Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Obama Thinks He's God

Posted 10 years ago on Jan. 9, 2012, 1:46 a.m. EST by eyeofthetiger (304)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

He refuses to work with Republicans He refuses to work with Congress Do we really need this fool anymore??



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago


Obama Openly Asks Nation Why On Earth He Would Want To Serve For Another Term

January 4, 2012 | ISSUE 48•01 President Obama urges voters to give him one reason—one goddamn reason—why he should run for president in 2012.

PITTSBURGH—Citing three years of exhausting partisan politics, constant gridlock in Congress, and an overall feeling that the entire nation has "completely lost it," President Barack Obama openly asked a campaign-rally crowd Tuesday why he'd want to serve another term as president of "this godforsaken country."

"My fellow Americans, I come to you today to ask, why?" Obama said to 1,200 people gathered inside a gymnasium at Taylor Allderdice High School. "Why can't our congressional leaders work together to create jobs? Why can't Wall Street ever be held accountable? And most important, why on God's green earth would I voluntarily subject myself to this nonsense for another four years?"

"I'm dead serious," the president continued, saying that any reasonable person would have walked away the moment the Senate minority leader announced his main priority—above creating jobs and improving American health care—was to make Obama a one-term president. "I'm asking if anybody out there can come up with even one reason why I'd want to endure this unmitigated shit show for another minute, let alone through 2016. What's in it for me, ex­actly? Can anyone answer that? Anyone at all?"

After a long silence during which crowd members mostly just shuffled their feet and stared at the ground, Obama said, "Yeah, that's what I thought."

Arguing he'd have to be certifiably insane or some kind of sadistic freak to extend his presidency, Obama asked why anyone with half a brain would willingly open himself up to constant vilification by media strategists, or place himself in a situation that involves so much work for such little reward. He also asked the audience how "messed up and sick" he'd have to be to devote nearly a decade of his life to an unending cycle of political gamesmanship that stifles progress at every turn......

More at the link up top here.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

Love it; I put the same thing up on the main forum a little while ago.


[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

And Dubya still thinks he's smart. We all have our delusions.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

FLAKESnews reporters are attempting to co-op the forum now too?

We must be doing something correctly.


[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

So let's see: he's refused to work with people who have publicly declared that they're aiming to get him fired at the nearest opportunity no matter what he does (Republicans) and refused to humor a governing body that can take even the simplest matter and turn it into a three-ring circus and is running with an approval rating in the single digits (Congress). That's not stupidity or arrogance in my book, it's realizing that you're the only one in the room who has any vested interest in getting things done and rolling up your sleeves. He should have started doing this the minute the debt ceiling shitshow got rolling; it would have served as a nice reminder to Congress that if they were going to act like spoiled children and refuse to get things done then there were going to be consequences.

[-] 3 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

We pay those losers salaries too....Congress....that's what irritates me. We ought a be able to stop paying them since they do a whole lot a Nothing!

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

I fully agree with you. Incidentally, I came across a rather interesting statistic in my political science class last semester: Congress as a whole has nearly nonexistent popular approval, but individual members of Congress tend to enjoy fairly strong support from their constituents. Apparently it's far easier to criticize Washington as a whole than it is to take a closer look at the people we send there...

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago


We surely need a new name for congress. I won't give that rabble the dignity of a capital C, until they start representing the American people.

[-] 0 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

Congressional Republicans are unified, organized, disciplined, quite skilled at petty gamesmanship, and willing to do whatever it takes to get their way even if it tanks the country. Congressional Democrats are for the most part far more loosely bound together and far more provincial, and thus they can get so caught up in "What's in it for me?" that they don't see the bigger picture (what's in it for America). Either way, it doesn't work.

If we want to start actually getting things done on Capitol Hill we need to get heavily involved in the primaries of both parties and push to replace dangerous Republicans and unreliable Democrats with people who are willing to put the people's business before whatever other nonsense they have going on on the sidelines and who can be counted on to act rationally and decisively in a time of crisis.

[-] 2 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

We need to have a Citizens Bill. If the president signs a bill virtually making him a dictator ie, NDAA we the people can veto it. If the Congress does a whole lot of nothing we can oust their asses before standard election times.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

In other words, you want there to be a national referendum process for any particularly problematic legislation and the ability to formally register a vote of "no confidence" and call new elections at any time when Congress is no longer serving the people? That sounds more than fair to me, and the latter idea is pretty straightforward and present in a very large number of parliamentary democracies.

The former is a great idea, and I have an idea as far as implementing it is concerned. I would set up a two-step process for dealing with bills like the NDAA. Upon the writing of a bill and passage by the full Congress, outside groups such as the ACLU would be given a thirty-day period to mount a constitutional challenge to the bill (the reason for so little time is that these groups can and often do monitor bills and can build cases for or against them long before they actually pass) and then bring it before a special court created for the purpose of hearing such challenges.

The burden of proof would fall on groups bringing challenges to prove that the bill posed a credible threat to our Constitutional rights, but the standard would of evidence would be set fairly low, at reasonable suspicion. If the challenging group could prove a reasonable suspicion that a given bill posed such a threat, then a national referendum would be called within thirty days, and if the bill fails the referendum the first time around it would be sent back to Congress for revision (no override option). Any revisions would be automatically sent directly to referendum either until Congress gives up or something gets through the referendum.


[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

You've convinced me. Now would they still be privvy to insider trading, and be allowed to have conflicting business interests while being an elected official?

While the above are still legal practise for the position, criminal elements will be lining up for the job.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

Absolutely not; insider trading and conflicts of interest need to be dealt with pronto. Honestly, I would slap a twenty-year cooldown period on corporate honchos trying to get involved in regulatory agencies (and hopefully the government as a whole) or vice versa, and I would also require all government officials to lock their investment portfolios upon declaring their candidacy (no portfolio changes may be executed or ordered between the time when a person declares his or her candidacy and the time that said person has actually retired or lost an election). On top of that, I'd forbid them from holding stock in any industry whose policy they're directly involved in making (either as regulators or on subcommittees).

[-] 2 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

Yes indeed. We need rules and regulations when it comes to Congress and those are a great beginning. They are running rip shod over us and it has to be ended now. There also must be strict regulations on the 1% so that they are tried for white collar crimes for things like giving CEO's bonuses with bailout money. You can give that crime a name I have no doubt. I'm just frustrated and angry.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

So am I, and if enough frustrated and angry people get together and demand serious reform both in DC and on Wall Street from our politicians we have a chance to make a real impact. This is also the perfect time to start pushing for this because we're not that far out from primary season. A disciplined, unified coalition of people would definitely be capable of replacing some of the worst offenders in the primaries, and that would be a start.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

You both have some very sound ideas, and are clearly principled people.

I'm from another country, and much of the workings of your government is news to me.

Consider running for office. You clearly have much better morals than the current crop.

[-] 1 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

And listen to the remarks they are making about one another...none of them deserve the honor of leading this god forsaken country. There has got to be a "none of the above" option on the ballot!

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

I would love to see that, but the hard part is that a "none of the above" solution is only a stopgap at best. It's great at sending a message, but at the end of the day we need 536 people in DC who are honest and competent or we're still going to be screwed. My hope is that if we hit the primaries hard now and in 2014 we'll be able to send enough of a message that things start to turn around.

[-] 0 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

the problem is that there is no one to vote for...until there is a viable candidate we should be able to put a hold on the entire process.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

The problem I see with that is the question of what happens in the interim. We've put the government on hold; now what? That means no post office, no EPA, no DoD, nobody gets their Social Security checks, the military doesn't get paid, and that's just the start. Shutting down the government until we can develop a reliable means of picking the people to run it sounds great in theory, but would be incredibly damaging to the people and the country in practice.

[-] 1 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

Not true. The Congress and President don't work at the PO or EPA or write SS checks or Military checks. Business as usual where those are concerned. We are only in those choke holds if allowed.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

Basically, if you fire all of Congress and you fire the president you might be OK assuming you're not nearing budget time, there are no crises (domestic or foreign) that require decisive action on the part of the executive, and there is no need to modify the existing series of laws and regulations between now and whenever we get a new crop of people ready for the office.

[-] 1 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

Then how and when does the inertia we've been experiencing for so very long end? Folks voting for the "better of two evils" proclamation. The candidates engage in a battle leaving us to believe that none of them are worthy of the offices that they go on to hold.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

The only way I can see that happen is if we make an effort to take both parties back at the primary level. That approach is generally highly efficient; it requires a lot of effort and organization but it often has an even greater payoff. The Tea Party has demonstrated what a disciplined and energetic minority can do to a party unless an equally disciplined and energetic group shuts them down. If there truly are enough people out there who are pissed about corruption and incompetence as the existence of the Occupy Wall Street movement would suggest, then we already have the raw human capital to do what needs to be done; it's just a matter of organizing them behind a single platform and getting them into the halls of power.



[-] -3 points by headlesscross (67) 10 years ago

You don't know WTF you're talking about. You just know propagandized talking points and bullshit.

Almost every Democrat wants to see a Republican President be one and done. This is a fact. Obama IS a "three-ring circus". "Fast and Furious" should tell anybody all they need to know about this corrupt and anti-American Regime.

Obama is Chavez 2.0, Obama is Carter 2.0.

Reps are not going to roll over (except for Boehner) and let this POS of a Dick tator BHO do whatever his Leftist Alinsky,Progressive Commie ideology tells him to do.

You Leftists always cloak your bullshit anti-American,job killing,freedom killing agenda in "what's best for the country" or "the peoples business", or "commonsense regulation" or "going green". That's all just fucking bullshit.

"rolling up your sleeves" cause the Leftist bullshit is getting deep!!!

Obama is nothing more than a Dick tator with a teleprompter. You Drones are going to lose big time this year.

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

First of all, we don't have an authoritarian dictator, we have an incredibly henpecked and hamstrung president who is probably wondering what life would have been like had he not run for the office in 2008. Second of all, Obama is to the left? Seriously? The man is centrist to center-right on the economy, has Holder pushing for a settlement that grants blanket immunity to big banks, has passed a healthcare plan that lacks a public option and contains conservative provisions along the lines of an individual mandate, and has compromised time after time with a party that's more interested in running him into the ground than getting anything done. As far as I'm concerned, Congress is lucky that it got away with this much crap without being publicly called to account for it.

[-] -3 points by headlesscross (67) 10 years ago

If you do not think BHO is to the Left,then you MUST be working for Kim Jong Un.

You're fucking twisted,I can't believe that YOU actually believe all that shit you just wrote.

Millions of Americans wonder how good life would have been if the Dick tator in charge never got elected. $1.80 a gallon when the Messiah was anointed,$3.45+ and climbing. Yeah he's really "henpecked and hamstrung". The EPA is instituting CAP and TAX through regulation because your butt buddy Berry couldn't get it through Congress.

Obama "grants blanket immunity to" to illegals.

"passed a healthcare plan that lacks a public option" that will further bankrupt the country and destroy the private sector and lead to a Socialist,intrusive and "big Brother" Govt.

You want a "public option" move to the melting down EU.

Save you bullshit propaganda for some Proglodyte Drone that worships Hussein the Muslim POTUS.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

OK, so we have the North Korean variant of Godwin's Law, blaming spotty oil production by OPEC and profiteering by oil companies on Obama, talking crap about the one agency in this country that actually gives a shit about the quality of the air we breathe and the state of the climate in twenty years, lying through your teeth on where immigration policy actually is in this country, spouting a bunch of fearmongering crap about socialism and big brother, purveying a tired old conspiracy theory about Obama's religion, and in general demonstrating an incredible willingness to twist the facts into line with whatever mess you call a worldview. That's wonderful; all you've actually told me is that you need your head checked. Good night.

[-] -3 points by headlesscross (67) 10 years ago

Yeah go to bed you fucking Leftist jerk off. What a fucking LAME reply. You're a Climate change believing Drone who lacks any independent thought. Enjoy putting that $3.75+ a gallon gas in that POS import Prius or that "Smart Car" which is your coffin on wheels. Have an adventure through the windshield glass. One less vote for your POS POTUS.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

Why don't you go talk to Turak? I bet he'd get along great with you. He won't agree with a word you say (he thinks that dismantling our country and replacing it with communes is the way to go) but if I had to try to pick you two apart based on rhetoric alone I'd be here all week. Now how about you two go fling feces at each other to your heart's content at the shallow end of the gene pool while the real adults talk policy.

[-] -3 points by headlesscross (67) 10 years ago

My rhetoric is such because I'm sick and fucking tired of you Leftist bullshitting propagandists.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

No, your rhetoric is such because it's the perfect refuge for people who refuse to admit that they're wrong. Just get up there and sling as many insults as you can, the more outrageous the better; every moment that your target has to get up in front of people and assert that he did not screw a sheep is a moment your views aren't placed under any real scrutiny. The more shrill you sound the more likely you are to get other people riled up along with you, and the more riled up they are the less likely they are to question you. It's the oldest trick in the book; I stopped falling for it long ago.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Speaking of propaganda.

Could you restate that without any?

My alarms kept going off.

[-] -1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 10 years ago

I think Obama is probably an atheist, or very close, but I'm quite sure he at least thinks he exists (so it would be hard to believe that he thinks himself something that he probably doesn't believe exists) :)

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 10 years ago


[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 10 years ago

I should have said, I hope he's an atheist (because I am) .... LOL!

Nothing against religion people (or at least, mild versions of it).

[-] -1 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

A true dictator. He is bi-winning.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

Given what he has to work with on Capitol Hill my only complaint is that he didn't start doing this sooner. At some point Congress has to get its act together, and the fact the President just happily decided that they don't exist should start to serve as a wake-up call. Give me a functioning Congress and then I'll give a shit when the president circumvents it.

[-] 1 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

Oh no, he now has complete power. If he feels you could lead a demonstration to overthrow him he could without explanation of any kind detain or imprison you forever!

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

And if he's stupid enough to start doing something like that to the population at large simply because they don't like him then all hell is really going to break loose. If he truly had enough power to force his critics off the air and out of the national dialogue then I would have expected it to have started already well in advance of the 2012 election cycle, and I expect he'd be far more subtle about it than simply disappearing people.

[-] 0 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

Maybe it's not just that they don't like him. Maybe they are believed to hack into something secret and dangerous if exposed. Maybe they did it, maybe not. With this bill it doesn't matter. If it's believed by the scared crooks then bye bye.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

Honestly, the minute we enter the realm of "bye bye" all hell is going to break loose. In this day and age, if people disappear it will be noticed and reported, and if there's any real evidence that the government was involved I see things going very far downhill very fast. Using the powers ascribed to him by the NDAA on dissenters is simply not an option if he has two brain cells to bang together, simply because that would most likely lead to a shitstorm that would dwarf Watergate.

Think about it: Watergate was one break-in and one cover-up, and despite the best efforts of the White House things just kept unraveling to the point where people were losing their jobs, people were being hauled in front of judges, and Nixon himself had to resign in disgrace rather than face impeachment and possible criminal conviction. That was during the era when people trusted the government a great deal; considering how paranoid about the government various chunks of the populace are now what do you think would happen if Obama was mixed up in the disappearance of ordinary American citizens?