President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[iceberg]

being french you think mr perfect would give up by now.

[conversationpc]

being french you think mr perfect would give up by now.

Those two words should never be used in the same sentence together unless it goes something like this..."The French are the perfect example of Euro-trash.

[iceberg]

being french you think mr perfect would give up by now.

Those two words should never be used in the same sentence together unless it goes something like this..."The French are the perfect example of Euro-trash.

damn. i thought i had enough sarcasm on that one... >g<

[conversationpc]

being french you think mr perfect would give up by now.

Those two words should never be used in the same sentence together unless it goes something like this..."The French are the perfect example of Euro-trash.

damn. i thought i had enough sarcasm on that one... >g<

There can never be enough sarcasm.

[iceberg]

being french you think mr perfect would give up by now.

Those two words should never be used in the same sentence together unless it goes something like this..."The French are the perfect example of Euro-trash.

damn. i thought i had enough sarcasm on that one... >g<

There can never be enough sarcasm.

saving post for a later time when i open up more...

[Behshad]

French Army Knife

[conversationpc]

being french you think mr perfect would give up by now.

Those two words should never be used in the same sentence together unless it goes something like this..."The French are the perfect example of Euro-trash.

damn. i thought i had enough sarcasm on that one... >g<

There can never be enough sarcasm.

saving post for a later time when i open up more...

[Behshad]

Q: How do you get a French waiter's attention?
A: Start ordering in German.

Q: What's the difference between France and Quebec?
A: Quebec has prettier women and colder beer.

Q: Why do the French like smelly cheeses?
A: Well, in a room full of French people, you can't really smell the cheese.

"A Frenchmen's home is where another man's wife is." - Mark Twain -1878-79 Journal

"There is nothing lower than the human race...except for the French." - Mark Twain 1878-79

"French history: They turn on their friends and surrender to their enemies!"

I got a tip for you , if you install the french versions of your favorite programs, THEY RUN A LOT FASTER


Why wouldn't the Statue of Liberty work in France? Because she has only one arm raised.


How do you separate the men from the boys in France? With a crowbar.

Hey ! Do you know what's the difference between a Frenchman and a chimpansee ? - One of them is hairy, stinky, and scratches his ass all the time. The other is a chimpansee.

Why do the french get more votes in the U.N. They vote with both hands

Q. What is the difference between a frenchwoman and a basketball team?
A. The basketball team showers after 4 periods.

Q. How many jokes are there about the French?
A. One, the rest are true

What is the french peoples favorite movie? the running man

During WW2, the French resistance fighters, in their finest hour, bravely threw sticks of dynamite at the advancing German troops. The Germans then lit them and threw them back.

Q.What is the first thing the French teach their kids in school?
A.How to say "We Surrender" in German!

Q. Why don't cheesburgers sell well in France
A. Because they don't smell like crap.

When is it white laundry day in France? Never, any white laundry in france is already hung up on a stick being waved

Q. How many frenchmen does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A. One, because he holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him

Q. How do you confuse a French Soldier?
A. Give him a rifle and ask him to shoot it.

Q. Why don't Master Card and Visa work well in France
A.They do not know how to say "CHARGE!"

[iceberg]

by now i wonder if the poor little guy is still under the delusion that anyone really cares what he thinks. : )

about this anyway.

[Seven Wishes2]

Wow, Beck is a fucking wacko. Move forward to about 2:05 or so (right before he assails Obama for the closing of five coal plants in America since 2009 which, it should be pointed out, were all in severe violation of worker safety regulations and losing money). He tells his audience they need to "pick up arms" and then points to a picture of Obama. Last time I checked, that was a federal offense.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201106130022

[parfait]

by now i wonder if the poor little guy is still under the delusion that anyone really cares what he thinks. : )

about this anyway.

That's the whole core of the subject; you and the other rednecks have made up your mind already. "no way no sciense community are gonna knov better than me durr". You could've learned something today.

Couldn't honestly care less if some average, undereducated and dumb American like yourself, bashes France though - so you just go ahead.

[conversationpc]

Wow, Beck is a fucking wacko. Move forward to about 2:05 or so (right before he assails Obama for the closing of five coal plants in America since 2009 which, it should be pointed out, were all in severe violation of worker safety regulations and losing money). He tells his audience they need to "pick up arms" and then points to a picture of Obama. Last time I checked, that was a federal offense.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201106130022

I don't listen to Beck all that much anymore and haven't watched his show in a few months...However, here he doesn't tell the audience to take up arms against either Obama or Sunstein (also in the picture during that segment). The whole segment is about the possibility of food shortages and riots that could happen as a result of it if that happens here. Judging from the context of what he's talking about and knowing that Obama and Sunstein are in favor of higher energy prices that could possibly bring about that scenario, he's saying to be pepared for that, not to gun down the President and one of his advisors. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But of course, this wouldn't be the first time the pimple-faced cellar dwelling denizens at Media Matters have done something like that.

[slucero]

whoa...

This bullshit needs to end... no president should be able to commit to hostilities with out congressional approval

Report: Obama overruled lawyers on Libya air war

AP – 48 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite rulings to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers, according to published reports.

The president relied instead on the opinions of other senior administration lawyers that continuing U.S. participation in the air operations against the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi did not constitute "hostilities," triggering the need for Congressional permission under the War Powers Resolution, the New York Times reported in its online edition Friday night.

Among those reported to support the president's action were White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold H. Koh, the paper said. Those opposed included Pentagon General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Caroline D. Krass.

One issue was reported to be whether firing missiles from drones amounted to hostilities.

Presidents can ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, but rarely do so, the newspaper reported.

The 1973 law prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension. The 60-day deadline passed last month with the White House saying it is in compliance with the law. The 90-day mark is Sunday.
White House spokesman Jay Carney addressed the internal debate over the resolution at his briefing Thursday.
He said "there was a robust process through which the president received the advice he relied on in determining the application" of the War Powers Resolution.

He noted the resolution has been subject to intense debate since it was first enacted in 1973.

"We are not going to get into the internal process by which the president receives legal advice," Carney said. "It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict. Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy"

[iceberg]

by now i wonder if the poor little guy is still under the delusion that anyone really cares what he thinks. : )

about this anyway.

That's the whole core of the subject; you and the other rednecks have made up your mind already. "no way no sciense community are gonna knov better than me durr". You could've learned something today.

Couldn't honestly care less if some average, undereducated and dumb American like yourself, bashes France though - so you just go ahead.

i'm sure france is actually pretty cool.

you're a dick however.

[steveo777]

whoa...

This bullshit needs to end... no president should be able to commit to hostilities with out congressional approval

Report: Obama overruled lawyers on Libya air war

AP – 48 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite rulings to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers, according to published reports.

The president relied instead on the opinions of other senior administration lawyers that continuing U.S. participation in the air operations against the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi did not constitute "hostilities," triggering the need for Congressional permission under the War Powers Resolution, the New York Times reported in its online edition Friday night.

Among those reported to support the president's action were White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold H. Koh, the paper said. Those opposed included Pentagon General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Caroline D. Krass.

One issue was reported to be whether firing missiles from drones amounted to hostilities.

Presidents can ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, but rarely do so, the newspaper reported.

The 1973 law prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension. The 60-day deadline passed last month with the White House saying it is in compliance with the law. The 90-day mark is Sunday.
White House spokesman Jay Carney addressed the internal debate over the resolution at his briefing Thursday.
He said "there was a robust process through which the president received the advice he relied on in determining the application" of the War Powers Resolution.

He noted the resolution has been subject to intense debate since it was first enacted in 1973.

"We are not going to get into the internal process by which the president receives legal advice," Carney said. "It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict. Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy"

Dick head....you can't commit hostilities against the hostile.

And for 2012, no more primates as president, mmmmmkay?

[slucero]

whoa...

This bullshit needs to end... no president should be able to commit to hostilities with out congressional approval

Report: Obama overruled lawyers on Libya air war

AP – 48 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite rulings to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers, according to published reports.

The president relied instead on the opinions of other senior administration lawyers that continuing U.S. participation in the air operations against the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi did not constitute "hostilities," triggering the need for Congressional permission under the War Powers Resolution, the New York Times reported in its online edition Friday night.

Among those reported to support the president's action were White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold H. Koh, the paper said. Those opposed included Pentagon General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Caroline D. Krass.

One issue was reported to be whether firing missiles from drones amounted to hostilities.

Presidents can ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, but rarely do so, the newspaper reported.

The 1973 law prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension. The 60-day deadline passed last month with the White House saying it is in compliance with the law. The 90-day mark is Sunday.
White House spokesman Jay Carney addressed the internal debate over the resolution at his briefing Thursday.
He said "there was a robust process through which the president received the advice he relied on in determining the application" of the War Powers Resolution.

He noted the resolution has been subject to intense debate since it was first enacted in 1973.

"We are not going to get into the internal process by which the president receives legal advice," Carney said. "It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict. Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy"

Dick head....you can't commit hostilities against the hostile.


And for 2012, no more primates as president, mmmmmkay?

Read the War Powers Act before you commit stoopicide... mmmmkaaay?


And yes... 2 monkeys in 2 terms is enough already...... ass bandit...

[iceberg]

stoopicide...

now that made me giggle.

[iceberg]

by now i wonder if the poor little guy is still under the delusion that anyone really cares what he thinks. : )

about this anyway.

That's the whole core of the subject; you and the other rednecks have made up your mind already. "no way no sciense community are gonna knov better than me durr". You could've learned something today.

Couldn't honestly care less if some average, undereducated and dumb American like yourself, bashes France though - so you just go ahead.

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell

well, what i really find both ironic and actually pretty normal, is he's sitting there thinking *we* know it all while he sits up there and tells us what we should know. how does he know what we should know unless *HE* knew it all? but he's too arrogant to see he is what he portends to hate.

there's no doubt in my mind we should work better with our environment. there's also no doubt in my mind global warming is a hoax as given.

[Seven Wishes2]

The four shortest books ever written:

Jewish Business Ethics
French and Italian War Heroes
Polish Wit and Wisdom
Blacks I Met While Yachting

[steveo777]

The four shortest books ever written:

Jewish Business Ethics
French and Italian War Heroes
Polish Wit and Wisdom
Blacks I Met While Yachting

Funny shit.

[Seven Wishes2]

I almost forgot, "A Detailed Step-to-Step Guide on Playing the Guitar as Well as Curt "Breakfast Cereal" Cobain".

[parfait]

by now i wonder if the poor little guy is still under the delusion that anyone really cares what he thinks. : )

about this anyway.

That's the whole core of the subject; you and the other rednecks have made up your mind already. "no way no sciense community are gonna knov better than me durr". You could've learned something today.

Couldn't honestly care less if some average, undereducated and dumb American like yourself, bashes France though - so you just go ahead.

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell

well, what i really find both ironic and actually pretty normal, is he's sitting there thinking *we* know it all while he sits up there and tells us what we should know. how does he know what we should know unless *HE* knew it all? but he's too arrogant to see he is what he portends to hate.

there's no doubt in my mind we should work better with our environment. there's also no doubt in my mind global warming is a hoax as given.

I'm not telling you what you should know. I'm presenting the facts to you - the reality of things. Not an opinion based on any of my own experiences or through anecdotal evidence. The theory of evolution provides a sound analogy: Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren't contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they're taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process.

I mean, if you want to stay in your own dream world, then that's your problem - but don't for a second think you're right.

[Memorex]

by now i wonder if the poor little guy is still under the delusion that anyone really cares what he thinks. : )

about this anyway.

That's the whole core of the subject; you and the other rednecks have made up your mind already. "no way no sciense community are gonna knov better than me durr". You could've learned something today.

Couldn't honestly care less if some average, undereducated and dumb American like yourself, bashes France though - so you just go ahead.

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell

well, what i really find both ironic and actually pretty normal, is he's sitting there thinking *we* know it all while he sits up there and tells us what we should know. how does he know what we should know unless *HE* knew it all? but he's too arrogant to see he is what he portends to hate.

there's no doubt in my mind we should work better with our environment. there's also no doubt in my mind global warming is a hoax as given.

I'm not telling you what you should know. I'm presenting the facts to you - the reality of things. Not an opinion based on any of my own experiences or through anecdotal evidence. The theory of evolution provides a sound analogy: Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren't contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they're taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process.

I mean, if you want to stay in your own dream world, then that's your problem - but don't for a second think you're right.

Can I ask how your personal environment is any different today than when you were a kid? There was more smog when I was a kid, so I have seen an improvement there. My mom wouldn't let me turn on the air during those hot summer days when I was young and now as the adult that pays the bill, I can. So that's an improvement. Anyway, other than that I have not experienced any change whatsoever. Have you?

[parfait]

by now i wonder if the poor little guy is still under the delusion that anyone really cares what he thinks. : )

about this anyway.

That's the whole core of the subject; you and the other rednecks have made up your mind already. "no way no sciense community are gonna knov better than me durr". You could've learned something today.

Couldn't honestly care less if some average, undereducated and dumb American like yourself, bashes France though - so you just go ahead.

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell

well, what i really find both ironic and actually pretty normal, is he's sitting there thinking *we* know it all while he sits up there and tells us what we should know. how does he know what we should know unless *HE* knew it all? but he's too arrogant to see he is what he portends to hate.

there's no doubt in my mind we should work better with our environment. there's also no doubt in my mind global warming is a hoax as given.

I'm not telling you what you should know. I'm presenting the facts to you - the reality of things. Not an opinion based on any of my own experiences or through anecdotal evidence. The theory of evolution provides a sound analogy: Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren't contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they're taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process.

I mean, if you want to stay in your own dream world, then that's your problem - but don't for a second think you're right.

Can I ask how your personal environment is any different today than when you were a kid? There was more smog when I was a kid, so I have seen an improvement there. My mom wouldn't let me turn on the air during those hot summer days when I was young and now as the adult that pays the bill, I can. So that's an improvement. Anyway, other than that I have not experienced any change whatsoever. Have you?

What I've experienced is irrelevant, because that's anecdotal evidence, which are in such matters of little value in establishing the probability of the claims they are put forth to support. If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence

[iceberg]

I'm not telling you what you should know. I'm presenting the facts to you...]

you do that.

[Memorex]

by now i wonder if the poor little guy is still under the delusion that anyone really cares what he thinks. : )

about this anyway.

That's the whole core of the subject; you and the other rednecks have made up your mind already. "no way no sciense community are gonna knov better than me durr". You could've learned something today.

Couldn't honestly care less if some average, undereducated and dumb American like yourself, bashes France though - so you just go ahead.

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell

well, what i really find both ironic and actually pretty normal, is he's sitting there thinking *we* know it all while he sits up there and tells us what we should know. how does he know what we should know unless *HE* knew it all? but he's too arrogant to see he is what he portends to hate.

there's no doubt in my mind we should work better with our environment. there's also no doubt in my mind global warming is a hoax as given.

I'm not telling you what you should know. I'm presenting the facts to you - the reality of things. Not an opinion based on any of my own experiences or through anecdotal evidence. The theory of evolution provides a sound analogy: Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren't contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they're taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process.

I mean, if you want to stay in your own dream world, then that's your problem - but don't for a second think you're right.

Can I ask how your personal environment is any different today than when you were a kid? There was more smog when I was a kid, so I have seen an improvement there. My mom wouldn't let me turn on the air during those hot summer days when I was young and now as the adult that pays the bill, I can. So that's an improvement. Anyway, other than that I have not experienced any change whatsoever. Have you?

What I've experienced is irrelevant, because that's anecdotal evidence, which are in such matters of little value in establishing the probability of the claims they are put forth to support. If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence

Sorry, but that's not what we are being told. We are told of extreme changes now. 100 foot waves. 20 foot ocean rise. Worse hurricanes and other. So you can't have all your guys saying that, but then dismiss it as anecdotal when it doesn't occur. The scare tactics are used to take our money. Can you at least admit that for God's sake?

[parfait]

by now i wonder if the poor little guy is still under the delusion that anyone really cares what he thinks. : )

about this anyway.

That's the whole core of the subject; you and the other rednecks have made up your mind already. "no way no sciense community are gonna knov better than me durr". You could've learned something today.

Couldn't honestly care less if some average, undereducated and dumb American like yourself, bashes France though - so you just go ahead.

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell

well, what i really find both ironic and actually pretty normal, is he's sitting there thinking *we* know it all while he sits up there and tells us what we should know. how does he know what we should know unless *HE* knew it all? but he's too arrogant to see he is what he portends to hate.

there's no doubt in my mind we should work better with our environment. there's also no doubt in my mind global warming is a hoax as given.

I'm not telling you what you should know. I'm presenting the facts to you - the reality of things. Not an opinion based on any of my own experiences or through anecdotal evidence. The theory of evolution provides a sound analogy: Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren't contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they're taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process.

I mean, if you want to stay in your own dream world, then that's your problem - but don't for a second think you're right.

Can I ask how your personal environment is any different today than when you were a kid? There was more smog when I was a kid, so I have seen an improvement there. My mom wouldn't let me turn on the air during those hot summer days when I was young and now as the adult that pays the bill, I can. So that's an improvement. Anyway, other than that I have not experienced any change whatsoever. Have you?

What I've experienced is irrelevant, because that's anecdotal evidence, which are in such matters of little value in establishing the probability of the claims they are put forth to support. If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence

Sorry, but that's not what we are being told. We are told of extreme changes now. 100 foot waves. 20 foot ocean rise. Worse hurricanes and other. So you can't have all your guys saying that, but then dismiss it as anecdotal when it doesn't occur. The scare tactics are used to take our money. Can you at least admit that for God's sake?

Sure, the media can, and will in many cases, exaggerate - not denying that. However, the effects of global warming are pretty fucking scary. Increased acidification, extreme weather, deglacing as well as damage to eco-systems. These are already well documented. Furthermore, the effects of GW can irreversibly impact the thermohaline circulation, which will cause major cooldowns in the northern hemisphere.

The use of greenhouse gases (increasing the amount of absorbed, re-emitted radiation from the earth) will have detrimental effects on everyone, especially in developing countries, as they don't have the means to cope with the aforementioned, as well as the increased frequency in diarrhoeal diseases and cardio-respiratory diseases. Even the conservative predictions of GW looks bad. No one is telling you to go buy a Prius or living of hemp seeds and cauliflower - but keep in mind that there's generations that's supposed to live here for some centuries more.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmRgaKfWMPA

[Seven Wishes2]

Well, it just comes down to whether or not the GOP can field a viable candidate outside of Romney (unlikely) and whether people believe we're better off than we would have been under Republican leadership that saw the unemployment rate more than double and brought us from a surplus to a deficit.

[conversationpc]

Well, it just comes down to whether or not the GOP can field a viable candidate outside of Romney (unlikely) and whether people believe we're better off than we would have been under Republican leadership that saw the unemployment rate more than double and brought us from a surplus to a deficit.

I'm not sure we'd be much better off right now. We need to do things far more drastic than either party is willing to consider, due to the fact that most of them are in it for their own fame and fortune.