The Obamagood Thread

On the other hand we see the Peace Prize Winner...

After drones: the indelible mark of America's remote control warfare

On a fall afternoon in 2012, Mamana called Nabila and a squad of her siblings and cousins outside to the family’s okra fields, part of their sprawling garden in tribal Pakistan. It was about to be the Eid festival and the Rehman family needed to gather and prepare vegetables. Nabila, nine years old, had set to work when the drone fired its missiles.

A dark plume of dust rose from the garden and mixed with acrid smoke. It spared Nabila and the other children the sight of their grandmother’s mutilated corpse.

Her older cousins, all male, ran to help the screaming children. Nabila’s hand and her arm were injured with burns and shrapnel. Her three-year-old brother, Safdar, who was watching the harvest from the roof of their home, had fallen to the ground, breaking bones in his chest and shoulders. The teenagers had gotten Nabila and some of the others out of the way when the second round of missiles hit, in what the CIA refers to as a “double-tap”, to make sure it kills its targets.

Winning hearts and minds the hard way.
 
Let it be known that God has yet to invent the problem that cannot be solved with sufficient application of high explosives.
 
A Nation of Second Chances

Barack Obama


Earlier this spring, I met with a group of individuals whose sentences were commuted either by President Bush, President Clinton, or myself. They were all at different stages of a new chapter in their lives, but each of their stories was extraordinary.

Take Phillip Emmert. When he was 27, Phillip made a mistake. He was arrested and convicted for distributing methamphetamines and received a 27-year sentence. So, by the time he was released, he’d have spent half his life behind bars.

Unfortunately, while in prison, his wife was paralyzed in an accident. So while he was in prison, Phil learned everything he could about fixing heating and air conditioning systems — so he could support his wife when he got out. And after his sentence was commuted by President Bush, he was able to do just that. Today, he’s gainfully employed. He’s a caregiver for his wife, an active father, and a leader in his community.

Like so many nonviolent offenders serving unduly harsh sentences, Phillip is not a hardened criminal. He’s taken responsibility for his mistakes. And he’s worked hard to earn a second chance.

Today, I commuted the sentences of an additional 58 individuals just as deserving as Phillip — individuals who can look to him as inspiration for what is possible in their lives.

As President, I’ve been working to bring about a more effective approach to our criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to drug crimes. Part of that effort has been to reinvigorate our commutations process, and highlight the individuals like Philip who are doing extraordinary things with their second chances. To date, I will have commuted 306 individual sentences, which is more than the previous six presidents combined.

While I will continue to review clemency applications, only Congress can bring about the lasting changes we need to federal sentencing. That is why I am encouraged by the bipartisan efforts in Congress to reform federal sentencing laws, particularly on overly harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. Because it just doesn’t make sense to require a nonviolent drug offender to serve 20 years, or in some cases, life, in prison. An excessive punishment like that doesn’t fit the crime. It’s not serving taxpayers, and it’s not making us safer.

As a country, we have to make sure that those who take responsibility for their mistakes are able to transition back to their communities. It’s the right thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do. And it’s something I will keep working to do as long as I hold this office.


https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/a-nation-of-second-chances-bc35d820ec79#.fho1ld9t0
 
"Her historic campaign inspired millions and is an extension of her lifelong fight for middle class families and children."

LMFAO!!!!!!!

JESUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT SHIT?!?!? HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

What a propaganda load....neither O nor her have done 1/1,000,000th for the middle class what they do for the uber rich.

Either that or democrat voters really are dumber than all fuck and don't realize those two have done more to enrich the 1% of the 1% than damn near ANYONE in D.C.
 
Last edited:
So yet again President Peace Prize is interfering in due process. And again in La Clinton's favour.

She hasn't got the nomination yet.

It's all but dunzo now and he's politely squashing the unnecessary beef. Gotta deal with this life or move to Antartica with the penguins.
 
It's all but dunzo now and he's politely squashing the unnecessary beef. Gotta deal with this life or move to Antartica with the penguins.

It isn't done at all. She does not have a majority of pledged delegates.

That's what's known as a fact.
 
It isn't done at all. She does not have a majority of pledged delegates.

That's what's known as a fact.

Yeah, sure.

You know that funny time period when the bar's about five or ten minutes to close and you're internally hoping that the bartender will let you stay in for another round and maaaaaaaaybe let you drink for another hour or two because good times and shit like that? But you know deep down in your heart that you gonna have to get the hell out and go back home because the sun coming up heralding the next day is inevitable and you can't drink extra time into reality?

Yeah, that.
 
So yet again President Peace Prize is interfering in due process. And again in La Clinton's favour.

She hasn't got the nomination yet.

You really aren't too bright about politics, are you? It's not as significant that Obama endorses a candidate of his party (and in this case hasn't done it yet even though a candidate had already secured enough votes to win the nomination before he issued this "not quite yet an endorsement" statement, which is, rather, a party unity call statement) as it is that no living Republican former president has (or is likely to) endorsed the Republican party presumptive nominee.

Again, you're not to bright about politics, are you?
 
Look, I was for Bernie, too. In spirit, I still am. But he's not the nominee. He's not going to be the nominee, either. Period. End of story. We have a presumptive nominee. Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and yes, when the November election rolls around, despite my personal reservations about things that she has said and done, I will vote for her for the Presidency of the United States.

Why? Because I didn't join the Democratic Party this year just to quit because my preferred candidate didn't get the nod. That already happened once before this election. Now it has happened again. I initially backed Jim Webb. Then, when he pulled out, I supported Bernie Sanders. I have been very much a strong Bernie supporter ever since. But he's not the nominee. He's not going to be the nominee. So, that's that. I'm a realist. I want to keep the White House in safe and sane hands. While I preferred those hands to be Bernie's, I'll have to put my trust in Hillary instead. Because she's the presumptive nominee. She has a majority of pledged delegates. She has the majority of the popular vote. And she has the likely majority of super delegates.

The people have spoken. They have given us a choice between a former Secretary of State, United States Senator, and First Lady, who for all of her faults has some kind of relationship with our allies and a significant level of understanding and experience needed for sober, rational, and mature decision-making......and a race-baiting, rabble-rousing, bomb-throwing, finger-pointing senile bigot who knows only how to accuse, redirect the questions, etc., but doesn't know jack shit about policy, decisions, executive power, etc. Yeah, I'm going to choose the wise, elder stateswoman, whatever her flaws and wrong, misguided views on some subjects. After all, she's mature and reasonable enough to possibly listen to other perspectives. He is not.

Now is a time for sober, wise, and sensible government. It's not a time for a reactionary posing as a revolutionary, an elitist posing as a populist, and a dangerous demagogue posing as a patriot.
 
Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and yes, when the November election rolls around, despite my personal reservations about things that she has said and done, I will vote for her for the Presidency of the United States.

Now is a time for sober, wise, and sensible government.


Those two don't match up......AT ALL.

We will get a power drunk, foolish and 'fuck everyone but the attaboyz club!' government just like always. Because Clinton.
 
Yeah, sure.

You know that funny time period when the bar's about five or ten minutes to close and you're internally hoping that the bartender will let you stay in for another round and maaaaaaaaybe let you drink for another hour or two because good times and shit like that? But you know deep down in your heart that you gonna have to get the hell out and go back home because the sun coming up heralding the next day is inevitable and you can't drink extra time into reality?

Yeah, that.

Meaningless cant. She does not have a simple majority of pledged delegates. The contest is not over until the vote is taken at the convention.

It's really not that difficult a concept.
 
Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee
She is the presumptive Democratic nominee

Why are people bitching about her and not the orange tan racist?
 
You really aren't too bright about politics, are you? It's not as significant that Obama endorses a candidate of his party (and in this case hasn't done it yet even though a candidate had already secured enough votes to win the nomination before he issued this "not quite yet an endorsement" statement, which is, rather, a party unity call statement) as it is that no living Republican former president has (or is likely to) endorsed the Republican party presumptive nominee.

Again, you're not to bright about politics, are you?

I don't think you're as bright as you seem to think you are. Obama has made a clear inference again, in favour of Hillary Clinton.

In legal terms it isn't as significant as his outrageous statements on the criminal investigation into her conduct. But in democratic terms it is ugly, unnecessary and highly partisan toward his (right) wing of the party.
 
Meaningless cant. She does not have a simple majority of pledged delegates. The contest is not over until the vote is taken at the convention.

It's really not that difficult a concept.

I take it that you don't know what a simple majority is, because she's had a simple majority of raw votes over Sanders from the first day of primaries--and has maintained it. Suggest you might like to research the difference between "simple majority" and "absolute majority."

And, if you want to discuss simple majorities, the flip side of that is that Bernie Sander never has had a majority in any sense of the term of the accumulated primary vote--ever. He's won both simple and absolute majorities in some individual primaries--but :)D) not a simple or absolute majority of all Democratic primaries combined (Clinton has both of those majorities already).
 
I don't think you're as bright as you seem to think you are. Obama has made a clear inference again, in favour of Hillary Clinton.

In legal terms it isn't as significant as his outrageous statements on the criminal investigation into her conduct. But in democratic terms it is ugly, unnecessary and highly partisan toward his (right) wing of the party.

You don't listen to anyone but yourself, do you? The statement was parsed by a spokesman of the White House itself on national TV last night. It isn't a formal endorsement yet.

In overall view on your political calls on this forum, I think you probably should sit on your hands and do more reading and watching than spouting off.
 
You don't listen to anyone but yourself, do you? The statement was parsed by a spokesman of the White House itself on national TV last night. It isn't a formal endorsement yet.

In overall view on your political calls on this forum, I think you probably should sit on your hands and do more reading and watching than spouting off.

Any statement or action by someone in the administration comes from the administration, the president.
 
Any statement or action by someone in the administration comes from the administration, the president.

Yeah, so a White House spokesman saying it wasn't a full endorsement means it wasn't a full endorsement. Like I posted. Duh.

Guess what. The TV commentators are saying it wasn't a full endorsement either. And even if it were, that's what presidents do for their choice in who they want to replace them. And they do it whenever they damn well please. So, so what to whatever you think your point is, genius.
 
Back
Top