# Sheriff: Obama 'Took the Lazy Way Out' With Tweet on Ferguson Shootings......



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Sheriff: Obama 'Took the Lazy Way Out' With Tweet on Ferguson Shootings


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Sheriff Clark is a man, plain and simple. And one hell of one at that. Thank God we have men like that as sheriffs in our country... we just need a whole lot more of them.


----------



## muckaleewarrior (Aug 10, 2014)

What difference would it make if the President had put on a suit and issued a statement? None!


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

It may be how it is seen from the president of the United States of America. No big deal not even enough to put some shoes on. When it became to make/create a racist man hunt in Ferguson because a ugly and very violent carrer criminal was arrested and in a fight against the arrest killed , he went to the East Room, put in the middle of the night shoes and tie on and created one of the biggest racist man hunts on Ferguson police officers. Obama can't speak up to loud and also not official because it could stop there in Ferguson. Or is here anyone that really believes that when the president of the United States don't want killer and criminals roaring mostly nights the streets of Ferguson that any of that would happen? Really, - someone really believes that?

Many follow this liberal leaders religiously regardless. Obama, the Clintons, Biden, Kerry and how they call their godess. Obama is not Allah, Hillary not ISIS, Biden not Horus, Kerry not Ra-Horetky. There are human being, may be crocked scam artist but still just human beings that would like to live like the old Egypt Pharaohs and King-Gods. It would help when school and College Teacher will start to comprehend that. God said "You shall not have a God beside me". Well lucky liberals most of them are atheists anyway. Stalin said: "God is just Opium for the citizen". 


> muckaleewarrior
> What difference would it make if the President had put on a suit and issued a statement? None!


Wrong!!!

You see I will explain to you the difference. You have to comprehend that there is a difference between a opinion that your teacher in school tells you as a truth or the real world out there.

So let say it this way.
If I sit with my neighbor Brian, he is a police man here in town, on his porch swing and he looks at a car passing by and tells everyone on that porch that that vehicle just passed by was speeding. That is an opinion of a private person that no one have to take serious, not even the driver of that particular car. Even if the driver had heard the private comment, he couldn't care less.
But if Brian puts his shoes on, put his uniform on and goes over to the right spot and stops the speeding car officially, that would be than a different ballgame. I'll hope you can see now the difference.

The disciples don't comprehend anymore that Obama and his bunch are not god or godesses. There is no law against it to obey them as gods but if this is very smart is a different discussion. Well I guess everyone should have their religion. But it would help if some people could recognize the difference between the private Mr. Hussaijn Ben Hadj Obama and the Official President of the United States of America (Suffix) President (stage name) Barack Obama. 
In the US there is still a dress code for state and federal employees. What he said or Text in his underwear to his Friends on his front porch is not relevant not even happen, but what a President officially said is relevant.

Sorry that so many don't understand that a President is no King. King and Queens are King by birth. Kings and Queens are King or King God 24/7 the entire life. A President is a citizen that is only President during business hours or when "official" in overtime, and they have to leave the Palace when they running out of time or are not re-elected. That was the reason why they get rid of Kings, King-Gods and Queens. And now some people want them back by calling Presidents now again King-God and Queen. So sad... Do People even realize why that Nation was founded?


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

Lazy, late, too bad his bosses were too stupid to fire him when they had the chance in 2012.
GW


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

goldwing said:


> Lazy, late, too bad his bosses were too stupid to fire him when they had the chance in 2012.
> GW


"Too bad" more dems wanted him back than repubs wanted him out.....

You got out-voted, is all. Live with it


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

muckaleewarrior said:


> What difference would it make if the President had put on a suit and issued a statement? None!


It did not stop him from standing up and making a fool of himself when all the wind was blowing about how sweet and gentle Mike Brown was. It didn't stop him from standing up and making a fool out of himself when he declared that if he had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin. None of those statements should have made a difference, but they did. And now what? He takes the lazy man's way out b/c he is a coward and a liar with an agenda to divide this country, which he has done superbly.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

muckaleewarrior said:


> What difference would it make if the President had put on a suit and issued a statement? None!


Correct, it would make no difference......... However it sure seems that he does put on a suit and issues a statement when something happens to blacks.....

Can you say *If I had a son he would have looked like Trayvon....*


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> "Too bad" more dems wanted him back than repubs wanted him out.....
> 
> You got out-voted, is all. Live with it


More like he bought more votes by pushing for more amnesty for illegals, doubling the number of people on food stamps and doing his best to make it illegal to ask for ID from people who vote. If that's what it takes to get that skunk who hangs with Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, and their ilk into office, Sail then I can hardly see how a thinking man such as yourself wants to brag that he got the majority and the rest of us should just live with it.
GW


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

goldwing said:


> More like he bought more votes by pushing for more amnesty for illegals, doubling the number of people on food stamps and doing his best to make it illegal to ask for ID from people who vote. If that's what it takes to get that skunk who hangs with Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, and their ilk into office, Sail then I can hardly see how a thinking man such as yourself wants to brag that he got the majority and the rest of us should just live with it.
> GW


GW, that sounds awfully like "sour grapes" from where I sit. I'm not going to argue the point, as he is in power again, but probably not for long.

I'm waiting to see what The Other Side does when their guy gets in. Probably nothing much different, just with more tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations, and more tax burden on those that voted for him. Sad. really, that the Republican base doesn't see that side.


----------



## neorebel (Dec 25, 2013)

HE is right on the money here and Obama is just a punk for not standing up for the American Officers. A tweet? Lame.


----------



## Haas (Jun 24, 2009)

muckaleewarrior said:


> What difference would it make if the President had put on a suit and issued a statement? None!


No difference in the end outcome of it all, but a huge difference in public opinion and a huge difference possible to the families of any cops who's ever been attacked. You see, it would have actually looked like he cared. To just decide to send out a freaking tweet and be done with it is shamefully flippant.


----------



## muckaleewarrior (Aug 10, 2014)

This is very funny. Most of the same people posting about a tweet would be finding something else to post about if he did make a televised statement. I'm here for the guns and info anyway and not for the liberal/conservative posts that litter these forums. I guess I should have skipped over this thread like I do most like it. Either way, I'm done.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

The national news media by and large pulled out all the stops to ensure that this Black militant got elected. He is indeed a Black militant, there's no question about that. One only needs to look no further than his past associates, upbringing, writings and speeches. His past was all there and well documented, the media just chose to ignore or downplay it. To them he was "THE ONE". The man walked on water as far as they were all concerned. It was more important from their perspective to make history, to show the world how far we've come in overcoming racial prejudice. He vowed to fundamentally change this country and to apologize and bow down to our enemies overseas. If anything, racial prejudice has escalated under his watch and our enemies no longer fear us. A lot of people who voted for him were closet racists trying to cleanse their consciences. Others were on a guilt trip for sins of the past. Sins that they were in no way responsible for. Unfortunately, nowadays race and gender are the only qualifications of the Democratic Party to become president. As this man had very little experience running anything. Community organizer, state senator, federal senator for 1 1/2 years and now president? Now the Democrats are pinning all their hopes on Hillary Clinton, a proven corrupt pathological liar and loathsome individual if there ever was one, who feels she's entitled to it. Her past is now coming back to haunt her, and in the words of Obama's mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright her "chickens have come home to roost". Unless the Republicans do something really stupid, as they've done before. And because of her disreputable past she will not be elected President of The United States. The Democrats now have a dilemma, they have put all of their eggs in one basket and all of their eggs are rotten. The Associated Press, hardly a Republican/Conservative news source is now demanding the missing e-mails. As they say "when you've lost Cronkite, you've lost the war".

Republicans better not nominate another 76 year old man, like McCain who only represents McCain. This just played into the well worn stereotype of the Republicans being the party of rich old white men. How could they be so stupid? Followed by another rich old white man, Romney who never really stood for anything other than wanting to be president. He just couldn't fake being a true Republican and it showed. After all had he been a true Republican he never would have been elected Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most Liberal states in the country. With candidates like these who needs enemies? You can not win elections when you alienate the base of your party. About the only thing I can say good about McCain or Romney is that both were infinitely more qualified to lead this nation compared to what we have now. As the last election proves America is tired of this administration and it's policies. Republicans not only took the senate, they gained seats in congress along with governorships and state legislatures. Let's just hope they don't blow it again in 2016. Many of the Supreme court justices that are on our side will more than likely retire and the next president will pick their replacements. If that person is a Democrat we can kiss our "Constitutional Republic" goodbye. I don't have to remind you we kept our 2nd Amendment by only one vote.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

I agree here fully. But I'll think in one thing you misjudged the liberal movement and the power of the media. Liberals will vote for the democrats regardless if you put a Clinton or a death chicken on stage. Especially in the US the people don't ask. Slogans have replaced since a long time ago the facts. "Yes we can" had replaced "How could it possibly be done. No one ask how, the empty promise and media advertising is plenty enough. 
Liberalism is a collection of all minorities in the country that just doesn't care about anything besides their little game. A friend of mine is gay and he votes for the liberals because of the promised gay rights. If you ask him how gay rights play together with the Islamisation of the US he just gives you a empty look. He is to intelligent to say there will be no Islamisation in the US. Economy? Foreign policy ...... how cares? 

Free healthcare they promised. Every american should have the same health coverage than I do said Obama, Kerry, Edwards and the others.. Well - do the people have healthcare like they do? No - sure not, - not even close. It does not touch a liberal. Liberalism is not about the facts is all about a dream. Not one liberal shares the same dream but since they don't have to name what they dream besides the headlines they fit together. Gay right for example. Seldom that two liberals have the same definition but as long the headline fits. 

Do you really think a liberal cares about e-mail, Bengasi, pribe, kick backs, lies, and what she did in Africa while she was in the UN? ........ They see a woman up there and to have a woman president that is liberal is cool. That's enough to vote for. Liberals don't see Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton gives their daydreams a face to dream a little further on. That's all. Don't confuse a liberal with facts.
The schools and Colleges with proven Marxist teachers and coricolums releasing every year more brain washed and Marxist political correct conditioned people. Many of them may be can't really read and write but the really know what to vote for. 

My observations during elections are that the US citizen don't ask questions. They go with the media and slogans. No one ask how they gonna make to pay for or the promised dreams or if that promises in reality is even possible. Liberalism is all about daydreams. They dream how the world should be not how the world basically really is. Water just don't run uphill even if they make a policy around it but liberals don't want to be reminded on that. They think mention the facts is unfair political treatment. 

I hope your right but all what I can see is, that liberals vote democrat and that regardless if Satan himself would sit up there asking for votes, as long as he rides on a liberal ticket.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

It is a tad delusional for people to believe that either political party actually does much for the good of the people........


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Cait43:


> It is a tad delusional for people to believe that either political party actually does much for the good of the people........


No argument here! However it's all we've got. A third party or multi party system would be an unmitigated disaster. With a three party system, you could end up with 34% of the people legislating for the 66% who split that vote for the other two parties. Or if you had a ten party system 11% could be making those decisions. I think the solution is to strictly hold our elected officials accountable to their oaths to uphold the "Constitution so help them God". Otherwise they shall be removed from office immediately. The Constitution is there to protect the citizens from an oppressive government it is the law of the land. Unfortunately, "we the people" are allowing our elected officials to violate it.

The Republican Party does leave a lot to be desired, all too often they do not have the courage to stand up to a hostile media and often go out of their way to find compromise. Every time they compromise with the Democrats we lose a little more freedom. Democrats come out and call for a 20% tax increase. Republicans come out and scream "no way". They get together, find compromise and we end up with a 10% tax increase. Until it comes up again and the same situation repeats itself. Eventually we end up with the 20% increase. That's how it works with practically all legislation. The problem is; how in the hell do you get enough people to get pissed off enough about this situation to want to do anything about it? Especially when half the people in some way or another are dependent on governmental largess. They do not understand that dependency on government will never lift them up out of poverty. The American people are too apathetic and complacent. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is the only chance we have to put an end to this march toward socialism and oppression.

Democrats have made it no secret that they believe that our "Constitution" is a "living breathing document" that can be bent out of shape to reflect their will. They resent the fact that we are a "Constitutional Republic" and not a "Democracy". The "Constitution" is the one document that gets in their way in their quest to enslave the American people. I do think that many are wising up to this grand scheme. It is now imperative for the Democrats to import 10's of millions of poorly educated, impoverished people into this country to maintain their power structure. These people do not know or give a rat's ass about our history or culture, can be easily manipulated, and perpetuate the cycle of dependency. Some, not all Republicans on the other hand are falling for all this and wish to compete for that vote. What they do not realize is that these people will never vote Republican. We're being fed a line of bullshit that these invaders are our future and will help our economy. If that were the case; then why haven't they lifted their own countries up out of poverty?

Sorry for another political rant. But this is how I see it. So now I have to ask: Pick your poison. Will it be Republican or Democrat?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

PT111Pro:


> I hope your right but all what I can see is, that liberals vote democrat and that regardless if Satan himself would sit up there asking for votes, as long as he rides on a liberal ticket.


You've got it, my friend! We are on the same page there brother.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> <huge snip!>
> I hope your right but all what I can see is, that liberals vote democrat and that regardless if Satan himself would sit up there asking for votes, as long as he rides on a liberal ticket.


The sad thing is that non-liberals do the same for the Republican Party... Independents will split their votes, as they tend to vote for the person not the party. I class myself as a voting independent with liberal leanings. Not all of my votes go Dem - it depends on the person and the type of election (national vs state vs town)

I did actually run for school committee once as a Republican. Scary.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> It is a tad delusional for people to believe that either political party actually does much for the good of the people........


I wish I had a penny for every time I've said this!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Unfortunately, we've gotta pick one or the other or not vote at all. If that's the case we have no right to complain. The problem with "independents" is that you never know what they stand for. More of a protest vote if anything. I've read a lot of comments in the newspapers and on political forums from those who claim to be "independent". At least from the ones I've read, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of "independents" are pretty Liberal but are too ashamed to admit it. They want to feel good about themselves and appear to be open minded, which they are not. Just read any of Joe Gandleman's columns, he claims to be the "Independent Voice" he's just another shill for the Democratic Party. Who the hell is he trying to kid? Sometimes I do think it would be better to eliminate all political parties and just vote for the individual. I don't see how that would work as it costs a lot of money to host a candidate for a general election. Whoever runs on a given party's ticket has to tow the party line or lose financial support. Pretty simple, huh? As I've explained above and will repeat below, a third or multi party system would be a complete disaster: 


> With a three party system, you could end up with 34% of the people legislating for the 66% who split that vote for the other two parties. Or if you had a ten party system 11% could be making those decisions.


A two party system despite all of it's flaws, really is the best and most practical system. It is our duty as voters to vote for the party that closely aligns with our political views. If you do not know or can't seem to figure that out, maybe it's best to not vote at all. Same for those who only vote based on race, gender or a popularity contest. All that accomplishes is to cancel out the vote of those who do know who and what they are voting for. At best it's just a wasted vote.

Politics is a dirty and corrupt business which brings out the worst of human character and behavior. Many politicians on both sides are contemptible swines and the lowest form of life on the face of the earth. They only give a shit about their political careers and nothing else. Many have lived sheltered lives and are completely out of touch with reality. They have no idea of the struggles of the common man and the burdens that they have placed upon them because of self centered bad political decisions. It doesn't have to be this way, those of us who vote in the end do have the final say. It's up to us to try and change the way our political parties operate. Instead of trying to abandon a two party system for one that will be far worse. Political corruption will still exist no matter how many parties there are. Once an individual gets a taste of power it's hard if not impossible to let go. No doubt about it, people have become filthy rich because of their political positions. It is a lucrative business indeed.



> "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." Adolf Hitler


----------

