Englebert

This total ignorance of reality must come from you living in a Liberal bubble.

Right after he closes Gitmo.

I'm curious as to her explanation of Obama going after reporters, especially James Rosen of FoxNews (who had his and his parents phones wire-tapped) and AP reporters among others, in an attempt to figure out the source of leaks of confidential material, but commutes the sentence of an admitted traitor who stole over 700,000 documents and gave them to WikiLeaks. And many have said that these documents lead directly to the death of Americans. [Hidden Content] From the article, a quote from Obama: "As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. That's who we are, and I'm troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable." So Obama thinks that punishing those that leak confidential material is paramount to the security of the nation, but pardons a man who stole and had published over 700,000 classified documents. It is clear that Obama's choice to employ the "divide and conquer" strategy takes precedence over the security of the United States of America. Personally I think this is grounds for impeachment and a long stay in Leavenworth. Obama could share a prison cell with Manning.

Damn, I wish you wouldn't have said that. Now when I use it, I will have to add a citation giving you credit.

With all of Obama's (and Bill's) pardons and commutations, I think this power should be stripped from the President. I've been advocating this for years. I think a President or Governor should only have the ability to order a new trial. (I would be willing to go as far as saying he can only order a new trial at his personal expense.) One thing I'm unsure about is what happens to people who were convicted under a law that gets changed. TVC, hopefully you can help out here. If a law is enacted, a person is convicted under this law, then the law is repealed, I'm assuming that the person's sentence remains unchanged even though the law is now non-existent. If this is correct, I can see where the President or Governor should have some power to pardon or commute the sentence of these people. Other than that, I can't see a need for anyone to have full pardon or commutation power.

And many of them were talking about how much material Trump was going to provide them. I was expecting a non-stop barrage. With Obama coming unhinged and trying to be a history revisionist about his presidency through his adolescent and absurd claims, I guess they are too embarrassed to get on here and try to defend him. If I was a Liberal I'd be in hiding too. The Liberal hate and hypocrisy is currently on full display. For some reason I feel absolutely no empathy for them.

I'm going to steal this line.

Like I said, I don't know if this is fake or real. Big Girl has a habit of posting far Left "fake news" stories from highly questionable sources. Her response to this was "This is a fake news story. Geez!!!" My post was just to question her as to her source of it being untrue. And as predicted, she refuses to answer.

I have absolutely 100% confidence that Obama's motive for commuting Manning's sentence is 100% political. He knows this will spark outrage from the Right, in which the Leftist media will spin as evidence that the Right hates Transgender people...while ignoring the true fact that the Right hates traitors. If Manning was just a normal white guy he would have never received this commutation. Manning is just a pawn in Obama/Liberal's game of "divide and conquer". This is just more proof he is the worst president in American history.

What proof do you have that this is fake? It might be, I don't know. But you have made so many deceitful assertions on this board that your credibility is absolute zero. Please back up your claim.

It was 20 years ago, and he was single with no kids at the time. I don't know the guy. We were socializing at a wedding in which we had mutual friends. I haven't seen him since. He did say that his parents divorced when he was around 10, 11 years old or something (I can't remember exactly, just remember it was pre-adolescence.) He mentioned that some of his friends parents had been divorced. It seems he was still struggling with the idea of divorce and how hard it was on him personally. I don't know. I do know that racism/prejudicism was not his motive for making the comment. So my armchair psychological analysis based on a ten minute conversation was that he was deeply hurt due to his parents divorce and he was vowing not to put his kids through the same thing by naively thinking he was going to hand-pick a wife based on his strict qualifications. I probably would have forgotten the whole conversation except for me coming to the realization that I almost incorrectly branded someone a racist. That was an epiphany for me as an example to not judge too quick.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I'm not agreeing with the guy. I often use this story as an example of how labelling someone as racist is often just a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of someone's views.

The guy I pointed to didn't think interracial marriage was wrong...so you are right. I misinterpreted your statement to mean "wrong" in the sense as "disgusting" and not to be encouraged or something to which one would ever involve themselves with. And the guy was from Michigan. Go figure.

I'll have to disagree with you on this point. True story: I was talking with an acquaintance a while back, and he made the statement, "I would never marry a black girl". So I asked him why. He said that he has seen first hand what divorce can do to the kids in a family. He continued by saying that he knows marriage can be awfully hard, and the couple must work every day to keep their marriage working. He felt that an interracial marriage would have to endure too much outside strife, especially from close friends and relatives...to the point of making the marriage unworkable and ending in a divorce...which he would never put his kids through. You might disagree with his line of thinking, but it definitely does not contain any shred of racism on his part.

Did you seriously just type this? The Liberals have tried for 30+ years to pass Socialized healthcare legislation. They finally get to 2008 where they have a majority in the House and Senate and occupy the White House. So for 30+ years, and two years of occupying the Legislative and Executive branches, they had the opportunity to have a plan ready to go. And if memory serves me, Nancy Pelosi famously said "We have to pass it to see what's in it". And you actually want to question the Republicans who have offered and passed 30+ bills in the last 7 years to replace and/or help fix the Obamacare disaster. You are seriously out of touch and seem to be relying on Left wing nutjob media sources for your uninformed opinion. One glance at FoxNews would have prevented such an asinine statement. As far as your second line. The reason college tuition has risen to the unaffordability that it is today is because of government "help". Once the government starting funding and making money available for anyone to attend college, the price skyrocketed. Why? Because the colleges knew the government was the source of funding, so they were free to unleash astronomical raises in tuition. Socialism at it's finest...and quite embarrassing that these bastions of morality college big-wigs would do their best to emulate Wall Street execs by ripping off the American taxpayer. This would not have happened in a less "compassionate" society. More people could afford to attend college if Capitalism would have been allowed to continue working without Socialist interference.

Or he could possibly be banking on the fact that he can setup a "charitable" foundation to be used as a personal slush fund. He can use his position to solicit billions of dollars through pay for play, and without fear of prosecution. But one would have to be an incredible scumbag not worthy of oxygen to dream up a pathetic scheme like that. So yeah, I think he is doing it for love of country.

Hey Remmus, do you see what we have to put up with? You are a newbie and I'm not requesting a response on your part, just want to draw attention to the fact that this is not a forum in which redneck, bible-thumping, minority-hating, homophobic, misogynistic klansmen are suppressing the right for anyone to speak out. This forum welcomes all, no matter how many functioning brain cells one might have. Sorry to directly reference your name in the context of this post, but just wanted to shed light on an example of the two-way street that many on the Left seem to ignore. Since you are the only current member on the Left speaking up, I regrettably couldn't think of another user to call upon. From past experience I predict Kountzer will not be a contributing member to the various topics on this forum, so I feel we are still down to just you representing the Left. This post is in proximity to something that nappyroots, new tobie, Dick Vitale, Big Girl, or ECO might post.

No, you are wrong. They make outrageous claims which they can't/won't back up, then refuse to answer when called out, then accuse everyone on the board of being ignorant and racist. I want Left representatives on this board, but would rather do without than "debate" with such childishness.

No coincidence. Remmus' spelling, grammar, and punctuation are far superior to either, or nappyroots. But it is weird that we seem to have only one, sometimes two people from the Left on here at a time.

I'm confident that Remmus' mistake was accidental though.

No, Perry was thinking about all of Texas' families which is why he did everything in his power not to get involved in the Obamacare debacle. Way too many strings attached to that Socialist program and the eminence of dependency on the Federal Government. Kudos to Perry on this one.

When they can get it. Can you name some of the many, many world-class physicians, new drugs, innovative surgical procedures, and state-of-the-art prosthetics and machines that have emanated from these countries? Me neither.

Guaranteed healthcare means the government is paying for you therefore is able to dictate every facet of your life, including what you can eat and drink. And socialized medicine kills the entrepreneurship and innoviations in the profession. Government will try to control costs, therefore doctors will be paid less and less, leading to the best and brightest not entering into the profession. There is a reason the U.S. healthcare system is the greatest in the world. I'm perplexed as to why some want to change that. And once you read Sowell's writings and some others I think you will become suspicious of the motives behind social welfare programs also, especially Socialized healthcare.

I have Bing and Google so I'm an expert on anything you want to discuss. I'm not a scholar on any other country, but practically every country just by nature is going to have it's fair share of dirt. Keeping a scorecard of who is worse would fall to the "eye of the beholder" and a fool's errand. That's why I'm not infatuated with past wrongs but contemplate more on where we are headed. (This does not mean we should not learn from our past mistakes though.) I am perplexed at your last statement (in which I whole-heartedly agree). Doesn't it seem semi-paradoxical for you to always be suspicious of our government but call for bigger and bigger government?

Can you name a country that has less dirt in it's past that you hold in high regard? Do you believe the American citizens try to correct the wrongs of our past less than citizens of other countries? Did the Americans citizens not work extremely hard to correct the wrongs of recent history in the face of overwhelming odds due to the biased Liberal Media and Political establishment machine? (I had to throw this one in there. LOL)