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 3
Kowalski

Obama's Remarks at G20 Summit

38 posts in this topic

http://www.youtube.c...npd3Lmxc#t=1718

The remarks begin at the 27:45 minute mark....

Basically, a reporter asks Obama, (paraphrasing) why should Congress vote to go to war in Syria when 97% of their constituents are firmly against this. And you know what Obama said? That Congress needs to vote on what is 'right for America and American security' rather than on what their constituents want.....

Unbelievable..... :no:

Note: I just noticed I had a typo in the title! Oops!

Edited by Burt Gummer
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather like "Obams". it seems to go well with his fondness for explosions. :unsure2:

Anyway, this is good for America's security in ... what way exactly? :unsure:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously he is forgetting that the overwhelming majority of the members of Congress (i.e. the non-Senators) are REPRESENTATIVES... Members of the "House of Representatives"... Not the "House of Screw What the People Want Me To Do I'm Going to Do What I Want." Their job is to listen to what their constituants say and act accordingly...

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a D1cKtater.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he truly has gone mad. he's gone exactly the same way as tony Blair. only in his case, and fortunately, it seems that he hasn't been able to trample all over public opinion and the processes of government in the same way as that madman did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather like "Obams". it seems to go well with his fondness for explosions. :unsure2:

Anyway, this is good for America's security in ... what way exactly? :unsure:

"O-BAM!" does sound fitting for him, does it not.... :yes:

Obviously he is forgetting that the overwhelming majority of the members of Congress (i.e. the non-Senators) are REPRESENTATIVES... Members of the "House of Representatives"... Not the "House of Screw What the People Want Me To Do I'm Going to Do What I Want." Their job is to listen to what their constituants say and act accordingly...

Exactly! I mean, is that not why we elect people? To represent the will of the people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw his speech. I was slightly angered by it. Ok, that is not true. I was very angered by it.

If he does not get Congressional approval and attacks Syria anyway, then I think he should immediately removed from office, arrested and charged with war crimes and treason against the people of the USA.

It should not be up for a multi month impeachment hearing. I would view his actions in that situation to be a threat against our national security and should be treated accordingly. His actions will pu8t us in danger all over the world if he attacks. THAT is a threat to national security. Far more than Syria's civil war ever will be. The only threat from Syria's civil war is if Assad loses and the chemical weapons end up in the hands of our enemies. Assad has kept them secure for years.

To think, he called Snowden a traitor. Snowden wasn't betraying the will of the people, but if he strikes without Congressional approval (and the UN security council approval), in my mind he is a war criminal.

This is what the next day headlines should look like

obama-arrested-102866321412.jpeg

Edited by Terian
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw his speech. I was slightly angered by it. Ok, that is not true. I was very angered by it.

If he does not get Congressional approval and attacks Syria anyway, then I think he should immediately removed from office, arrested and charged with war crimes and treason against the people of the USA.

It should not be up for a multi month impeachment hearing. I would view his actions in that situation to be a threat against our national security and should be treated accordingly. His actions will pu8t us in danger all over the world if he attacks. THAT is a threat to national security. Far more than Syria's civil war ever will be. The only threat from Syria's civil war is if Assad loses and the chemical weapons end up in the hands of our enemies. Assad has kept them secure for years.

To think, he called Snowden a traitor. Snowden wasn't betraying the will of the people, but if he strikes without Congressional approval (and the UN security council approval), in my mind he is a war criminal.

This is what the next day headlines should look like

obama-arrested-102866321412.jpeg

Your post reminded me of this famous quote:

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?

Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

---John Harington

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he truly has gone mad. he's gone exactly the same way as tony Blair. only in his case, and fortunately, it seems that he hasn't been able to trample all over public opinion and the processes of government in the same way as that madman did.

Being in power sometimes brings reality -- one has responsibility and has to make hard decisions and can't just criticize and mouth off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being in power sometimes brings reality -- one has responsibility and has to make hard decisions and can't just criticize and mouth off.

Reality? Obama is so far removed from 'reality' on this situation he's on another planet....BTW, 'responsibility' and Obama don't collide well in the same sentence....He won't even admit he set a red line, even though we ALL heard him say it.

Edited by Burt Gummer
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very rarely agree with Obama's views or what he says, but for this I agree completely with him on this. It is true that the United States is a republic and as a republic the people elected to office are to represent the people who elected them to office, but there are times when they do got to just ignore the people and vote on what is best for the nation as a whole. It seems that people are forgetting that the elected officials more then likely have more and I am willing to bet better information then what the average citizen has on certain issues, especially ones that have military matters involved.

Basically what I am trying to say is that we elect the politicians to represent the citizens and make choices for them on a national level, and when they have access to different and probably better information sometimes they just got to go against the people who elected them to office and do what is best.

Now if military intervention in Syria is one of those cases or not is debatable.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very rarely agree with Obama's views or what he says, but for this I agree completely with him on this. It is true that the United States is a republic and as a republic the people elected to office are to represent the people who elected them to office, but there are times when they do got to just ignore the people and vote on what is best for the nation as a whole. It seems that people are forgetting that the elected officials more then likely have more and I am willing to bet better information then what the average citizen has on certain issues, especially ones that have military matters involved.

Basically what I am trying to say is that we elect the politicians to represent the citizens and make choices for them on a national level, and when they have access to different and probably better information sometimes they just got to go against the people who elected them to office and do what is best.

Now if military intervention in Syria is one of those cases or not is debatable.

Best for who?

America is it's people, not the business interests that determine White House policy. If politicians could be relied on to actually do "what's best for the people", I would agree with you, but they can't - so I won't.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a D1cKtater.

What a dick!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very rarely agree with Obama's views or what he says, but for this I agree completely with him on this. It is true that the United States is a republic and as a republic the people elected to office are to represent the people who elected them to office, but there are times when they do got to just ignore the people and vote on what is best for the nation as a whole. It seems that people are forgetting that the elected officials more then likely have more and I am willing to bet better information then what the average citizen has on certain issues, especially ones that have military matters involved.

Basically what I am trying to say is that we elect the politicians to represent the citizens and make choices for them on a national level, and when they have access to different and probably better information sometimes they just got to go against the people who elected them to office and do what is best.

Now if military intervention in Syria is one of those cases or not is debatable.

I completely disagree with this. They're job is to represent the people. If they believe that something needs to be done but the people disagree, it's their job to convince the people, not to disregard them.

How would you like it if the doctor gave you no choice in what medical treatments you would undergo? The doctor is probably better informed than you, no? I wouldn't accept a doctor making decisions for me. It's his job to explain things to me and make suggestions, but in the end I make the decision. This is the exact same kind of situation I'd say.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The House of Reps? Yeah, their job is to REPRESENT the people, which means you listen to them.

The SENATE OTOH should have eyes on "what's right for the nation", one counterblancing the other.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently ol´Abe had it wrong

...government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Edited by jugoso
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very rarely agree with Obama's views or what he says, but for this I agree completely with him on this. It is true that the United States is a republic and as a republic the people elected to office are to represent the people who elected them to office, but there are times when they do got to just ignore the people and vote on what is best for the nation as a whole. It seems that people are forgetting that the elected officials more then likely have more and I am willing to bet better information then what the average citizen has on certain issues, especially ones that have military matters involved.

Basically what I am trying to say is that we elect the politicians to represent the citizens and make choices for them on a national level, and when they have access to different and probably better information sometimes they just got to go against the people who elected them to office and do what is best.

Now if military intervention in Syria is one of those cases or not is debatable.

... and is this one of those cases? How could it possibly be? Therefore all the philosophising is surely mere sophistry.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.c...npd3Lmxc#t=1718

The remarks begin at the 27:45 minute mark....

Basically, a reporter asks Obama, (paraphrasing) why should Congress vote to go to war in Syria when 97% of their constituents are firmly against this. And you know what Obama said? That Congress needs to vote on what is 'right for America and American security' rather than on what their constituents want.....

Unbelievable..... :no:

Note: I just noticed I had a typo in the title! Oops!

Thanks Burt... :)

I watched that last night and paid close attention to Obama's facial expressions, body language, the way he spoke etc...

You know...I don't think his heart is in it. And he is aware that his presidency, and place in history is in tatters over it.

He is in a lose lose situation at home and abroad...

I had a thought on how Al Qaeda could deliver a massive blow to the US....if the military strikes go ahead...

Any military action is bound to be messy and all sorts of things could go wrong...

After the strikes...the jihadists will step up their actions...and when Syria is in violent chaos...

They (the jihadists)....could turn round and say.....'actually it WAS us who released the Sarin Gas on the 21st August,

.....and thankyou America for destroying Assad's Syria for us.....'

Lots of demonstrations planned for today, I see..... will the Public and Politicians give Obama a way out ????

http://www.iacenter...._syria_actions/

.

Edited by bee
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama serves the Military Industrial Complex, just as his predecessor did. Neither serve the american people.

Congress serves the same masters as the Executive Branch. :td:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Burt... :)

I watched that last night and paid close attention to Obama's facial expressions, body language, the way he spoke etc...

You know...I don't think his heart is in it. And he is aware that his presidency, and place in history is in tatters over it.

He is in a lose lose situation at home and abroad...

I had a thought on how Al Qaeda could deliver a massive blow to the US....if the military strikes go ahead...

Any military action is bound to be messy and all sorts of things could go wrong...

After the strikes...the jihadists will step up their actions...and when Syria is in violent chaos...

They (the jihadists)....could turn round and say.....'actually it WAS us who released the Sarin Gas on the 21st August,

.....and thankyou America for destroying Assad's Syria for us.....'

Lots of demonstrations planned for today, I see..... will the Public and Politicians give Obama a way out ????

http://www.iacenter...._syria_actions/

.

Thanks for the link, Bee! :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama serves the Military Industrial Complex, just as his predecessor did. Neither serve the american people.

Congress serves the same masters as the Executive Branch. :td:

We should never forget though, that he is first a man....with all the complexities of personality and experience that everyone else has.

First a man...second the president of the USA...

In the link Burt posted...I could see the man struggling to go through the motions that is required of him as the President.

I think he has been badly advised (or coerced) and finds himself in a very uncomfortable position.

Who would want to be in his shoes right now?

I even wonder if he has the resolve to go through with it...(as a man)....perhaps he will step down?..if Congress doesn't pull the brakes on it?

:unsure2:

maybe just a hopeful thought because I don't want him and the US to make a huge mistake...... :cry:

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The House of Reps? Yeah, their job is to REPRESENT the people, which means you listen to them.

The SENATE OTOH should have eyes on "what's right for the nation", one counterblancing the other.

I find that a bit simplistic; senators feel they represent their constituents too and members of the House often vote against the wishes of their constituents when they think it best. The idea of a republic is not to vote according to the polls but to vote for what in one's good conscience one things is right. Otherwise we could set up a system where people vote on each bill via the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should never forget though, that he is first a man....with all the complexities of personality and experience that everyone else has.

First a man...second the president of the USA...

In the link Burt posted...I could see the man struggling to go through the motions that is required of him as the President.

I think he has been badly advised (or coerced) and finds himself in a very uncomfortable position.

Who would want to be in his shoes right now?

I even wonder if he has the resolve to go through with it...(as a man)....perhaps he will step down?..if Congress doesn't pull the brakes on it?

:unsure2:

maybe just a hopeful thought because I don't want him and the US to make a huge mistake...... :cry:

Thank goodness it seems like most of them are keeping a level head and carefully weighing the evidence before jumping in on just an emotional basis.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank goodness it seems like most of them are keeping a level head and carefully weighing the evidence before jumping in on just an emotional basis.

I couldn't agree more...... :tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My greatest fear is Obama letting the 'man' aspect of him come first a little too much..

Like his emotions clouding his judgement and launching nukes at Iran for the 'rape' comments about his daughters.

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.