Obama Indicted by Federal Court

James Darn near every president since Kennedy has had the opposing party dig up dirt and go through impeachment proceedings, sometimes it dies at birth sometimes it gets further.There is not one good, clean, honest politician in this world. To become a leader you have to deliberately harm, lie and connive. The talented ones hide it well.

Yeah, I know. But you can’t give up hope that eventually one might succeed, especially with one as dirty as this one.
Not only is this one seriously treasonous, but he isn’t even a real President.

Bullshit, all that wind blowing and to never reveal the nature of the specific charges.

Any idea what the charges are, L. Larouche is speaking of?

Citizens’ Grand Jury Ocala Florida Division.

In summary. The six counts are related to information regarding the raid on Bin Laden. This release of information is being called a “leak”. This “leaked” information is being characterized as a violation of national security.

So… don’t actually tell us what the charges are, play them up as “really serious”. Get the Tea Party involved and pass a lot of bad gas and hot air.

Just another example of how seriously silly the divide between republicans and democrats is.

I don’t think Larouche qualifies as either Republican or Democrat.
And I’m not even certain that the Florida grand jury indictment is what he was referring to.
He specifically stated a “Federal Court”, not a State Grand Jury.
But it is still early.
As I said, either he or the President is in serious jeopardy.

James name one of the last 8 presidents that was not considered treasonous by their opponents. All of the presidents from Kennedy to Obama have been puppets. The two parties are the treasonous ones, in bed together, using their followers to crap over us. The truly treasonous are the followers of Republican and Democrat parties.

Are you saying that because it has happened before, “precedence”, it is all okay and should be ignored?
Obama is an extraordinary case, regardless. He isn’t even a legal President. I think that makes him a bit out of the norm.

The country acknowledges him being legal. So wether he is or not is moot. It won’t change.
I am most definitely not saying it should be ignored. I am pointing out the problem. The next prez will be the same unless change occurs. And that change has to be telling both parties, as a nation, to fuck off.

Well, that is kind of what we are all hoping for.
But it has to begin somewhere.

Read the back story on the guy who is pushing this bullshit. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

At bottom, Every president since Roosevelt has been a pawn of british royalty. This clown has run for president eight times. You’d think he’d get the message.

James, if you want any credibility, it might not hurt to cite sources that have some credibility of their own. LaRouche has zero, or maybe less than zero.

Wonder the rationale for not mentioning that detail? (Which court and what indictments) Armed with that information you’d be able to read the indictments and tell for yourself if there is any merit to its serious nature.

Guess I’ll just have to wait and see, but it just smacked of over generalization, half truth and political spin as it was presented. Fairly disgusted by the tactic when used by either party.

Very unlike you, I do not judge what is being said by who is saying it.

The situation is that a professional journalist has stated that a Federal Court has indicted a President.
One or the other is in serious trouble.

When it comes to your judgment by reputation bullshit, I couldn’t care less. They are no doubt both serious assholes, as well as anyone trying to judge them by reputation.

James, why do you persist in this?

…afraid to ask what you meant by “this”, but…
I have a serious dislike for mass deception, especially from public officials.

Argument by assertion.

And here’s where you are knowingly equivocating to try to excuse your bullshit rhetoric. Even your own source for the definition you go on to cite for socialism, says the following:

It is quite explicit, it is rule by a single ruler at the top of a government. Not a ‘single minded governing structure’, which is so generic it could be applied to ANY political philosophy of state whatsoever.

And yet, the same source that utterly contradicts you on this point is your source for the following:

Is socialism the only political philosophy wherein the economy is central planned? No

Is the Fed collectively owned? No.

Is the Fed owned by a centralised government? No.

Ergo:
You are talking utter nonsense here. It’s embarrassing, particularly for someone who harps on about delusion and obfuscation. You are deluded by obfuscation. That much is obvious. And please, please, at least have the self respect not to try to argue here. You just said something irredeemably stupid, accept it and move on. Even your own sources are proving you wrong. When that happens, and someone spots it, it’s probably time to be quiet and think a bit harder about how you define this Jewish-Socialist-Monarchist conspiracy that doesn’t actually exist because none of the terms you’re using actually mean what you’re trying to use them to mean.

For what it’s worth, America’s system is closest to the European Fascist model - a huge military, lots of weapons, lots of aggression, lots of chest-beating pride in the flag and the nation, a top-down model of government with a lot of power vested in a single individual, and a perfect collusion between the corporate and governmental institutions. But of course, Americans never actually blame the right people for anything, they are so well misdirected, and so easily misdirected. It’s what makes political discussion with them impossible, and makes the forthcoming ‘what goes around comes around’ slaughter all the more entertaining.

SAITD, you’re just dancing with words… no logic.

Your response is pathetic.

It was designed to match your argument, so thks.

" For what it’s worth, America’s system is closest to the European Fascist model - a huge military, lots of weapons, lots of aggression, lots of chest-beating pride in the flag and the nation, a top-down model of government with a lot of power vested in a single individual, and a perfect collusion between the corporate and governmental institutions. "

That is a good description of the Soviet Union. What the USSR and Nazi Germany shared however and what makes them unlike the USA, is their overt dismissal of individual rights. In the totalitarian state, the individual officially does not matter.

Incidentally, Israel is the exact antithesis of this.

The USSR was closer to fascism than to communism.

Bully for Israel.