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 Twice Mistakenly Mentions ‘My Sons,' While Defending Contraception Mandate

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Takes a partisan to know a partisan and what they are saying is they are the only one who get to criticize anyone.

And sorry people If one side gets to trash talk the other side gets to trash talk, and if people don't like it too bad

If this thread is so beneath your time or "intelligence" why contribute to something so "worthless"


O hai der,

lulz, this thread is #. u seem mad br0. umad or just playin politicks? anyway, our nation is #ed up and this type of tom#ery isnt helpin anyone.

heres my solution, u guise can pull together and get the #birds out of office or we can sit around and yell "im an olliephant and we thinks best!" or "im a jackass and we thinks better than yous".

simple fact: these moronic threads that misrepresent wut was said by the politician only serve to divide peeps.

if u wanna know who the tru enemy of peace, prosperity, and freedom is, just look in the mirror.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by boncho
 


I'll still take Bush over the guy who wants to spread the wealth around(that is everyone's but his).


I don't support Obamas method of spreading the wealth, but we do need to spread the wealth.

Wealth is created by working people being exploited by the capitalist class. The worker has to produce more than they are paid for in order for the capitalist to make profit. The surplus value created by the workers is the wealth that needs to be more fairly distributed, in order to bring up the quality of life for everyone.

Capitalist, private ownership of the means to produce, is the problem, not Obama. He's not helping solve the problem, but he's is not who you should be focusing on if you want to change the way the economy is ran, in order to make it more stable and more fair for the majority of us.

So you think Bush is the only alternative, another president is the only answer? When has a president ever been the answer? The problem is one of economy not government, we can have any government you want, but as long as we have a capitalist economy nothing will change.

If we had true socialism, workers owning the means of production (not government) then we would be able to produce what we need, not rely on an unstable economy that is based around a minority class making profit for themselves at the expense of the workers.

(BTW in this context unless you make your living from capital, and the hiring of labour, you are a worker, whether you're a street cleaner or a doctor)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


Amazing the way anyone can forget the influence of the 8 years of Bush policies after just 2 years. Looking at the whole picture is allowed so try it. Also remember who has ruled the economic direction for 30 years, the GOP. I would hate to see another rPresident leave office without even trying a Democratic economy.
Ron Paul isn't cracking the GOP so Willard is your choice Willard or the Black Guy.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Bodhi7
 

Where the heck do you get 47?
He was very slow and deliberate when he said it. He didn't say 47. He said 57.

I wonder where his sons live? Maybe Chicago.


F-or-TY SEVEN vs. F-if-TY SEVEN, like how I always used to mix up BlockBuster and BestBuy...also their logos were similar, so...



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'm sorry, but I am not falling for that socialist anti-Capitalist rhetoric. I am for free enterprise and not for corporate socialism, fascism, communism, globalism, or any other ism which forces us to give up our paycheck to support a bunch of crooks, liars, thieves, and people who work the system.

Also, no Bush is not an alternative, but when people compare him to Obama, yep I'd still take Bush.

I actually prefer Ron Paul as the one candidate who is not CFR and not Bilderberg.
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Bodhi7
reply to post by butcherguy
 


You mean when he said 57...and that he had 3 more to visit? It's pretty obvious that it was a simple mistake when you don't quote it out of context.
I meant the one that I just watched again on you tube to refresh my memory. The one where he very slowly and deliberately states that he has campaigned in 57 states and that he has one more to go.... But he hadn't been to Alaska or Hawaii yet, because his staff wouldn't approve it. Does that mean that either Alaska or Hawaii are not both states, or that he really thinks that there are 59?

ETA: did anyone think that maybe he has sons that we don't know about?

edit on 25-5-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


That's the first thing I thought of!!



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 





F-or-TY SEVEN vs. F-if-TY SEVEN, like how I always used to mix up BlockBuster and BestBuy...also their logos were similar, so...

Maybe you want to do that for Obama. Like I said, he said it slowly and deliberately.
I hope he doesn't get mixed up when he decides to invade or bomb his next country.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
He did not call his daughters his sons. He said his daughters have a right to chose just as his sons(if he had some) would.

Did you even watch the video?


I watched it.

and if I didn't know he had only daughters I would assume he had sons also.

This reminds me of when he said his dad was a vet.


Then you must be stupid.
I do not say that to be mean but if you actually watched it and thought he claimed to have sons then there is no other explanation. What he said is CLEAR AS DAY. He says IF HE HAD SONS. How is that so damn confusing to you guys?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'm sorry, but I am not falling for that socialist anti-Capitalist rhetoric. I am for free enterprise and not for corporate socialism, fascism, communism, globalism, or any other ism which forces us to give up our paycheck to support a bunch of crooks, liars, thieves, and people who work the system.

Also, no Bush is not an alternative, but when people compare him to Obama, yep I'd still take Bush.

I actually prefer Ron Paul as the one candidate who is not CFR and not Bilderberg.
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


What is corporate socialism? There is no such thing.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. If you simply want to throw all isms out the window you have just given up.

There is no true free enterprise under capitalism. What do you think Bilderberg is all about? Globalism is the goal of the capitalists.

Socialism traditionally is a system of the people, not governments or private interests. We need to take back our terms, as they have all been appropriated by the establishment, and changed in order to demonize them and stop you from realizing you would be better off if you owned your work place.

Socialism is just a word. It is the workers ownership of the means of production. Which means instead of being a wage slave making profit for someone else, you earn the full fruits of your labour. Profit is more fairly distributed throughout the workforce instead of the wealth concentrating into smaller and smaller groups of privileged people.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I haven't been on this site in a while, and this is exactly why. This post is nothing more than complete bull crap and partisan hackneyed politics at it's best. Shame on those starring and flagging it, I guess forum gangs are at work here.

It took only a few seconds of watching the video to know right away Obama was only referring to sons and daughters as another way of saying young men and young women. I too would want my daughters to have every opportunity as my sons, and guess what, I don't have any children, but I do believe that girls deserve the same opportunities as boys. As another poster said earlier, this was clearly a "Euphemism".

The Mods or Admins need to step up and send this trash post to the Hoax section, because only a partisan hack and/or political troll would ever for one second believe that Obama "mistakenly" claimed to have sons.

This post also should serve as a wake up notice to the board staff - this is the exact type of post that is driving members away from ATS, this site is literally turning into a site full of trolls trying to shift ALL the blame for the state of our government onto one single man. I want a site that is open to discussing REAL mysteries or REAL conspiracies, not a bunch of paid trolls trying to push hyper-partisan attack posts against the POTUS just to score votes for that other party.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Wow, English comprehension fail of extreme proportion



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No maybe I know this world doesnt operate in a vacuum and neither does our president.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beanskinner

Originally posted by NightGypsy
He's not stumbling over his words.

He's using the sons/daughters comparison to make a point.

I can't believe the media even wrote an article about something so dumb.


and that it has warranted 11 flags and 6 pages of discussion.


......and that there are people who believe he said "sons" when he meant "daughters." Good Gawd



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

edit on 26-5-2012 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
This thread has catapulted ATS to new heights of absurdity.
edit on 26-5-2012 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by neo96


Bush never made the mistake of calling his daughter's sons but hey pushing contraception is more important than getting their names right.

 


Bush believed man and fish should coexist together. He thought gynecologists should be free to express their love for women, among other things...

I think your political affiliations are making you read to much into it. I'm not a fan of Obama, but this is tripe.


edit on 25-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


LOL That video.

It really is amazing some people forget the 8 years we had with that a**hole. I'm also not a big fan of Obama, but saying the country is in a ditch because of him and not remembering the last guy's moments of...well, shame is quite ignorant.
edit on 26-5-2012 by SeventhSeal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'm sorry, but I am not falling for that socialist anti-Capitalist rhetoric. I am for free enterprise and not for corporate socialism, fascism, communism, globalism, or any other ism which forces us to give up our paycheck to support a bunch of crooks, liars, thieves, and people who work the system.

Also, no Bush is not an alternative, but when people compare him to Obama, yep I'd still take Bush.

I actually prefer Ron Paul as the one candidate who is not CFR and not Bilderberg.
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


I am not sure how any sane person would prefer Bush.

His family has been involved in engineering geopolitical

Instability for 7 decades. Plus he did a horrible job managing

A healthy economy. Obama has taken a awful economy and

Put it on a better path, which is more admirable than destroying

The world economy.

edit on 26-5-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


T'was good to have a Bush
again. Thank you


Still i wonder, who are the real idiots? Seeing he did two terms.
edit on 09/02/2012 by KaelemJames because: spelling



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
He did not call his daughters his sons. He said his daughters have a right to chose just as his sons(if he had some) would.

Did you even watch the video?


The thread should've ended here. I mean seriously, how dense is the OP? Obama merely phrased it to relate to those who may have sons or may have daughters. Its that simple, nowhere in the speech did he actually mean he had sons. This is just way out of context and has spiraled into something astoundingly stupid.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by neo96
 


someone sure has to take over his country when he dies.... isn't that what all dictators do? He is keeping them secret so no one tries to kill them before they have a chance to succeed him!


The two people who starred you should be banned from this site. You, well we make exceptions for the infirmed.


I take it you do not understand sarcasm when you see it... if you noticed my post directly underneath that one, where I said ' seriously this is the best post in the whole thread and the one I agree with" (or something to that effect...) perhaps continuing on with reading instead of jumping to conclusions and calling me 'infirmed' for employing something called sarcasm is a bit of poor taste on your part...

and like my disagreement to wanting to trash any and all threads you people disagree with I also disagree with banning people who have a sense of humor and are witty enough to understand and appreciate sarcasm.



Originally posted by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Speechwriters carefully write these. It would have been more proper for him to say, "OUR daughters will have the same economic rights as OUR sons".


Exactly. The choice made to say "my" for both, daughters (in which is very proper) and then saying "my" for sons, just seems like it is a reinforcement that Government is their caregiver, their reason they are alive.

Now that angle, I could go with, but the one the OP stated -- and the one that the "news" is pushing, is playing games.


now this is the perfect post in all the thread.. seriously, I believe that was the message the government is trying to state....

edit on 26-5-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join