Obama learning about events from watching the news

[Tgo01]

There's been so many of these "I heard about it in the news" that I'm starting to lose track.

Here's apparently the latest one; the German spy: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/obama-german-spy_n_5570503.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D499202)


President Obama was kept in the dark about a blown U.S. spying operation in Germany, according to the New York Times.

A 31-year-old German man was arrested by German authorities July 2 on suspicion of spying for foreign intelligence services. They did not identify the suspect or the intelligence services.

When Obama spoke with German Chancellor Angela Merkel over the phone last Thursday, Obama did not know about the man's arrest, and the matter did not come up, according to U.S. officials. The C.I.A.'s failure to tell the president worried White House officials.

The New York Times reports:

At the White House, senior officials have expressed concern that the latest allegations could set back relations with Germany just as Mr. Obama and Ms. Merkel are struggling to move past the distrust generated by the Snowden disclosures, including the revelation that the N.S.A. had tapped Ms. Merkel’s cellphone.

What is particularly baffling to these officials is that the C.I.A. did not inform the White House that its agent — a 31-year-old employee of Germany’s federal intelligence service, the BND — had been compromised, given his arrest the day before the two leaders spoke. According to German news media reports, the agency may have been aware three weeks before the arrest that the German authorities were monitoring the man.

A central question, one American official said, is how high the information about the agent went in the C.I.A.’s command — whether it was bottled up at the level of the station chief in Berlin or transmitted to senior officials, including the director, John O. Brennan, who is responsible for briefing the White House.

Merkel did comment on the matter Monday, saying if the reports of spying are true, it would be a "clear contradiction" of trust between the U.S. and Germany.

German authorities are now investigating a second spy case reportedly involving the U.S.

Granted it didn't specifically say Obama heard about it in the news but I bet it's a pretty safe bet that's the angle they're going for. How many more people is this man going to throw under the bus?

What were some of the other "I heard about it in the news" stories?

[Back]

Ya know? Some on the right say people who voted for Obama were delusional thinking he was the second coming which implies omnipresence. .. then turn around and complain when he isn't.

[kutter]

Back, even for you that is an absurd statement,

Every time he says or his Admin says something along the lines of, 'He/I did not know', it just proves how inept and what a poor leader he is. Even if he did not know, you do not say that, it makes you look weak, but I am pretty sure all of the other things he has done confirm that assessment, just have to look south to the border to see that as the most recent example of how much a failure his tenure has been.

[Tgo01]

It's amazing how things change in 13 years.

In 2001 Bush was criticized by Democrats because he didn't immediately jump up from his reading children a book, spin around really fast to reveal himself as Super Bush and didn't personally fly to Afghanistan and kill Bin Laden with his bare hands.

The narrative was; "Bush took THREE MINUTES before he did something!!111"

And now it's "Well you can't blame Obama, he didn't know!"

I guess it's pretty genius on Obama's part, just inform everyone you don't want to be told anything and his legion of followers will give him a pass.

[Thondalar]

Every time he says or his Admin says something along the lines of, 'He/I did not know', it just proves how inept and what a poor leader he is.

Every day, the President gets an Intelligence Brief. Every single day. This leaves only two options...either he's lying to us, and actually did know about all of these things, but is playing dumb...or our Intelligence community is a bunch of fucking morons, and they're raping our Constitutional rights for nothing.

Quite frankly, they both seem plausible.

[Jarvan]

Every day, the President gets an Intelligence Brief. Every single day. This leaves only two options...either he's lying to us, and actually did know about all of these things, but is playing dumb...or our Intelligence community is a bunch of fucking morons, and they're raping our Constitutional rights for nothing.

Quite frankly, they both seem plausible.

Remember when Dems wanted to impeach Bush because he followed an Intelligence report, and asked congress to allow him to invade Iraq?

Apparently faulty Intelligence = Impeach

While NO intelligence = Doing a great Job

Who would have thunk it.

[Methais]

Ya know? Some on the right say people who voted for Obama were delusional thinking he was the second coming which implies omnipresence. .. then turn around and complain when he isn't.

Expecting the president to not get most of his news from watching the news on TV = expectations of him being omnipresent?

[Parkbandit]

Every day, the President gets an Intelligence Brief. Every single day. This leaves only two options...either he's lying to us, and actually did know about all of these things, but is playing dumb...or our Intelligence community is a bunch of fucking morons, and they're raping our Constitutional rights for nothing.

Quite frankly, they both seem plausible.

He rarely attends these Intelligence briefing meetings. He misses more than he actually attends.

It's beneath him.. he simply doesn't have time to slip them in between 18 holes of golf.

[Methais]

It's amazing how things change in 13 years.

In 2001 Bush was criticized by Democrats because he didn't immediately jump up from his reading children a book, spin around really fast to reveal himself as Super Bush and didn't personally fly to Afghanistan and kill Bin Laden with his bare hands.

The narrative was; "Bush took THREE MINUTES before he did something!!111"

And now it's "Well you can't blame Obama, he didn't know!"

I guess it's pretty genius on Obama's part, just inform everyone you don't want to be told anything and his legion of followers will give him a pass.

Let's not forget how Obama played golf and dicked around for like 14 hours before he gave the order to go in and kill Bin Laden after they found where he was.

And how still nobody knows where he was or what he was doing during the whole Benghazi thing.

But he gets his news from the news and expecting anything more out of him is expecting him to be omnipresent because Backlash said so.

[Thondalar]

He rarely attends these Intelligence briefing meetings. He misses more than he actually attends.

It's beneath him.. he simply doesn't have time to slip them in between 18 holes of golf.

No, I mean, he gets a brief. As in, written. In a nice little blue binder with the Presidential Seal on the front.

Now, whether or not he reads it...I guess that's the rub.

[Tgo01]

Let's not forget how Obama played golf and dicked around for like 14 hours before he gave the order to go in and kill Bin Laden after they found where he was.

And how still nobody knows where he was or what he was doing during the whole Benghazi thing.

Hey! You try spending all of your time golfing, playing basketball, appearing on talk shows, doing non stop campaigning for a position you already have and doing endless fundraisers and see if YOU can squeeze in time to actually run this country.

[Methais]

Hey! You try spending all of your time golfing, playing basketball, appearing on talk shows, doing non stop campaigning for a position you already have and doing endless fundraisers and see if YOU can squeeze in time to actually run this country.

I suppose the fact that he ran across the ocean and into Pakistan, broke through Bin Laden's walls like the Kool Aid man and then killed him with his bare hands makes up for the delay, but I'm sure only racists would disagree.

[Tgo01]

Journalism Groups Want Obama To Stop These Frustrating Practices (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/journalism-groups-obama-public-information_n_5567428.html)


Journalists called on President Obama on Tuesday to end practices that limit their communication with federal agencies.

Thirty-eight journalism and government groups, including the Poynter Institute and Reporters Without Borders, signed a letter to the president lobbying for an end to policies that they believe prevent the public from getting crucial information. Those practices, according to a statement from the Society of Professional Journalists, include: requiring journalists to communicate with staff in federal agencies through public information offices and submit their questions for vetting, and monitoring their interviews with sources.

"The stifling of free expression is happening despite your pledge on your first day in office to bring 'a new era of openness' to federal government – and the subsequent executive orders and directives which were supposed to bring such openness about," the letter reads.

The letter cited instances when federal agencies ignored requests from, or prevented journalists at the New York Times, Reuters and Investigative Post from speaking to government staff. See the full letter here.

The Obama administration has, of course, long struggled with issues of press freedom. Last year, for example, the White House came under fire after it was revealed that the Department of Justice had seized the AP's phone records and named journalist James Rosen a "co-conspirator" in a leak case.

If Obama only gets his information from the news...and he's trying to make it impossible for reporters to get this information in the first place...how is he going to hear about the next Benghazi?

[Latrinsorm]

Every day, the President gets an Intelligence Brief. Every single day. This leaves only two options...either he's lying to us, and actually did know about all of these things, but is playing dumb...or our Intelligence community is a bunch of fucking morons, and they're raping our Constitutional rights for nothing.

Quite frankly, they both seem plausible.You know what else is plausible? Plausible deniability. It's right there in the name!

[zzentar]

I want to start with I didn't like Obama from the beginning. He was a first term Congressman with zero experience in the real world other than being a community organizer. He had absolutely no international relation experience, no military experience and no fiscal experience. I can whine and cry he was elected but in the end, he was. The one question I have to ask, why didn't he just google "great leaders surround themselves". I can handle a retard in the white house, bush2 was a huge disappointment, but at least get a decent staff so you look competent vs. paying back political favors and making your administration a laughing stock here and abroad.

sorry for the wall of text,
~Zz

[Back]

There's been so many of these "I heard about it in the news" that I'm starting to lose track.

Here's apparently the latest one; the German spy: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/obama-german-spy_n_5570503.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D499202)



Granted it didn't specifically say Obama heard about it in the news but I bet it's a pretty safe bet that's the angle they're going for. How many more people is this man going to throw under the bus?

What were some of the other "I heard about it in the news" stories?

The title of this thread is false but I don't expect Obama critics to rely on plain truth with their criticisms. What do you expect the POTUS to do when a spy gets caught? You're really trying to hard.

[Tgo01]

The title of this thread is false but I don't expect Obama critics to rely on plain truth with their criticisms. What do you expect the POTUS to do when a spy gets caught? You're really trying to hard.

I don't expect him to "do" anything; I expect him to act like a leader and stop pretending/genuinely being oblivious to everything going on around him.

[Back]

I don't expect him to "do" anything; I expect him to act like a leader and stop pretending/genuinely being oblivious to everything going on around him.

You use this particular case. Was he supposed to say "Oh, hey, Merkal, sorry about our spy. I knew all about it."?

There is nothing he could do that would satisfy you so just give up.

[Tgo01]

You use this particular case. Was he supposed to say "Oh, hey, Merkal, sorry about our spy. I knew all about it."?

There is nothing he could do that would satisfy you so just give up.

It has nothing to do with what he did or did not say to Merkel, it has everything to do with him constantly not being in the loop.

I've said this at least three times so far. I'm not sure I can explain it any differently for you.

[Tgo01]

You use this particular case. Was he supposed to say "Oh, hey, Merkal, sorry about our spy. I knew all about it."?

And what if Merkel did bring it up to Obama, as leaders often do in this kind of scenario?

Was Obama going to just say "Duh! I didn't hear about that! My TV has been on the fritz lately."

[Thondalar]

You know what else is plausible? Plausible deniability. It's right there in the name!

If you're ok with your Commander-in-chief not reading something on the grounds of plausible deniability...lay in the bed you've made, I guess. This isn't Rick Scott. This isn't a CEO or CFO of a corporation. This is the President of the United States of America. The idea that he gets an intelligence brief every single day and chooses whether or not to read it and/or take action on it speaks volumes about this presidency...more so than any other single thing. This goes both ways though...he could decide whether or not to do something, and the whether or the not could be good or bad.

As a scientist, as you claim to be, so focused on empirical evidence...the empirical evidence of his inability to handle any given situation is astounding. The few things that manage to go right, he's all over it...right there, front and center. The volumes of things that go poorly..."what? I just heard about this yesterday on FOX news..."

This is the shit that infuriates me. I have no problems calling out people on both sides of the fence. There is right and there is wrong...call it naive or infantile all you want, the fact of the matter is that without a clear right and wrong NOTHING is ever right or wrong. Grey areas allow everything. These things hurt both sides depending on who is in charge at the time. Instead of hoping for a D or R control in the House or Senate or Presidency or SCOTUS...why not hope for people who understand logic and principle? How have people not figured out that when you give control to any one group, it sucks for everyone not in that group? This is the tyranny of Democracy. People rail against minorities being oppressed...but have no qualms supporting a system of government that allows minorities to be oppressed...because they're in the majority at the time. What happens when you aren't?

[Thondalar]

I want to start with I didn't like Obama from the beginning. He was a first term Congressman with zero experience in the real world other than being a community organizer. He had absolutely no international relation experience, no military experience and no fiscal experience. I can whine and cry he was elected but in the end, he was. The one question I have to ask, why didn't he just google "great leaders surround themselves". I can handle a retard in the white house, bush2 was a huge disappointment, but at least get a decent staff so you look competent vs. paying back political favors and making your administration a laughing stock here and abroad.

sorry for the wall of text,
~Zz

Zz...love to hear this from you, because in the past you've been pretty much a straight liberal...but you're damn right. Hey, I voted for Obama in '08...you nailed it on the head. Obama has surrounded himself with "revolutionaries" and "communists" and "socialists" (all self-described, at one point or another, not my words) but maintains he's not any of those.

Hah...we all sleep in the bed we've made. Can anyone here tell me honestly they hang out with people who don't hold the same views? I mean, surely we all have this friend or that that's "out of the loop", so to speak...they were a childhood friend we've kept in touch with, and our views have diverged over the years but they're still friends...how many, of any of your friends, fit that bill exactly? Every single one? Can you honestly say that 90% of your "inner circle" hold beliefs that are categorically different from yours...but you're still friends with them?

Obama would have us believe that of his friends.

[Warriorbird]

This is the shit that infuriates me. I have no problems calling out people on both sides of the fence. There is right and there is wrong...call it naive or infantile all you want, the fact of the matter is that without a clear right and wrong NOTHING is ever right or wrong. Grey areas allow everything. These things hurt both sides depending on who is in charge at the time. Instead of hoping for a D or R control in the House or Senate or Presidency or SCOTUS...why not hope for people who understand logic and principle? How have people not figured out that when you give control to any one group, it sucks for everyone not in that group? This is the tyranny of Democracy. People rail against minorities being oppressed...but have no qualms supporting a system of government that allows minorities to be oppressed...because they're in the majority at the time. What happens when you aren't?

I'm not so sure that's true. RE: Your idealism though, do you honestly think that a less empowered government would protect minorities of whatever sort, be they political or otherwise?

[Thondalar]

I'm not so sure that's true. RE: Your idealism though, do you honestly think that a less empowered government would protect minorities of whatever sort, be they political or otherwise?

I believe that the Constitution, if taken literally, protects all people of any race or gender.

[cwolff]

I believe that the Constitution, if taken literally, protects all people of any race or gender.

With or without amendments?

[Warriorbird]

I believe that the Constitution, if taken literally, protects all people of any race or gender.

And yet you seemed bothered by general welfare clause use.

[Thondalar]

With or without amendments?

I believe if you take a full literal interpretation of the Constitution itself, the amendments are superfluous...but regardless, the amendments are part of the Constitution, and therefore your question is pointless.

[Thondalar]

And yet you seemed bothered by general welfare clause use.

lol...what clause was that?

[Warriorbird]

lol...what clause was that?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[Back]

This is the tyranny of Democracy.

So what would you propose instead?

[Androidpk]

I believe that the Constitution, if taken literally, protects all people of any race or gender.

I agree with you completely. The problem is that most people, especially those in charge, don't agree.

[Androidpk]

I'm not so sure that's true. RE: Your idealism though, do you honestly think that a less empowered government would protect minorities of whatever sort, be they political or otherwise?

That is an age old question. Look at the Roman empire and how long the plebes fought with the patricians over equality. And that was what, roughly 2500 years ago?

[cwolff]

I believe if you take a full literal interpretation of the Constitution itself, the amendments are superfluous...but regardless, the amendments are part of the Constitution, and therefore your question is pointless.

It not pointless at all. If you consider the amendments superflous then you can't say that the constitution, when read literally, protects people from discrimination. If you include the amendments then you have to recognize that as good as the constitution is, it's still needs to edited/updated as time goes by.

[Warriorbird]

Without the amendments we'd still have slavery.

[Thondalar]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Er...what?

Eh...I see where you're going with this. "...and general welfare"...that doesn't mean what you think it means. Notice they specified "Defence" and "Welfare of the United States" in the same sentence...this was not a social thing. This was a means to have income for the management of the Nation. You can't honestly read that sentence in it's entirety and come to any other conclusion.

[Thondalar]

Without the amendments we'd still have slavery.

Only because we didn't take the Constitution literally. If we had, slavery would have been abolished the day it was ratified.

[Thondalar]

It not pointless at all. If you consider the amendments superflous then you can't say that the constitution, when read literally, protects people from discrimination. If you include the amendments then you have to recognize that as good as the constitution is, it's still needs to edited/updated as time goes by.

Show me one place where the Constitution discriminates against any US citizen.

It's not the Constitution's fault people took a long-ass time to finally follow it

[Warriorbird]

Er...what?

Eh...I see where you're going with this. "...and general welfare"...that doesn't mean what you think it means. Notice they specified "Defence" and "Welfare of the United States" in the same sentence...this was not a social thing. This was a means to have income for the management of the Nation. You can't honestly read that sentence in it's entirety and come to any other conclusion.

And this dispute, which our Founding Fathers had, is why the system doesn't work like you want it to.


Show me one place where the Constitution discriminates against any US citizen.

It's not the Constitution's fault people took a long-ass time to finally follow it

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

[cwolff]

Only because we didn't take the Constitution literally. If we had, slavery would have been abolished the day it was ratified.

Can you paste the sentences that you're referring to?

[Thondalar]

Can you paste the sentences that you're referring to?

It's not my fault if you don't know and understand the document upon which your society is based.

[Warriorbird]

Only because we didn't take the Constitution literally. If we had, slavery would have been abolished the day it was ratified.

The Constitution wouldn't have existed without approval for slavery. This is a ridiculous argument.

[cwolff]

It's not my fault if you don't know and understand the document upon which your society is based.

I'll take that as a resounding, "No, I can't paste the specifics I'm referring to because it will undermine the understanding that I wish to have of the U.S. Constitution."

[Tgo01]

I'd just like to point out that our Lord is mention in the Constitution which proves we are a Christian nation.

Thank you.

[cwolff]

I'd just like to point out that our Lord is mention in the Constitution which proves we are a Christian nation.

Thank you.

Ya but they demoted him before that

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:

So God's just another mutt like the rest of us. No special considerations for that dude.

[Tgo01]

But our Lord is mentioned! There is no denying that.

Thank you and God bless.

[cwolff]

But our Lord is mentioned! There is no denying that.

Thank you and God bless.

Ya but those dudes were all Masons and we know they worship the Devil therefore it's more likely that we are a satanic nation than christian which actually explains a lot.

Hail Lucifer, prince of darkness

[Thondalar]

And this dispute, which our Founding Fathers had, is why the system doesn't work like you want it to.

I want things to be fair. I want the Federal government to concern themselves with external enemies, and let their people do what they will...the founding principles of this nation. Freedom, that we fought against England for. Religious Freedom, personal Freedom...we're a nation of free people. Did we hit some roadblocks along the way? Fuck right we did. Took a long-ass time for us to respect equal rights for women and minorities...that was our problem as a society. You can't argue that if we took the Constitution literally, to a man, we'd have been there a lot sooner. But what the Framers laid out for us was difficult at first, because nobody else on the entire planet was doing it at that time.

Think about that.


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Uneducated like to bring this one up. Constantly. Do some research bro, you'll understand the real reason for the 3/5 clause...I'll go ahead and explain it...back in the day, (actually still to this day, but a little different), voting zones were based on population. This counted slaves. Problem is, slaves couldn't vote. So the plantation owners (usually rich Democrats, not at all making this up, feel free to research) would be able to vote for them...this is the beginning of what led to the electoral college. This made the Founders realize that large population areas could disproportionately influence regional (and, more importantly, national) elections. So they put the 3/5 clause in to minimize the unfair voting power of southern Democrats.

[Thondalar]

The Constitution wouldn't have existed without approval for slavery. This is a ridiculous argument.

Cite your references?

[Thondalar]

I'll take that as a resounding, "No, I can't paste the specifics I'm referring to because it will undermine the understanding that I wish to have of the U.S. Constitution."

Too bad I was actually in the process of giving a lengthy, educated response...scroll up now and feel free to respond. Please.

[Warriorbird]

I want things to be fair. I want the Federal government to concern themselves with external enemies, and let their people do what they will...the founding principles of this nation. Freedom, that we fought against England for. Religious Freedom, personal Freedom...we're a nation of free people. Did we hit some roadblocks along the way? Fuck right we did. Took a long-ass time for us to respect equal rights for women and minorities...that was our problem as a society. You can't argue that if we took the Constitution literally, to a man, we'd have been there a lot sooner. But what the Framers laid out for us was difficult at first, because nobody else on the entire planet was doing it at that time.

Think about that.

I do. It's why I'm quite thankful we have amendments.

We know why the 3/5ths Compromise exists. You just don't want to admit that the Constitution would've continued to uphold slavery without amendments.


Cite your references?

Why the fuck do I need references? It's one of the tools that got it ratified. Jefferson wouldn't have supported it without it.

Just to frame the debate maybe you should read this again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

[Androidpk]

I'd just like to point out that our Lord is mention in the Constitution which proves we are a Christian nation.

Thank you.

Thank you, my son.

[cwolff]

Too bad I was actually in the process of giving a lengthy, educated response...scroll up now and feel free to respond. Please.

I read it and it is a lengthy response. Each post you've made is not in and of itself illogical, but taken as a whole, your body of work in the past few pages is rather schizophrenic.

[Androidpk]

I do. It's why I'm quite thankful we have amendments.

We know why the 3/5ths Compromise exists. You just don't want to admit that the Constitution would've continued to uphold slavery without amendments.



Why the fuck do I need references? It's one of the tools that got it ratified. Jefferson wouldn't have supported it without it.

How's that 4th amendment working out for us? ;)

[Tgo01]

We know why the 3/5ths Compromise exists.

Because Democrats are assholes?


Thank you, my son.

Thy will be done!

[Thondalar]

I do. It's why I'm quite thankful we have amendments.

We know why the 3/5ths Compromise exists. You just don't want to admit that the Constitution would've continued to uphold slavery without amendments.

Link me one part of the Constitution, pre-amendments, that says slavery of any kind is ok, and I will call you the winner.


Why the fuck do I need references? It's one of the tools that got it ratified. Jefferson wouldn't have supported it without it.

Because you made a claim I'm refuting. I want to see your references.

[cwolff]

How's that 4th amendment working out for us? ;)

Don't get me started on that one. If I speak my mind NSA will dispatch someone to escort me to Gitmo.

[Thondalar]

I read it and it is a lengthy response. Each post you've made is not in and of itself illogical, but taken as a whole, your body of work in the past few pages is rather schizophrenic.

Gonna need to see some sort of evidence for that. Could it be I'm fucking right and the whole thing is complicated? C'mon man, you can't just mail it in like this.

[Warriorbird]

Link me one part of the Constitution, pre-amendments, that says slavery of any kind is ok, and I will call you the winner.



Because you made a claim I'm refuting. I want to see your references.

Just because you stuff your fingers in your ears doesn't mean you can ignore history. The Southern states would not have been involved in the process without the acceptance of slavery. I'm sorry it's hard for you to admit. We have slightly more than just the Constitution to work with. You're like one of those people that doesn't want to admit the Council of Nicaea's role RE: Christianity "WE HAVE THE BIBLE YO!"

[cwolff]

Gonna need to see some sort of evidence for that. Could it be I'm fucking right and the whole thing is complicated? C'mon man, you can't just mail it in like this.

Now you're saying "it's complicated" and you started by saying that it's as easy as reading it literally.


Link me one part of the Constitution, pre-amendments, that says slavery of any kind is ok, and I will call you the winner.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

[Warriorbird]

Because Democrats are assholes?


As much as you hate Andrew Jackson he wasn't President until quite a while after the Constitution. If you think they're so awful why don't you give up using twenty dollar bills and disapproving of the Federal government? Science!

[Tgo01]

As much as you hate Andrew Jackson he wasn't President until quite a while after the Constitution. If you think they're so awful why don't you give up using twenty dollar bills and disapproving of the Federal government? Science!

Pphhhbbttt. I only use hundreds.

[Thondalar]

Don't get me started on that one. If I speak my mind NSA will dispatch someone to escort me to Gitmo.

I'll speak MY mind, and I don't give a fuck. Put me in GitMo...I strongly believe the American people will come through, as they always have so far, because regardless of all this Left and Right, and the resurgence of America-hating...I firmly believe that there are enough of us left that believe in a world where everyone has equal rights and the opportunity to do whatever the hell they want to do. I believe that there can exist a world where people are respectful and loving of each other despite their differences. And I think if we, as a nation, got back to our core...got back to a literal interpretation of the Constitution and what our Forefathers wanted for us as a Nation...we could accomplish that. A true Utopia, where people were free to do what they wanted at any time (unless it impeded the freedom of others, in any way). No race, no sex, everyone living in freedom.

[Androidpk]

Don't get me started on that one. If I speak my mind NSA will dispatch someone to escort me to Gitmo.

That comment alone is enough to put your name on a list.

[cwolff]

I'll speak MY mind, and I don't give a fuck. Put me in GitMo...I strongly believe the American people will come through, as they always have so far, because regardless of all this Left and Right, and the resurgence of America-hating...I firmly believe that there are enough of us left that believe in a world where everyone has equal rights and the opportunity to do whatever the hell they want to do. I believe that there can exist a world where people are respectful and loving of each other despite their differences. And I think if we, as a nation, got back to our core...got back to a literal interpretation of the Constitution and what our Forefathers wanted for us as a Nation...we could accomplish that. A true Utopia, where people were free to do what they wanted at any time (unless it impeded the freedom of others, in any way). No race, no sex, everyone living in freedom.

be careful...they're reading this!

[Thondalar]

Just because you stuff your fingers in your ears doesn't mean you can ignore history. The Southern states would not have been involved in the process without the acceptance of slavery. I'm sorry it's hard for you to admit. We have slightly more than just the Constitution to work with. You're like one of those people that doesn't want to admit the Council of Nicaea's role RE: Christianity "WE HAVE THE BIBLE YO!"

Still waiting for some sort of evidence to your assertion. I'm asking a very simple question...where in the Constitution does it say it's OK to discriminate against any US citizen for any reason? Can you answer that?

[Thondalar]

be careful...they're reading this!

I hope so...and like my wish for people on this board, I hope they're reading and understanding.

[Warriorbird]

Still waiting for some sort of evidence to your assertion. I'm asking a very simple question...where in the Constitution does it say it's OK to discriminate against any US citizen for any reason? Can you answer that?

It's fine that you want to pretend that we literally only have the Constitution to go on to tell us American history. It's just an excellent illustration of insanity. It's also fine that you didn't read any more about the Convention. Just don't expect me to buy into your magical thinking.

[cwolff]

Link me one part of the Constitution, pre-amendments, that says slavery of any kind is ok, and I will call you the winner.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.


Still waiting for some sort of evidence to your assertion. I'm asking a very simple question...where in the Constitution does it say it's OK to discriminate against any US citizen for any reason? Can you answer that?

I'm the Winner!

[Thondalar]

It's fine that you want to pretend that we literally only have the Constitution to go on to tell us American history. It's just an excellent illustration of insanity. It's also fine that you didn't read any more about the Convention. Just don't expect me to buy into your magical thinking.

Dude, I'm asking a very simple question here. I'm not saying we didn't do things in spite of the Constitution, that's pretty much common knowledge that we did. I'm not ignoring history. I'm asking you to tell me where in the Constitution it allows for any citizen to be treated differently from any other citizen.

You keep bringing up the Convention...let me ask you, and please be honest...all my posts on this board...at any time have I ever given you the impression I don't know about our Nation's history? I know you like to keep bringing it up as a failure of Libertarianism...but what you don't understand, and that I've tried to express on numerous occasions, is that I too see it as a failure, because it was implemented poorly...the colonies didn't really know what they were getting themselves in to at first...and once "freedom" was secured, they didn't really know how to handle it...you had some of what I consider the greatest minds of all time...Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock(although he was kind of a douche), George Washington (socially inept, but a good Commander...in the long run), Thomas Jefferson (Latrin will kill me if I don't mention James Madison)...these guys were wise beyond their years. Even if you hate white people you can look to a hundred quotes from these guys and understand the logic.

Maybe I hold them on a high pedestal...because I love what America has become. I love the words of these enlightened gentlemen that came from an overbearing State and tried to make something new. Did they have slaves? Fuck right they did. Everyone did back then. Spain, England, Dutch, France, all had slaves. It's just how the world worked...think about it. If you want to fundamentally change something, that you know you're going to catch shit from from your peers...do you just jump out and do it? Or do you lay down a system where such a thing will be possible in future generations?

The Constitution of the United States of America laid the foundation for all (citizen) peoples to be free...regardless of race, sex, or creed...did it take a long ass time for our populace to accept it? Yeah...everyone likes the idea of freedom, but few are willing to live up to the reality of it. The Civil Rights act of the 60's was superfluous not because the US didn't need it (we damn sure did), but because the Constitution, hundreds of years earlier, already gave minorities everything they needed...we just didn't follow it.

The problem was, it took us until the 1960s, 200 or so years later, to realize that what was already laid down, and the fabric of our nation, was true...that all men are created equal. There is no taxonomic difference between a black man, a white man, an Asian man...we're all homo sapiens.

[Thondalar]

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

I'm the Winner!

Er...what?

[Thondalar]

It's fine that you want to pretend that we literally only have the Constitution to go on to tell us American history. It's just an excellent illustration of insanity. It's also fine that you didn't read any more about the Convention. Just don't expect me to buy into your magical thinking.

It's a really simple question man. We agree on a lot of topics, socially and philosophically...I'm really curious why you're doing the ignoramous backstroke right now.

[Back]

This is the tyranny of Democracy.

What would you propose instead?

[Tenlaar]

Can anyone here tell me honestly they hang out with people who don't hold the same views?...Can you honestly say that 90% of your "inner circle" hold beliefs that are categorically different from yours...but you're still friends with them?

You'll probably just discount it, but I can answer yes to both of those. More than 90% of people I spend time around are 45 years or more old beer swilling, christian, super country, ultra conservative bikers who spend more time with their vehicles than they do with their families, books, newspapers and even the internet combined and don't like people who are not white and heterosexual.

[Jarvan]

This has been an interesting discussion, really.

I would also like to point out...

Obama just learned about it in the news.

[Thondalar]

What would you propose instead?

Oh, that's easy. A Representative Republic...oh, wait, that's what we already have.

Man, I tell you what...every time I think those silly forefathers were just goofing off, I run into something like this.

Those guys.

[Thondalar]

I bring up the Articles of Confederation as a failure of Libertarianism, not the Constitutional Convention, which was a triumph of just the opposite. The irony here is your "no amendments" notion stands against the Libertarian POV of the time, which was that the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights to protect the people and the states from the Federal government. The bit you don't want to deal with there is they also didn't want the Federal government to take their slaves. Some of those very men who we both idolize would have left the Constitutional Convention and not supported it unless slavery was in it and it was in it more than once. Wishing away the fact that we had to fight a war to get the 13th 14th and 15th Amendment and then "state's rights" stood for a hundred years more of discrimination doesn't make it so.

This is revisionist history at it's best. Since I've asked you three times now to tell me where in the Constitution it makes any exception for race or sex or creed and you can't...I'm going to mark off anything else you've said as pointless deflection.

My "no amendments" speech depends on a very literal interpretation of the Constitution, which most of our Founding Fathers were in support of...because, like the military-industrial complex, they foresaw the negative impact otherwise...the Patriot Act is a shining, gorgeous example. If the 4th amendment didn't exist, there would be no basis upon which to circumvent it.

This is what "grey areas" get you.

I'm asking you, in plain speech, to explain to me where in the Constitution it makes any exception for race or sex. THE FOUNDATION IS THERE. IN PLAIN SPEECH. It's not the document's fault that we haven't followed it.

[Androidpk]

Oh, that's easy. A Representative Republic...oh, wait, that's what we already have.

Man, I tell you what...every time I think those silly forefathers were just goofing off, I run into something like this.

Those guys.

It's not what we currently have but it is what we should have.

[Thondalar]

It's not what we currently have but it is what we should have.

Eh, for better or worse, it actually is what we have. Look, I'm no more a fan of the fact that billionaire left-wingers like Soros and Bloomberg dictate our policy (see what I did there) than you are, but the fact of the matter is, it's the unfortunate by-product of a better system. What are the alternatives, realistically? Search human history...what do we have to rebut? Monarchistic societies that only advanced because of slave labor...Communistic societies that all failed eventually because it goes against human nature...Socialist societies that can only exist during times of war...

I get what you're getting at. We're not really a Representative Republic anymore because of the societal changes that have come about in the last 100 years or so...

Fortunately, you're incorrect. The electoral college still exists. While we're losing ground (imo because we've done a piss-poor job of explaining why we're so great to the next generation coming up), the Union, as of today, still stands. The Constitution still stands. The Bill of Rights (as besieged as they are)...ok, so many of those have went the way of the Dodo I can't even call that one...I've covered this in a previous post already, so I'll just reiterate...that's what grey areas get you. (Madison warned us about this.)

[Thondalar]

You'll probably just discount it, but I can answer yes to both of those. More than 90% of people I spend time around are 45 years or more old beer swilling, christian, super country, ultra conservative bikers who spend more time with their vehicles than they do with their families, books, newspapers and even the internet combined and don't like people who are not white and heterosexual.

You hang out with some weird dudes.

I would point out that I used the terms "Inner Circle" and "friends"...these guys you talk about seem like people you interact with on a daily basis because you're forced to in some way...I'm guessing job-related, but possibly family or otherwise...

Note I'm not at all "discount"ing it, just saying it doesn't really fit the parameters I set forth when I made the statement. If you're willingly hanging out with these people, and consider them your friends...it doesn't really say a whole lot about you.

[Atlanteax]

Without the amendments we'd still have slavery.

The Founding Fathers were aware of this ("all men are free" while some were slaveowners), but it was a wink-wink, this will resolve itself later on (and so it did).

[Atlanteax]

Oh, that's easy. A Representative Republic...oh, wait, that's what we already have.

Man, I tell you what...every time I think those silly forefathers were just goofing off, I run into something like this.

Those guys.


It's not what we currently have but it is what we should have.

This pretty much. The Founding Fathers had low expectations for the common citizens, and figured that voters would be electing representatives on a meritocracy-basis to vote on their behalf (referring to the Electoral College as an example).

Unfortunately the Democrat and Republican parties colluded and hijacked it so that these middleman representatives (of superior merit than the common voter) are all but 'yes men' who vote along party lines (vs voting for the best candidates).

[Tenlaar]

If you're willingly hanging out with these people, and consider them your friends...it doesn't really say a whole lot about you.

I do willingly spend time with them, and do consider them friends as much as I consider anybody else friends. If I needed help they would come a-roaring down the road. But let's talk about that last bit you felt the need to throw in.

It doesn't say a whole lot about me that I spend time with people who have very different views than I do? I think it doesn't say a whole lot about you that you feel that way. It's not my job to go around changing the way older country people view the world. It is a given of the conversation that those particular views are disparate from my own, so how does that reflect so poorly on me? Is it because I do not reject people entirely if they hold views that I deem ignorant? That I acknowledge that there are still a couple of generations of people roaming around who feel some connection to the 'olden days" and aren't going to change?

They are just as aware of my religious and political leanings as I am of theirs but it does not stop us from seeing the value in each others company or the ways in which our different areas of knowledge and experience can benefit each other. Maybe you, and most other people, should try spending a little more time around those you don't agree with on everything. It just might help with the ridiculous level of divisiveness that is keeping our two political parties from working together to do a fucking thing to help the country.

[Latrinsorm]

If you're ok with your Commander-in-chief not reading something on the grounds of plausible deniability...lay in the bed you've made, I guess. This isn't Rick Scott. This isn't a CEO or CFO of a corporation. This is the President of the United States of America. The idea that he gets an intelligence brief every single day and chooses whether or not to read it and/or take action on it speaks volumes about this presidency...more so than any other single thing. This goes both ways though...he could decide whether or not to do something, and the whether or the not could be good or bad.That doesn't make sense. How could he choose whether or not to read something without reading at least a little of it? The way to get plausible deniability is to not have it written in the first place. C'mon, this is basic spy stuff.
As a scientist, as you claim to be, so focused on empirical evidence...the empirical evidence of his inability to handle any given situation is astounding. The few things that manage to go right, he's all over it...right there, front and center. The volumes of things that go poorly..."what? I just heard about this yesterday on FOX news..."

This is the shit that infuriates me. I have no problems calling out people on both sides of the fence. There is right and there is wrong...call it naive or infantile all you want, the fact of the matter is that without a clear right and wrong NOTHING is ever right or wrong. Grey areas allow everything. These things hurt both sides depending on who is in charge at the time. Instead of hoping for a D or R control in the House or Senate or Presidency or SCOTUS...why not hope for people who understand logic and principle? How have people not figured out that when you give control to any one group, it sucks for everyone not in that group? This is the tyranny of Democracy. People rail against minorities being oppressed...but have no qualms supporting a system of government that allows minorities to be oppressed...because they're in the majority at the time. What happens when you aren't?Looking at things empirically, I see an economic recovery and a rehabilitation of our standing abroad. I also see that I didn't get drawn into the petty whining about Bush or the even more petty whining about Obama. This episode (along with many others) suggests to me that you are not as unbiased as you believe you are, therefore from your point of view people who actually are unbiased appear not to be.
I'll speak MY mind, and I don't give a fuck. Put me in GitMo...I strongly believe the American people will come through, as they always have so far, because regardless of all this Left and Right, and the resurgence of America-hating...I firmly believe that there are enough of us left that believe in a world where everyone has equal rights and the opportunity to do whatever the hell they want to do. I believe that there can exist a world where people are respectful and loving of each other despite their differences. And I think if we, as a nation, got back to our core...got back to a literal interpretation of the Constitution and what our Forefathers wanted for us as a Nation...we could accomplish that. A true Utopia, where people were free to do what they wanted at any time (unless it impeded the freedom of others, in any way). No race, no sex, everyone living in freedom.Our forefathers explicitly didn't want equal rights for everyone. You've got to come to terms with this and abandon fundamentalism. If you want to say that your interpretation of the Constitution was the morally correct one all along, great. It is simply not the case that it was the factually correct one. The founders weren't geniuses or idiots, saints or devils. They were just men, prisoners of their flesh and their time as all men are.

Jefferson explicitly campaigned against Adams on the basis of the Sedition Act, then went right ahead and jailed people for criticizing his government once elected. You can look back at the campaign slogans and swoon all you like, but they don't blind me to what those people really were.

[Dwaar]

I do willingly spend time with them, and do consider them friends as much as I consider anybody else friends. If I needed help they would come a-roaring down the road. But let's talk about that last bit you felt the need to throw in.

It doesn't say a whole lot about me that I spend time with people who have very different views than I do? I think it doesn't say a whole lot about you that you feel that way. It's not my job to go around changing the way older country people view the world. It is a given of the conversation that those particular views are disparate from my own, so how does that reflect so poorly on me? Is it because I do not reject people entirely if they hold views that I deem ignorant? That I acknowledge that there are still a couple of generations of people roaming around who feel some connection to the 'olden days" and aren't going to change?

They are just as aware of my religious and political leanings as I am of theirs but it does not stop us from seeing the value in each others company or the ways in which our different areas of knowledge and experience can benefit each other. Maybe you, and most other people, should try spending a little more time around those you don't agree with on everything. It just might help with the ridiculous level of divisiveness that is keeping our two political parties from working together to do a fucking thing to help the country.

Very well said. I wish more people thought like you did.. with regards to appreciating people for who they are, even if some of their views on life differ from your own.

Excellent statement.

[Tgo01]

Germany caught another US spy. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/10/anger-mounts-as-germany-unearths-second-u-s-spy-suspect/20928298/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl8|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D499645)

I wonder if Obama has heard about this in the news yet.

[Warriorbird]

This is revisionist history at it's best. Since I've asked you three times now to tell me where in the Constitution it makes any exception for race or sex or creed and you can't...I'm going to mark off anything else you've said as pointless deflection.

My "no amendments" speech depends on a very literal interpretation of the Constitution, which most of our Founding Fathers were in support of...because, like the military-industrial complex, they foresaw the negative impact otherwise...the Patriot Act is a shining, gorgeous example. If the 4th amendment didn't exist, there would be no basis upon which to circumvent it.

This is what "grey areas" get you.

In addition, without the Bill of Rights, just like slavery, the Constitution would have never been ratified. While members of the Tea Party often fail to get the concept of compromise it is how our government functions.

I'm asking you, in plain speech, to explain to me where in the Constitution it makes any exception for race or sex. THE FOUNDATION IS THERE. IN PLAIN SPEECH. It's not the document's fault that we haven't followed it.

There are multiple explicit mentions of human bondage in the Constitution. Guess what. I don't think indentured servants were particularly equal either (and nor were women when you check the number of instances of men in the Constitution). It doesn't matter what race or sex they were. Nowadays, we call that sort of arrangement sweatshop labor.

Our Founding Fathers weren't "in support of" a literal reading of the Constitution. Madison WROTE the first ten amendments just like he wrote the Constitution. There were no protests from Jefferson when Marshall gave the Supreme Court power from Marbury vs. Madison either.

I'm not the revisionist here.

In addition, without the Bill of Rights, just like without slavery, the Constitution would have never been ratified. Ever read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers? While members of the Tea Party often fail to understand compromise it is how our government works.


The Founding Fathers were aware of this ("all men are free" while some were slaveowners), but it was a wink-wink, this will resolve itself later on (and so it did).

There was a specific noted discussion about what percentage of a vote a slave would represent. There were no plans for "resolving it down the road." It wasn't "wink wink, nudge nudge, this'll fix itself." It was on the record and in the document. The Southern states wouldn't have signed if it was challenged. Many of the people at the Convention made their living from slavery.

[Latrinsorm]

The Founding Fathers were aware of this ("all men are free" while some were slaveowners), but it was a wink-wink, this will resolve itself later on (and so it did).The Founding Fathers intentionally fomented the deadliest war in American history?

[Parkbandit]

Germany caught another US spy. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/10/anger-mounts-as-germany-unearths-second-u-s-spy-suspect/20928298/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl8|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D499645)

I wonder if Obama has heard about this in the news yet.

I don't get why we are spying on our allies.

[Tgo01]

I don't get why we are spying on our allies.

Well to be fair it's a pretty safe bet the Germans are up to something.

[cwolff]

I can't tell if you guys are joking are not. Are people here really wondering why we are spying on our allies and why the President's people deny knowledge?

[Tgo01]

Are people here really wondering ... why the President's people deny knowledge?

Did you remember to wear a hat while spending all of that time out in the wilderness with the sun beating down on you? :/

People aren't wondering why Obama's people deny knowledge, people are wondering why after the story broke and the entire world read about it in the news is Obama still claiming he hadn't heard about it yet.

[Wrathbringer]

Did you remember to wear a hat while spending all of that time out in the wilderness with the sun beating down on you? :/

People aren't wondering why Obama's people deny knowledge, people are wondering why after the story broke and the entire world read about it in the news is Obama still claiming he hadn't heard about it yet.

6778

[Kembal]

I don't get why we are spying on our allies.

Yeah, that.

I said it in an earlier thread, but the intelligence community is lying to him, repeatedly. If they had to say everything they were doing, the money (and their fiefdoms) would dry up.

Of course, he doesn't have the managerial competence to go ferret out the information either.

[cwolff]

Did you remember to wear a hat while spending all of that time out in the wilderness with the sun beating down on you? :/

People aren't wondering why Obama's people deny knowledge, people are wondering why after the story broke and the entire world read about it in the news is Obama still claiming he hadn't heard about it yet.

That's such bullshit. It's just spying and denying. There's nothing new here. I completely understand why right wing media would make a story out of this but there's no explaining why you guys choose to swallow it.

[Jeril]

I don't get why we are spying on our allies.


Yeah, that.

I said it in an earlier thread, but the intelligence community is lying to him, repeatedly. If they had to say everything they were doing, the money (and their fiefdoms) would dry up.

Of course, he doesn't have the managerial competence to go ferret out the information either.

Knowledge is power. Whats not to get? And while we might be allies it doesn't mean all our interests are the same either.

[Warriorbird]

We've spied on our allies since 1776. Some Presidents are just better at denying it than others. Some agents are just better at not getting caught.

[Androidpk]

We had one president that was fed up with the shenanigans from the CIA and he was set to disband the agency. I'm sure you can guess what president that was. No conspiracy to see there though, move along.

[Tgo01]

That's such bullshit. It's just spying and denying.

cwolff, seriously, remember the hat next time.

There is a difference between denying that the man was spying for the US and not even acknowledging that Germany had arrested someone on charges with spying for the US.

The amazing part here is how you think Obama is actually somehow looking good in this scenario?

[Warriorbird]

We had one president that was fed up with the shenanigans from the CIA and he was set to disband the agency. I'm sure you can guess what president that was. No conspiracy to see there though, move along.

He was shot with a famously non fragmenting bullet that "exploded" too!

[cwolff]

cwolff, seriously, remember the hat next time.

There is a difference between denying that the man was spying for the US and not even acknowledging that Germany had arrested someone on charges with spying for the US.

The amazing part here is how you think Obama is actually somehow looking good in this scenario?

There's no difference. This is low brow/low intellectual partisan politics. Just because the mouth breathers are drooling over this shit doens't mean you have to pick it up and promulgate it.

btw: I see you're still up to your old tricks.
The amazing part here is how you think Obama is actually somehow looking good in this scenario? Of course I've given no comment about how this makes Obama look, but you still write that? I don't get you dude. Still making shit up to divert attention.

[Tgo01]

There's no difference.

There is no difference between denying that the man was spying for the US and not even acknowledging that Germany arrested a man on charges of spying for the US?

Well...let me see if I can explain the difference.

Denying the man was spying for the US would be if Obama said "No, he was not spying on you for us, Merkel. We love Germany."

Not acknowledging the man was even arrested is "Durr! What man? Who? In the news? What's a news? I'm just here to campaign and play basketball."

[Warriorbird]

There is no difference between denying that the man was spying for the US and not even acknowledging that Germany arrested a man on charges of spying for the US?

Well...let me see if I can explain the difference.

Denying the man was spying for the US would be if Obama said "No, he was not spying on you for us, Merkel. We love Germany."

Not acknowledging the man was even arrested is "Durr! What man? Who? In the news? What's a news? I'm just here to campaign and play basketball."

Deny all knowledge.

[Androidpk]

He was shot with a famously non fragmenting bullet that "exploded" too!

Well that was just strictly due to physics and pure science.. When the angle of a bullets dangle isn't proportional to the izzy of the jizzy then spontaneous combustion is bound to happen and fuck you up. You can't make this shit up.

[Tgo01]

Deny all knowledge.

I'll admit, Obama is an expert at that. To the point that it makes him look inept.

"Benghazi? What's that?"
"IRS? What's that?"
"School shooting? What's that?"
"Spy? What's that?"
"Just remember; I'm the president and I take full responsibility."

[Warriorbird]

Well that was just strictly due to physics and pure science.. When the angle of a bullets dangle isn't proportional to the izzy of the jizzy then spontaneous combustion is bound to happen and fuck you up. You can't make this shit up.

Obviously. Then we harped up the "magic bullet" that was actually a believable Carcano shot.

[Tgo01]

I will give Obama credit for not saying "What is Germany?" like Justin Bieber would have said.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76CqijPNGSk

[Wrathbringer]

Can we spy on you, Germany? YES WE CAN

[Latrinsorm]

We had one president that was fed up with the shenanigans from the CIA and he was set to disband the agency. I'm sure you can guess what president that was. No conspiracy to see there though, move along.Taft?

[Warriorbird]

Taft?

Taft is so underrated. President, Chief Justice, Secretary of War, and Governor-General of the Phillipines.

[waywardgs]

Taft is so underrated. President, Chief Justice, Secretary of War, and Governor-General of the Phillipines.

Not to mention the man sure could fill up a bath tub, boy howdy.

[Warriorbird]

Not to mention the man sure could fill up a bath tub, boy howdy.

He expanded into his roles (rolls?) as time required.

[Androidpk]

Not to mention the man sure could fill up a bath tub, boy howdy.

He also invented taffy.

[waywardgs]

He also invented taffy.

Then it should be called tafty.

[Warriorbird]

Then it should be called tafty.

It just doesn't have the same ring.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/52369027.jpg

[waywardgs]

Haha. I don't care I'm calling it tafty from now on.

[Jarvan]

So which is it Obama....

Did you learn about most of the things going on in your Admin from the news... as you have always said...

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/140022-stranger-presidency-times-obama-heard-news-59-seconds/

Or do you learn about them before hand through your reports? As you just recently said?

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/07/23/obama-says-he-doesnt-watch-the-news-whatever-theyre-reporting-about-usually-i-know/


"According to a White House travel pool report, the president also told those in attendance he doesn’t watch the news because “whatever they’re reporting about, usually I know.”"

So which is it? Are you a Liar now? Or have you been a Liar all along?

[Tgo01]

It takes mighty big balls to claim you know everything. I think only one person in the world has ever claimed such..I think his name started with a G...ended with a D...and had an O somewhere in the middle...

[Parkbandit]

It takes mighty big balls to claim you know everything. I think only one person in the world has ever claimed such..I think his name started with a G...ended with a D...and had an O somewhere in the middle...

http://media.aintitcool.com/media/legacy/images2006/GeraldFord.jpg

[Methais]

It takes mighty big balls to claim you know everything. I think only one person in the world has ever claimed such..I think his name started with a G...ended with a D...and had an O somewhere in the middle...

Mick Foley?