It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama won, get over it

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Yes, please type slower, you seem to be hung up on a "loaded gun". Who or what has a "loaded gun"? I think you are trying to tell me, you saw something illegal. If that be the case, report it to the proper authorties or,..... get over it!

You OB supporters are a real crack up. You say, "OB won the presidency get over it". What you fail to understand and acknowledge is that he DID NOT win the hearts and minds of the American people. You OB supporters gave OB messiah qualities Now you are having a hard time dealing with the fact that not all of America is not willing to kiss his feet. Well....get over it!





posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
The writing was on the wall as soon as the insulting chant rose from the crowd on Inauguration Day, "Who's house? Obama's house."

In a comical comical view to the loaded guns: With the pick-pocketing of the masses via the bailout and the stimulus package (Bailout pt2---Or payoff of the groups that got him elected, depending on point of view) perhaps these gun toters wanted it known that they would not allow the President to directly pick their pocket.

But in all seriousness the core outrage is not that he is a Democratic, far left liberal, black or of questionable origins of his birth. The core outrage is that Obama is representing all that is wrong about our system of a republic. That once in power, the representation is not to the constituency but to the lobbyists that line the pockets of the elected.

The masses objected to the first Bailout...rather than listening to the masses, Obama ramrodded a second one. That was the chance that was given by the people. And to do so as his first thing, fired up the people. Doing the same with the Healthcare plan is not looking too good either. Changing his stance as the objections fly is showing that Obama is learning.

Yes the GOP is playing on the outrage and whipping people into a froth. But is hard to anger those that not invested in the outcome. When the apathetic become involved then you have change. Which is how Obama became elected, the votes of the people that had been traditionally apathetic to the voting process. He played to their ignorance on the issues due to their apathy and won.

The continued forced changes are going to come to a head eventually. Once the sleeping giant awakes, it is going to take extreme skill to focus its anger. Obama best be ready to direct it, because many wont "get over it" if he cannot.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale


How did America lose? America voted him in. America enjoys a democracy. Is there something else you would prefer? Dictatorship? How would you like our government to be selected?


I'd like a Republic and I'd like this time tell the entire house and senate what change is THEY have to believe in and vote every single solitary incumbent OUT of office and vote the most un-qualified guy for his opponent. Un-qualified as in NO prior political experience as a lobbyist or public official etc.

The OP wants to know why we're so jaded yet he gave plenty of reasons and perhaps he just doesn't get it that much of the resistance we are seeing is because people HAVE GOT to make themselves visible to a liberal loving media and bitch this time. Now sit on our couches watching as another administration starts lieing their asses off and screwing we the people over by forcing us to pay for cleaning up every mess they make with our tax dollars being taxed to the extreme and our sons and daughters precious blood spilled on some forsaken country alleged to be building wmd's.

I guess this time, we ain't gonna wait, this time as soon as we see the slightest move to socialism or war or wasteful spending we are gonna bitch about it because their is no point at that moment, we already know we just got smacked again. This time I hope Americans have learned something, that if we don't purge that entire system clean in Washington,. Then we have NO reason left to complain. Purging it clean will tell the nwo to get lost and if the same old jack asses are still in office despite out new efforts to kick acorns ass and get everyone out to vote for none of the above. Then we will know we have a BIG problem. It will be up to us to force them out at gun point.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
What does it matter that the man carrying the gun was black?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Lillydale]


Because of the chants of Obama supporters that say: "Well if you don't like Obama, you must be RACIST!" Well if that's the case, what about that BLACK... fellow... right there...? The racism card is well-worn and tired, and only after 8 months of rule, I mean, *cough* of 'serving the people'. As long as Obama supporters keep screaming RACIST! then your going to have people and points that make such statements look silly and undeserved. They are really just shooting themselves in the foot with the whole race thing. As for the GET OVER IT! Well, that's basically telling people they have no right to freedom of speech, and that some peoples right to speak is somehow more important than other peoples. Which is blatantly un-American.


Chrono



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bringer
Oh it's nice when a brainwashed obama youth brigade member comes to the forums to enlighten us.


Divide and conquer.

"Never waste a crisis"

Let them make war!

Exploit to the fullest any and every opportunity to push the masses left or right, never let them develop the ability to stand firm in the center. For there is the real threat to our government.

Know your place, choose a side, let that side think for you, follow the rabbit of your choice to the wonderland of your illusion.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
im gonna have to agree with the OP. We voted him in. Many people still do like obama. I personally, dont think he has done anything YET to make me extremely worried... in the ways that presidents of the past have. I am not sure we will ever have a president again like lincoln, jfk, or clinton (who aside from his affair was a great president).. and we might just have to come to accept that. politicians have become more corrupt than ever, and lets not forget a lot of factors. Obama is trying to fix the completely EFFED up workings of bush... so lets not give him quite such a hard time.

I would like to see you go and fix the dumb@ss bush's work and see how you are able to do.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 





I guess this time, we ain't gonna wait, this time as soon as we see the slightest move to socialism or war or wasteful spending we are gonna bitch about it because their is no point at that moment, we already know we just got smacked again. This time I hope Americans have learned something, that if we don't purge that entire system clean in Washington,. Then we have NO reason left to complain. Purging it clean will tell the nwo to get lost and if the same old jack asses are still in office despite out new efforts to kick acorns ass and get everyone out to vote for none of the above. Then we will know we have a BIG problem. It will be up to us to force them out at gun point.



"Then we will know we have a BIG problem. It will be up to us to force them out at gun point.' That is why Obama wants to ramrod gun control through Congress. If gun ownership become a "may I please sir" instead of our Constitutionally given right we lose our leverage over TPTB.

I rather face a burglar who shoves a pistol in my face at three AM (it happened) than have powerful people in control of my government who are not a wee bit scare of pushing us too far. For the gun control fans look at England with the video cameras doing a big brother on every street. Still didn't stop that poor boy from getting stabbed to death did it?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I may be somewhat young and can only remember back to Reagan but I think that is enough presidents to see the big picture. Lots of people disliked Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, and I am sure more in the past. Where was all this outrage?





Where was the outrage? Old enough to remember Reagan, but can't remember what happened (the "outrage") during the last administration? This thread is a joke. To remind/educate the OP, democrats jumped on Bush the instant of his election and never let up for 8 YEARS.

Do just a little research here and you'll find people (the same ones starring and flagging this thread?) posting about and hoping for impeachment as late at the last 2 months of Bush's term.


So, no, you and the people putting stars and flags on the OP stop being hypocrites and get over it.

This president is actually putting into place the loss of freedoms many of you ranted about during the Bush administration. It is up to those of us that either never drank the kool-aid, or have had it thankfully wear off to not serve as sheeple for obama.

Again, you get over it.


[edit on 9/8/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
As a reminder the prior Administration sent us into an unprovoked, unnecessary war under false pretences. While real threats remain unchecked. ( Iran, N. Korea etc.)

It is an atrocity the 4,200+ brave men and women who selflessly paid the ultimate price (most under the age of 25) since the declaration of "Mission Accomplished" are not around to contribute to this thread.

www.antiwar.com...

In my mind, the comparison starts and ends there.

Regards...Kurious

[edit on 8-9-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


And many of us believe that this administration is setting everything in place to do far, far, worse. Carter on steroids ...




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The only thing I would say about President Obama is to repeat the words of one of our greatest patriots to honor the silver screen, John Wayne.

"I didn't vote for him, but he's my President, and I hope he does well" Good luck to you, Mr President........



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


And many of us believe that this administration is setting everything in place to do far, far, worse. Carter on steroids ...



A shallow insinuation without factual basis. Hyperbole and supposition.

I suspect your little emoticons are puking because of how sick you they feel over needless loss of life.

Not a SINGLE response to the faux war threat. Figures. The numbers don't lie my friend.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Yes, Obama won in an electorial process that makes a mockery of democracy. And I am more left winged than he is. The ndp party in Canada is not socialistic enough, mind you do away with money altogether and slavery, and this would even be better. But, it didn't matter really who won, did it? You had cousins running. Bush and Obama are certainly so.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Not a SINGLE response to the faux war threat.


How's this for a response.

Get over it!

Faux war threat??????????? Notice all Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Bergler, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


Back at ya. Bush was going to war regardless.

The Resolution was a formality.


The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own


The current president Bush also never sought a formal declaration of war from Congress. Instead, he requested, and received, the authority to use armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend American interests against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Source

Furthermore, some have argued that the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief invest him with broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.


Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force.

Source


FACT CHECK:

For starters, as an acknowlegement of the Brave few who saw through this ruse and voted AGAINST the rush to war:


UNITED STATES SENATE
In the Senate, 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Representatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq.



126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.


Source

Here are the actual tallies by party.


Source

BTW your post had no sources / links. I've seen that before. It is not your own research.

You insult the memory of those who died by attempting to re-write history.

I am pointing out the OVERWHELMING majority of the Republican vote. 98% and 97%.



Source

Bottom line, it was a Republican inspired and approved war. The facts are clear.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by calihan_12
im gonna have to agree with the OP. We voted him in. Many people still do like obama. I personally, dont think he has done anything YET to make me extremely worried... in the ways that presidents of the past have. I am not sure we will ever have a president again like lincoln, jfk, or clinton (who aside from his affair was a great president).. and we might just have to come to accept that. politicians have become more corrupt than ever, and lets not forget a lot of factors. Obama is trying to fix the completely EFFED up workings of bush... so lets not give him quite such a hard time.

I would like to see you go and fix the dumb@ss bush's work and see how you are able to do.


Clinton should not be used in the same breath as Lincoln. Now, Ronald Reagan on the other hand...

Clinton benefitted from the times (Netscape had just been invented, he inherited a fairly stable econonmy that was growing at 4%, and the Dot come boom made Clintons presidency, he ironically got out of office before that bubble burst.) more than his political idealogies, that an he had a republican controlled congress that helped to make Clinton a more supply sider.

And as for the so called "surplus" under the Clinton administration, thats what will happen when you steal money out of social security as he did, while retroactivily overtaxing the American people.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Regime Change in Iraq was official US policy before the Bush Admin.
A guy named clinton is responsible for that.

This still doesnt change the fact that many of the worlds intelligence agencies thought saddam had the goods. Saddam also did himself no favors by acting shady, limiting US inspections, and out right slowing the progresses by the UN inspectors.

Also, prominent democrats like Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry voted "Yes" for war with Iraq.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Also, prominent democrats like Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry voted "Yes" for war with Iraq.


That is of little consequence to the families of the fallen war dead.

Please review my hard data above to see vote count/percentages by party.

Ooooppppssss, sorry we were wrong. Better luck next time is a pathetic excuse.

Typical apologist hyperbole from those who choose to rewrite history.

Facts are facts, period.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   


BTW your post had no sources / links. I've seen that before. It is not your own work.

You insult the memory of those who died by attempting to re-write history.




First of all...they are quotes and each quote is attributed to the author of the quote.

Second.....I applaud each and every one of the hero's that gave their life for their country. To insinuate that they did it for nothing is the insult.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Second.....I applaud each and every one of the hero's that gave their life for their country. To insinuate that they did it for nothing is the insult.


How noble. As a self-proclaimed Republican, their blood is on your hands.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by kinda kurious]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join