Bleacher Bums Forum

Another fact that seems to be forgotten. In 1952 former 5 star World War 11 general Dwight David Eisenhower was elected President of the United States. Also Ullyses S. Grant was also elected President;.

LOL

The fake outrage reminds me of the recent flap over the photo of the immigrant children in cages.

Trump was vilified until it was determined the photo was taken 2014.

Oh look, facts and stuff...the bigger picture.
Not sensationalized stories to feed off the emotions of the public whose sole intention is to crucify the president, although some sit and wait for another story to drop so they can continue to hate the president because the media tells them too, and party line loyalty and selective outrage is fun and stuff.

Insert eye roll.

"The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.
It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)"

"Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so."   https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/

You may want to do some research yourself, on this as on so many other subjects.  As said above, the Constitution names the President as the Commander in Chief of the military.  He wears two hats.  One is as the head of the Executive Department and the other is as the head of the Military.

Not to weigh in on whether the prez is or is not a civilian, or whether he is both a civilian AND a part of the military, but isn't the military a PART of the executive branch?  After all, it IS part of government, and there are only three branches.

Here is the full speech.  No cut away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNoiYpOKnqs&app=desktop

He said it word for word.  You can claim he was speaking against it but his actions his entire presidency say different.  He is an anti-colonialist and a communist.  He loves big government (which means the loss of individual rights )as long as his side controls it.

Yeah... word for word.... once you edit it to distort the context and meaning.

Amusing to see this from someone who so regularly gets bent out of shape when his on comments here are not left intact when someone is responding to them, even when that editing does nothing to distort the original comment.

Yeah... word for word.... once you edit it to distort the context and meaning.

Amusing to see this from someone who so regularly gets bent out of shape when his on comments here are not left intact when someone is responding to them, even when that editing does nothing to distort the original comment.

At what point during Obama's presidency did he stand up for personal rights?  Did he stand up for a Christian baker forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding?  Did he do anything to stop the IRS from targeting tea party organizations and conservatives?  I guess you could say he stood up for transgenders which represent like .00001% of the population but did he did stand up for the rights of the other 99.9999% of the population being forced to go into the same locker rooms or bathrooms with the opposite sex that are mentally ill enough to think they aren't the sex they are?

He said what he said word for word and when he said it he meant conservatives.  He saw no difference between the Tea Party and the "old alternative view".


We have the history of Obama's administration and it is  a horrible track record.  We don't have to guess at what he meant or means.  We saw what he actually did and it wasn't in the best interest of this country and had nothing to do with personal freedom.  It was the exact opposite of personal freedom.


 

It was not customary for the president to salute until Ronald Regan started doing it.  Since then it has been customary for the President to salute.  Not a requirement it is a custom to show respect for the rank of the person being saluted.  You never salute the person.  You salute the rank.

I know YOU are not claiming that Reagan was the first U.S. president to salute while president, or even the first to salute foreign leaders, but some have, despite plenty of proof otherwise.

Eisenhower often saluted those in the U.S. military even after taking office as president.

             





It was much less common with Truman, generally simply putting his hand over his heart, but even he sometimes saluted.
             

So did FDR
         

I cant believe anyone but a liberal quotes Snopes. They are decidedly biased.

They may be "decidedly biased, but in this case they also are decidedly correct.

Here in blue is the complete text of the video at the link Pekin posted, and which he posted along with his own personal comment that he couldn't "believe anyone who believes this became our president."  The complete text from the link Pekin posted:
"And for the international order that we have worked for generations to build. Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign."

In between the words "build" and "ordinary" that video had an audio edit which it covered with what was supposed to be a cutaway of the audience, concealing the fact that at least six and a half sentences were edited out.  The deletion of those six sentences entirely changed the meaning of what Obama said.  This is because the second part of the quote above in blue, the part beginning with the word "ordinary" was included by Obama as the position he said he did not share and which he was only quoting to explain a position which he felt was wrong.  He referred to it as an "alternative version of history, an alternative view of the world which he had just in the full speech finished describing as resulting from a number of beliefs: "And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide America today, including the simple truth that all men — and women — are created equal."

Here is the complete sentence from Obama's speech making clear he was not presenting those ideas as his own: "This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. Often, this alternative vision roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others, and that individual identity must be defined by “us” versus “them,” or that national greatness must flow not by what a people stand for, but by what they are against."

And here, in red is the full text of each of the paragraphs of the speech which were edited to wildly and deliberately distort their meaning, with the
words that were left in the clip Pekin offered being in boldface:
Leaders and dignitaries of the European Union; representatives of our NATO Alliance; distinguished guests: We meet here at a moment of testing for Europe and the United States, and for the international order that we have worked for generations to build.

Throughout human history, societies have grappled with fundamental questions of how to organize themselves, the proper relationship between the individual and the state, the best means to resolve inevitable conflicts between states. And it was here in Europe, through centuries of struggle — through war and Enlightenment, repression and revolution — that a particular set of ideals began to emerge: The belief that through conscience and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose. The belief that power is derived from the consent of the governed, and that laws and institutions should be established to protect that understanding. And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide America today, including the simple truth that all men — and women — are created equal.

But those ideals have also been tested — here in Europe and around the world. Those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. Often, this alternative vision roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others, and that individual identity must be defined by “us” versus “them,” or that national greatness must flow not by what a people stand for, but by what they are against.

snopes unquestionably IS a left-leaning source, and not one I would want to rely on, but in THIS case, they are also perfectly correct, and all you have to do is look at the full video to see it.... and to see that Pekin's defense of what he posted, and to see him claim that it should somehow be considered as accurate because he KNOWS that is what Obama really felt, is disgusting because it is a defense of absolute dishonesty.