Let's See How Long Obama's 'Soldiers ... Fighting On My Behalf' Comment Hangs Around
The print and online guardians in the establishment press may have to open a new case of ellipses and order extra pairs of paraphrases to deal with this one. Video and audio editing will be easier, if not ethical (NBC has taught us that during the past several weeks).
Declaring what everyone with a functioning brain has known all along -- namely that President Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage but hasn't had the political integrity to admit as much until now -- the commander-in-chief of the nation's armed forces told ABC News that "when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines (sic) or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." Yes, he said that our military is out there fighting on his behalf (links are later in this post; HT to an emailer).
Funny, I thought that commissioned officers swore to defend the Constitution of the United States before saying they would obey the orders of the President:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
FDR, for all his ego, would never have said that soldiers in World War II were fighting on his behalf. Neither would Truman, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or even Carter and Clinton (although Clinton might have thought it).
Early AP reports are carrying the "on my behalf" portion of the quote (here and here; saved at host here and here). I don't expect that to last, and I surely don't expect to see a lot of TV air time devoted to this telling, egotistical slip.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Oath to the leader...
Submitted by pockets64 on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:21pm.
Fealty to the leader is medieval.
Loyalty to the leader is for autocrats, such as the Kim Il Jongs and Hitlers of history.
so
Submitted by grammajane on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:23pm.
very un-presidential. It's so hard to believe these words. What has happened to this country. Sad, so very sad and pathetic.
He also said
Submitted by mcherr on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:26pm.
that he consulted his "....neighbors....". Those living at 1602 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Obama said he "Consulted his neighbors"?
Submitted by Delsa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 1:44am.
The only neighbor near the White House is?
Or maybe he meant Bill Ayers?
Yeah he gave
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:24am.
Ayers a shout on the hello phone. Heh heh.
Yep, and the Wermacht had to swear a personal oath to the Führer
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:44pm.
The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934:
"I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath."
As for our Dear Ruler, this was no 'egotistical slip.'
It was a statement made by an aspiring dictator that now has the so-called conservatives in congress cowed to the point of impotence - just like the members of the Reichtag were.
The only difference is that Herr Obama hasn't ordered the Capitol building torched.
Yet.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Yep, and the Wermacht............
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:10am.
We will have our "Reichstag moment" of some sort to give obambi an opportunity to declare martial law. It can't happen here? It is already in process, slowly but surely, as the frog is in the pot to be boiled.....slowly. The most important piece of the tolitarian puzzle is already in place - a state run media (Propaganda) arm. Next, we have a compliant military at the highest levels. The list goes on..............The camel has more than his nose under the tent. Did anyone else pick up on the photo op at Ft. Stewart of POTUS and the angry FLOTUS walking past rank after rank of saluting soldiers as backdrop? When do the torchlight parades reappear? We live in an era of government by fiat. Constitution? What Constitution. We don't need no #%*&^ Constitution.....or Congress. POTUS has stated that the Constitution provents him from doing some things he wants to accomplish. As for congress, he just ignores them. I ask again, in closing, why does the DHS need millions of rounds of hollow point bullets?
I hae to disagree Herbster
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:48am.
I am retired military and currently serve as a DoD civilian, and I can say, with great assurance, that the military would NEVER support martial law for political reasons, especially by elitist leftists who we KNOW despise us. The vast majority of service members don't like or respect Obama and would never bear arms against our own countrymen on his whim. Some of the higher brass might very well be "cowed", but nothing like Germany in WWII. Their military leadership were in fear for their lives if they didn't bow down to Hitler. This isn't even close to the case here and now. And our troops aren't uneducated, unthinking drones who would blindly and unquestioningly follow any such orders. The best any senior military leader could hope for is that the troops would simply refuse the order. Worst case is what used to be called "fragging". That's a bullet in the head from their own troops.
As for DHS and all their ammo, just let them try to enforce martial law on America by force. A subtle reminder would be Iraq and Afghanistan (minus the political flubbing). Our military can stomp ANY trained army in the world, and DHS isn't even in that class. Not to mention the millions of armed civilians in the US (which, BTW, was the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment - to prevent an armed political takeover). No, DHS wouldn't last a day against REAL troops.
No, our current crop of leftist political "leadership" might consider such an act, but I sincerely doubt even they would be so stupid as to attempt it. Not only would they be out of office, they would be 6 feet under. As soft as Americans have become, such an act would ABSOLUTELY not be tolerated. The lefties seem to prefer their pitiful little violent protests, while conservatives hold back, mainly because OUR violent reaction would be far more dramatic and final. If the leftists want to see REAL violence, just try to force a takeover in America!
Cappman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:04am.
Let's hope the military also remembers BO hasn't been kind to them. He's cutting their benefits by throwing them under Obamacare, and has usurped for himself their victories.
More to the point
Submitted by chiefpayne on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 1:07pm.
IAW the Uniform Code of Military Justice...soldiers are required to obey LAWFUL orders. And if UNlawful orders are given, it is a REQUIREMENT in the UCMJ for soldiers to DISOBEY them.
For example, during the Viet Nam war, the My Lai Massacre occurred when 1LT Calley was told to wipe out everyone in a village because he was told (verbally) that there was only Viet Cong were there. His unit wiped out every man, woman and yes the children too.
Later, Calley tried to say he was only following orders...and perhaps he was. But he was still convicted because he was WRONG to follow the orders given.
Soldiers are now REQUIRED to THINK about the orders given and if they consider them unlawful, they are required to disobey.
Cappmann, I trust those sentiments would be equally
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 3:54pm.
applicable to an attempted takeover by rightists.
Jer
And I suppose there's a point to that statement ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:35pm.
... when the right has never had a CinC act like the military is all about protecting HIM and not the country?
Didn't think so.
Apparently you prefer to have a discussion with yourself,
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:52pm.
Tom.
That way, you can't lose.
So, carry on.
Jer
I've got nothin' for that except a ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:05pm.
... yawwwwwwn.
Come back when you have a point.
Jer has actually become MORE
Submitted by ant on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:42pm.
Jer has actually become MORE liberal recently...now he seems to prefer the lib strategy of dropping a duece and running away.
And your posts have become surprisingly more inane
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:47pm.
lately, ant.
What happened?
But point out where I've dropped a deuce and run, please.
Jer
I have to agree
Submitted by ant on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:29pm.
Some of my posts have grown flippant, even inane, but only some. Perhaps it's because a woman has recently broken my heart, (most likely...now I'm greatly distracted and disheartened), perhaps because I have grown weary of struggling financially and occupationally, perhaps I am weary of good being called evil and evil being called good that I have made comments attempting to be light-hearted, facetious or surley, perhaps it is pointless when the truth you try to portray are answered by talking points, irrelevant 'facts' and 'f*** you's' (not from you, but others) , perhaps because everyday is 'death by a thousand cuts' from the bureacratic, un-elected and elected 'establishment' ...perhaps...but I don't care. Maybe I'm just sick to death of liberals and all their BS.
Jer
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 8:26am.
With 22 years of active duty, and another 10 (so far) in DoD civil Service, I can't imagine anything that would force a military takeover, short of the government (left OR right) taking far more power than they're entitled to. While our feds have, over the last few decades, grabbed some power here and there, nothing short of unjustified martial law would force the military to physically stand up to the White House and/or congress. And keep in mind, martial law would have to be enforced BY THE MILITARY. Obama, during his '08 campaign made a comment that really stood out for me. He said something along the lines of wanting to establish a paramilitary force, equal in strength to our military, answerable only to him. Even then he understood he could never get the military to support a power grab of such magnitude.
No Jer, there's little to no chance of a righty military junta. Conservatives would have to be seriously backed against a wall to even consider it. Conservatives, in general, are willing to let things play out as they will. Lefties, on the other hand, KNOW the majority of the country won't go along with their schemes, hence the thoughts of suspending that pesky Constitution and declaring martial law so no one can interfere with their agenda.
No one is going to force a
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:56pm.
No one is going to force a takeover of America, despite the frog, pot, camel, and tent analogies.
True...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:19pm.
and it would be far more likely to be an attempt by the far right. Did you ever listen to any of that alarmist blather peddled by Beck? It bordered on incitement of a preemptive coup against the present administration.
Jer
Man that guy was a loon.
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:43pm.
Man that guy was a loon.
No Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:54pm.
Beck never called for incitement or a preemptive coup or anything like it. He's called for the safety of the president because it would be an excuse for the left to riot.
Rad...I said "bordered" on incitement. And that is fact.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:59pm.
Jer
I disagree
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:04pm.
What has he said that has bordered on incitement? And if you aren't careful I'll give you "even for you" comment.
;-)
Incitement Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:15pm.
Just look at what Beck has done. He "outed" Van Jones and now Jones is out there working directly for George Soros calling for open violent revolution. Oh wait, that's Jones "inciting". And then Anita Dunn was outed for calling for revolution. Beck once said Obama was going to use the United Nations as a weapon against the US which we now know is called Agenda21. Bill Ayres was outed by Beck as one of Obama's mentors and now Ayres admits to being his buddy AND use violence if "all else" fails. Beck has been saying since 2008 that George Soros was the money behind Obama and the push for socialism in this country. Now Soros is spending millions to get Obama re-elected AND trying to get Fox of the air....
Who is the loon???
Beck.
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:20pm.
Beck.
Bal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:28pm.
So much of what Beck has predicted has come true, and it drives the left crazy. Pretty much like Cajun outlined, but let's not forget everything Beck said about Egypt and the muslim brotherhood and how that's all happening.
Beck is the one who's crazy? I think not.
So some things came true. He
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:34pm.
So some things came true. He was still a frothing loon who thrived on shouting "Fire!" all the time.
So a guy yelling fire
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:43pm.
during a fire, is a frothing loon? You have a weird idea of normal.
Good evening Rad
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:56pm.
Frothing loon he knows, he looks in the mirror now and then. It's the word normal you need to explain to him but don't expect any good results.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Yelling it in the presence of
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:23pm.
Yelling it in the presence of a birthday cake candle is. There's no fire. There's paranoia, yes. Remember when the left was in a mad frenzy over security measures Bush was taking after 9/11? How those people were sure this was the beginning of a totalitarian regime, police state, etc.? It was nonsense.
Same applies to Beck's hyperbolic extrapolation.
Bal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:39pm.
We have a government that has now given itself the right to imprison American citizens indefinately without a trial. The president can take control of the internet, telephone, media, private property and labor, by declaring an unspecified national emergency. We have a DHS that bought more hollow point bullets than we have citizens, and they are not our military.
People like Ted Nugent are investigated while the Black Panthers posted a wanted dead or alive poster with a reward, and nothing was done. Some citizens are protected, others are not.
The totalitarian state is coming, as long as people like you are denying what's happening.
Say it again and say it loud SISTER*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:42pm.
*like*
*like*
*like*
caj and Rad: honorary lefties
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:22pm.
like: if you are arrested for even an unrelated and very minor offense, the government can now strip search you (and Rad and the rest of us in similar circumstances) thanks to your five conservative Supreme Court Justices. All four SC libs dissented!
like: the right to imprison American citizens indefinitely was introduced by Republicans in the House and supported overwhelmingly by the House GOP Most of the opposition was from House Democrats. It was made part of the National Defense Authorization Act so Obama had little choice but to sign it, although he strongly criticized the detention provision.
like: The 'internet kill bill' is the baby of every Republican's favorite Independent, Joe Lieberman. It has NOT been passed.
like: The ammo is the same kind the govrernment agencies have been buying for years from the same company. This was simply a renewal of the contract.
But, the ACLU and the Paulbots luv ya!
Jer
Evenin' Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:59am.
Just a few words regarding your posts. I have not had the time to find supporting links but let me disagree with your "interpretations".
1..Regardless of the type of crime committed, strip search is acceptable sometimes for the protection of the "arrestee" as much as others if that person is hiding drugs or a weapon. IE, a young man I know was arrested for domestic violence and placed in a cell. During the night, he committed suicide with some kind of weapon that he had hidden. He was drunk and the cops didnt feel search necessary since he had no shirt, no socks or shoes, just a pair of jeans. The young victim was in the ER in critical condition. Sometimes crazy people are a danger to themselves and others even though they were arrested for shoplifting, drunk and no license...etc The TSA does strip searches on toddlers and breast cancer survivors whose only crime is they bought a plane ticket.
2..The right to detain somone indefintely was not orginally planned to be a part of NDAA because Obama did not want that piece in a "legislative" process. It was intended for "al queda" terrorists only. Obama wanted the authority to remain with the Administrative branch. Mc Cain did support the original bill but he now claims that section of the bill was not there when they first introduced the bill. Politics as usual by idiots who DIDNT READ THE BILL
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_...
3...Again, the bill for the authority for the "internet kill switch" is another argument over two seperate intents. One is the bill, CISPA , Cyper Intelligience Sharing Protective Act..is not being well accepted by Dems or Reps for a reason. It is a seperate and distinctive limits to this bill that Obama wanted in the NDAA. It appears it is again an argument about the legislative and administrative powers to oversee these policies regarding national defense. Congress is trying to set up changes to keep up with the ever dangerous terrorists plots and improving technology. At the same time, the fight with Obama is congress refuses to relinquish authority to "implement" these "actions" to the White house without congressional approval.
All of the bills and executive orders seem to interest congress little except its a fight about power. THAT scares me since power plays from congress or the white house tends to leave out important issue of American citizens as priority. This is why RINO"S are in deep trouble and the Tea Party wants them out. It seems that congress has forgotten who they are supposed to represent. Pox on both their houses.
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:22am.
For you:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQOix-KidpY
:)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Caj & GG
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 1:08pm.
My sentiments exactly!!
Jer I don't hold the GOP blameless for anything that went through Congess as they could vote it down in the Senate. That said Obama signed the law. He could have highlighted the offending parts of the law and not signed it, but he did. Both sides want the power for when they are on control, I don't want either of them to have it.
You're telling me buying that many hollow point bullets for use by the DHS and ICE is business as usual? If so things are worse than I thought.
You are all over the map, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:28am.
The TSA does strip searches on toddlers and breast cancer survivors whose only crime is they bought a plane ticket.
And you know the breast cancer survivor's only "crime" is having bought a ticket...exactly how? Because that's what she told the screening personnel? Please cite your source for the claim the TSA is permitted to "strip search" toddlers and passengers with prosthetics, medical conditions, etc. Here are the provisions which cover those and related subjects quite comprehensively and even furnish instructions in case you believe your civil liberties have been violated. The ACLU--the most dangerous organization in America according to O'Reilly--would be happy to hear from you.
You despair over the presumed draconian practices of airport security in their efforts at ensuring a plane and its passengers are not blown to bits by a terrorist bomb, yet appear remarkably unruffled by the prospect of, say, being arrested for loitering during a Tea Party demonstration, then stripped naked and subjected to a full cavity probe at the mere whim of your jailers--without a shred of evidence of actually secreting illicit items. The ACLU just dropped you as a client. The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves. The Supreme Court libs are aghast. But Georgia Girl applauds you. And I'm sure Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy would appreciate a thankyou card.
I can't help but note your analysis of the detention provision of the NDAA is courtesy of Glen Greenwald--the same Glen Greenwald who literally believes George Bush and Dick Cheney should be rotting in a cell at Leavenworth. Politics really does make strange bedfellows. By the way, the ACLU loves you again. So does Irgon.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:41am.
Wow, that was really snarky. I am disappointed that you would be that way with Cajun. And I do have some things to say about what you wrote, but I know Cajun can handle herself just fine. But that actually came off nasty.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
once again Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:39am.
You have once again skipped over parts of a post that you cant argue so you focus on strawmen issues. First, show me how a disabled old lady or a 2 yr old is "a potential terrorist" when CAIR and ACLU fight to prevent "profiling"? What is the danger here? Who presents a danger to our airlines, me, a 2 yr old, or a Pakistani coming to Chicago for a Muslim Conference?
Strip searches has not just to do with ACLU. It has to do with other lawyers as well. Google the number of law suits where the police have failed to properly search an individual who later stabs another inmate or commits suicide. It is not just about the expansion of LAW but common sense as well. Criminals or idiots and should be treated as such in order to protect law abiding citizens.
As I stated in each of my points in the earlier post it is always about POWER! The white house wants the power to do as it pleases, the white house wants to give, by executive order, authority and power to various agencies to control all aspects of our lives. Some dems and reps fight this effort ONLY to protect the seperation of powers, legislative and administrative. THAT power war in DC is the point of my arguments. NONE of them in DC have any concern to protect the American people or our rights, they are only interested in their own power. Be it over this president or the next one, these bills congress is focusing on all have to do with control over the PEOPLE! These executive orders by Obama have to do with the power over the people not how to protect the people.
I dont care if they are R's or D's if they are fighting for power over american citizens then a pox on both their houses. They have forgotten who they represent and why they are in DC. And dont get me started on the supreme court. Roe vs Wade is about killing a defenseless human being and it is now a law. Conservative or progressive is of no interest to me, the important issues are to protect life, protect our soverignty and protect the constitution regardless of Dems or R;s in power.
This is why I rarely discuss being a republican, most importantly I am a conservative. Forty years ago, being conservative was common, today I am an extremists. Ask yourself why Jer? What has changed, who has changed, when people like me believe in the same basic tenets of freedom and liberty.? Those are the big questions, not about who is hiding a stash of cocaine in his butt crack
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:17pm.
Greenwald and other progressives are criticizing Obama from the left, in the same manner as they assailed Bush/Cheney over similar policies a few years ago. Greenwald would lapse into a state of catatonic shock if you accused him of being a conservative.
I'll be gone for the next few hours, but when I return I'll try to dispose of all of those strawman arguments I focused on previously and attempt to address the real issues I avoided.
Jer.
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:22pm.
Oh, look! Jer as much as admits it:
"I'll be gone for the next few hours, but when I return I'll try to dispose of all of those strawman arguments I focused on previously and attempt to address the real issues I avoided."--Jer
Thank goodness. Jer finally realizes what he's been doing!
[Tee hee. If we can't tease Jer, who can we tease?]
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
careful GG*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:53pm.
Jer will focus on the use of a single word as a point of contention or a hammer and expound on it for days. Lawyers are like that....;-)
I will be back later tonight. Have a nice day GG.
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 1:07pm.
Oh yeah, I know, believe me.
Well, I shall watch with interest as you two debate this more tonight. Have fun! ;)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
For goodness sakes, GG...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:42am.
cajun is well aware of my high regard for her--both personally and for the quality of her posts.
But it's nice of you to come to cajun's defense. Now how about coming to my defense when someone calls me a stupid liberal troll. Doesn't that come across as nasty?
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:48am.
I don't think you're stupid. I don't think you're a troll. There. You can quote me on that anytime.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Thanks, GG...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:52am.
I might use that as my tagline for the brief spell remaining before Disqus gobbles up NewsBusters and eliminates taglines.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:55am.
Feel free. Thank goodness Disqus is on the way.
Just kidding! ;) I am just fine with that being your tagline.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Jer~Question
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 1:20pm.
Okay, I am serious when I ask you this question, though I think it will be a "duh GG" and that I already know the answer. But I have not been on enough threads to know what you really think of Romney overall. I figure you consider him a moderate (compared to the field we had, for sure), and there have also been a few times (though rare) when you weren't strenuously defending Obama, so I really want to know...
Is there any chance at all that you will vote for Romney over Obama?
[Try not to laugh at me, conservative NBers.]
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Thanks GG for your support*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:55am.
Jer and I have a history of going at each other because he is a lawyer more than being a liberal....;-)
And who called him a nasty troll? That must have been an idiot, we have been seeing lots more of those both libs and conservies. It will get worse after NB opens the doors. Many NBers will have to get thicker skin, not just Jer.
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:04pm.
I know. I've had my own debates with Jer where he was trying to lawyer me into the corner. I'm just not so great if I hear a certain TONE in his comments, especially when he does it with my other friends who do not deserve the snarky. But I don't think he thinks of it as snarky. Sigh.
But yeah, it's gonna get ugly with the big change coming. Maybe Jer will be the one defending US!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Oh My GG*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:08pm.
Can you imagine Jer defending one of us?
How much is that gonna cost us?...;-)
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:26pm.
He'll probably total up the amount of time spent doing so and then bill us by the hour. I bet his rate is at least $100/hr., maybe even $200.
We can't afford him. Looks like we'll be on our own. :(
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Who called you that? I
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:50am.
Who called you that? I completely disagree with that categorization. We may disagree on things and we may get into our "pissing contests" but I don't think anyone here thinks you're stupid or a troll.
I certainly don't!!
Thank you, NC Cop...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 12:01pm.
I appreciate that. And I'm sorry about sniping at you the past couple of days.
It was some newbie. I think his description was stupid liberal troll. I'll have to check, but no biggie. I've been called worse. That just popped in my head because it was recent and I wanted to make a point with GG.
Jer
...and if a Republican was
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:47pm.
...and if a Republican was doing this, you'd have the same reaction I do right now.
No Bal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:50pm.
I am disgusted by the Republican Congresspeople who voted for these policies.
And everyone knows that
Submitted by ant on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:47pm.
And everyone knows that yelling "Fire" when there's a fire is racist. Of course, when the left yell "Fire", they offer you a cigarette and a blindfold first.
Hey! He really does drive
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:15pm.
Hey! He really does drive the left crazy!!! Right on cue!!
NC...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:57pm.
You know you're [i.e. Beck's] a right-wing nutjob when even Roger Ailes bails on you.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:04pm.
Ailes isn't in it for the ideology, he's in it for the money. The left put to much pressure on the advertisers, so he let Beck go. Ailes would hire Chris Matthews if he thought it would make him some money.
Really? I thought it was
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:31pm.
Really? I thought it was because Beck's contract was up and he wanted to be a free agent?
Could be, but even with your
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:33am.
Could be, but even with your scenario it has nothing to do with Ailes not wanting anything to do with him. At least you admit that.
You and Jer need to have private session to get on the same page.
I don't care who's on what page, NC Cop...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:16am.
but when you don't know what you're talking about--and you don't in this case--it might prove worthwhile to devote a couple of minutes of research before issuing pronouncements.
From conservativeunderground:
The Night Owl
04-07-2011, 01:05 PM
Roger Ailes Doesn’t Care If You Say Beck Quit or Got Fired
4/6/11 at 6:35 PM
Fox News overlord Roger Ailes says he was ready for Glenn Beck, his fading star, to hit the road. "Half of the headlines say he's been canceled," he told the AP in an interview today. "The other half say he quit. We're pretty happy with both of them." Well then! Beck's contract was up in December, after all, and for the divorce to have been announced this early, apparently it didn't have a shot of getting renewed. "We felt Glenn brought additional information, a unique perspective, a certain amount of passion and insight to the channel and he did," Ailes added. "But that story of what's going on and why America is in trouble today, I think he told that story as well as could be told. Whether you can just keep telling that story or not ... we're not so sure."
...
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/roger_ailes_doesnt_care_if_you.html
Jer
Really, Jer?
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:26am.
"We felt Glenn brought additional information, a unique perspective, a certain amount of passion and insight to the channel and he did," he said. "But that story of what's going on and why America is in trouble today, I think he told that story as well as could be told."
"Added Ailes: "Call CNN and MSNBC and ask them if they'd like to have Glenn's ratings at 5 in the afternoon."
Ailes stressed that he'll continue to work with Beck.
"We like each other," he said. "We're not drawing pictures of each other on the walls, having staff fights and stealing each other's food out of the refrigerator or any of that stuff."
Indeed, this is someone who doesn't want Beck because he is a "righ wing nutjuob" as you put it??
Hardly. Your Beck Derangement Syndrome is showing and it's pretty sad.
Apparently you should do a little reading comprehension before you accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about.
And you should stop chopping quotes.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:50am.
It's dishonest.
Jer
LOL!!
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:55am.
That's all you got?
I'll take it.
Nah, there's plenty more.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:27am.
But why waste ammunition when the threat is nonexistent.
Jer
I missed it,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:09pm.
So what was Beck's offense Jer?
It's ok Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:39pm.
Don't bother with Balboa. He tends to sing a one note tune so don't even try to give him a rhapsody
And balboa....it only takes one person yelling FIRE to save lives.
Aaand how many notes are you
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:25pm.
Aaand how many notes are you whistling?
Bal-boring*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:35pm.
I can whistle the entire Colonel Bogey marching song...How about you or are you just whistling Dixie?
Are sure about that? We both
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:25pm.
Are sure about that? We both sing the same notes in different octaves.
You have an example or 2?
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:12pm.
I dont get to hear Beck much.
Ooh, ooh, can I play?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:25pm.
Boudin, surely you remember when Beck said "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.". Wait.........Never mind, wrong guy, that was the President.
Yea, like Rush,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:38pm.
They love to play word games, but never counter the argument.
Thank goodness nobody on the
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:31am.
Thank goodness nobody on the left ever complained about Bush planning a dictatorship and spewing "alarmis blather", eh, Jer???
No, there were quite a few paranoid nutjobs on the
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:25am.
left as well.
Jer
And if only you were as
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:30am.
And if only you were as passionate about discrediting them as you were conservatives, more people might actually buy your "I'm middle of the road" act.
Feel better about yourself?
I slammed the left's BDS--and praised the Bush/Cheney
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:42am.
anti-terrorist policies--many times, NC Cop. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall a single criticism of the right's ODS from you. What's more, I don't recall a single criticism of the right, period. Frankly, I hope I did miss it, or that my recollection is faulty.
But once again, it would be helpful if you were reasonably acquainted with the facts before spouting off. You come across as extremely ill-informed.
Jer
So it is "his" military, what
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:49pm.
So it is "his" military, what an arrogant, ignorant buffoon. The attitiude of your typical african dictator.
pronoun
Submitted by Tjexcite on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:55pm.
The "my behalf" part was said as a civilian would. Many people use the singular pronoun when taking about the military doing what they do. They fight wars on my behalf vs They fight wars on our behalf. But, it should have been "fighting on my orders as their Commander in chief." and that is not ego that is fact. He could order them all to come home tomorrow as CiC but would not as he has relinquished command of the military to an agreement that even him as CiC he can not break.
It is not his fault they are there for 12 more years even if he is CiC, they have an agreement.
And you're engaging in spin, Maytag.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:59pm.
He spoke as the nascent dictator he really is.
Any other take is just running the statement through the spin cycle.
He's using the military as human shields for taking a position that is contrary to Christianity, contrary to biology, contrary to the laws of roughly thirty states in the Union, and contrary to the beliefs of most Americans.
Obama has demonstrated clearly his lack of fundamental morality and his creeping dictatorship--all in one neat package.
--Mike
Nah
Submitted by ant on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:42am.
I've personnally thanked soldiers that I've met, and I usually say something along the lines of "Thank you for your service to OUR Country", not " Thanks for your service to ME.". But, of course, I'm not an arrogant narcissist.
If they were really fighting on 'his behalf', wouldn't they be here, rounding up conservatives?
Nah ditto~
Submitted by GG_NB on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 11:07am.
I don't buy the pronoun explanation above, especially coming from a president -- someone who should automatically always be thinking of the huge responsibility he has to keep all Americans safe. It's the difference between "what the military is doing/sacrificing for me" vs "what the military is doing/sacrificing for all these Americans I need to make sure remain protected." Call it a subconscious thing, but I do truly think he was only thinking of himself, not in the collective sense for all of us.
I cannot think of a time I ever said any form of "for me/my/mine" in regard to the military fighting for our country. Uh, like right there. It was only natural for me to express "our" country, not "my." And come to think of it, I don't believe I have ever heard any of my friends or family use "me," "mine" or "my" in regard to the military serving us -- ever. There, again. I didn't even think about it consciously, but I just wrote "us." I didn't even say "them," because besides the military's service most certainly not being all about me, it is also not all about them -- my family and friends. It's about every American.
Can a me/mine/my usage ever be used in an unselfish or benign way? Of course. We all use those words to explain ourselves. But in this case, it's weird and probably strikes many as an uncommon way for a president to express it. if you look at how much I/my/mine/me-ing that O does, I think we can see a pattern. If you are always thinking about yourself, it will come out in your language in just this type of way.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
And you can be sure Obama's brown shirts will be out in force...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:54pm.
...scrubbing every reference to this 'slip' they can find, just like they did with "Forward."
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Unbelievable...
Submitted by KevinB on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 12:14am.
This president is one of the most self-centered, egotistical, narcissistic individuals, I have ever seen in my entire life. Have you noticed whenever this man talks it's always about HIM?
This was no slip of the tongue...
"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks..." (Luke 6:45)
Translation: What you really believe will eventually come out of your mouth
wow... just wow
Enlisted as well, Mr. Blumer.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 12:48am.
The guy has been CinC for over 3 years and still making idiot gaffes like this.
Krauthammer was great on the panel
Submitted by Texndoc on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 12:56am.
He said I believe: Never in our history with our nation at war would another President have ever, EVER, said "fighting on my behalf".
And Dr. Krauthammer knows a
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:33am.
And Dr. Krauthammer knows a Freudian slip when he hears one!
And, I would add, never in the our history would another president EVER have said to our troops
"You guys make a great photo-op!"
But that's the way this narcissist thinks. It's all about how HIM.
US troops fighting as the "agents of one Barrack Obama."
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 1:00am.
a few definitions from around the web:
In American English behalf is used with in [on?], to mean 'in someone's interest', 'for someone's benefit':
Now, just who would that someone be?
A traditional rule holds that in behalf of and on behalf of have distinct meanings. In behalf of means "for the benefit of," as in We raised money in behalf of the earthquake victims. On behalf of means "as the agent of, on the part of," as in The guardian signed the contract on behalf of the minor child. The two meanings are quite close, however, and the phrases are often used interchangeably, even by reputable writers.
Goodness, America's men and women service personnel are working as the agents of one Barrack Obama.
Mr. Obama - our men and women are fighting for the country.
(;~/ gary
"fighting on MY behalf"
Submitted by Delsa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 1:33am.
The most unbelievable words coming from the mouth of a President of our country.
I am appalled but not surprised.
Obama is an egotistical SOB
Obama is the domestic enemy our military has sworn to defend us against. If the day should come, I believe they will carry out their oaths.
Obama is an arrogant A** of the highest order.
Thank GOD he will be gone soon.
OK - forget the gay marraige
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 1:44am.
OK - forget the gay marraige thing for a minute...........and I'll tell you why. It's such a lightweight 'issue' in these serious and 'strange days' that anybody who pays attention to current events KNOWS that it's just another distraction and cul-de-sac that the REGIME is trying to use to keep everybody and anybody from paying attention to what is REALLY going on. And also, anybody who has paid any attention to Boy Baraka (which would basically EXCLUDE the MSM and StateRun Media) KNOWS that he's a girly-man fairy who MUST cater to his own idealology first, and then his base secondly - and this is part of BOTH of their agendas!!!
But anyway - FORGET about that for a minute. I was driving back from the hardware store today, back to my jobsite, and I was listening to the news (we usually listen to Pandora at work - and today was blues and early rock'n'roll - and I caught Boy Baraka's dull, boring, tedious, and torturous statements about his explanations for the excuses and alibis that he is making for his support of same-sex (let's call it GAY, ok, Baraka???) marraige - and I heard this statement about the military, and how they are fighting for HIM!!! I'll tell you - I jumped out of my damn seatbelt - I was so astonished!!! I have said many times that it's a good thing that my Father is deceased - because what is happening these days would either kill him or break his heart, or both!!!
And I'll tell you sumpin' else - if I was fortunate enough to be standing near Boy BlahBlah when he made a comment like that, I'd slap his stupid face faster than ANY Secret Service agent would be able to stop me!!! And when he was sitting on his skinny half-white ass, rubbing his stupid looking face - I'd tell him that was a 'gift' from my Father, who was fighting for this country, and our freedoms and liberty, and our Constitution, and the American way..........................NONE of which Boy Baraka understands!!!
As to the Gay issue
Submitted by Delsa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 1:50am.
My sister figures the reason he came out of the closet in favor of Gay Marriage is because the Gay lobby had threatened to out him in addition to pulling their funding from him.
I think she has a point.
For Heaven's sake...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 1:55am.
The POTUS is referring specifically to--and only to--gay military personnel, and explaining his personal decision as their CIC to support same sex marriages.
There's enough straw grasped here every single day to fill a barn to its roof.
Jer
Awwwwwwwwww, jeeeeez,
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:00am.
Awwwwwwwwww, jeeeeez, Jer..............c'mon!!! You're WAY TOO SMART to believe what you just wrote!!! If you took away 'I', 'me', 'my', and 'mine' from Boy Baraka's vocabulary..............you'd eliminate about 2/3 of what he says - thankfully!!!
There is NO 'nuance' in that statement at all...................it is ALL ABOUT HIM!!!! You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
Like I told you last week, Jer, ol' buddy - if you believe this crap, then I have a fantastic piece of beachfront property right down on Hanalei Bay...............for pennies on the dollar!!!!
You're the one with the barn here, Jer..............and your straw is highly flamable!!!
Send me a brochure and debt service info, killa...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:10am.
I'm interested.
Jer
What?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:40am.
Who is contesting his decision? It is the "fighting on my behalf" part that is raising hackles. Even gay people fight for their country, not just the breeders.
Understood...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:51am.
But he personalized the statement only to put his decision in context and not as some sort of egotistical characterization regarding the nature of military service.
Jer
It was a gaffe.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 3:06am.
From a guy that really does not understand the nature of the military. I don't care what context it was in. The Armed Forces take an oath to defend the Constitution and follow orders from the guy in charge. Not fight for the guy in charge. Again, he is the President for all of us, not just the few gay guys that he wants to "personalize".
In other news, one of my male dogs keeps trying to "personalize" another male one. Cesar Milan says it is a show of dominance. They ain't really gay.
Okay...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 3:12am.
Alert Blonde.
See ya later,
U J
This WILL make Ms. Blonde's
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 3:28am.
This WILL make Ms. Blonde's list, Jer...............how could it NOT???? This guy exposes himself constantly - when he is off-teleprompter and relying on his own mediocre brain.
THIS
Submitted by dmacleo on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 2:01pm.
he does not understand it, added to his belief they are to be used as great photo ops.
Careful Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:50am.
Contortionist can be a hazards at your age.
All this code speak from you libs, no wonder no-one understands a damn thing.
So, the Gay are fighting on his behalf?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 12:28pm.
So, Jer, he was only referring to the Gay members of the military that are fighting on his behalf? On behalf of what, I wonder?
Jer, the military, gay or not, doesn't fight on behalf of the president, but on behalf of the Country. It isn't eh Obama Military, it's the US Military.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Thank goodness we have you
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 12:36pm.
Thank goodness we have you around to tell us all what Obama REALLY means!!!
Whew!
Yeah, I've always had a knack for being able to read
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:04pm.
and understand plain English.
Jer
As long as you think so,
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:12pm.
As long as you think so, that's all that matters.
integrity?
Submitted by oldfart on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:12am.
"but hasn't had the political integrity to admit as much until now"
He has no integrity - his motivation is his ego.
The toddler at his worst
Submitted by OldmanRick on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:04am.
What a narcissist twit to think the troops are fighting on "his behalf." Toss this guy out of office in Nov.
what he was doing
Submitted by Breanna on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:26am.
..when he was saying that the military are fighting on his behalf, was REMINDING the military that he is the boss and, as such, can determine whether they stay at war or get to come home, whether they will get benefits or not or whether they will have a home to come home to. I imagine that our troops over there have said the follwing (upon hearing him say this), "WTF" ?! Well I guess that the military now knows its mission huh?
Of all the egotistical self centerd comment he's made...
Submitted by txradioguy on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:15am.
I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States...I did NOT swear some kind of fealty or oath of alligence to someone who fancies themselves a wanna-be king!
"Fighting on my behalf......."
Submitted by LaVallette on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:11am.
Last time this happenned:
"The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath"
Few chages her and there and subsitute the Obummer's name for AH's and you have it.
His closest advisor, Valerie Jarret...
Submitted by Fenwick on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:47am.
... talked about Obama "ruling" the country, so we know this is where they're coming from. For the first time since our country broke away from King George, we have a RULER!
America's un-American CiC
Submitted by CT on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:14am.
As a vet I doubt non-vets can even begin to understand the contempt this remark evokes.
The POTUS is referring
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:48am.
The POTUS is referring specifically to--and only to--gay military personnel, and explaining his personal decision as their CIC to support same sex marriages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How could they be fighting on his behalf on his statement supporting gay marriage BEFORE he decided to support gay marriage?
So??
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:55am.
So what? Does that mean that just the fairies in the military are fighting on HIS behalf?? Sorta like Barack's own little "Gay Brigade"??? Hogwash. The notion that ANY member of the U.S. Military is fighting on the behalf of the President is chilling. Especially when you consider that Barack is planning on a Hugo Chavez-like tenure as POTUS. Just read the "Life of Julia", and you'll see that he's POTUS for the next 50 years. That's his plan. Divide us and foment the great racial and economic civil war, enabling him to declare martial law and cancel November's election. Why do you think DHS has orfered all the ammo and all the coffins? Why do they have "re-education camps" all set and ready to go. We are on the brink, ladies and gents. Words have meaning. LISTEN to Barack's closely. I have. Lock & load, patriots......Game on...
Good explanation, Pinetree -
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:06am.
Good explanation, Pinetree - maybe you can get L'il Opie/Lt. Fuzz Jay-Bird Carney's job.................because he's been having a hard time making explanations for the excuses and alibis that need to be presented on a daily basis in order to cover Boy Baraka's self-absorbed idiocy..............
I'm sure that Boy Baraka was NOT referreing - 'specifically' - to the 'straight' military personel who were NOT 'fighting on HIS behalf'...................jeez, what a 'nuanced' statement!!! I guess somebody has to be as 'intelligent' and 'brilliant' as Boy BlahBlah to even come up with such a concept!!!
CinC and Marrage
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 1:37pm.
What does being the Commander in Chief of the militarily have to do with same sex marriages? He doesn't perform marriages, and he doesn't approve marriages, nor disapprove them, nether inside the military or outside. That's STILL a State level function. Any member of the military wishing to get married needs a State marriage license. So, Obama has nothing to do with it.
If he really supported same sex marriages for members of the military, like he claims, then he would ORDER the Pentagon to write new regulations authorizing military marriage licenses, of which there are no such thing, and have a Chaplin perform them. But that hasn't been done. No, he doesn't support the Gays in this, but he IS pandering to them.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
it might be
Submitted by Breanna on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 9:15am.
...A slip of the tongue and it might not be news a week from now but as a Vet, I will certainly NOT forget that he thinks that our brave men and women are fighting and dying for him. Nope, I will certainly not forget that he thinks that everything is about him and to hell with the American people. I dont have to see any ads on tv or hear him say anything else between now and Nov,...my vote will go to romney.
"when I think about those
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:03am.
"when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf ..."
"Marines" is always capitalized.
And I doubt if you'd find
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:08am.
And I doubt if you'd find very many Marines who are fighting on barry soetoro baraka hussein obama's behalf either.
I've never seen such a big ego on such a small man.
AP capitalized it in the later article.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:46pm.
Tom Blumer should have done likewise.
Jer
No, I should have flagged it with an (sic) ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:38pm.
... in fact, I'll do that now.
Who was that
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:32am.
basketball playing senator from new Jersey, ran for the democrat presidential nomination in 2000? He said the military takes an oath of loyalty to the POTUS. That is how democrats think. The military is their Steppin Fetchits.
This hit the old Gaffe List....added 3 yesterday
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:59am.
It was a banner day....I know I'm getting to 200 by election day. No doubt in my mind.
And Jer, really.....even for you, that protest is lame. Can you really think of any other president who would have expressed anything about our armed forces, fighting overseas, as "fighting for me"? For Obama, The Once (and hopefully only).....it's all about him. 24/7/365.
I think this statement is really going to burn him, too. That's what happens when you have to pander to buy votes, rather than having principles and ideas to offer.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Rush used to have a Paul
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 11:15am.
Rush used to have a Paul Shanklin song for Bill Clinton...it was the old Sammy Davis tune "I Gotta Be Me" redone as "It's All About Me!" It would suit Obama to a T.
Obama is the one who kept saying in 2008 "It's not about me."
"It's not about me"
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 11:16am.
Coming from a democrat, means exactly the opposite, of course!
Can't wait to see what Doc Sam has to say about Obama's little "faux pas".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde~
Submitted by GG_NB on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 11:23am.
I think in this way, O really is pretty transparent. He means exactly what he says -- me, my, mine, myself! We may not even need to call Dr. Sam in for this one because O sees nothing wrong with being this way. It is really how he thinks, and it comes right out in what he says SO much of the time.
I picture someone trying to explain this to O and him just really not getting it or thinking there's not a thing wrong with it.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Point awarded to the amateur psychiatrist
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 11:26am.
Spot on, GG.
I think Obama's "normal" would make our heads explode.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I look at it the same way,
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 11:57am.
I look at it the same way, Ms. GG..................this guy's whole life has been a self-absorbed lie, so to him - whatever comes out of his mind and his mouth is the TROOF...........and there's no way that he even has the ability to see it any other way. So, yeah, he actually believes what he said yesterday - and if he ends up having to make an explanation for an excuse, it will be because he was ordered to do it by his handlers, and not because he thinks there was anything wrong with it.
Plus, of course, we've got guys like Jer and others who have allready come up with their own convoluted explanations of this in order to make it 'nuanced', which basically means that we're not sharp enough to figure out what he 'really meant'.
B:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 12:42pm.
be sure to update your new "friend."
;)
Blonde...would you and Boudin
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:50pm.
please stop with the "even for you" nonsense.
It's especially irritating, even for you. ;-)
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:24pm.
Think of it as a phrase of endearment.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Don't forget the enlisted code
Submitted by gopcongress on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 11:28am.
Many, if not most of us went into the military as an enlisted man, and we swore to the following oath:
No matter, the oath is to the CONSTITUTION, and not to our own egos.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
That was no gaff
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 12:34pm.
That was no gaff, no "slip of the tongue," for Obama really does thing that the Military fights on HIS behalf. But, don;t forget, Obama takes his orders from the UN. He fights on THEIR behalf, just as the Sec of Defense reminded us not too long ago. The USA, the country itself? Well, that's incidental.
Can you imaging the liberal uproar those "fighting on my behave" words would have ignited had, say, Romney, made such a claim? It would be all over the liberal media for MONTHS, right up to the election itself.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
How many
Submitted by Tjexcite on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:08pm.
I am sure George Bush said the military was fighting on his behalf and no one thought of him being narcissistic. It is not like Obama can go fight on the ground so the military has to fight on everyone's behalf. No everyone can go to congress so selected few go to Washington to represent on ones behalf. And if you get it personal as this whole interview was it goes to my behalf they do what they do.
If Bush said the military was fighting for him
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:13pm.
please link it, because I don't think he ever said such a thing.
Obama sure could be fighting on the ground, the military just isn't his thing, unless they're fighting for him.
Rad~
Submitted by GG_NB on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:47pm.
I don't recall Bush saying anything at all like that either -- he was so humbled by being Commander-in-Chief -- and spoke and showed that continually. I believe he also worked very hard and constantly was concerned about keeping us all safe. It was his #1 priority.
And if Jer comes down here on this thread to pull the Bush "Mission Accomplished" eqivalency argument on me, I'm gonna scream! ;) That has already been explained by many who were there, AND that is not at all comparable to what O said.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
GG
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:58pm.
If Jer does, just reply "even for you", it'll make HIM want to scream.
Don 't worry, GG...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:06pm.
I only make equivalency arguments when they are, well...equivalent.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:21pm.
Well, hey hey! Look at you, being all reasonable this evening. :)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan