Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Kowalski

Obama called a "war criminal" & "hypocrite"

64 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

yes

No, every 3 instance parliamentary system (lower house, upper house, prezz) works that way (Germany, France, among others come to mind).

The difference is that in other countries they actually work. All this talk about Congress is not supposed to pass laws is just another way of certain circles to hide their incapability and fueled by those who want to break up the union.

Edited by questionmark
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Woodrow Wilson campaigned in 1916 promising to keep America out of WW I. He was inaugurated for his second term on January 20, 1917, and supported Congress in declaring war on Germany in April 1917.

Is there a politician in history who hasn't lied/changed his or her mind/altered a policy position in the face of changed or extenuating circumstances? Obama is anything but unique.

Hitler.

(Bolding is mine)

Edited by Papagiorgio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe one of criuse ships was torpidoed, with a loss of everyone on board. And he never ordered attacks on friendly soil. As far as I know.

You know that I was referring to lying, not specific acts. The Lusitania was sunk by an Imperial German U-Boat in 1915, but Wilson continued to campaign on a 'stay out of war' policy. He pushed Congress for a declaration of war 3 months after re-election, and got it. No person of integrity waits 2 years before acting on his moral outrage at the sinking of a passenger liner (it also may have carried munitions, making it a 'legitimate' war target for the Kaiser).

Wilson also rounded-up and incarcerated conscientious objectors, Socialists and Communists in America's first 'red scare' (1917-1921). Thank goodness he had no NSA, CIA, 'Prism' digital program or (so-called) 'Patriot Act.'

What are these "attacks on friendly soil?" That's a generalization citing no facts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Five days after he took office. He hadn't even unpacked yet. The nobal people believed his lies.

If you know anything about Europe, you understand that the 'premature' Nobel Prize was much more a comment, and slap in the face, to 8 years of W. than it was a reward for anything Obama had accomplished. It was a typical symbolic gesture on the part of peace-loving Scandinavia to recognize that Obama had (past tense intentional) the potential to bring 8 years of largely futile American aggression and Arab-Afghani attrition to an end.

I am the first to agree that Obama has not lived up to that potential. And Sweden sent troops (mainly security and snipers) to Afghanistan.

Edited by szentgyorgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, every 3 instance parliamentary system (lower house, upper house, prezz) works that way (Germany, France, among others come to mind).

The difference is that in other countries they actually work. All this talk about Congress is not supposed to pass laws is just another way of certain circles to hide their incapability and fueled by those who want to break up the union.

No, it doesn't. It goes through the prime minaster. Who answers to the congress not the people. The democrats want us to have a prime minaster, so that new laws won't htave to go through a republican president.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. It goes through the prime minaster. Who answers to the congress not the people.

See what you know? The highest authority in any of those states is the president. And if you have not heard of him in the case of Germany (his name happens to be Joachim Gauck and not Angela Merkel, she is just the boss of the government) it is be cause his duties are to ensure that the constitution and laws are adhered to, not to meddle with parliamentary affairs. Before that guy does not sign nothing goes.... and to the contrary of the US there is no way to make him sign or circumvent him ... that is why he does not interfere in daily politics.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that I was referring to lying, not specific acts. The Lusitania was sunk by an Imperial German U-Boat in 1915, but Wilson continued to campaign on a 'stay out of war' policy. He pushed Congress for a declaration of war 3 months after re-election, and got it. No person of integrity waits 2 years before acting on his moral outrage at the sinking of a passenger liner (it also may have carried munitions, making it a 'legitimate' war target for the Kaiser).

Wilson also rounded-up and incarcerated conscientious objectors, Socialists and Communists in America's first 'red scare' (1917-1921). Thank goodness he had no NSA, CIA, 'Prism' digital program or (so-called) 'Patriot Act.'

What are these "attacks on friendly soil?" That's a generalization citing no facts.

Pakiastan issupposed to be an ally. The only countries we invaded or bombed were in enemy hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pakiastan issupposed to be an ally. The only countries we invaded or bombed were in enemy hands.

Close, but no cigar. Pakistan is an ally in name only; their intelligence service collaborated in Daniel Pearl's beheading, and they give aid and succor to the Taliban. Iraq was in its own hands, not an enemy's. Reagan and Rumsfeld s&*$#d them off and gave them arms during the 1980's (Iran-Iraq War). Any gas Hussein had was courtesy of Uncle Sam, and could have been (but wasn't) used against my son (PFC, US Army) in 2003. Imagine that! US arms turned against US personnel!!! An alleged 'moderate' government of Harmid Karzai in Afghanistan is our supposed "friend,' not any enemy. We wreak impotent havoc anyway. What countries have we bombed in the past 10 years that are "in enemy hands?"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pakiastan issupposed to be an ally. The only countries we invaded or bombed were in enemy hands.

Which countries, pray tell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nope, congress is working just like it is supposed to. The founding fathers wainted it to be almost impossible to get a law passed.

Not pass them and let the courts get rid of the bad ones, as one de

yes

mocrat said this year. This is why all las have to go through the house and senate and then have the president say yes or no. We are the only country doing it this way. Everyone else have a prime minaster who aswers to the government. The house the senate and the president

ll answer to the people.

Congress is working like a blood clot in a 97-year-old's carotid artery. The tri-partite government wasn't designed to result in freezing mudslides or quickly-cooling lava flows. Congress has been continuously obstructionist for 5 years. Do you read the newspapers or watch any TV news? (Google "do-nothing Congress"). If Congress were bending over for Bush or Stalin, you'd be their greatest supporter. . . and the beat goes on. "Tinfoil to the left of me, ignorance to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you. . ."

Edited by szentgyorgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress is working like a blood clot in a 97-year-old's carotid artery. The tri-partite government wasn't designed to result in freezing mudslides or quickly-cooling lava flows. Congress has been continuously obstructionist for 5 years. Do you read the newspapers or watch any TV news? (Google "do-nothing Congress"). If Congress were bending over for Bush or Stalin, you'd be their greatest supporter. . . and the beat goes on. "Tinfoil to the left of me, ignorance to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you. . ."

This is not true, I don't support any party. I am an independent. I vote for whom I think is the best man for the job. The senate house and the president are supposed to compermise. Not, do what the senate democrats and white house are doing, my way or the highway. Reid won't even bring republican bills/amendments to a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hitler.

(Bolding is mine)

With all due respect, Papa, Hitler changed his mind on a variety of things. The first was the signing of a Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union in 1939. It was strategically wise at the time and avoided the 2-front war he eventually bumbled into. Once Hitler observed the lackluster performance of the Red Army against tiny Finland (brave souls to a man, woman and child) 1939-1940, and realized the wealth of natural resources he could exploit from the Commies, he changed his mind and invaded Russia on June 22, 1941.

He also vacillated about "The Final Solution," changing his mind several times about the best method of butchery until the Wansee Conference, when he was sold by his "scientific" Nazi cohorts of the advisability of the work-em-to-death-then-burn-'em, and gas-n-burn if they are diseased and feeble.

There's a lot of evidence that he wavered and argued and changed his mind on tactics, from the minimal deployment of tanks at Dunkirk to how to deploy his defenses throughout "Fortress Europe" in expectation of the Allied invasion. His "no surrender" order to von Paulus at Stalingrad led directly to the extermination of the 6th Army (instead of retreating in a timely fashion to fight another day). Once Hitler inserted himself into the decision making in every theater, The Wehrmacht and SS were doomed.

No, there is nothing consistent, cogent or even--in many situations--sane about the cognitive abilities of that demonic little corporal.

Edited by szentgyorgy
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not true, I don't support any party. I am an independent. I vote for whom I think is the best man for the job. The senate house and the president are supposed to compermise. Not, do what the senate democrats and white house are doing, my way or the highway. Reid won't even bring republican bills/amendments to a vote.

You may consider yourself "independent," but from what, I'm not sure. You consistently defend the right-wind while slandering the president (dictator, Muslim,al Qaeda sympathizer, etc.). The you don't have the honesty to give evidence of your anti-Obama claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am unable to do so with this tablet. I can barely get online with it. Besides my proof has been on the news for the last six months. Not that they are calling him traitor or muslum. I have also come down hard on people of the right as well. I am guessng you did not read my op on eleven million americns will lose their jobs. In there I mention marco rubia being one of the sponsers of the current emigration bill. I have also spoken out against home land security. It gave the government to much power, ths was when bush was in office. Obama has made it worse.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.