Crocodile tears?
- Thread starter LeilaniMP
- Start date
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
I think he's crying because he knows he won't accomplish his desire to disarm the American people. He doesn't give A RAT'S ASS about any children, especially white American ones.
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
Yeah. Yeah, I'm sure he wouldn't mind at all if Malia and Sasha got their brains splattered all over some wall by some lunatic with a gun. They're only his daughters. Big whoop.
No they ain't.....Leroy............OMG..........will they PASS the Islam Virgin Test_____
Caroljo
Senator
He has men with GUNS protecting his daughters from that happening. And guess what? He's made it so they will ALWAYS have that protection!! So don't give me that crap, he's made sure his daughters will be safe. Screw the rest of us!
LeilaniMP
Empress
Remember how verklempt they got over Glen Beck's "crying"? Boehner?
Obama is THE phoniest, most disingenuous, craven POS to occupy the WH. Ever.
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
Our Presidents and their families have received Secret Service protection for many decades now, dating to BEFORE the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Are you saying that President Obama doesn't deserve the same level of protection?
He has had FAR more death threats than any other President, by the way.
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
Oh please, of course he cares about HIS kids.
You're forgetting what you wrote:
The Thinker: He doesn't give A RAT'S ASS about any children,
Early Alzheimer's?
Caroljo
Senator
No, it hadn't been in effect since 1994......Obama started it up again in 2013
But, I did find the kids are only protected until they're 16.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has signed into law a bill granting lifetime Secret Service protection to former presidents and their wives.
The measure Obama signed Thursday applies to presidents elected after Jan. 1, 1997, specifically Obama and former President George W. Bush. It reverses a 1994 law that ended Secret Service protection 10 years after a president leaves office. Under that law, the Homeland Security secretary could extend such protection on a temporary basis.
A sponsor of the bill, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, says increased terrorist threats and the greater mobility and youth of former presidents made the change necessary.
The new law also authorizes Secret Service protection for the children of former presidents until they turn 16.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/obama-protection_n_2450701.html
Obama is such a phony.
Gee...does anyone remember how the left made fun of Boehner for crying, but laud the HollowMan for his tears?
Phony?
Oh you betcha.
He makes me sick.
Yes...and...
A sponsor of the bill, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, says increased terrorist threats and the greater mobility and youth of former presidents made the change necessary.
I know some here tout Gowdy as Presidential...
This is what happens. An event occurs. Folks seek solutions...or at least feel the need to "act". A law is proposed...debated...and passed or not.
Here, we see a Republican sponsoring a bill...but no one says a word about that...
as seen on tv
Senator
I can't imagine how a guy who is still crying over the newtown massacre several years ago is unmoved by the much more prevalent murders, rapes, and atrocities committed by illegal aliens day after day?
He knew he'd need some tears to sell his edicts and proclamations.
That's why.
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
Craig, you are talking about people here who would invite all those people who had children senselessly slaughtered in Newtown to the White House, and would then laugh at them.
They think tears are inappropriate and the mark of a sissy, as you say.
Laughter is always the best medicine, right?
Agreed about the Left ridiculing Boehner for crying. They did the same to Beck. It's hypocritical for them to laud Obama for it.
As for phony, no doubt Obama is a consummate politician who knows how to manipulate his audience and fans. However, I also believe him to be weak like Jimmy Carter. It's one thing to be in touch with one's feelings, but a man who is overwhelmed by his own feelings isn't a man who should be leading others. Especially not as POTUS. Good thing this is his last year. Let's hope he doesn't fuckitup too badly.
So, because you think I have the effrontery to voice a truism like "the Emperor has no clothes", you assume I want to go to the opposite spectrum of leaders who want to conquer the world (your view, not mine, of the named Presidents)?
Where in my comment "It's one thing to be in touch with one's feelings, but a man who is overwhelmed by his own feelings isn't a man who should be leading others" leads you to assume we should invade other countries?
