"O" at his best

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by Outlaw, Aug 17, 2015.

  1. Outlaw

    Outlaw Supporting Member

    1,691
    128
  2. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    That is exactly why someone who has never been in ANY military training in their entire life should NEVER be a 'Commander in Chief'.
     

  3. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Like John Adams, our second President or like John Quincy Adams, our sixth?

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  4. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    I do realize that in the past, we've had many Commander in Chiefs, but the environment has changed drastically since we've been getting the major influx of 'progressive liberals' (more accurately called Socialists) that are trying to find all the loopholes in the US Constitution and chisel all of our rights away and to literally tie our protector's (the military's) arms behind their backs when they are called upon to defend the US.
     
  5. There aren't any loopholes in the US Constitution. They just ignore it and usurp power.
     
  6. histed

    histed Supporting Member

    4,341
    3,859
    [​IMG]
    And the Sheeple sleep still
     
  7. monsterdawg

    monsterdawg Member

    992
    0

    Does that mean we will all have to wear long sleeve shirts?
     
  8. I've been hearing this since I joined in '06. In fact, during tech school, the Marines there would open up training opportunities with them, and I would often get in there when I had some free time; their DIs were telling them that and that was the beginning of '07 with Bush.
     
  9. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,156
    1,409
    INDY
    That "O" would take away guns???
     
  10. MaryB

    MaryB Supporting Member

  11. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    Maureen Scott has him pegged!

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/scott/130301

     
  12. Huh? No, the original post, about the Marines not shooting first.
    I've been hearing about every President taking guns since I was born.
     
  13. You don't already? By only having long sleeved shirts and rolling up the sleeve when needed, one can cut their shirt purchases by 50%.

    In the course of a lifetime the savings allow for the purchase of 5-12 guns.
     
  14. monsterdawg

    monsterdawg Member

    992
    0
    Because he is going to take away our right to "bare" arms!
     
  15. The sheeple always will sleep.

    A good thing we all sent those Molon Labe postcards off in 2013 to let them know that not everyone is a sheeple. It also helped that the people bought millions of AR/AKs and stockpiled billions of rounds of ammo in that last 5-6 years.

    To show how incompetent our fearless leaders are, they all forget political science 101.

    “When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred.”

    Machiavelli
     
  16. I just knew it would end up with its Bush's fault :rolleyes:
    every thing always is
     
  17. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member


    I think Bush has replaced Hitler in Godwin's law!
     
  18. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    That's because variations of it have been SOP under certain circumstances since before you were born.

    Yes, the article is basically true. And yes, it pre-dates "O" doing it by a bit. Every time there's a circumstance where you might not want a repeat of The Boston Massacre, someone up the command chain issues a "don't shoot first" order. Very often, the ability to shoot at all is removed. Thus you end up seeing things like National Guard or Gate Security issued weapons but no ammo. It's just for show. It happened under Raygun, Busch I, Busch II, as well as the Democrat presidents.

    To be perfectly honest, my personal theory is that it all goes back to the Kent State Massacre. After that, in our collective consciousness, we all sort of stood up and said, in unison, "Never Again."

    And we meant it. But you know what? That pesky old Law of Unintended Consequences keeps popping its head up over the cubicle wall. The result is that a lot of times the fighting man-on-the-ground has his hands figuratively tied.

    So, with that in mind, the referenced article isn't really all that special. It's sort of an anti-"O" propaganda piece. Yeah, it's basically true, but you can substituted any prior POTUS for the past 2 decades and it's still true.

    There's plenty to lay at the feet of "O" without needing this.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  19. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Thanks for debunking that Kirk.

    - friend send me this in an email -

    If I read that it already pegs my bu****ometer.
    Why are so many so gullible in believing that sort of gibberish ?
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2015
  20. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    It really shouldn't, because it's not BS. It's true. But, by the same token, it's not particularly new either. Yes, "O" could choose to do it different than his predecessors did (and I wish he would) but, at the same time, it's not particularly surprising or noteworthy.

    Well, two things. First, it's not gibberish and you don't have to be gullible to believe it because it's true. What is being neglected, most likely deliberately IMO, is the fact that Busch I & II and Raygun administrations did the same. That changes the narrative.

    The reason people "believe" the anti-"O" narrative is because, well, frankly, we WANT to. Psychologists call it "Confirmation Bias" but it's really just human nature that politicians and public opinion manipulators have been using since time immemorial. We just naturally want to believe that people we don't like or who oppose us on the political spectrum are "bad."

    It's the reason that the myth of Prima Noctis was believed (and often still is!).

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk