Pres. Obama and the beaches of Normandy ?

1. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Is it really true that President Obama has never visited the Normandy celebration of WWII ?  Of  the six times that An  American president has NOT been to Normandy on the celebration day , all  6 of these no -shows are  President Obama's to celebrate  ?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And, So what? President Obama bagged Bin Ladin.
      
      There is a difference between those that talk tough and rattle sabers verses those that get the big picture and get results.
      
      I prefer results over swagger

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I get  a kick out of "he got Bin Laden" ,  let me ask you this who started to get him ?   Obama is merely  the reluctant  killer of Bin Laden ,

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            First of all, what gives you the idea tha Obama was 'the reluctant killer of Bin Laden'?
            
            In any case, I will take Obama's reluctance of over GW Bush's 'earnestness' any day. I am interested in results, not excuses and rhetoric.
            
            Thirdly, you got caught with breeches down, where is the courage of your convictions? You have been found in complete error regarding Obama's going to Normandy as part of the WWII commemoration.
            
            This all looks pretty tawdry on your part. Do you acknowledge a mistake or do you just clam up and run away when you  are confronted with the actual truth?
            
            Oh, BTW, Happy Thanksgiving Day

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I can only admit to a face-book post that proclaimed this  act .   Sorry for being misinformed by a media that broadcasts both  truths and lies like there's no tomorrow !   You will notice  , If you looked , that my O.P. was in question ?   Hence the   Question mark .[?]

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  Thank you for letting us know that you knew the medium "broadcasts both  truths and lies like there's no tomorrow," but you still repeated the lie here without checking it for accuracy.
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Once again Quill,  I asked this originally as a question ,  is there something you don't understand about that ? 
                     If what your saying is true I'm surprised he's been there twice , not being the most demonstratively patriotic president we've had, by any means .    And yes , I think its important that they should be so.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        What in the hell is demonstrably patriotic? Is there a definition in the dictionary? Your arguments and attempts to regroup appear that much weaker by the hour.
                        
                        Something that can be so easily investigated by any search engine, how would you even consider entertaining any falsehood as obvious and as easily avoidable as this ? You got caught with your pants down, instead of blatantly assaulting all with the obvious obscenity, it is best to just scurry off the stage red faced and embarrassed.  Just be better prepared next time.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Credence , If I have to explain  THAT to you , it's already too late .    And um , liberals  expecting only conservatives to  do research is  pretty funny !  Falsehoods are actually the style of the times with  the left , is it only the right that has to verify fact ?
                           
                           Obama has big shoulders  , I'm sure he can handle , perhaps even welcome  the slight .He does love the divisive after all .

                           replyreport
                           1. 81

                              Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              So, what do have here, Ahorseback? Another excuse, another dodge? You been revealed once for this, so you want to compound it?
                              
                              Yes, you have to explain it, but you know something? I really don't think you know either...
                              
                              But if you want to Obama bash just for its own sake, that's ok too. Just be big enough to admit that is what you are doing

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Its not like Obama has some proven track record  of greatness in his patriotism .  He is an organizer of  social  anarchy ,    a divisive  "leader "    , happy to create chaos for  the sake of social  transformation  , he even states that   not very well loved and respected by the soldiers who serve him .  So all in all ........let me see , do I feel bad for dissing him ..........Uhhh nope .

                                 replyreport
                     2. 72

                        Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Good morning, Mr. Ahorseback.
                        
                        Since you asked, there are a few things about this thread that I do not understand.
                        
                        I do not understand how some people can become so obsessed with slandering another person that they would sacrifice their own dignity and integrity by spreading lies and false innuendo.
                        
                        "Of  the six times that An [sic] American president has NOT been to Normandy on the celebration day , [sic] all  6 of these no -shows are  President Obama's to celebrate  ? [sic]"
                        
                        I also do not understand why a professed Christian would consciously choose to repeat calumny from an unreliable source before researching to determine the truth of an unsubstantiated claim. {1}
                        
                        "Sorry for being misinformed by a media that broadcasts both  truths and lies like there's no tomorrow ! [sic]"
                        
                        I do not understand why an educated person would try to excuse and justify irresponsible behavior by pointing to question marks that actually establish that he knew or suspected the claims were false from the very beginning.
                        
                        "You will notice  , [sic] If [sic] you looked , [sic] that my O.P. was in question ? [sic]  Hence the   Question mark . [sic][?]"
                        
                        I do not understand why a mature adult did not simply say, "I should have fact checked this information before launching this thread."
                        
                        Anyway, I thank you for asking. I hope you are enjoying this long weekend as much as I am.
                        
                        {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2781311

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Actually , I should have further checked than just repeating something from the net ,   Yet there is so much mis-information out there ,  which I believe Obama  actually enjoys as he professes  divisiveness as a tool  for his agenda , Will I apologize ? ...............I will when he does , how's that ?................  His destruction of America and all its accomplishments   is far more slanderous than my pitiful post !

                           replyreport
                           1. 71

                              rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I don't know why you obsess on Obama. He is doing what his handlers want him to do. He is the figurehead of the oligarchic control they have over this country. With the next election it will change to another paid stoolie such as Hillary or The "Donald". Hillary has as much as shown her hand with regards to Wall Street by not re-instating Glass/Steagall and The Donald said he will reduce corporate and income taxes for his rich buddies by as much as 20%. The fix is in and when they are elected we will rail against them in waiting for a new stoolie to fill the spot. We have no control over our government any more than does the President. Until we do get a grip on it the status quo will continue.
                              
                              Term Limits, Publicly Financed Campaigns and Lobby Reform. These are the tools by which we can govern ourselves again. Not an immediate one person fix all solution.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 While I agree mostly with what you're saying , I believe It can change with one leader . After all , we allocate that much power to the white house .  What a  shame that the voters don't educate themselves to  vetting practices , Term limits ...absolutely .      One full third of that balance cannot effect change ? I disagree with that  , it depends on who it is - more than that -who we elect !
                                 
                                 But Obama ,  an unorganized , un-vetted , vacillating ,weak kneed  and a choice by  both uninformed and  uneducated   voters was the worst thing to happen to America in years , especially at the time when we needed  a true leader  the most , he is he weakest leader  since at least the Carter administration .    Collegiate  activist's we do not need .
                                 
                                 I do also believe that any candidate SHOULD have to  pre-inform the voters as to the choices  for their cabinet influences  around them .    IF Pres. Obama  had had to do that then I believe  he would have lost the first election , looking solely at his influences  !  The whole problem with that would be that the Average American voter doesn't educate themselves enough to political policy, promises , agenda  or practices .
                                 
                                 Personally ,Call me what you want - I would rather  be under educated and make a wrong choice - than educated and base all my choices on the  politically correct  and egocentric  elitist style  .

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 81

                                    GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Giddy-up ahorseback, It is never hard to see the passion you bring to your point of view, but when I read your "uninformed voter" criticism, (I do agree many voters may be under-informed, relative to us political junkies), I just had to wonder,,,  would your opinion of the voter's intellect and education change if they voted for who you thought they should vote for?
                                    
                                    ps. Remember those boyhood days when a bunch of young fellas would cheer and give high-fives to the one that came up with the funniest nickname or snarkiest jibe for whoever was on the outs from their group?
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 81

                                    Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    I don't think that you would care if the Cabinet were a kitchen or contained a chest of drawers if the primary were a Democrat party contender...
                                    
                                    You and I both know that you would not have that requirement for a GOP candidate
                                    
                                    Elitism, this idea that you are so much smarter than the progressive voter, who, by the way, is generally educationally and economically superior to their more conservative peers, certainly does not lend support to your case
                                    
                                    I think that the average voter is informed well enough, they just don't vote for your choice of candidates..

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Already slanting this to the left as you are , Informative discussion is only "elitism " when directed at the right it seems of late  , you made the statement after all  .Disclosure of advisors ;  As a matter of Fact I would require that of the right as well . Why wouldn't I, and why shouldn't we all ?
                                       
                                       The average voter elected an un-vetted social worker as a  "leader " in the last presidential election out of P.C.  If you deny that  ,  you sir are  uninformed , Obama  is in over his head as a world leader . We simply cannot afford that  for long in todays  leader of the free world.
                                       
                                       No . The average voter isn't informed enough or we would be far better off as a nation right now .
                                       One look at congress and senate tells me that !That IS my opinion .
                                       A presidential  election  shouldn't be  as  "American Idol "  like as it has been.

                                       report
                                 3. 71

                                    rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Wow that was a mouthful!
                                    
                                    What I am getting at is that you seem to place more power in the office than it has. Most everything he does has to be run through Congress and that has proved to be quite problematic for him. Even the stuff he has been able to push through has been cleansed with Congressional haggling and morphing.
                                    
                                    I voted for Obama twice because he was not a war monger as was McCain and was not a total corporate sell out like Romney. I will agree I don't like everything he has done or refuses to do but you have to take the good with the bad.
                                    
                                    Ignoring the oligarchic ruling of this this country by saying something has to be done that direction is a kiss off of it's importance. Term limits directly affect that and campaign finance reform is part of it as well. Electing new presidents without addressing this is like throwing more toilet paper in a clogged toilet in hopes it will flush everything through.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 81

                                       Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Got to hand it to you, that last sentence, graphic though it may be, is the  most  accurate analogy of the true nature of this problem.

                                       report
                                       1. 71

                                          rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          I do believe it is time to snake the drain and clear out the clog. Term limits on their own will not keep the oligarchic influence away. It will only make them re-group. Publicly funded campaigns based on petitionary support will at least make the candidates socially responsible to the electorate where the power of the vote should be and matters the most. Lobby reform could soon follow as our representatives are there for the peoples business and not in the privates sector in perpetuity.

                                          report
                                          1. 81

                                             GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             There does appear to be instances where it is the "people's business" that is being lobbied for. Senior Citizens, Women's Issues, and Planned Parenthood are just a few of the lobbies that spent tens of millions in 2014.
                                             
                                             Are their efforts as out of whack as the private sector business lobbyists you mention?
                                             
                                             GA

                                             report
                                             1. 71

                                                rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                Not at all. But by removing the money element that buys favor over other issues it becomes incumbent upon the voter to elect someone who is there on their behalf. Anyone can lobby as it is in the Constitution but taking the money out of the mix will make the argument be based on issues and majority approval rather than money.

                                                report
                           2. 72

                              Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, Mr. Ahorseback, on this we do certainly agree. Thank you for this.
                              

                              replyreport
         2. 72

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Every so often it becomes necessary to review history for the benefit of those who would prefer to rewrite it to conform to their delusions.
            
            The following events lie on the timeline leading to Osama bin Laden’s demise including President Bush’s own statements:
            
            "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
            - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 [Emphasis added for educational purposes.]
            
            "I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'” -G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
            
            "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
            
            Finally, The Washington Post reported that the CIA unit dedicated to capturing bin Laden was shut down by the Bush administration in late 2005. {1}
            
            Future generations will not remember President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech, but they will always remember that  the "Mission Approved" decision by President Obama delivered justice on behalf of the American people.
            
            
            {1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00375.html

            replyreport
   2. 72

      Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      
      This photo captures President Barack Obama (he is the gentleman on the left, ahorseback) shaking hands with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, as Britain's Prince Charles and Prime Minister Gordon Brown look on during the 65th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy in 2009.
      
      In a grossly uninformed post, Ahorseback wrote:
      "Of  the six times that An  American president has NOT been to Normandy on the celebration day , [sic] all  6 of these no -shows are  President Obama's to celebrate."
      
      Actually, here is the truth that makes the OP statement so pathetic:
      
      Of the 12 American Presidents to occupy the Oval Office since D-Day, only four have ever been to the D-Day Monument on D-Day. Not only is President Obama one of the four but he is the ONLY President to ever attend TWICE!
      
      Ronald Reagan delivered the 40th-anniversary address in 1984; Bill Clinton gave a speech at the 50th-anniversary celebration in 1994; George W. Bush spoke at the 60th-anniversary in 2004; and, President Barack Obama spoke at the 65th-anniversary ceremony in 2009 and again at the 70th in 2014. {1}
      
      
      President Barack Obama and President François Hollande of France are shown here walking together after viewing Omaha Beach during the 70th French-American commemoration D-Day ceremony at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in Colleville-sur-Mer, France, June 6, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)
      
      As for all the other Commanders-in-Chief, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter and George H.W. Bush all visited France after 1944, but they were never there on D-Day. Furthermore, Presidents Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson never went to France at all.
      
      {1} https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/06 … sary-d-day

      replyreport
      1. 71

         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I knew something about that didn't sound right. I thought I remembered Obama was there at least once. Thank you for chasing down the facts on this. History is a bitch to refute when it has recorded evidence.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You are welcome, rhamson.
            

            replyreport