Chattanooga Marine Unleashes BRUTAL Video On Obama, Says 9 Words That Are Going Viral

a reply to: Bloodydagger

I interpret this as a political hack and propaganda. It sounded good until he brought in the ".....keep your doctor" as an analogy. Then I knew. I don't blame him for the anger that made him become political. It is volunteer military participation and they were sold the ME invasion was for the good of the country.

hi.
i watched the video and im trying my best to understand what is brutal about it, and what is so "viral worthy" about it.
the only conclusion I have is that it is because I am not American. this video has very little relevance for me and I just want to learn how you Americans see it, since you chose the word brutal to categorise the video..
I think brutal means something completely different.
please try and explain to me your train of thought, feelings, and why this video is brutal and viral. honestly trying to understand.
thanks!

a reply to: Bloodydagger

So you don't like President Obama. Do you prefer the man who was President on 9/11? The President who was so incompetent at national defense that he could not get one jet fighter into the air above Washington DC to keep an airliner from crashing into the Pentagon. Perhaps you prefer the shadow President, Dick Cheney, who forbade any photographs of flag draped coffins coming back from Iraq. He didn't want us, the American people, to see how many Marines were giving their lives so Halliburton could get "no bid contracts" and make billions. Dick Cheney's Halliburton moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Some show of patriotism after making billions off of the Iraq war.

George W. Bush, your favorite President, I assume, was losing 30 lives a week for several years. Yes, thousands of soldiers' lives were lost and tens of thousands were maimed by your great Republican President.

So which President did things right, according to you?

a reply to: KeepWatchingThem

If you recall, there was great debate as to whether it was appropriate to shoot down civilian aircraft that went on for quite a while after the tragic events of 9/11. Bush did not make a snap decision, which he would have been ridiculed for had he done it. Face facts - there was no choice he would have made that democrats would have accepted. As for being incompetent at national defense, he never called terrorist attacks on US soil "work place violence", did he? At least he addressed it for what it was, not try to minimize it by calling it something else and ignoring it. Which is worse?

Lots of corporations moved their headquarters overseas. Including ones favored by democrats.

People die in wars. Bush did not kill them himself and it is wrong to say he did. And as I pointed out in an earlier post, the democrats had super majority the last two years of GW administration. They could have ended the war then and there but they didn't. And Obama said he would bring the troops home as soon as he was elected, and he didn't. And the democrats whined incessantly about the alleged fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq, but we know there were all along. Saddam used them against his own people. How could he do that if he had no WMD's? And it has been proven since then that troops were exposed to chemical weapons while in Iraq. So the whole democrat idea that the war was fought over nothing but oil is bunk. And even if we did fight two wars in Iraq just for oil, where is it? Unless you are suggesting that the might of the US military was not up to the task of taking oil rigs from Iraq, we should have a lot of oil to show for the two wars allegedly fought for it.

And Reagan was my favorite president.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Thank you.

a reply to: alienDNA

Just make a video that bashes obama and then spread it on the right wing blogs and boom you got a viral video.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

People die in wars. Bush did not kill them himself and it is wrong to say he did.

Are you that quick to say this same thing when Barry is said to have blood on his hands for the wars that we are in?
Or for Hilliary?

And the democrats whined incessantly about the alleged fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq, but we know there were all along. Saddam used them against his own people.

historynewsnetwork.org...

Are you talking about this event in 88?

Probably using the stuff we gave them when we were on their side.
You know the same stuff what was found a while back and everyone tried to say "I told you so!"
www.nytimes.com...

Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

So we gave them the weapons, they stopped using them and then we invaded them for it.
Justice!

The war was fought to take power over a man threatening to step away from the use of the Petrodollar.
So we needed to step in and remove him and Halliburton needed to make a couple bucks with all the sweet sweet oil over there.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

So President Reagan is your favorite!
President Reagan traded arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra Affair. During the second term of the Reagan Administration Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo. Throughout February 1986, hundreds of anti tank missiles and dozens of anti-aircraft missiles were shipped directly to Iran by the United States and none of the hostages were released. Ayatollah Khomeini was happy with the gifts from President Reagan. Fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal. The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.

Yes, Reagan was great............ at getting his officials to lie and obstruct justice.

a reply to: Sremmos80

uhm.. many famous people not just a random marine bashes obama on a daily basis .

my question was , what is brutal about this particular video?
I'm not trying to instigate anything I'm honestly curious.

on a small side note,
it reminds me of that thread when some Americans hung their flag upside down or something like that, and it sure seemed to mean a lot, and I couldn't understand the hype or the matter at all. that's the interesting difference between USA and rest of world
and the thread went huuuge and viral and I just basically sat in my chair without a clue what the fuss is about since a countries flag is just some colors on a piece of cloth and doesn't mean diddly. for us, and from our point of view of course. for Americans it seemed to almost mean something like life or death and it humoured me to see such fuss about a piece of cloth.
same with this video.

this is why I ask to try and understand an Americans point of view.. what is brutal and why is it viral and why does anyone care. what makes this marine so special when Obama bashing happens all over the world every single day.

thanks in advance for the clarification.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Are you that quick to say this same thing when Barry is said to have blood on his hands for the wars that we are in?

It is a fine line to place blame between the individual and what happens on his watch. I do not blame Obama as an individual more or less than GW. The Commander in Chief is responsible for the military and its actions. And the advisors that inform the CiC are also responsible.

Probably using the stuff we gave them when we were on their side. You know the same stuff what was found a while back and everyone tried to say "I told you so!"

I don't know if either of us can accurately make that determination. Personally, I believe he had more than just what we worked on together. His program most likely extended well beyond the limits we expected.

So we gave them the weapons, they stopped using them and then we invaded them for it. Justice! The war was fought to take power over a man threatening to step away from the use of the Petrodollar. So we needed to step in and remove him and Halliburton needed to make a couple bucks with all the sweet sweet oil over there.

That is one interpretation of the events. I don't agree with the majority of it. But you are entitled to your opinion.

I think there are a significant number of people who believe that any real WMD's were secreted out of Iraq before we ever set foot there. They did have time and there were reports of satellite images that support that conclusion.

Its unfortunate that discussions like this usually end up with the same pattern: They did this. Oh yeah, well so did they. Yeah but they did this too. Yeah, well they did this and that. And so on. This, that, and the other, are all open to interpretation and you cant always say one is better or worse than the other. In the end, democrats and republicans both use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals. And without fail, the opposing side will call it dirty pool when the other guys do it and manage to find an excuse when their side does it. That's the pitfall of political discussion. If you have a side you are already fully equipped with a large number of people who think you are crazy and are willing to jump on your every time you speak just to prove a point.

a reply to: KeepWatchingThem

We can both roll out laundry lists of what presidents have done. Look at the list just for Clinton. And there are those who would say he was tame by comparison to some others.

It seems to me, and I am basing this on my own observations, that liberals are very quick to "defend" one of their own by attacking conservatives. That doesn't address the issues brought up by the conservative. It only deflects the accusations. Every time someone says, "Obama did (whatever)", the immediate knee jerk response is, "So did Bush". Does that somehow make it ok? If your predecessor made a mistake is that a reason to change the behavior or an excuse to make the same mistake?

a reply to: Bloodydagger

This guys such a drama queen.

Was it really his idea to have the American flag and those pictures on his wall? Look at the one of Abraham Lincoln.

Ugh..

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Clinton is as bad as Reagan and Nixon he signed NAFTA. I know he had no choice.

Do any of then really have a choice?

Blaming things on presidents is insane and shows a lack of understanding of the corruption in politics.