# Obama is the worst President ever and the Dems are committed to ruining the nation



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

this showed up on my AOL mail this afternoon. Now I"ve had AOL mail for twenty years and haven't bothered to change despite that they are clearly supporting the liberal agenda. They are constantly running sidebar ads for Hillary, saying "time for her", blah, blah, blah, all your basic liberal BS.

But here's an article I saw on their news feed this afternoon that really has me PO'd. We have got to do something to take back this country. We are all being led like sheep to the slaughter. It makes me sick. Talk about "Big Brother", this is a really serious, big time problem for us all. So we are really supposed to believe that these videos are not true simply because the Obama administration "says" they are not true? come on.. who's lying to who here???? Just like Obama said ISIS is a JV team. Yeah, hit that one right on the mark didn't ya, BO???? And now we're supposed to lie in our beds with visions of sugarplums dancing through our heads because you say the news feeds are not "real"?? We just can't trust any of them anymore.

Obama administration reportedly wants TV networks to censor ISIS footage - AOL.com


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

All this media coverage n propaganda was ok when it got Obama elected


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:


> Obama is the worst President ever and the Dems are committed to ruining the nation


As far as I'm concerned the entire Democratic Party and a certain group of spineless Republicans who refuse to stand up to them are responsible for ruining this nation. By spineless Republicans I'm referring to individuals such as Boehner, McConnell, Graham, McCain, and any other Republican that goes along with any type of amnesty for illegal invaders. Or tries to reach compromise with the enemy. Every time they compromise we end up losing a little more until there's nothing left to compromise. Democrats being the obvious winners albeit incrementally.

As far as presidential candidates we have Bush (the likely nominee) as he is the establishment's favorite, Kasich, Christie, Graham and Paul. All in favor of amnesty. Of course they haven't officially announced yet except for Paul but are expected to. Then there's Rubio and Walker who have changed their positions. That is if they can be trusted? Big if there. Finally, there's Cruz, and Carson (my #1 choices) but unelectable in the general election, same for Fiorina. For me that leaves either Rubio or Walker, I'll just have to take them for their word?

What these spineless Republicans do not realize is that once these invaders are allowed to vote it will be the end of the Republican Party as a viable political party for a long time to come. Of course they could probably care less as it will not affect their personal lives. About the only thing good about the Republican candidates is that they all support the 2nd Amendment and as far as I know "Constitutional Law". However all this will be irrelevant if the illegal invaders are allowed to stay and eventually vote.

Then there's the issue as to who will be nominating judges to the federal bench particularly the Supreme Court as it is almost a certainty that most of the justices that were appointed by Republican presidents will be retiring either voluntarily or dying in office. So there you have it. The question now is who do we take our chances with? Any of those Republicans or "Da Bitch" who in my opinion is one of the most corrupt, despicable, loathsome, and along with her low life husband, politicians that ever held public office. Some choice huh? Christ, you'd think that we could do a hell of a lot better than this when nominating and electing someone to the highest office in the land. You'd think that we would have learned our lesson after electing the first black militant with his bitter, angry and racist wife?

Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, I will be forced to vote for and support them just as I did with their last two candidates. As the alternative would be, and as it turned out with the black militant far worse. *Staying home on election day is just not an option.* As much as I would love to, just to be able to tell both parties to go to Hell. *I repeat we can not afford to sit this one out. *


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

I agree we must support who ever get the nomination that is running against Hillary because the SCOTUS needs another republican to appoint some fresh justices. We made some headway in the way of the right to own guns but so much more is needed to be done.


----------



## Gruesome (Apr 30, 2013)

Ugh. I am not defending Obama, but I think all this "worst pres evar!" business has gone too far. Name me one president who was handed a bigger shit sandwich on the first day of their presidency. The economy was in freefall, the worst since the Great Depression, after 8 years of Dubyas Yeehad of unpaid for war and many other factors. A lot of people like to yell "It wasn't Dubyas fault! He was screwed by the Democrats!" Then why is every economic ill we have now Obamas fault? And the middle east - everybody understands we should never have been in Iraq in the first place. Dubya lied and forced us into a ridiculous war for no reason other than to give Saddam to his daddy on a platter. Whoever came next was stuck with a quagmire. Do you honestly think we EVER had a chance to keep the peace in a region that has been slaughtering each other since before the new world was discovered? The Shiites and the Sunnis want to kill each other and the only way we could have distracted them from that is to make them want to kill US MORE. How is that a win on any level?

Seriously, reign in your hate. The dude is obviously incompetent - he doesn't seem to be able to find his ass with both hands a map and a flashlight - but HE DOESN'T HATE AMERICA! He does not wake up every morning and write a new entry in his "f*ck America" journal about the dreams Satan sent him the night before. He is not a baby eating Zulu chieftan who wants to rape all the white women and throw wide the gates on the border to let all the Mexicans in so they can take all the white jobs and yadda yadda yadda whatever other hate-filled fever dreams you have about the guy. 

Yes, he sucks. Calm the hell down.


----------



## Deadwood (Jun 27, 2011)

Hillary sure as hell, isn't going to be any better.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Gruesome said:


> ...I am not defending Obama, but I think all this "worst pres evar!" business has gone too far...The dude is obviously incompetent - he doesn't seem to be able to find his ass with both hands a map and a flashlight...Yes, he sucks. Calm the hell down.


I second the motion.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Gruesome:


> Yes, he sucks. Calm the hell down.


Pretty much all politicians suck. That being said it's difficult to just "Calm the hell down". Knowing that a majority of people in this country could elect a racist black militant to the White House. Indeed that is what he is. His past and present associates, words and actions before and while in office offer enough proof of this. Now the good people of this country could possibly elect one of the most corrupt and loathsome individuals to the highest office in the land. When people just "Calm the hell down", they often are not motivated enough to want to go out and vote or seem to be content with the sorry lot of politicians that are offered to us by both parties. "Well, they're both corrupt and incompetent liars" just doesn't cut it. I will do everything that I possibly can to "fire up" and motivate people to get up off of their sorry asses to vote and pay more attention as to who the hell they are electing to political office. That is if they vote at all. Maybe there's really not a hell of a lot we can do about it. However, giving up or settling for incompetent liars is not the answer. Nor is making excuses for the ones we already have. Wasn't it Obama who vowed to "fundamentally change America"? From a "Constitutional Republic" which the Democratic Party obviously doesn't believe in (they believe in a "living breathing constitution")* to what may I ask?



> *A living breathing constitution is akin to no constitution at all as it can be changed at any time for any reason without going through the difficult amendment process set forth by the founders of this nation.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Gruesome said:


> Ugh. I am not defending Obama, but I think all this "worst pres evar!" business has gone too far. Name me one president who was handed a bigger shit sandwich on the first day of their presidency. The economy was in freefall, the worst since the Great Depression, after 8 years of Dubyas Yeehad of unpaid for war and many other factors. A lot of people like to yell "It wasn't Dubyas fault! He was screwed by the Democrats!" Then why is every economic ill we have now Obamas fault? And the middle east - everybody understands we should never have been in Iraq in the first place. Dubya lied and forced us into a ridiculous war for no reason other than to give Saddam to his daddy on a platter. Whoever came next was stuck with a quagmire. Do you honestly think we EVER had a chance to keep the peace in a region that has been slaughtering each other since before the new world was discovered? The Shiites and the Sunnis want to kill each other and the only way we could have distracted them from that is to make them want to kill US MORE. How is that a win on any level?
> 
> Seriously, reign in your hate. The dude is obviously incompetent - he doesn't seem to be able to find his ass with both hands a map and a flashlight - but HE DOESN'T HATE AMERICA! He does not wake up every morning and write a new entry in his "f*ck America" journal about the dreams Satan sent him the night before. He is not a baby eating Zulu chieftan who wants to rape all the white women and throw wide the gates on the border to let all the Mexicans in so they can take all the white jobs and yadda yadda yadda whatever other hate-filled fever dreams you have about the guy.
> 
> Yes, he sucks. Calm the hell down.


one thing is for sure, you are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how misinformed it may be. So if Obama was handed all this shit sandwich to fix when he was elected, why hasn't he fixed it? We have no jobs, no economy, high taxes, bloated bureaucratic unresponsive government, 60 years of social program spending that the Democrats have ruled and which has not done a damn thing to fix poverty or ignorance or education in this country. No, our schools are worse than ever, our population is dumber than ever, all our good jobs are gone overseas, so again, my question. I'll concede that maybe Obama was handed a shit sandwich, but what the hell has he done to fix any of it other than to deride the police, incite more racial distrust between the population, and basically allow his racist wife to say how bad things still are in America.

And you say he loves the country??? You are smoking the crack he's peddling, imo. And Hillary is gonna be even worse.

oh, and I forgot, he managed to put another 30 or so million Americans on Government assistance in the form of Obamacare entitlements. Thank you Mr. Obama since I now have to pay more taxes to cover the cost of that social welfare program.

And if you think it's ok that the Administration pressure the networks to not report the "real" news about ISIS or any other issue that the Administration is not agreeing with, you, my friend are already lost. The original intent of my post was to point out how the Administration is trying to control the news media to prevent the population from hearing about the reality that is not consistent with the Administration's rhetoric. If you think that control of the media by the government is the basis of an OK, free society and that the President really "loves" America, then you have already drank too much of the kool aid.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:


> 60 years of social program spending that the Democrats have ruled and which has not done a damn thing to fix poverty or ignorance or education in this country.


You see "RK" the Democratic Party does not want people to become successful or self reliant. They can only thrive when people are dependent on them. What better way to enslave and control a population by forcing people through enticing government programs (aka give aways) to become dependent on them? That is the reason for wanting to import tens of millions more of the world's uneducated and impoverished people into the United States and granting amnesty to those who have already invaded our country. Once amnesty is granted, guaranteed those "tens of millions" more will be at our shores. Someone is going to have to take care of them. The cycle of dependency perpetuates. The Democrats absolutely need impoverished people to maintain their power structure. Impoverished people are simply a means to an end. If the Democratic Party wanted people to become self reliant they would be enacting policies to encourage that, to break the cycle of dependency. What in the world has the "war on poverty" declared by LBJ ever accomplished except for more poverty? Whether it be Obama, "Da Bitch" or any other Democratic politician they all want the same: Dependency on government and to have absolute control over every aspect of our lives.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> 
> You see "RK" the Democratic Party does not want people to become successful or self reliant. They can only thrive when people are dependent on them. What better way to enslave and control a population by forcing people through enticing government programs (aka give aways) to become dependent on them? That is the reason for wanting to import tens of millions more of the world's uneducated and impoverished people into the United States and granting amnesty to those who have already invaded our country. Once amnesty is granted, guaranteed those "tens of millions" more will be at our shores. Someone is going to have to take care of them. The cycle of dependency perpetuates. The Democrats absolutely need impoverished people to maintain their power structure. Impoverished people are simply a means to an end. If the Democratic Party wanted people to become self reliant they would be enacting policies to encourage that, to break the cycle of dependency. What in the world has the "war on poverty" declared by LBJ ever accomplished except for more poverty? Whether it be Obama, "Da Bitch" or any other Democratic politician they all want the same: To have absolute control over every aspect of our lives.


 and in that respect, they are not Democrats, Republicans or any other polite political party name, they are all Fascists...They seek complete state control. Our only hope is the imposition of term limits to force them all to go home after one or two terms, but I fear it will never happen. No one is going to vote themselves out of their cushy government stipend and retirement program. This nation is done, it's only a matter of time until the SHTF. I am focusing more now on self reliance than ever before. I am actually very concerned for what I believe is going to happen in the not to distant future. We've already seen glimpses of it in Ferguson, Baltimore.... when people have nothing they have nothing to loose....and they certainly have nothing to loose when they try to take yours from you.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:


> We've already seen glimpses of it in Ferguson, Baltimore.... when people have nothing they have nothing to loose.


That is their motivation for wanting to abolish the 2nd Amendment. It has nothing to do with preventing crime and making our streets safer. Don't know if we are done just yet, but we are getting there. *Don't ever give up!*


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> 
> That is their motivation for wanting to abolish the 2nd Amendment. It has nothing to do with preventing crime and making our streets safer.


for sure, it has to do with disarming the resistance.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Why would either side of the political fence want to purposely destroy this nation of ours? 

Not that either side would admit it outright.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

paratrooper said:


> Why would either side of the political fence want to purposely destroy this nation of ours?
> 
> Not that either side would admit it outright.


why did Obama originally want to take the ISIS nuke deal to the UN and bypass the Congress? Perhaps because a Socialist world order is more important to him than a Democratic America? don't know, just guessing it has something to do with his desire to morph things into a Socialist regime. it's all about "control", just like gun control is only about "control". Call me paranoid, over the top, whatever? I just don't see why there is such a push to restrict our rights to own and bear arms, to restrict the free press and media, and to only put forth the "party line". How can any nation continue to function effectively, or at all, when fully a half of the population is on some form of government assistance? Since the government doesn't really 'make" or "produce' anything, where is that "assistance" coming from".. from the wallets of the rest of us, not directly, but through deficit spending.

It's all coming home to roost before much longer. Listen to any of the economic pundits who put out you tube video discussions of what they expect to happen in the future with our economy and currency system.. Check out Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, one of the former Assistant Secretary's of the Treasury in the Regan Administration. Look him up on You tube and listen to his videos. If anyone should have some idea of what is coming down the road, he should. He's been on the inside of government at a high level and I suspect has some credible knowledge of what he is speaking about.

Listen to one of his recent discussions of what he thinks is going to happen with the US Dollar, and then see how you feel about things in this country.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Gruesome said:


> Ugh. I am not defending Obama, but I think all this "worst pres evar!" business has gone too far. Name me one president who was handed a bigger shit sandwich on the first day of their presidency. The economy was in freefall, the worst since the Great Depression, after 8 years of Dubyas Yeehad of unpaid for war and many other factors. A lot of people like to yell "It wasn't Dubyas fault! He was screwed by the Democrats!" Then why is every economic ill we have now Obamas fault? And the middle east - everybody understands we should never have been in Iraq in the first place. Dubya lied and forced us into a ridiculous war for no reason other than to give Saddam to his daddy on a platter. Whoever came next was stuck with a quagmire. Do you honestly think we EVER had a chance to keep the peace in a region that has been slaughtering each other since before the new world was discovered? The Shiites and the Sunnis want to kill each other and the only way we could have distracted them from that is to make them want to kill US MORE. How is that a win on any level?
> 
> Seriously, reign in your hate. The dude is obviously incompetent - he doesn't seem to be able to find his ass with both hands a map and a flashlight - but HE DOESN'T HATE AMERICA! He does not wake up every morning and write a new entry in his "f*ck America" journal about the dreams Satan sent him the night before. He is not a baby eating Zulu chieftan who wants to rape all the white women and throw wide the gates on the border to let all the Mexicans in so they can take all the white jobs and yadda yadda yadda whatever other hate-filled fever dreams you have about the guy.
> 
> Yes, he sucks. Calm the hell down.


NO ,,,,YOU CALM DOWN, is not justification for you voting for Obama twice !!!
Eat it , you prepared it, now digest it. And then tell the world to calm down. Lol.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

So much rampant crazy in this thread - glad I stayed the fcuk out of it.

Carry on.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

paratrooper:


> Why would either side of the political fence want to purposely destroy this nation of ours?


Power and control no other reason. It will never affect their personal lives, most have lived pampered lives and have been groomed for politics. They have no idea of the struggles and problems of the common man or how to solve them.

Personally I'll stick with the party that for the most part respects "Constitutional Law" and especially the 2nd Amendment. *After all how can we trust a political party that does not trust peaceable citizens to bear arms?* Government should fear the people that have elected them not the other way around. As much as the Republican Party has it's problems they are all we have to stop a party who have made it quite clear where they stand on "Constitutional Law" and in particular the 2nd Amendment. A three party system is absolutely not a viable solution. Of course none of this would even be an issue if our elected officials upheld their oaths to "preserve and protect the constitution", so help them God.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> So much rampant crazy in this thread - glad I stayed the fcuk out of it.
> 
> Carry on.


I hope your perspective is correct, when the government seeks to control the press, I fear it is not. Fare well.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> So much rampant crazy in this thread - glad I stayed the fcuk out of it.
> 
> Carry on.


Rampant crazy? Is this your new "tin foil hat" comeback? FYI, when you make snide assed remarks about a discussion and then proclaim you've stayed out, you really haven't stayed out.

Just sayin', Bless your heart.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

TurboHonda:
When they can't see their nose in spite of their face it's best they do stay out. This applies today just as it did back then:



> "The law has been used to destroy it's own objective; It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which it's real purpose was to respect. *The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous* who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense." *"But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others.* This process is the origin of plunder." --- The Law by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> Rampant crazy? Is this your new "tin foil hat" comeback? FYI, when you make snide assed remarks about a discussion and then proclaim you've stayed out, you really haven't stayed out.
> 
> Just sayin', Bless your heart.


Was thinking more of Gruesome and pic's back-and-forth. But if you wish to consider that snide-assed, then go for it.

Bless your heart.


----------



## Gruesome (Apr 30, 2013)

As much as I do enjoy stirring the pot around here (I can provide references,) I'll stick to the point in my rebuttal. And I'll head this complication off at the pass - I am not calling anybody names here. Should my language offend, I apologize. I am trying to be precise and entertaining at the same time.

Hyperbole and over-the-top demonization is generally not constructive to a persuasive argument. When you find yourself spouting stuff like "racist loathsome corrupt black militant who wants to destroy America" you are only talking to the people like yourself who have already come to the same conclusion. If your point is to commiserate with like minded individuals, cool. You go, boy. If your point is to convince anyone else of anything, you undermine your position with the extreme language. Extreme language suggests the one spewing it may be an extremist, and extremists are marginalized as crackpots and their opinions are often summarily dismissed. This is one of the reasons voices on the right are often flatly rejected or ignored, because THAT DAMN BLANKETY BLANK AND HIS RACIST WIFE ARE BANKING BLANKS AND I HOPE THEY BLANK IN BLANK FOR ALL ETERNITY NEXT TO HITLER AND MAO AND DA BLANK isn't going to get you any traction and your listener/reader is left to assume you are an idiot. You talk like that and you get the "Oh, that's just another white guy who is angry a BLACK man is in the WHITE house" treatment.

I simply suggest that an elevated argument is better supported by an elevated and civil mode of speech/text as opposed to spittle-flinging rage and name calling.

...and I can't help it. The pot stirring commences now: What in the world are Hannity and Limbaugh and Coulter and Krauthammer (doesn't that guy look like a villain from Dick Tracy?!?!) and all the rest of these AM radio rabble rousers going to do with a perfect right-wing world should they ever get it? They'd be out of a job if they couldn't whip the masses into a spittle flinging fury, so it behooves them to keep you angry and disenfranchised. I repeat: IT IS IN THEIR FISCAL INTEREST TO KEEP THE REPS FRAGMENTED AND THE DEMS IN POWER AND THEIR LISTENERS SCREAMING IN FUTILE RAGE. Just a conspiracy theory, but it's about as good as most of the others out there.

I will now go eat Chinese food and think of this no more.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

While I agree with you, I reserve the right to read everything that Coulter writes anyway, because she is witty, and she writes in well-constructed English.


----------



## muckaleewarrior (Aug 10, 2014)

Threads like this are the reason I don't generally click on them. I'm here for the gun info anyway. So let me get back to it!


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

That's a well put argument and I can certainly respect your opinion. I don't happen to agree with it because of the actions which I see that make me believe differently, so we can agree to disagree. I just get really skeptical when I hear of any politician or party attempting to influence what the free press reports to the population. It's bad enough that we don't know most of what is going on in the government, including the NSA spying and IRS targeting that we only found out about in the past few years. But when you hear even "liberal" media sources like AOL talking about how the Administration wants to limit the news reporting to only factoids that support their party agenda, right away my trust level goes to below zero.

and yes,, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and Krauthammer are right wing zealots, but without them, you'd never hear about half of the crap that the liberals do. So would you rather be in Peaceful bliss and not at all aware of what is going on around you, or would you rather consider opposing sources of information and decide for yourself? If the Administration gets it's way about what the press reports about ISIS, we'll all be thinking that all the ISIS fighters are dead and there's no way we are ever going to experience another 911 in this country. Our borders are so open thanks to the lack of law enforcement that there has to eventually be another attack, it's just a matter of time.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

I think I struck a nerve, and I don't think it was his "funnybone". I wonder if "Gruesome" remembers, (not that I'm a fan of GWB) the comments that were hurled toward him by people of his own ilk? Or at Sarah Palin? How 'bout Ted Cruz? How 'bout anyone they fear and wish to silence? The NRA? Wayne Lapierre? Fox News? I guess they can sure dish it out but can't take it. My what short memories they have. His "messiah" in the White House is indeed a black militant there is ample proof of that. He just chooses to ignore it. His associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn the Weather underground and Black Panthers are all well documented. These are the individuals who shaped his way of thinking. Then we have his apologies for all that America has done wrong in the world rarely acknowledging the good. His wife's statements that she had never been proud of this country until her husband secured the nomination also can not be dismissed. Neither can her most recent racist commencement speech at Tuskegee University. Race baiter and hustler Al Sharpton has been a guest in the White House some 61 times. Obama drew his own conclusions before the facts came out in Ferguson. Trayvon Martin, you know the one who looked like his son? Criticized the police in the Henry Louis Gates incident when the police were called in to investigate a possible home invasion. Remember the "beer summit"? Sent representatives to the funeral of Freddie Gray yet none were sent to the funeral of Brian Moore a 25 year old NYC police officer gunned down by two black men. What other conclusion can one draw? Obama thrives on racism and divisiveness as do his cohorts in the Democratic Party. This is the most divided that I have ever seen this country in all the years that I have paid close attention to politics.

This has nothing to do with the fact that a black man is in the White House. It has everything to do with that one particular black man. I don't need Limbaugh or Hannity or Coulter or Krauthammer to tell me anything. I march to my own drummer. I wonder if "Gruesome" ever paid attention to the hate and venom spewed by his friends on the left. Talk about keeping their audience angry and disenfranchised. Nothing but hate ever comes out of their mouthes. But those of us on the right are just expected to sit back and take it. Yeah, like Hell!

As far as the Clinton's are concerned, their entire political lives have been mired in scandal, lies and deceit. In the words of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "their chickens have come home to roost". You've got the Lewinski affair, Vince Foster suicide, Rose Law firm billing records, Russian reset button, Whitewater, dodging sniper fire while in Bosnia, Travelgate, cattle futures, Benghazi, missing e-mails, destroying her server after she left office, questionable donations to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State. Did I leave anything out? Are these the type of individuals who should be rewarded with the highest office in the land? People who will be making decisions that will affect each and every one of us to some degree?

Sorry about the name calling, but I'm calling them for what they are: The most despicable loathsome politicians that have ever held public office. They've earned the title. I have absolutely no respect for these people whatsoever. No hyperbole or over the top demonization. Facts are facts.

One other thing I do not like Chinese food!


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Best or worst will be decided by history and spin doctors years from now. Lincoln is hailed as one of the best but by the Constitution he was one of the worst.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

muckaleewarrior:


> Threads like this are the reason I don't generally click on them. I'm here for the gun info anyway. So let me get back to it!


I sincerely wish we could. Unfortunately, gun ownership and our political situation go hand in hand. There is just no way to avoid it. To avoid it is to do so at our own peril. The future of our "Constitutional Republic" is at stake. Forever hold our peace.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

TurboHonda said:


> Rampant crazy? Is this your new "tin foil hat" comeback? FYI, when you make snide assed remarks about a discussion and then proclaim you've stayed out, you really haven't stayed out.
> 
> Just sayin', Bless your heart.


"Bless your heart"
:anim_lol:


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Gruesome said:


> As much as I do enjoy stirring the pot around here (I can provide references,) I'll stick to the point in my rebuttal. And I'll head this complication off at the pass - I am not calling anybody names here. Should my language offend, I apologize. I am trying to be precise and entertaining at the same time.
> 
> Hyperbole and over-the-top demonization is generally not constructive to a persuasive argument. When you find yourself spouting stuff like "racist loathsome corrupt black militant who wants to destroy America" you are only talking to the people like yourself who have already come to the same conclusion. If your point is to commiserate with like minded individuals, cool. You go, boy. If your point is to convince anyone else of anything, you undermine your position with the extreme language. Extreme language suggests the one spewing it may be an extremist, and extremists are marginalized as crackpots and their opinions are often summarily dismissed. This is one of the reasons voices on the right are often flatly rejected or ignored, because THAT DAMN BLANKETY BLANK AND HIS RACIST WIFE ARE BANKING BLANKS AND I HOPE THEY BLANK IN BLANK FOR ALL ETERNITY NEXT TO HITLER AND MAO AND DA BLANK isn't going to get you any traction and your listener/reader is left to assume you are an idiot. You talk like that and you get the "Oh, that's just another white guy who is angry a BLACK man is in the WHITE house" treatment.
> 
> ...


That was a great point with entertainment as you promised , lol.

You blankety blanked the right wingers in your last paragraph with a conspiracy theory :watching:
Nice post , you delivered as promised,lol.

You may eat Chinese food now, enjoy , but you'll be hungry in another hour, lol.

:smt1099


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

As much I blame Mr. Ben Hajji Hussaiin Barrack Obama but the most worse President? Ok Hajjii Hussain is one of the first Presidents that can't say or be recognized by his Name, it would blow his politically correct cover up in a New York minute. Hajjii Hussain Obama, (btw) a very common name in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations, like Jeff Jones, Patrick Smith, or Jerry Miller in the US, so He Hajjii Hussain Barack Obama the acting President himself often complains publicly that he is not able to use his God (whomever he worships) given Name. He complains about that very often publically. 
I'll think he goes into the history books as the first non US citizen President of the USA.

But I'm not sure he is the most worse president that we had or have. 
Well it looks like the US Americans didn't watch what going on, slept the don't rock the boat dream for a long time, and both parties the republicans and the democrats were therefore very easily taking over by people that really don't mean it good for the nation. Well a freedom needs to be defended, the founders know that and gave their citizens all the tools to fight. But what can you do when people get priped by 2 Dolar more food stamp money and the promise of making a living without any decent work? Nothing. The people fall for laziness since 4000 years, even if it is against common sense, and you will find always fanatics that fight for it. It sounds just too good. 

My 5 President hitlist out of the democrat/ Communist corner is Hajjii Obama (the Trojan horse), Bill Clinton (the bankster and Corrupteur) and from the republican/fascist side double Bush (the oil baron with the greed for free oil and the one world UN-President).

Even Reagan was one of them that didn't realize what going on. Well - he was a very good actor out of the cinema Industry and I wonder who was the Regisseur behind him. He sold Northern Europe and all the wealthy Industrial Nations to the Russians and the US became in change a burning bankrupt terroristic Middle East for it, that had ruined and bankrupted the USSR before. 
But don't worry about Jelzin and Putin, the American Citizen was on top of it and forced to pay Russia's economical recovery out of the TAX payers pocket. So far I hear the US Americans like Mr. Reagan very, very much for it. No criticism for raising the enemy with Billions and Billions of Dollars. Sorry I call that stupid and ignorance is bliss, how they thought me in the Military, (in the US Military btw). 
He divided with the russians the World new. The New World order was waiving at Reagan and the UN was the Mastermind behind it. Before it was a East - West question, He, the stupid Reagan that had already won the cold war, started a new one and made it to a North - South question in common agreement with Jelzin, but without any warranty that the Russian Bear will stick to the commitment. He was not even forced to do it, he really believed the world is a Western Movie and he is John Wayne. That happen if they make a Barney Five to a President. 

Inside the US, Reagan made poverty social acceptable. It helped for a view years but it made the pot boil over in no time. Lucky him he was than not President anymore and others had to take the blame for the outcome of his stupidity.

No my hit list is Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush and in parts Regan because of some real Hollywood inspired decisions.

And now someone should post that I am a Bullshit. Its Urgend.


----------

