There are also 57 states. Oh, and Mexico existed long before the United States was even an idea.
Can you even imagine how much the mainstream media would be repeating this footage if a Republican president had said all these things?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Lisa it'ld be easier for people to take you seriously if you didn't do the usual republitard nitpicking.
If Bush said it, we would laugh at him because Bush isn't all up there if you know what I mean and not malevolent, when Obama says it based on that clip he most certaintly wasn't saying "I'm going to work towards repealing the admendment" just that for the forseeable future he will be working towards a long term working relationship with President Karzai, he didn't specify being in office the whole time.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to get the expected part out of the way right up front: yet again, just like when she made the claim that Obama was ceding US territory to Mexico, Lisa's title doesn't actually describe what's actually happening, it describes an incorrect conclusion of the sort that she's easily duped into biting into, because it works on her biases.
In the clip used, Obama didn't say that he plans to be president for 8-10 years; he said he fully expects to have relations with various heads of state from across the world for 8-10 years. Presidents tend to continue this sort of thing after they leave office.
Great youtube though. Good comic relief from the NObama crowd.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jimmy Carter is still involved in international politics, and I believe that he is still referred to as "Mr. President". But then, he's just an ignorant peanut farmer....
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It takes maybe five seconds (ten, if you have to listen twice) to see that Obama isn't saying he plans on being *president* for 8-10 years.
It is weird to watch someone with such an excess of confidence and ideological rigidity combined with such a habit of being easily misled and wrong.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The name of Mexico entails the origin, history, and use of the name Mexico, which dates back to 14th century Mesoamerica. Mexico was named after its capital, Mexico City, whose original name was Mexico-Tenochtitlan, in reference to the name of the Nahua Aztec tribe, the Mexica. The Nahuatl word Mēxihco is composed of the root Mexi and a suffix -co that means "place" or "city."
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: It is weird to watch someone with such an excess of confidence and ideological rigidity combined with such a habit of being easily misled and wrong.
Really? I tend to think those things go together more often than not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty clear he was talking about having relationships with these heads of state over the next 8-10 years, not that he believed he would be president for 10 years.
But I'll be the first to apologize to Lisa if Obama ever tries to extend presidential term duration or limits.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's pretty clear he was talking about having relationships with these heads of state over the next 8-10 years, not that he believed he would be president for 10 years.
But I'll be the first to apologize to Lisa if Obama ever tries to extend presidential term duration or limits.
I don't think that will ever happen, though there are already some people advocating it.
I don't believe for a second that Obama would ever accept becoming a dictator even if it was thrust upon him. I may disagree with him politically, but I truly believe he is an honest man.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I agree with the above, but am still confused about his 57 states comment.
There are more than 7 provinces in Canada, so it probably wasn't that. But when he said it, he sounded honestly confused. "Fifty... uh... seven".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 57 states comment was made during the campaign when then candidate Obama was visibly very tired. In context, he'd actually have been saying that there were 60 states. Here's the video.
He was talking about his travels on the campaign trail and said that he'd been to fifty....seven states on it with one left to go, as staff and security concerns meant he wouldn't be going to Hawaii or Alaska. He pretty obviously meant to say 47 states and screwed up. It's certainly something I can see happening for someone in the grueling process of campaigning for President.
The rest of it, well, people who don't really care about the truth and hate President Obama tried to make something out of it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll say, as I said for George W. Bush, harping on these piddly little issues, especially when you have to be dishonest to even put them in a bad light, actively hurts your attempted opposition.
I think President Bush is a great example of this. He was an awful, awful President. What he actually did was so bad all I think you needed to do was keep pointing out the things we knew he did. However, it seems like the opposition to him liked to focus on either little things that they could make fun of him about, wildly overblown claims like that he was a war criminal, or things they made up. Doing this ended up allowing people to tar all people who strongly disagreed with President Bush with a lack of credibility and minimized or even hid the many, many things that he did that were legitimate reasons for criticism.
I think the same thing is true to some extent with President Obama, although yes, you've got the Fox News crowd, so stupid, obviously false and/or inconsequential criticisms are more acceptable to them. Nonetheless, President Obama has done a lot of things that I think deserve strong opposition (did you know that the Obama DOJ is claiming the right to order CIA hit squads to kill American citizens without needed to justify this to anyone?), but these are getting lost in the din of the stupid and/or dishonest criticisms that people are bringing up.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
this quote could quickly replace 'obama's katrina' for me.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually there might actually be evidence now that President Bush may be guilty of war crimes, according to statements by a former General.
Now as for term limits I can't honestly see the problem here, Eliot Trudeau and Jean Cretien served for many many many years, in Canada things have worked out fairly well without having any kind of term limits on either senators or prime ministers.
I really want to be a Senator, you get that position while young your set for life.
IP: Logged |
quote:Actually there might actually be evidence now that President Bush may be guilty of war crimes, according to statements by a former General.
No, there isn't. There is a huge difference between war crimes being committed by someone in the American military and the President personally committing war crimes.
---
edit: Or maybe I spoke too soon. Sorry, I retract that.
quote:The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account. ... "After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. "The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," he wrote.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Blayne Bradley: Yep
quote:The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account. ... "After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. "The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," he wrote.
The Supreme Court held that “international” did not mean “global” but rather “intern-nation” or “between nations.” Because al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, the court held, the conflict with al-Qaeda was not inter-nation, or international, however global in might be. Under the language of Common Article 3, the court deemed the conflict with al-Qaeda an “armed conflict not of an international character.”
posted
Hey Lisa, did you know he's also a Muslim? And he's not even an American citizen! In all seriousness though, what exactly is the point of this thread?
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's pretty clear he was talking about having relationships with these heads of state over the next 8-10 years, not that he believed he would be president for 10 years.
But I'll be the first to apologize to Lisa if Obama ever tries to extend presidential term duration or limits.
I don't think that will ever happen, though there are already some people advocating it.
I don't believe for a second that Obama would ever accept becoming a dictator even if it was thrust upon him. I may disagree with him politically, but I truly believe he is an honest man.
Two of those are over a year old (first one was before he was even elected), and the third one is Woody Allen, so yeah...
I wonder if they all still feel the same way.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Hey Lisa, did you know he's also a Muslim? And he's not even an American citizen! In all seriousness though, what exactly is the point of this thread?
I doubt he's a Muslim, though I think he's extremely well disposed towards Islam, and shows bias in their favor.
Do you want me to delete the thread? I can, if you like. Get a consensus, and it's gone.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He looked like he was joking when he said 57 states.
Not in the clip I saw. It looked like he was confused. He fumbled and then arrived at 57.
I saw the clip. I think he was joking. I think he was tired, and that's why he made that particular joke, because he'd been all over the place.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Hey Lisa, did you know he's also a Muslim? And he's not even an American citizen! In all seriousness though, what exactly is the point of this thread?
I doubt he's a Muslim, though I think he's extremely well disposed towards Islam, and shows bias in their favor.
This is how I feel about him as well. I've lived in Malaysia and it definitely left me well disposed towards Muslims. It might even have given me some biases I am not aware of.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love how no one can seem to focus on his positions, it's always about personal attacks and blanket, rambling statements about socialism. Republicans seem quite a bit more bitter than the Dems did with Bush.
Standing in the middle, most of Obama's policies really aren't that far off from those of G.W.
But then again, there was a lot more to attack with Bush. . . .
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I may be incorrect, but don't the Geneva Conventions apply only to people fighting for a military of a nation?
The definition of unlawful combantants is of course a matter of debate. IIRC, the basic split is that no nation or international organisation recognises the basic Bush argument that the people at Guantanimo were "unlawful combantants." While the Bush administration argued that they were, this was only to establish why the States could hold them there without charge, not to torture them.
This is of course a tangent. I refer you to the article that you linked.
quote:Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, if followed, can provide a core “bill of rights” safety-net for detainees even if additional Geneva Convention provisions were not applied.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2006, decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied Common Article 3 to a global conflict with a non-state actor, al-Qaeda, taking place within the territory of a country that is a party to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan. Its implications are that Common Article 3 applies to the global conflict with terrorists anywhere on earth involving the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions. ... Common Article 3:
* requires humane treatment of persons taking no active part in the hostilities, i.e., including detainees since removed from combat, without discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, gender or wealth * prohibits violence to life and person, such as murder, mutilation, torture and cruel treatment
In other words, the debate over whether whether the detainees were unlawful combatants only seems to affect the other Geneva Convention provisions. Common Article 3 which outlaws torture applies regardless, even for the States.
posted
Yeah like pretty literally, after you comb through the logs and counsel of Yoo and Addington it started to become patently evident that the Bush administration's defense against liability for defying geneva convention prohibition against torture is to claim that the 'enhanced interrogation' methods were not torture.
If you allow that waterboarding is torture, they're war criminals as far up the chain of command will show the orders went.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Hey Lisa, did you know he's also a Muslim? And he's not even an American citizen! In all seriousness though, what exactly is the point of this thread?
I doubt he's a Muslim, though I think he's extremely well disposed towards Islam, and shows bias in their favor.
This is how I feel about him as well. I've lived in Malaysia and it definitely left me well disposed towards Muslims. It might even have given me some biases I am not aware of.
I didn't say "Well disposed towards Muslims". I said "Well disposed towards Islam".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, actually he can be president for 10 years, no constitutional amendments required! Of course, that would require getting elected vice-president next time, sitting around for 2 years, hoping that president leaves office allowing him 2 more years (now he's up to 6) after which he could still be elected one more time for a total of 10 years, or perhaps one day less.
Maybe if we repeal the 12th amendment, this might just happen.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Hey Lisa, did you know he's also a Muslim? And he's not even an American citizen! In all seriousness though, what exactly is the point of this thread?
I doubt he's a Muslim, though I think he's extremely well disposed towards Islam, and shows bias in their favor.
This is how I feel about him as well. I've lived in Malaysia and it definitely left me well disposed towards Muslims. It might even have given me some biases I am not aware of.
I didn't say "Well disposed towards Muslims". I said "Well disposed towards Islam".
Honestly, from what I understand, every president has reached out to EVERY major denomination's leaders and participated in religious celebration and discussion. The only think that I see different with Obama is media coverage. And other people calling attention to it.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by cloark: Well, actually he can be president for 10 years, no constitutional amendments required! Of course, that would require getting elected vice-president next time, sitting around for 2 years, hoping that president leaves office allowing him 2 more years (now he's up to 6) after which he could still be elected one more time for a total of 10 years, or perhaps one day less.
Maybe if we repeal the 12th amendment, this might just happen.
im pretty sure anything that disqualifies you from prez also does it to vp.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Hey Lisa, did you know he's also a Muslim? And he's not even an American citizen! In all seriousness though, what exactly is the point of this thread?
I doubt he's a Muslim, though I think he's extremely well disposed towards Islam, and shows bias in their favor.
This is how I feel about him as well. I've lived in Malaysia and it definitely left me well disposed towards Muslims. It might even have given me some biases I am not aware of.
I didn't say "Well disposed towards Muslims". I said "Well disposed towards Islam".
I found plenty to admire about Islam while I lived there in Malaysia. It's an example of a country with a Muslim majority where there is plenty of stability and room for those of other backgrounds.
Even as a 3rd grader it didn't sit well with me that people who were Muslims could not convert to other faiths, and if they married a spouse of another faith the spouse was required to convert but it didn't cut both ways.
But one can find things like that in every belief system. I'd still describe myself as positively disposed towards Islam.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cloark: Well, actually he can be president for 10 years, no constitutional amendments required! Of course, that would require getting elected vice-president next time, sitting around for 2 years, hoping that president leaves office allowing him 2 more years (now he's up to 6) after which he could still be elected one more time for a total of 10 years, or perhaps one day less.
Maybe if we repeal the 12th amendment, this might just happen.
im pretty sure anything that disqualifies you from prez also does it to vp.
Yes and no.
Obama could not serve a second consecutive term and then become VP. He could however run for VP in 2012, become president in 2014 when the president dies or leaves office, and then run again in 2016 for his second full term.
I believe that is the scenario that cloark was referring to.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Hey Lisa, did you know he's also a Muslim? And he's not even an American citizen! In all seriousness though, what exactly is the point of this thread?
I doubt he's a Muslim, though I think he's extremely well disposed towards Islam, and shows bias in their favor.
But wasn't he the one who said Jerusalem mustn't be divided and staffed the white house with a bunch of odious Zionists?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
(Post edited by Janitor Blade. You wouldn't tolerate that sort of comment were it directed at you Blayne, so please take a cue from your own sense of propriety.)
posted
Blayne, Telling another poster here to "Shut up" is out of line. You'd do well to edit that or better, apologize for it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Blayne, Telling another poster here to "Shut up" is out of line. You'd do well to edit that or better, apologize for it.
Absolutely not! Blayne, I hope you won't let yourself be pressured into apologizing. Ibby doesn't apologize for his constant antisemitic and misogynistic and homophobic attacks, and there's no reason why anyone should have to apologize for telling him to shut it when he engages in them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Sa'eed's behavior and the contents of many his posts are shameful, but the simple fact remains that he is not breaking the user's agreement by it, while Blayne is.
There is also some slight chance that Blayne may reform. Sa'eed is a troll and of little consequence. He's not worth remonstrating with and that's kind of what he's looking for anyway.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd guess there's 57 states if you include the hopefuls: DC, Guam, the other territories that got quarters, and that smidge of Michigan on the other side of the lake.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't expect Blayne to apologize, but I am not pleased with any attempt to goad posters into posting something that does violate the TOS. Sa'eed has not been breaking rules, and I don't appreciate having my job made harder by people who hope to push him into doing it so that I am forced to ban/suspend him.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'd guess there's 57 states if you include the hopefuls: DC, Guam, the other territories that got quarters, and that smidge of Michigan on the other side of the lake.
You know the irony is that they want to form their own state and call it "Superior." Unless the only criterion we're using in judging quality is how far north you are, I just don't see it. As far as I'm concerned though, they can go for it. We already got all the iron, timber and copper out of them. They're just a burden now.
JanitorBlade -
quote:Post edited by Janitor Blade. You wouldn't tolerate that sort of comment were it directed at you Blayne, so please take a queue from your own sense of propriety
Neither here nor there, but I think that should be "cue" and not "queue."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
