was made solely on the basis of national security.

    After the attacks failed, Clinton moved his focus to diplomatic pressure. On the advice of the State Department, Clinton encouraged Pakistan, whose military intelligence agency was a patron of the Taliban, to pressure the Taliban to remove bin Laden. After numerous meetings with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani’s would still not cooperate.[39] Sharif eventually agreed to allow the United States to train Pakistani special forces to find bin Laden. When Sharif was ousted by Pervez Musharraf, the plan was abandoned.

    After encouragement by Richard Clarke, Clinton issued an executive order in July 1999 declaring the Taliban regime as a state sponsor of terrorism. This was followed in October 1999 by Resolution 1267 sponsored by the United States placing economic and travel sanctions on the Taliban. The Taliban, however, stood by bin Laden, and the United States, along with Russia, proposed yet another UN resolution (Resolution 1333), this time imposing an embargo an arms shipments to the Taliban. The move was meant to weaken the Taliban in their fight against the Northern Alliance in their civil strife. However, the resolution did little to limit the illegal flow of arms from Pakistan.

    In August 1999, Clinton signed a Memorandum of Notification ordering the CIA to develop another plan to capture bin Laden, and giving the CIA the authority to order bin Laden be killed.

    Near the end of 1999, the Clinton administration, working with the government of Jordan, detected and thwarted a planned terrorist attack to detonate bombs at various New Year millennium celebrations around the world. The CIA confirmed that bin Laden was behind the plot, which was disrupted just days before the New Year. While many credited Clinton’s new CSG for playing a role in the foiling of these plots, critics claim it was “mostly luck.”

    The CIA informed Clinton that they feared the thwarted attacks were just part of a larger series of attacks planned for the new year. Clinton asked Clarke and the CSG to draft plans to “deter and disrupt” al Qaeda attacks.

    On October 12, 2000, terrorists bombed the USS Cole in the harbor of the Yemeni port of Aden. The attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67), a U.S. Navy destroyer, killed 17 Navy sailors, and there was no clear indication during the last months of Clinton’s term of who was responsible. The CIA reported that they had "no definitive answer on [the] crucial question of outside direction of the attack—how and by whom. Clinton did not think it would be wise to launch an attack based on a "preliminary judgment," stating that he would have taken further action had he received definitive intelligence. The CIA was eventually able to confirm bin Laden’s involvement with certainty a week after the Bush administration took office.

    As Clinton’s second term drew to a close, the CSG drafted a comprehensive policy paper entitled “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects.” http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/... The paper outlined a method to “roll back” al Qaeda over “a period of three to five years.” Clarke stated that while “continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent some attacks, [it] will not seriously attrit their ability to plan and conduct attacks." This policy paper was forwarded to the incoming Bush administration.
    (more)
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/05/05 17:21:31
    Mike56
    +1
    Hey, "Belgian", they hired you to pretend you are "objective", but you are acting as a domestic Obama cheerleader which most likely you are.

    "Clarke stated that while “continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent some attacks, [it] will not seriously attrit their ability to plan and conduct attacks." ------- to translate into normal language it means: "we failed miserably in our attempts to do something meaningful against Usama". Sure, meaningless strikes like one against the pharmaceutical plant did little.
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/05/06 11:14:43
    Veni Vidi
    Hey, moron (no inverted comma's needed since that is an accurate description of you, not ironic)

    Clark was saying that more needs to be done in a paper given to Bush. Not less, like Bush did until 9/11.

    So in your twisted minds, arguing that more needs to be done equals arguing that less needs to be done?

    What is wrong with you?
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/05/06 15:50:23
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/05/10 11:14:47
    Veni Vidi
    You mean like Bush who failed to capture OBL?
    Microchips inserted under my scull? WTF???
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/05/14 08:53:45
    Mike56
    Yes, the very microchips that prompt you to repeat the Obamanoid crap.
    No president ever "captured" a terrorist. Unlike Obama, Bush was creating the anti-terror structures, while the Islamism-sympathizer Obama was "present" at best. Even if Obama’s low ratings forced him to talk about the “anti-terrorist” activities, he deserves no credit for what he was opposing to.
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/08/08 20:33:25
    Veni Vidi
    So when Bush repeatedly said that he was not interested in OBL, he was doing his best to capture him, but when Obama decided to go after OBL, to send the Seal team 6, that is just an accident.
    You are a typical republican voter. Uninformed and paranoid.
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/08/08 22:54:00
    Mike56
    Only an idiot would reveal his attitude towards a secret operation. Bush needed to fool terrorists who Obama has been sympathizing (and even befriending a terrorist fundraiser).. When at last the Bush era plans came to fruition - the pacifist/obstructionist dared to take credit.

    You are a typical leftist voter: zombified, unfair and prone to credit your deity with deeds he has nothing to do with, at best.
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/08/17 13:05:15
    Veni Vidi
    Ha ha ha, if Bush was secretly going after OBL, why didn't he get him? He had plenty of time. Bush didn't have to hide the fact he was going or not going after OBL. Obama stated it publicly very very often and then got him. It clearly had no influence on his ability to kill OBL.
    Just so you know: Obama killed OBL. Not Bush. Obama killed OBL.

    Speaking about fair: You say that Obama inherited the tools to get OBL, so it is Bush's credit.
    Obama also inherited a mess and disastrous economy from Bush, but that is somehow Obama's fault?
    And you say I am unfair...
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/09/23 03:13:48
    Mike56
    You can repeat the crap whatever times you want - it is still crap. Obama been lying havent kill anybody but maybe his homosexual partners. You as every leftist fail to say what was the Obama's role in the operation. It took time before the Bush's preparations brought fruit. So Obama just took the credit he haven't deserved and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
    As for the "mess he inherited" - his "measures" have been counterproductive so far.
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/09/28 15:37:08
    Veni Vidi
    Bush publicly said many times that he doesn't care about Osama and he was not hunting him down anymore.
    Obama killed Osama BL and no amount of BS from you can change that.
    Are you seriously believe that Obama had gay partners and then killed them? You are seriously delusional.

    If it were not for the obstructionist Republican congress, things would have been much better. They have stopped any legislation that would create more jobs, even when they wrote it, just because Obama endorsed it.
    You can thank your republicans you vote for for the mess.
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/09/28 20:18:33
    Mike56
    Yes, Bush underestimated the extent to which the shameful "media" is a slave to the Demn Party. He was supposed to work on PR – the way the pathetic Obama does.
    Any person with at least some functioning brain understands that was never in charge of millions fanatics and after the Bush assigned units isolated his gangs, he had become rather a symbol than something more. Remember, Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan never committed any act, unlike Taliban.

    Obama who is afraid of guns, cannot “kill” any terrorist, he only could order a hit on his homosexual playmates and to destroy the US economy. He could nod at best – but most likely Usama was dead long ago, as a result of hepatitis he was not able to heal in the isolation. We both know that Obama is a cheater and liar and we cannot rule out anything.
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/10/01 12:56:52
    Veni Vidi
    You are really seriously delusional. It would take one page to debunk every of your paranoid ideas, but I am just going to tell you shortly where you are wrong.
    Everywhere.
    1) Obama is afraid of guns?
    Obama has signed two laws about guns.
    One that allows guns in national parks and another one allowing guns on trains. If he were a dictator hell-bent on restricting 2 amendment, EXPANDING gun rights seems to be a very strange move.

    2) When Clinton was president, republican were attacking him for being obsessed with Osama Bin Laden.
    Then Bush ignored numerous intelligence memo's and info and allowed worse attack on American soil since Pearl Harbour. Then Obama killed the one that is responsible for it, but it is somehow Bush's achievement that OBL is dead? Bush focused entirely on Iraq and used 9/11 as a bait to lure Americans into supporting his unprovoked invasion.

    3) Bin Laden was dead long ago? Do you mind telling the rest of us where do you get this information from? Because even the Navy Seals talk about how they killed OBL. You just pull crazy paranoid stuff out of your a$$ and expect the rest of us somehow find you credible?
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/10/03 14:17:40
    Mike56
    I can only guess what you do in Belgium and why you are fanatically pro-Obama. Cannot rule out you are sitting at a mosque and defending from over there the favorite of Islamists.

    1. As an ultimate coward (he is even scared of the servile “journalist corps” members) Obama is afraid of everything, including fists and kicks, not to mention guns. So, your “he killed” sounds childish, at best.
    As for the big picture, regarding Obama’s attitude towards guns, here is the site for you with all the references. http://www.ontheissues.org/Do...
    I would appreciate if you give me the links to prove your unbelievable story about Obama “expanding gun rights”

    2. Clinton was obsessed with sex and good stock records, not Usama. That is why he failed repeatedly in taking care of business, but created the costly deflecting noise instead - and that is why he was criticized. Unlike in Libya (when Obama’s administration really ignored the useful intelligence), there was nothing to work with for Bush administration in 2001. Well, no doubt Bush should be reprimanded for unwillingness to get rid of the Clintons’ inept and complacent staff. I challenged numerous “liberals” to clarify what was Obama’s personal role in a small unit operation – all of you failed to answer.
    3. Soldiers are only allo...
    I can only guess what you do in Belgium and why you are fanatically pro-Obama. Cannot rule out you are sitting at a mosque and defending from over there the favorite of Islamists.

    1. As an ultimate coward (he is even scared of the servile “journalist corps” members) Obama is afraid of everything, including fists and kicks, not to mention guns. So, your “he killed” sounds childish, at best.
    As for the big picture, regarding Obama’s attitude towards guns, here is the site for you with all the references. http://www.ontheissues.org/Do...
    I would appreciate if you give me the links to prove your unbelievable story about Obama “expanding gun rights”

    2. Clinton was obsessed with sex and good stock records, not Usama. That is why he failed repeatedly in taking care of business, but created the costly deflecting noise instead - and that is why he was criticized. Unlike in Libya (when Obama’s administration really ignored the useful intelligence), there was nothing to work with for Bush administration in 2001. Well, no doubt Bush should be reprimanded for unwillingness to get rid of the Clintons’ inept and complacent staff. I challenged numerous “liberals” to clarify what was Obama’s personal role in a small unit operation – all of you failed to answer.
    3. Soldiers are only allowed to talk publicly about what their commanders agree with. Want me to remind you who the lying commander-in-chief is right now?
    (more)
  • Mike56 Mike56 2012/10/03 14:36:07
    Mike56
    I can only guess what you do in Belgium and why you are fanatically pro-Obama. Cannot rule out you are sitting at a mosque and defending from there the favorite of Islamists aka Mr. 0.

    1. As an ultimate coward (he is even scared of the servile “journalist corps” members) Obama is afraid of everything, including fists and kicks, not to mention guns. So, your “he killed” sounds childish, at best.
    As for the big picture, regarding Obama’s attitude towards guns, here is the site for you with all the references. http://www.ontheissues.org/Do...
    I would appreciate if you give me the links to prove your unbelievable story about Obama “expanding gun rights”

    2. Clinton was obsessed with sex and good stock records, not Usama. That is why he failed repeatedly in taking care of business, but created the costly deflecting noise instead - and that is why he was criticized. Unlike in Libya (when Obama’s administration really ignored the useful intelligence), there was nothing to work with for Bush administration in 2001. Well, no doubt Bush should be reprimanded for unwillingness to get rid of the Clintons’ inept and complacent staff. I challenged numerous “liberals” to clarify what was Obama’s personal role in a small unit operation – all of you failed to answer.
    3. Soldiers are only...


    I can only guess what you do in Belgium and why you are fanatically pro-Obama. Cannot rule out you are sitting at a mosque and defending from there the favorite of Islamists aka Mr. 0.

    1. As an ultimate coward (he is even scared of the servile “journalist corps” members) Obama is afraid of everything, including fists and kicks, not to mention guns. So, your “he killed” sounds childish, at best.
    As for the big picture, regarding Obama’s attitude towards guns, here is the site for you with all the references. http://www.ontheissues.org/Do...
    I would appreciate if you give me the links to prove your unbelievable story about Obama “expanding gun rights”

    2. Clinton was obsessed with sex and good stock records, not Usama. That is why he failed repeatedly in taking care of business, but created the costly deflecting noise instead - and that is why he was criticized. Unlike in Libya (when Obama’s administration really ignored the useful intelligence), there was nothing to work with for Bush administration in 2001. Well, no doubt Bush should be reprimanded for unwillingness to get rid of the Clintons’ inept and complacent staff. I challenged numerous “liberals” to clarify what was Obama’s personal role in a small unit operation – all of you failed to answer.
    3. Soldiers are only allowed to talk publicly about what their commanders agree with. Want me to remind you who the lying commander-in-chief is right now?
    Here is one of many accounts about Usama’s death.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/...
    (more)
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/10/17 13:22:38
    Veni Vidi
    You really are paranoid, aren't you?
    Everybody that doesn't come to the same uninformed conclusion like you is a terrorist. That is just how your warped mind works.

    Here is a link about Obama (and Romney) gun stands:
    http://www.businessinsider.co...
    It is written by Patrick Jonsson who writes for Christian Science Monitor, hardly a Democratic bastion.
    He also said about Obama: "Indeed, the only gun-control laws he has signed as president have been to expand gun rights – allowing guns on national park lands and Amtrak trains."
    So, according to you, guns are not allowed in national parks and trains? Because if they are, it is because Obama allowed it.

    It is plain and simple, Obama has signed only two gun laws, both expending the rights of the owner.


    Your paranoia is only matched by your ignorance.
    Bill Clinton was trying to fight Osama Bin Laden, but the Republicans claimed all the time that he is just trying to get out of Lewinsky affair (and those are just examples, there are many more):

    Sen. Dan Coats
    Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."


    ...
























    You really are paranoid, aren't you?
    Everybody that doesn't come to the same uninformed conclusion like you is a terrorist. That is just how your warped mind works.

    Here is a link about Obama (and Romney) gun stands:
    http://www.businessinsider.co...
    It is written by Patrick Jonsson who writes for Christian Science Monitor, hardly a Democratic bastion.
    He also said about Obama: "Indeed, the only gun-control laws he has signed as president have been to expand gun rights – allowing guns on national park lands and Amtrak trains."
    So, according to you, guns are not allowed in national parks and trains? Because if they are, it is because Obama allowed it.

    It is plain and simple, Obama has signed only two gun laws, both expending the rights of the owner.


    Your paranoia is only matched by your ignorance.
    Bill Clinton was trying to fight Osama Bin Laden, but the Republicans claimed all the time that he is just trying to get out of Lewinsky affair (and those are just examples, there are many more):

    Sen. Dan Coats
    Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."


    GOP Activist Paul Weyrich
    Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote "is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress."

    Wall St. Journal Editorial Board
    "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment"

    Sen. Trent Lott, GOP Majority Leader
    "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

    Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY)
    "Never underestimate a desperate president," said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). "What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?"

    Rep. Tillie Folwer (R-Fla)
    "It is certainly rather suspicious timing," said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). "I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office."

    Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum
    First, it is a "wag the dog" public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the "life is truer than fiction" movie Wag the Dog. The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to "move on" from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command.

    Jim Hoagland, Washington Post
    "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing. ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa"

    Byron York, National Review
    Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called "wag the dog" strategy.

    Wall St. Journal editorial
    "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached"
    (more)
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/10/17 14:17:24 (edited)
    Mike56
    Speaking of ignorance - it is all about you. As an apparent political ignoramus (who else is going to back Obama nowadays?) - you judge the paper by its name - and fail laughably. CSM is one of the "liberal " (in the American meaning of this word) rugs at the moment. Educate yourself.

    As for the real Obama standing on the gun rights, he decided to show his true colors during the last debate (since his resent insincere pandering to gun owners didn’t bring pay off he was seeking).

    If it is too complicated for you to grasp, I can repeat: Clinton was reprimanded for acting on every step pertaining to anti-terrorism as if he was just unwillingly doing some smog-screen work to distract from his personal problems.
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/10/25 10:03:09
    Veni Vidi
    He he, Clinton was doing some smog-screen work? Do you think he used sulfur dioxide?
    And Clinton had personality problems? You mean personal problems? Because it is rather his attacker, Newt who had personality problems, leaving his wives in hospital beds and attacking Clinton for the same thing he received on a parking lot from his mistress.
    If you pretend to be smart, try not to use big words because you don't know how to use them.

    You are just paranoid. Obama expanded gun rights, but he gets attacked as anti-gun. You live in Fox new land where facts and logic gets stored in an underground bunker at the border.
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/10/25 12:17:13
    Mike56
    OK, “personal problems” would be more suitable, you are right, .

    If Newt was a President- he would have been crucified by the Demns, even though there were no as hard evidence regarding him as it was against Clinton - we both know that,

    As for your lying “president Obama”, one has to be either mentally sick, or stupid, or racist or extremely ill-intended in order to root for him. Choose what fits better in your case.

    Well, if FOX has storage for facts and logic somewhere, according to your own words, your “sources” have been notorious for making truth and knowledge their # 1 enemies and are killing any facts as “no stories”. BTW, in Belgium, are you one of Obama’s truth assassins?
    You, “liberals”, and incompatible with facts and logic
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/10/25 14:50:40
    Veni Vidi
    Newt is a family values man, and yet he was cheating on his wives left and right. Clinton never run on family values, so when Newt is called on his family values, it is only normal to point out his hypocrisy.
    What do you mean, there is no evidence about Newt leaving his wife while in hospital, or getting a BJ on the parking lot by his mistress? There is no evidence? On Mars perhaps...

    And then you accuse me of lying. What is it that I lied about? That Obama signed only two gun laws, both expending the rights of the owners?
    Can you please find a source where it says he signed other laws narrowing the rights of the gun owners? If you correct me, I'll be happy to say I was wrong. But if you can't, you will just prove that you are lying through your teeth.
    Of course you have to call me names, you have nothing else in you. No facts, no arguments, just name calling.

    And no, I am not a truth assassin, I don't work for the Fox News. Do you know why don't they have Fox News in Canada? Because they are not allowed to knowingly lie there.
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/10/25 15:15:33 (edited)
    Mike56
    Crap, crap and crap – that is what you seem to enjoy posting. You are telling me with a straight face that infidelity is an official Demn Party position? Yes, the leftism is pretty close to “moral relativism” and they are ready to justify anything, including crimes – but they haven’t succeeded in abolishing elections yet, so they have to pander to the electorate, those “damn moralists”, So, they have to pretend they are upholding the same values the mainstream Americans do. I have to repeat: you have nothing but rumors against Newt – and he didn’t lie under oath - Bill did. And he was hammered about his eagerness to lie, not for adultery per se. You are also lying that you haven’t known that.

    If they had the WORKING law in Canada that prohibits lying, they would have left without media, because it is totally leftist in there, aka deceitful. I once received a response from a leading TV corporation, informing me that my protest about their lies was discussed on the board. The reason they do not allow FOX is that they know they would lose in the competition, as the arrogant US monsters lost to the underdog FOX 10 years ago. Similarly, none of the US banks is allowed in Russia – they have 20% and highre mortgage rates over there currently.
  • Veni Vidi Mike56 2012/11/08 17:08:42
    Veni Vidi
    Why do you have to spin everything I say? Of course I am not saying that "infidelity is an official Demn Party position". Stop lying already if you want a conversation.
    I am saying that many Republicans run on morality and family values only to be found with their boyfriends or girlfriends somewhere in flagranti. I don't care if they have boyfriends of girlfriends on the side, but that exposes them as hypocrites. That is the problem, their hypocrisy. But you can just keep on pretending you don't understand that.
    Bill Clinton is more of a family man than Newt - even though he and Hillary had obviously marital problems, they are still married to each other. They did what they had to do and the marriage held it together.

    In order for Fox to operate in the USA, they had to go to the court to win their right to lie. And you know, I am fine that they are lying. But they just can't call themselves news agency when they are clearly the propaganda outlet for the Republicans. That is all.
  • Mike56 Veni Vidi 2012/11/12 18:26:33
    Mike56
    I just asked you a question that highlights the ridiculousness of your "argument". Calling the pathological womanizer Clinton a “family man” is the embodiment of hypocrisy the left are all about. Unlike Newt, who was in serious relations with a woman he loved, your “family man” just couldn’t stop spreading semen, even while in the Oval Office.
    And as a hard core ideologue, you apparently are saying that all the lies that go through the Demn mouthpieces like MSNBC, NYT, huff-puff, etc., are “truth”, right?
  • goatman... Veni Vidi 2012/05/04 22:30:02
    goatman112003
    Clinton would not sign the Finding which is in intelligence terms the authorization to kill him. Running your mouth is fine if you believe him but the dotted line said the truth.
  • Veni Vidi goatman... 2012/05/05 06:52:30
    Veni Vidi
    +1
    You are lying through your teeth.

    In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:
    In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

    . . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afg...
    You are lying through your teeth.

    In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:
    In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

    . . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.
    (more)
  • dallas goatman... 2012/05/05 07:21:33
  • Mike56 dallas 2012/05/05 10:09:40
    Mike56
    Obama did not either.
  • dallas Mike56 2012/05/05 15:15:55 (edited)
  • Mike56 dallas 2012/05/05 15:51:37
    Mike56
    It is not really - it is surreally, the anti-military "Commander in Chief". Bush did the hiring, not the pacifist Islamist sympathizer
  • dallas Mike56 2012/05/05 15:58:48
  • Mike56 dallas 2012/05/05 17:24:48
    Mike56
    Your Alobama is a hummingbird then, who never missed a chance to befriend anti-American terrorists and just hateful thugs.
  • dallas goatman... 2012/05/05 11:19:35

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/01 13:17:01

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals