« previous   misc   next »

Obamas shameless exploitation of children


By zzyzzx   Follow   Thu, 17 Jan 2013, 1:57am PST   7,155 views   84 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike (5)  

http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-who-have-used-children-as-props/

Obama’s shameless exploitation of children as set pieces is hardly new or original. In fact, tyrants and dictators have used kids as props down through the ages.

Here are a few more recent examples:

The Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin

China’s Mao Zedong

Germany’s Adolf Hitler

Cuba’s Fidel Castro

North Korea’s Kim Il-sung

Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez

Obama Exploiting the Children for Executive Action on Gun Control

« First     « Previous     Comments 45-84 of 84     Last »

FortWayne   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 1:21am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (3)     Comment 45

Obama has been pushing all kinds of legislative party efforts that have been robbing us taxpayers blind and stealing our dollars. He sent millions to his crony criminal friends.

And constantly wants more, and yet somehow low information voters are always ok with it. Because it is "their guy" stealing from them, not the other guy from that other bad party stealing from them.

When did we as a nation decide to condone theft as long as it is within a certain party? Why is it not all right to stop both from criminal activity?

mell   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 1:36am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (5)   Dislike     Comment 46

FortWayne says

Obama has been pushing all kinds of legislative party efforts that have been robbing us taxpayers blind and stealing our dollars. He sent millions to his crony criminal friends.

And constantly wants more, and yet somehow low information voters are always ok with it. Because it is "their guy" stealing from them, not the other guy from that other bad party stealing from them.

When did we as a nation decide to condone theft as long as it is within a certain party? Why is it not all right to stop both from criminal activity?

So true. Since he took office my taxes (being upper middle class roughly) have nothing gone but up. That money went straight to the bankstas pockets, people who clearly committed massive fraud such as his buddy Corzine are roaming free! It seems this nation has been constantly stupified over the past decade. Robbing the middle-class, (preemptive) warfare without congressional approval, and limiting civil liberties and personal freedom and gradually abolishing the rule of law and undermining the constitution was criminal/wrong when Bush was in office and it is criminal/wrong now with Obummer. Stop babbling about the greatness of your fuehrer and blindly repeating your party's manifesto and start thinking for yourself already.

dublin hillz   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 1:44am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 47

mell says

Since he took office my taxes (being upper middle class roughly) have nothing
gone but up

The only taxes that "have gone up" is the resumption of 6.2% for social security and the 4.2% break was only for 2 years to "stimulate the economy." If your income taxes were restored to clinton rates that means that you are making single 400Gs, married 450Gs in which case you are definitely not "upper middle class."

edvard2   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 1:46am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 48

Interesting how my comments keep getting deleted. I hope others realize this as well because that shows that clearly opposing opinions are edited out. So don't complain about "freedoms" and other over-the-top patriotic jargain when a double standard is being set. This is a non story. Hence why there is no real debate here. It was simply a non story that the right wing media decided to make a story out of to please their listeners. That's it.FortWayne says

Obama has been pushing all kinds of legislative party efforts that have been robbing us taxpayers blind and stealing our dollars. He sent millions to his crony criminal friends.

Taxes in the US have been lower than they have in over 60 years. Look it up and then perhaps consider attaching those comments to previous administrations from the past 60 years who did more taxing.

CaptainShuddup   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:08am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (7)   Dislike (4)     Comment 49

The point is Obama hasn't listened to his constituents since he came in office. Not even when he went on his Town hall roadshow tour. Anytime he ran into someone like Joe the Plumber, he bailed quicker than a Judge in crack house raid. Now he has stopped doing town halls, and he hasn't taken any effective press corp interviews in over 3 years.
For him to bring out those children in a ruse to chastise everyone else. Like "Oh look here Kids get it" everyone else is Stupid.

finehoe   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:10am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 50

Joe the Plumber? Seriously?

mell   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:12am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 51

dublin hillz says

mell says

Since he took office my taxes (being upper middle class roughly) have nothing

gone but up

The only taxes that "have gone up" is the resumption of 6.2% for social security and the 4.2% break was only for 2 years to "stimulate the economy." If your income taxes were restored to clinton rates that means that you are making single 400Gs, married 450Gs in which case you are definitely not "upper middle class."

It's not 450Gs (believe me I know what middle-class is) and 2 points here: First you can call it a temporary tax break but it was for the middle class, so it is a tax increase on the middle-class no matter how you look at it. Technically all tax increases and decreases are "temporarily". Secondly you forgot the capital gains increase and the medicare surtax. The income tax bracket jump and the 50% increase in SS contributions leave 40 cents on every dollar of the raise. Anybody who calls that fair gets my erect middle-finger.

zzyzzx   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:18am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 52

dublin hillz says

The only taxes that "have gone up" is the resumption of 6.2% for social security and the 4.2% break was only for 2 years to "stimulate the economy." If your income taxes were restored to clinton rates that means that you are making single 400Gs, married 450Gs in which case you are definitely not "upper middle class."

My state taxes have gone up.

mell   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:18am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 53

edvard2 says

Interesting how my comments keep getting deleted. I hope others realize this as well because that shows that clearly opposing opinions are edited out. So don't complain about "freedoms" and other over-the-top patriotic jargain when a double standard is being set. This is a non story. Hence why there is no real debate here. It was simply a non story that the right wing media decided to make a story out of to please their listeners. That's it.FortWayne says

Obama has been pushing all kinds of legislative party efforts that have been robbing us taxpayers blind and stealing our dollars. He sent millions to his crony criminal friends.

Taxes in the US have been lower than they have in over 60 years. Look it up and then perhaps consider attaching those comments to previous administrations from the past 60 years who did more taxing.

Nice try. You can cherry pick the top income tax brackets and perhaps corporate tax rates but that doesn't tell you about the total tax burden of the middle class. We are not talking about the top earners here. Neither about the 47%. We are talking about the middle-class which has been shrinking at the expense of the other two.

mell   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:20am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 54

zzyzzx says

dublin hillz says

The only taxes that "have gone up" is the resumption of 6.2% for social security and the 4.2% break was only for 2 years to "stimulate the economy." If your income taxes were restored to clinton rates that means that you are making single 400Gs, married 450Gs in which case you are definitely not "upper middle class."

My state taxes have gone up.

And that's another problem, esp. in CA. OK, someone could say, then why don't you move - just not that easy if you have a good job or a family. Total tax burden keeps in increasing, even municipalities keep adding on. I would rather see fees for actual usage of services than those broad taxes on everybody.

edvard2   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:21am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 55

I setup my own thread so if those who want to read the responses I've made that are being deleted from this thread, you can read it on mine. That is all.

Call it Crazy   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:22am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)     Comment 56

edvard2 says

Interesting how my comments keep getting deleted. I hope others realize this as well because that shows that clearly opposing opinions are edited out.

I see a bunch of posts you made above...

Maybe you should take yourself off of ignore, then you could see your own posts....

dublin hillz   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:22am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 57

mell says

zzyzzx says



dublin hillz says



The only taxes that "have gone up" is the resumption of 6.2% for social security and the 4.2% break was only for 2 years to "stimulate the economy." If your income taxes were restored to clinton rates that means that you are making single 400Gs, married 450Gs in which case you are definitely not "upper middle class."


My state taxes have gone up.


And that's another problem, esp. in CA. OK, someone could say, then why don't you move - just not that easy if you have a good job or a family. Total tax burden keeps in increasing, even municipalities keep adding on. I would rather see fees for actual usage of services than those broad taxes on everybody.

Increases in state and local taxes is a separate issue and in my opinion should not be associated with the federal government and the president.

CaptainShuddup   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:25am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 58

finehoe says

Joe the Plumber? Seriously?

Yes seriously! HE sent Obama scurrying into his Hole where he hasn't come out into the light of day since.

edvard2   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:33am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 59

They were not showing just a few minutes ago. I am not making that up.

zzyzzx   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:40am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 60

mell says

And that's another problem, esp. in CA. OK, someone could say, then why don't you move - just not that easy if you have a good job or a family. Total tax burden keeps in increasing, even municipalities keep adding on. I would rather see fees for actual usage of services than those broad taxes on everybody.

Along the same lines, I'd like to see parents pay their fair share of taxes. You know, like a per kid fee and extra taxes.

lostand confused   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 2:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 61

Call it Crazy says

iwog says



ROFLOL..........Wow, Obama the tyrant, Obama the dictator........is pushing legislation.


Umm, I am no fan of Obama. But he got Bin Laden. He handled Libya with minimal money and loss of American lives. Can you imagine how Bushie the shrub and the republicans would have handled it. I never saw him under a banner saying ,"Mission Accomplished." republicans have no right to say anything about national security -given their dismal record. 9/11 happens under your watch-wouldn't you want to end it? Remember both McCain and Romeny were against going into pakistan to get bin Laden.

He has been plenty tough with our enemies-with the drone strikes . Now I don't like him for a variety of reasons, but when the right start their nonsensical spiel, you lose people .

FortWayne   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 3:38am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (3)     Comment 62

lostand confused says

Umm, I am no fan of Obama. But he got Bin Laden.

He didn't get Bin Laden, he was simply in the office when military and intelligence finally got it figured out and done.

We have a Hoover Dam, not FDR Dam, remember that one? Because it was a project started by President Hoover, even though it finally completed during FDR tenure.

Just thinks to think about L&C.

lostand confused   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 4:03am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 63

FortWayne says

lostand confused says



Umm, I am no fan of Obama. But he got Bin Laden.


He didn't get Bin Laden, he was simply in the office when military and intelligence finally got it figured out and done.


We have a Hoover Dam, not FDR Dam, remember that one? Because it was a project started by President Hoover, even though it finally completed during FDR tenure.


Just thinks to think about L&C.

It was his decision to let the military to go into Pakistan. Both McCain and Romney were against the idea. If he didn't authorize it, Bin laden would still be out there releasing audio tapes taunting us- while marrying new wives and building up his stash of porn. That one I never got-why do you need porn when you have so many wives?????

leo707   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 4:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 64

FortWayne says

lostand confused says

Umm, I am no fan of Obama. But he got Bin Laden.

He didn't get Bin Laden, he was simply in the office when military and intelligence finally got it figured out and done.

We have a Hoover Dam, not FDR Dam, remember that one? Because it was a project started by President Hoover, even though it finally completed during FDR tenure.

Just thinks to think about L&C.

Yes, that would be a more interesting and applicable point if Obama's predecessor was actually trying to kill Ben Laden, but he wasn't.

Call it Crazy   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 5:03am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 65

leo707 says

Yes, that would be a more interesting and applicable point if Obama's predecessor was actually trying to kill Ben Laden, but he wasn't.

It's tough to kill a guy who was already dead...

Report: Bin Laden Already Dead
Published December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

FortWayne   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 5:04am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 66

Bush was not wrong when he said: "Terrorism is bigger than one person". Scope of the mission wasn't to get one guy.

Not saying Bush was a great leader, he wasn't. But Obama isn't a breath of fresh air either.

leo707   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 5:18am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 67

FortWayne says

Bush was not wrong when he said: "Terrorism is bigger than one person". Scope of the mission wasn't to get one guy.

Sure, but Bush was wrong when he said, "I truly am not that concerned about [Bin Laden]."

Yes, the scope of the "Mission Accomplished" was more than getting one guy, but some guys are more important to get than others. Maybe this is just me but the planner and mastermind behind 9/11--who is clearly wanting to repeat his "success"--would be on the top of my "concerned about" list.

FortWayne   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 5:23am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (1)     Comment 68

I don't know if he was wrong or simply pretending. They all seem to lie for internal political or military reasons. I remember Reagan used to say that we don't negotiate with terrorists, but his administration did.

Our government doesn't think we are smart enough population to be trusted with truth.

edvard2   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 5:25am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 69

FortWayne says

Our government doesn't think we are smart enough population to be trusted with truth.

Using proper grammar might be a good start towards fixing that situation assuming one believes in such silly things.

lostand confused   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 6:14am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 70

leo707 says

Maybe this is just me but the planner and mastermind behind 9/11--who is clearly
wanting to repeat his "success"--would be on the top of my "concerned about"
list.

Yup. Somebody attacks us and takes down iconic buildings in our financial nerve center , attacks the Pentagon itself and kills thousands of innocent souls-right in our soil and in the most densely populated cities.

This same guy walks the earth freely, insulting us and releasing video and audio tapes, marrying new wives and living a stone throws away from the military base of our "allies" in a giant palatial mansion with his entire family.

Just him being alive and us focussing on Sadaam and Iraq at the expense of Bin laden was just dumb. How is that supposed to stop terrorism? Why would the terrorists be afraid of us? Oh we go bomb America and kill Americans and bomb the Pentagon and their Govt goes and attacks the wrong country and lets the perpetrators walk free? That is supposed to scare them? Maybe the next time, terrorists might attack us again , hoping we might go and invade Iran too-take out their enemies for them by attacking us. That is the message you are sending them.

Dan8267   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 7:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (3)     Comment 71

zzyzzx says

Obamas shameless exploitation of children


OK, not a child, but I like the picture.


He did have a thing for chimps.

And this is exactly why Republicans are hypocrites. They make Obama out to be evil for doing the exact same thing they do, but they are careful not to list the really evil things that Obama and Republicans have in common.

Getting a photo-op with kids is not evil. Using drones to kill children in Afghanistan is evil. And Republicans are every bit as guilty of both as Obama is.

Dan8267   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 8:02am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 72

zzyzzx says

Obama’s shameless exploitation of children as set pieces is hardly new or original.

Yep, every president including both Bushes and Reagan did it. Hell, Nixon even did it with a dog.

Thedaytoday   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 8:20am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 73

ahh Faux News at it again

zzyzzx   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 8:42am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 74

Exactly what legislation was Bush promoting when any of those pictures were taken?
I didn't think so!

leo707   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 8:46am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 75

zzyzzx says

Exactly what legislation was Bush promoting when any of those pictures were taken?

zzyzzx says

I didn't think so!

Oh, but I do!

leo707   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 8:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 76

In case you missed it here is another pic of Bush promoting "No Child Left Behind." In this one there are some other familiar faces trying to inch in on Bush's kiddie pic.

Here is another pic of Bush promoting his "Promoting Strong Families, Safe Children" legislation.

Did you honestly think that Bush never took a picture with a kid to promote legislation?

Dan8267   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 10:19am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 77

leo707 says

Did you honestly think that Bush never took a picture with a kid to promote legislation?

Don't burst his bubble. He has no immune defense against the truth. Lack of exposure due to spending all his time with Fox News.

zzyzzx   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 10:32am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 78

I don't doubt that you can find pics of just about any politician and kids. It's Obama's use of them for something as controversial as gun control. There weren't huge numbers of people or really hardly anyone complaining about no child left behind at the time it was enacted. Bush didn't wait for some event and then use kids as an excuse for legislation like Obama is.

thomaswong.1986   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 11:41am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 79

Dan8267 says

zzyzzx says

Obama’s shameless exploitation of children as set pieces is hardly new or original.

Yep, every president including both Bushes and Reagan did it. Hell, Nixon even did it with a dog.

the picture of Reagan was back in 1982...welcoming visitors to the white house.

Ronald Reagan, 1982

President Ronald Reagan reads a Christmas story to children of White House staffers on Dec. 12, 1982.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christmas-white-house-gallery-1.1215704?pmSlide=5#ixzz2IOAzDX5m

thomaswong.1986   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 11:48am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 80

leo707 says

Here is another pic of Bush promoting his "Promoting Strong Families, Safe Children" legislation.

The unions declined to participate in the signing of the legislation so.. the kids were included.

thomaswong.1986   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 11:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 81

leo707 says

Oh, but I do!

promoting eduction is a direct impact on children's lifes... so what if you include

children in the signing.. no biggie... its all acceptable for Bush to do what he did...

this is far different than the very very long standing goal of liberals to disarm

the American public... so where was the shopkeeper who fought back the robber or the

woman who protected herself from a rapist/killer...they were not represented..

more over where was the many others who stopped the mobs... and who will stop the mobs next time.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 11:55am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 82

It's generally well known that Obama ate all those kids after the press conference.

thomaswong.1986   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 12:00pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 83

lostand confused says

Just him being alive and us focussing on Sadaam and Iraq at the expense of Bin laden was just dumb. How is that supposed to stop terrorism? Why would the terrorists be afraid of us? Oh we go bomb America and kill Americans and bomb the Pentagon and their Govt goes and attacks the wrong country and lets the perpetrators walk free? That is supposed to scare them? Maybe the next time, terrorists might attack us again , hoping we might go and invade Iran too-take out their enemies for them by attacking us. That is the message you are sending them.

actually ... scared the living fuck out of Qaddafi.. to the point of giving up his Nuclear program and disbanding all the major terrorist camps he was supporting for decades.

Like Iraq.. both were seeking to attain nuclear arms since the 70s..

"In March 2003, days before the invasion of Iraq, Gaddafi's personal envoys contacted U.S. President George W. Bush, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair about Libya's willingness to dismantle its nuclear program. Subsequently, at Gaddafi's direction, Libyan officials provided British, Russian, and U.S. diplomats with documentation and additional details on Libya's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile activities. Libya reportedly allowed Russian, U.S., and British officials to visit 10 previously secret sites and dozens of Libyan laboratories and military factories to search for evidence of nuclear fuel cycle-related activities, and for chemical and missile programs"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

thomaswong.1986   Fri, 18 Jan 2013, 12:06pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 84

Dan8267 says

And this is exactly why Republicans are hypocrites. They make Obama out to be evil for doing the exact same thing they do, but they are careful not to list the really evil things that Obama and Republicans have in common.

are you enjoying the shit you spew.. is it tasty as you say it is ?

« First     « Previous comments    

zzyzzx is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net