• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama has an interesting view of who the "enemy" is.

See what happens when the teleprompteur, Obama's Brain, isn't at hand?

Very Short List
Bitter Clingers.
Spread the Wealth around.
The Cambridge police acted stupidly.
And now... in time for the Mid-term elections... The One We Have Been Waiting For... The Uniter... wants to "punish" his "enemies".

CHRIST! I thought he just had 2-years doing precisely that.

Well, the sober amongst us learned quickly he was wired this way... you don't inhale the toxic waste Wright puked from the pulpit for 20-years without it having some effect.

LOL... Obama is making Nixon look like the model bi-partisan president. Nixon may have had a private enemies list... Obama's is public, and it consumes more than half the nation!

zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture67112823-obama-enema-da-state.jpg



LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This is an augmentation of a Steve Bell cartoon.

Any inquiries about this post can be made to the Zimmer Legal Division, Mississippi Delta Office.

Our doors are always closed.

.

You make me sick.
 
No, not really. It is the point of his speech. If they they stop those who will help them, then those who won't can be called an enemy (little e). As in being opposed to their desires.

What part of "to punish our enemies....and reward our friends" do you not understand?

Name one time - one time in the history of America - where a sitting president has referred to the opposing party as "enemies".

Meanwhile, he won't even use the phrase "terrorists", but he'll call Republicans "enemies".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
What part of "to punish our enemies....and reward our friends" do you not understand?

Name one time - one time in the history of America - where a sitting president has referred to the opposing party as "enemies".

Meanwhile, he won't even use the phrase "terrorists", but he'll call Republicans "enemies".

Do I need to define enemy for you? And the entire terrorist sillines, please. :rolleyes:
 
This is so unlike Obama. You can't help but wonder if this was a Freudian slip.

So unlike how Obama would like everyone to think he is. You can't help but wonder if this is the true Obama slipping out.
 
This would be an excellent time for you just to stop. Geez.

Nah. You need to actually answer what I said. His reference to enemy has to do with those working for you and those working against you. To try and equate that to somehitng more than it was is just silly. I've tried saying this reasonably, but that doesn't seem to be getting thruogh. So I ask if you need a dictionary definition? And laugh at the silliness regardling use of the word terorist. That line of though is lacking . . . well . . . thought.
 
Nah. You need to actually answer what I said. His reference to enemy has to do with those working for you and those working against you. To try and equate that to somehitng more than it was is just silly. I've tried saying this reasonably, but that doesn't seem to be getting thruogh. So I ask if you need a dictionary definition? And laugh at the silliness regardling use of the word terorist. That line of though is lacking . . . well . . . thought.

poor choice of words at best, telling look into how he really feels at worst. Either way, it was a stupid thing for a POTUS to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
poor choice of words at best, telling look into how he really feels at worst. Either way, it was a stupid thing for a POTUS to say.

I might agree with poor choice of words, but comparatively, quite mild. And I don't see anything telling about it. You have to do too much reading into it to create something.
 
I might agree with poor choice of words, but comparatively, quite mild. And I don't see anything telling about it. You have to do too much reading into it to create something.

the problem is that many of those in his "target audience" will take the term "enemy" at face value, regardless of how he intended it.
 
the problem is that many of those in his "target audience" will take the term "enemy" at face value, regardless of how he intended it.

Can't speakl to how that audience will take it. But I can decern his meaning from the entire speech. I'm sure if asked, he would be more than willing to explain it as well.
 
But I can decern his meaning from the entire speech.

unfortunately...you were not his target audience.

I'm sure if asked, he would be more than willing to explain it as well.

and I'm sure that IF he used the term "enemies" in the classical sense he would actually be honest about it, if called to the carpet. :shrug:
 
unfortunately...you were not his target audience.



and I'm sure that IF he used the term "enemies" in the classical sense he would actually be honest about it, if called to the carpet. :shrug:

Again, all we had to read the entire thing. He provides the context, which is what I tried to show. We don't have to guess.
 
I'm just saying that there is always that possibility that, knowing his target audience, he carefully chose his words with the intent to inflame. context or no, certain words have power. Not saying this is what happened....just that it is a possibility.
 
Again, all we had to read the entire thing. He provides the context, which is what I tried to show. We don't have to guess.

We don't have to guess the words and tone he chose to use, either, because it's right there, which no "context" excuses, especially considering his earlier words.

Are you really still on this "context" malarkey? Is it so important to you that Obama not be seen in any possible negative light that you'll dutifully continue to embarrass yourself? Sure seems that way.
 
Nah. You need to actually answer what I said. His reference to enemy has to do with those working for you and those working against you. To try and equate that to somehitng more than it was is just silly. I've tried saying this reasonably, but that doesn't seem to be getting thruogh. So I ask if you need a dictionary definition? And laugh at the silliness regardling use of the word terorist. That line of though is lacking . . . well . . . thought.

Please. "Punish your enemies" was an entirely calculated way of playing the race card among Hispanics. You know that. You're not stupid in the least, so I know you know that. Calling the other AMERICAN party your "enemy" is unprecedented and unpresidential.
 
Please. "Punish your enemies" was an entirely calculated way of playing the race card among Hispanics. You know that. You're not stupid in the least, so I know you know that. Calling the other AMERICAN party your "enemy" is unprecedented and unpresidential.

That would be your interpretation, likely influenced by your world view. Again, we don't have to do this type of gymnastics. We can read the context.
 
We don't have to guess the words and tone he chose to use, either, because it's right there, which no "context" excuses, especially considering his earlier words.

Are you really still on this "context" malarkey? Is it so important to you that Obama not be seen in any possible negative light that you'll dutifully continue to embarrass yourself? Sure seems that way.

Tone? Do you have the audio? Or is this more of your spinning to make fit the view you want it to fit?
 
Tone? Do you have the audio? Or is this more of your spinning to make fit the view you want it to fit?

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that? ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
 
Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that? ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Nope. But I would concede that I wouldn't take either of us reading into comments too seriously. Instead, we have to take it face value, and that requires giving a nod to context, which is why I quoted the other part from you. Our "feelings" need not be entered into. No telling anyone what he really meant. Simply take in all in and make the contextual connections.
 
Please. "Punish your enemies" was an entirely calculated way of playing the race card among Hispanics. You know that. You're not stupid in the least, so I know you know that. Calling the other AMERICAN party your "enemy" is unprecedented and unpresidential.

It's not just that - I mean politicians say all sorts of things when elections are days away. But Obama hasn't been the 2004 person who said "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." He hasn't messed up once or twice but many times - and this "punish your enemies" isn't the same person who spoke in 2004. Post-racial? He hasn't shown to be prone to mistakes as such repetition of racial issues is more consistent than any would have imagined. In poker it's called "a tell", and this is who our President really is - not a uniter but a divider who pits one group of American's against another by calling them "enemies".

He is one helluva divider - as Reuters has pointed out. The Black Panther Philly issue and the DoJ not persuing issues where Whites victims and only Blacks are victims - is this reality or is this just some bad dream after wolfing down an entire 32" pepperoni pizza?
 
Nope. But I would concede that I wouldn't take either of us reading into comments too seriously. Instead, we have to take it face value, and that requires giving a nod to context, which is why I quoted the other part from you. Our "feelings" need not be entered into. No telling anyone what he really meant. Simply take in all in and make the contextual connections.

Yeah. He meant the nice, friendly way of "punishing enemies." ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Back
Top Bottom