Enough!

I can take just about anything coming out of the mouth of the present resident in the White House but his new agenda which he proposed this weekend just about brought me to a moment of rage.

Obama decided it was time to get along with the communistic government of Vietnam by offering to lift the embargo on the sale of arms to that same country!
Even though we now know much of the truth about our reasoning for military actions in Vietnam we were told [at that time] it was to fight communism so that country could enjoy some semblance of a democracy. 58K American soldiers lost their lives and most of us who lived lost much of our basic sanity somewhere in the mix and Obama just whisked his pen out and decided that they now need more arms so they can kill more innocents.
After we left, and communism took over, everyone who was even suspected of helping Americans during the war was either executed or imprisoned and not only are we now going to sell them arms but it is supposed to be some kind of glorious vacation spot.

Why, when arms are being produced in Vietnam and bought from Russia and China do we need to sell our arms to that militant communistic society of................(never mind) !!!!

Will someone close to Obama please slap him on the side of the head and explain to him the idiocy of his latest action against veterans who fought there and MIA's who are still there, and Americans in general ? !!

 

myself and other that served just got a slap in the face there as well as the 58,000 kids who were systematically murdered by their own gov. Obama was not hired to think. and hasn't from day one. his purpose is to show his black face in public. far as we're concerned he's a traitor. he's destroyed the economy provided aid and comfort to our enemies, to name a few and he's an illegal alien. he should be hung by the neck until dead when leaving office.

 

I'll drink to that.

[/QUOTE]

 

Doesn't seem that bad a president to me, but then I'm not an American. Anyway, all those who get elected don't seem to take much trouble to implement what the public want or that they promised when put in power

 

Ah but yes, for this president has pretty much lived up to his promise to "fundamentally change America".
We're more broke and owe out more money than ever before.
We are more racially challenged than we have been in 60 years.
We have more people on food stamps and welfare than ever before.
Our military is weaker than it was since pre-WW1.
His mandated health system is a financial disaster.
His promise to close Gitmo is quickly becoming a reality. Most of those he has released are presently serving against the U.S. as military combatants or advisors.
As president he has spent more public money (base and per-capita) on "sprees" by himself, his wife and daughters and of course, his mother- in- law than any other president of the U.S.

The list can go on for at least another page or two so, yes, I would say that this present resident of the White House has lived up to his promises.

 

That's just the Ana-Baptist part of you @Ken Anderson. But, now to think about it, forced to plow about 100 acres of Amish land behind a team and plow wouldn't seem like too bad of a thing, now would it? Ah, the sweet smell of sweat and manure, followed with the thoughts of blow flies and un-callused hands comes to mind.
Totally ruin a good golf swing in my opinion.

Actually, I could probably take him some places in Vietnam and Laos where his love for selling guns to our enemies might prove a good thing for us. I am sure someone there still has an M-16 who would be more than glad to show him how it works. One drop in Kuan Loi, and he'll never return, or at least, not alive.

 

@Gary Ridenour

"he should be hung by the neck until dead when leaving office."

Why the delay? To deprive Joe of the opportunity to take over?
Frank

 

What you have not revealed is, just WHO is giving the orders? And to what extent can they supercede the powers o the President? Used to be, the shady, unknown, rarely quoted "Council on Foreign Relations", (CFR). Their meetings included heads of state from all over the world. As the existence of this clique became more publicly known, it "opened up" a bit to the public, then, as far as the media are concerned, disappeared. (Ha, guess again, IMO).

An even more ominous ruling clan is the Bilderberg. Fortunately, Internet "transparency" has managed to penetrate some of this one's sickeningly contrived efforts to "run the world", meaning the lives of us all. Look:

"The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, Bilderberg meetings, or Bilderberg Club is an annual private conference of 120 to 150 people of the European and North American political elite, experts from industry, finance, academia, and the media, established in 1954.[2]"

"Partly because of its working methods to ensure strict privacy, the Bilderberg Group has been criticised for its lack of transparency and accountability.[31] Due to its privacy, Bilderberg has been accused of conspiracies.[1][9][32] This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the political spectrum, even if they disagree about the exact nature of the group's intentions. Some on the left accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[33] while some on the right have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.[34"

The above quotes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group#Criticism

Read this and weep. Frank

 

If there are people controlling world leaders, they seem pretty useless. I personally don't believe in such Ickian conspiracy theories https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke .There seems to be a definite danger, however, in allowing so called democratic leaders great power. All should be firmly fettered to reality and expected to carry out their manifestos. I think there should be legal action against those leaders who imagine being elected gives them carte blanche to do as they please. Another thing which I think would be a very sensible move would be a 'tribune of the plebs' style official to block legislation which would hurt the poor.

 

So far as what @Frank Sanoica wrote, I am still flipping coins. That said, while I do like much of what you say, I believe that what @Yvonne Smith was alluding to was simple social mathematics.
No one but no one spends their money on something without expecting some kind of return from it.
Enormous amounts of money is "donated" by some huge personal interests groups and they expect the person they back to toe the line in favor of their individual agendas. If anyone does not believe that most presidents and other high positions in government in recent years have not been bought and paid for then they need to crack the books and take the blinders off.

Other than that, again I do appreciate your post and a couple of the valid points you make.

 

Absolutely agree with you, there are inevitably pressure groups with varying degrees of influence and transparency. I thought it was one of these powerful-white-men-rule-the-world sort of things. I sort of like Icke's theories - they include the idea of the queen being a reptilian alien like in V. Likewise to you sir!

 

I am totally appalled that anyone would post that picture and horrified that anyone would agree with him. IMHO, Admin should remove it immediately.

Hate his policies, yes. Fuss, fight and raise hell about them, fine. But, for Gods sake, don't hang the man!

It brings to my mind images of ISIS beheading people.