Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

I genuinely don't remember, in my lifetime, any former president being as vocal post-presidency as Obama intends to be.

 

It's going to be interesting when he suddenly realizes most people just want him to go away.

 

"Most?" Maybe a majority...but not a very large one. I'm surprised at how many people I know who wish he would cross the Rubicon and overthrow the Republic.

Posted

 

I'm surprised at how many people I know who wish he would cross the Rubicon and overthrow the Republic.

 

And that's just at your Thanksgiving dinner table.

 

I think Average Everyday Joe Blow realizes Obama is done, and he has no power , and with all the bloviating from both sides of the aisle, he's just more noise on top of the embarrassing noise we hear every day from the left and right.

 

Truth is, if people really wanted more Barry, they had a chance to get it. They chose no more Barry. He should take the hint.

Posted

 

And that's just at your Thanksgiving dinner table.

 

I think Average Everyday Joe Blow realizes Obama is done, and he has no power , and with all the bloviating from both sides of the aisle, he's just more noise on top of the embarrassing noise we hear every day from the left and right.

 

Truth is, if people really wanted more Barry, they had a chance to get it. They chose no more Barry. He should take the hint.

 

As we've seen in the past year and change throughout various "democracies" in the western world, what the people want doesn't mean spit.

Posted

 

And that's just at your Thanksgiving dinner table.

 

I think Average Everyday Joe Blow realizes Obama is done, and he has no power , and with all the bloviating from both sides of the aisle, he's just more noise on top of the embarrassing noise we hear every day from the left and right.

 

Truth is, if people really wanted more Barry, they had a chance to get it. They chose no more Barry. He should take the hint.

Obama vs. Trump would have been a fun match up that I would call a tossup today as both excelled at campaigning and had great charisma and political acumen. Hillary didn't have either. Would Obama have gotten enough voters in those close states Trump won like MI, WI, FL, and NC? Possibly.

 

As far as Obama attacking Trump, I agree that his words mean nothing right now besides to the people that still worship him.

Posted

Obama vs. Trump would have been a fun match up that I would call a tossup today as both excelled at campaigning and had great charisma and political acumen. Hillary didn't have either. Would Obama have gotten enough voters in those close states Trump won like MI, WI, FL, and NC? Possibly.

 

As far as Obama attacking Trump, I agree that his words mean nothing right now besides to the people that still worship him.

People got use to having good leadership and now we are literally stuck with someone both incompetent and arrogant beyond anything we have ever seen

Posted

Obama vs. Trump would have been a fun match up that I would call a tossup today as both excelled at campaigning and had great charisma and political acumen. Hillary didn't have either. Would Obama have gotten enough voters in those close states Trump won like MI, WI, FL, and NC? Possibly.

 

As far as Obama attacking Trump, I agree that his words mean nothing right now besides to the people that still worship him.

 

Obama beats Trump head-to-head because one of Obama's surrogates would find a receipt from one of Trump's hotels buying white bed sheets, and make the case on CNN that they were not for the hotel beds.

Posted

 

Obama beats Trump head-to-head because one of Obama's surrogates would find a receipt from one of Trump's hotels buying white bed sheets, and make the case on CNN that they were not for the hotel beds.

I think Trump could have beaten Obama because Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted

I think Trump could have beaten Obama because Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

I think Obama out-smugs Trump every single time.

 

The electorate seems to like smug. I don't know why.

Posted

Holocaust Museum Pulls Study Absolving Obama Administration For Inaction In Face of Syrian Genocide.

Some Jewish communal leaders suggested both privately to
Tablet
, and in conversations with board members and staff at the Holocaust Museum, that the Museum’s moral authority had been hijacked for a partisan re-writing of recent history, and alleged that the museum had absolved the Obama administration of any moral or political error in its response to mass atrocities in Syria. At least one of the architects of the Obama administration policy in Syria, former deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes, was appointed to the museum’s Memorial Council during the closing days of the Obama administration. The Council also includes Obama NSC alumni Grant Harris and Daniel Benjamin. Other Obama NSC alumni, including Hudson and Anna Cave, have joined the Museum’s staff.

The Museum apparently undertook its Syria project without the usual degree of input from Washington’s community of Syrian activists who had worked with the Holocaust Museum to bring the Ceasar files and video from the besieged city of Aleppo to light. Given that the Museum had previously worked hard to expose Syrian government atrocities, members of the anti-Assad community found the counterfactuals report to be curiously out of character for the museum, and objected to the report’s seeming vindication of US policy.

 

 

 

Obama people tried — and nearly succeeded — to hijack the Holocaust Museum for partisan purposes.

Posted

I think Obama out-smugs Trump every single time.

 

Well, I think with Obama you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean. I mean, that's a storybook, man.

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
How Obama is funding the anti-Trump resistance

by Paul Sperry

 

Wall Street might be shocked to learn it is helping bankroll the anti-Trump “resistance” movement that’s aggressively fighting policies it favors — including corporate tax cuts and the repeal of Obama-era banking and health-care regulations.

 

The Obama administration’s massive shakedown of Big Banks over the mortgage crisis included unprecedented back-door funding for dozens of Democratic activist groups who were not even victims of the crisis.

At least three liberal nonprofit organizations the Justice Department approved to receive funds from multibillion-dollar mortgage settlements were instrumental in killing the ObamaCare repeal bill and are now lobbying against GOP tax reform, as well as efforts to rein in illegal immigration.

An estimated $640 million has been diverted into what critics say is an improper, if not unconstitutional, “slush fund” fed from government settlements with JPMorgan Chase and Co., Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp., according to congressional sources.

The payola is potentially earmarked for third-party interest groups approved by the Justice Department and HUD without requiring any proof of how the funds will be spent. Many of the recipients so far are radical leftist organizations who solicited the settlement cash from the administration even though they were not parties to the lawsuits, records show.

Posted

How Obama is funding the anti-Trump resistance

by Paul Sperry

 

Wall Street might be shocked to learn it is helping bankroll the anti-Trump “resistance” movement that’s aggressively fighting policies it favors — including corporate tax cuts and the repeal of Obama-era banking and health-care regulations.

 

The Obama administration’s massive shakedown of Big Banks over the mortgage crisis included unprecedented back-door funding for dozens of Democratic activist groups who were not even victims of the crisis.

At least three liberal nonprofit organizations the Justice Department approved to receive funds from multibillion-dollar mortgage settlements were instrumental in killing the ObamaCare repeal bill and are now lobbying against GOP tax reform, as well as efforts to rein in illegal immigration.

An estimated $640 million has been diverted into what critics say is an improper, if not unconstitutional, “slush fund” fed from government settlements with JPMorgan Chase and Co., Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp., according to congressional sources.

The payola is potentially earmarked for third-party interest groups approved by the Justice Department and HUD without requiring any proof of how the funds will be spent. Many of the recipients so far are radical leftist organizations who solicited the settlement cash from the administration even though they were not parties to the lawsuits, records show.

 

but but but

that is an op-ed, so it's not actually news.

  • 4 months later...
Posted

Both of those portraits are awful.

 

Barack's would be far better without that ivy nonsense. There is no saving Michelle's.

Posted
17 minutes ago, row_33 said:

the wife's portrait is worse

 

 

 

It really doesn't look like her at all and the quality of it screams it was done by an art student.  Even though I'm no fan of her, she deserved a better portrait as a fist lady.  His portrait is just odd.  What is the significance of the greenery in the background?  Can't be the ivy at Wrigley, he's a Sox fan.  Seems like an odd choice.  Maybe it's weed!

  • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...