Jump to content

Obama's Post Presidency


/dev/null

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
6 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Didn't care when he was president.

 

People have completely confused celebrity and leadership.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

i don't care about anyone's bracket unless I asked them about it first

 

****, you could give Obama the Women's Bracket and he wouldn't know it, he would be chuckling and telling us how he just KNOWS that Elon will win it all, they are always a great team at Elon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

i don't care about anyone's bracket unless I asked them about it first

 

****, you could give Obama the Women's Bracket and he wouldn't know it, he would be chuckling and telling us how he just KNOWS that Elon will win it all, they are always a great team at Elon.

 

!@#$ the Phoenix.  Though, I already did. Sarah. JD c/o 2016. Blonde. Hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've known people who've worked for or with hw bush, Cheney, Clinton x 3, Obama, and w. bush. 

 

Obama and hw are two of the best, most genuinely good-natured people that you'd ever want to meet. Everyone here, if afforded one hour to spend with either , would say, "you know what, forget what I said before, cuz they kinda aight." 

 

Bman would even be like "Obama good people." 

 

It sucks that our politics is so distant and impersonal. It makes for a weird brand of challenging citizenship. 

Edited by Juror#8
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

I've known people who've worked for or with hw bush, Cheney, Clinton x 3, Obama, and w. bush. 

 

Obama and hw are two of the best, most genuinely good-natured people that you'd ever want to meet. Everyone here, if afforded one hour to spend with either , would say, "you know what, forget what I said before, cuz they kinda aight." 

 

Bman would even be like "Obama good people." 

 

It sucks that our politics is so distant and impersonal. It makes for a weird brand of challenging citizenship. 

 

Most people are nice and good natured 95% of the time.  It's the 5% that often defines them.  5 awful percent can ruin 95 percent of goodness.  In Obama's case he presents himself as a gentleman and is no doubt intelligent.  He simply has radical views about our country but those are rarely on display in public as he veils them.  If you dig deeper though you'll find them.  Listen to his 2004 or so radio interview where he talks about using the tools of government to provide economic justice to African Americans as compensation for slavery which ended 150 years ago.  Look at how he used virtually every federal government agency as a political weapon while in office.    His actions and not his public rhetoric before, during and after his presidency define him.  The hit job put upon Trump through the IC both before and immediately after the election is an example.  For sure he was aware and supportive of that but his minions will take the fall while he floats above the fray, fills out NCAA brackets and flashes his million dollar smile.  He is the worst kind of politician and a lousy man. 

 

W. Bush was/is also a "nice guy".  Terrible President especially in his 2nd term. 

 

The Clinton's flat out suck. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Most people are nice and good natured 95% of the time.  It's the 5% that often defines them.  5 awful percent can ruin 95 percent of goodness.  In Obama's case he presents himself as a gentleman and is no doubt intelligent.  He simply has radical views about our country but those are rarely on display in public as he veils them.  If you dig deeper though you'll find them.  Listen to his 2004 or so radio interview where he talks about using the tools of government to provide economic justice to African Americans as compensation for slavery which ended 150 years ago.  Look at how he used virtually every federal government agency as a political weapon while in office.    His actions and not his public rhetoric before, during and after his presidency define him.  The hit job put upon Trump through the IC both before and immediately after the election is an example.  For sure he was aware and supportive of that but his minions will take the fall while he floats above the fray, fills out NCAA brackets and flashes his million dollar smile.  He is the worst kind of politician and a lousy man. 

 

W. Bush was/is also a "nice guy".  Terrible President especially in his 2nd term. 

 

The Clinton's flat out suck. 

 

 

 

Obama even weaponized the government shutdown. He wanted to make the shutdown as painful as possible so he could blame it on the opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

I've known people who've worked for or with hw bush, Cheney, Clinton x 3, Obama, and w. bush. 

 

Obama and hw are two of the best, most genuinely good-natured people that you'd ever want to meet. Everyone here, if afforded one hour to spend with either , would say, "you know what, forget what I said before, cuz they kinda aight." 

 

Bman would even be like "Obama good people." 

 

It sucks that our politics is so distant and impersonal. It makes for a weird brand of challenging citizenship. 

 

Treason is treason regardless of one's charm or personality. 

 

Both 44 and 43 were no friends to this country or what it stands for. 

 

Conditioning is a hell of a thing. 

 

Edit: Read it so fast I thought you were praising 43. But you were discussed HW... who can't leave this planet fast enough. When his legacy is known in full, the last thing people will describe him as is "good-natured". Why do they call him Poppy? 

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Because I no read good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Treason is treason regardless of one's charm or personality. 

 

Both 44 and 43 were no friends to this country or what it stands for. 

 

Conditioning is a hell of a thing. 

 

Edit: Read it so fast I thought you were praising 43. But you were discussed HW... who can't leave this planet fast enough. When his legacy is known in full, the last thing people will describe him as is "good-natured". Why do they call him Poppy? 

 

44 and 43 did great things for this country. For every thing that they did that was arguably “bad,” I can counter with something opposite to restore balance to their legacy. And such would be the cadence for every president throughout history. Our politics has just become this acidic catastrophe of blame and vitriol because it’s viewed through such a truncated and slanted lens. Ugh. What the !@#$. 

 

And this is a thread about what someone is doing post-presidency. So their personality and them as individual citizens is appropriate for discussion. There have been plenty of threads litigating their success and failures in office. 

Edited by Juror#8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Obama even weaponized the government shutdown. He wanted to make the shutdown as painful as possible so he could blame it on the opposition.

 

Your hyperbole aside, I’m wondering, is that unique to Obama? Or are there republicans that you can say the same about? 

 

Careful ...

 

You could just tell me that it’s a thread about Obama so that’s why you singled him out and I’ll accept that. 

Edited by Juror#8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Juror#8 said:

 

44 and 43 did great things for this country. For every thing that they did that was arguably “bad,” I can counter with something opposite to restore balance to their legacy.

 

You can try, but you'll fail. HW betrayed this country in numerous ways. Treason is treason and HW oversaw much of it while at CIA and in the oval.

 

Why did they call HW Poppy? Do you know?

 

2 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

And such would be the cadence for every president throughout history.

 

Some more than others. You're lauding three of the most corrupt and treasonous snakes to ever occupy the oval. They're being destroyed as we speak - their legacies will be washed away as well. 

 

3 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

And this is a thread about what someone is doing post-presidency. So their personality and them as individual citizens is appropriate for discussion. There have been plenty of threads litigating their success and failures in office. 

 

Obama's post presidency is going to be very interesting - with trials and everything. As such, the crimes and treason committed under his watch will be brought up often. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Most people are nice and good natured 95% of the time.  It's the 5% that often defines them.  5 awful percent can ruin 95 percent of goodness.  In Obama's case he presents himself as a gentleman and is no doubt intelligent.  He simply has radical views about our country but those are rarely on display in public as he veils them.  If you dig deeper though you'll find them.  Listen to his 2004 or so radio interview where he talks about using the tools of government to provide economic justice to African Americans as compensation for slavery which ended 150 years ago.  Look at how he used virtually every federal government agency as a political weapon while in office.    His actions and not his public rhetoric before, during and after his presidency define him.  The hit job put upon Trump through the IC both before and immediately after the election is an example.  For sure he was aware and supportive of that but his minions will take the fall while he floats above the fray, fills out NCAA brackets and flashes his million dollar smile.  He is the worst kind of politician and a lousy man. 

 

W. Bush was/is also a "nice guy".  Terrible President especially in his 2nd term. 

 

The Clinton's flat out suck. 

 

 

 

 

Obama is a good man and he was a good president. 

 

All kinds of people held views during their lifetime, before they knew that they would have a lens of public perception shoved in their face, that could be characterized in all kind of arm-chair quarterbacky, and contextless ways. Trump was a bigot who didn’t want niggers renting property from him. Lbj wasn’t a friend of black folks and thought they were largely stupid (maybe he was right), but worked with Mlk on ****. Nixon, for as intelligent as he was, was also paranoid and wanted to use government resources for covert **** all over Asia and wanted to spy on political adversaries. Jfk was a philanderer. Fdr was a philanderer and a liar. Hw and Reagan were liars and were in defiance of Congress (arguably) and Hw knows what bell he was ringing with the Willie Horton ad. W bush either lied or was incompetent in the rush into Iraq. 

 

We can cherry pick **** all day. These people’s lives are on display every day for eight years. They will make mistakes and they will have successes. They give up their normalcy to run to caretaker the country and Obama did so as admirably as anyone else before him or since. 

 

You don’t like his agenda, his politics, or his legacy. Cool. But don’t make it about more than that. Cut the guy some slack. They want the same thing you do - domestic tranquility and relative safety. We had both. Move the !@#$ on. 

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You can try, but you'll fail. HW betrayed this country in numerous ways. Treason is treason and HW oversaw much of it while at CIA and in the oval.

 

Why did they call HW Poppy? Do you know?

 

 

Some more than others. You're lauding three of the most corrupt and treasonous snakes to ever occupy the oval. They're being destroyed as we speak - their legacies will be washed away as well. 

 

 

Obama's post presidency is going to be very interesting - with trials and everything. As such, the crimes and treason committed under his watch will be brought up often. 

 

 

You can name call and characterize if you feel it strengths what you have to say. I’m sure it feels good typing it. But it doesn’t make what you’re saying any more valid.

 

But it convinces me that you at least have conviction. And I can respect that. 

 

I don’t use words like “treachery” lightly and it isn’t a synonym for bad decision-making or boneheadedness. There is an overtness and an intent that’s implied in that word such that it shouldn’t be bandied about like “Lol.” 

 

So cue up your hyperbole. I’ll play along and I’ll

even respond for a while because people like you are necessary to the fringes and the superficial part of robust dialog. But to be fair I’m receiving your comments - as incendiary and passionate as they are - with the same seriousness that I take someone typing about saggy titties in all caps. 

 

And I don’t know why they call him Poppy. And I do know that he had his moments of jackassery and slight (see my post above to the other guy).

Edited by Juror#8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...