Obama's Pumpkin Spice Latte Salute


Retired_Can_Soldier
#1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foufSP5IoJ8

LOL
 
mentalfloss
#2
Nice
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#3
On Veterans Day he'll be doing the Spaghetti and Meatballs Slow March.
 
petros
#4
As good as Julian. Didn't spill a drop.
 
Locutus
+1 / -1
#5
The sooner he gets gone the better.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

As good as Julian. Didn't spill a drop.



I was just gonna say that - amazing dexterity considering he's a lefthander.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

I was just gonna say that - amazing dexterity considering he's a lefthander.

I thought it was funny, but he looks like a real dick...
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

I thought it was funny, but he looks like a real dick...



When it comes to the presidency and war powers both dicks think alike:



The Dick Cheney view of presidential power is winning - Salon.com




President Obama warned earlier this month that he intended to use airstrikes in Iraq and Syria to “degrade and destroy” ISIS. Immediately the New York Times as well as legal scholars shrieked that the president needed to seek authorization of any Syria strikes from Congress. “Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris,” wrote Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman.

But Congress shrugged. After voting to fund the training of Syrian rebels, both the Senate and the House departed to campaign in the 2014 midterms.

Now that the bombs are dropping, few in Congress are even bothering to argue that they ought to deal with the question when they get back after the election. Sen. Tim Kaine is an exception: he is accusing his colleagues of accepting Dick Cheney’s view of the president’s power to wage pre-emptive war.

“[Congress has] sort of allowed the Cheney pre-emptive war doctrine to exist by another name,” Kaine told the Huffington Post Tuesday. “In this instance, they allowed the president to say, ‘ISIL [the Islamic State] is the bad guys, and I can go after them even though there has been testimony that they pose no imminent threat of attack on the United States.’ If the president just gets to do this without Congress, then we will be embracing the Cheney pre-emptive war doctrine, which I think is just brutally wrong.”

Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking member on the House Committee, told MSNBC Monday night that Congress should return to vote on authorizing airstrikes: “This is, without question, war. This is something that Congress should authorize.”

Smith and Kaine are right, and the relative silence from Congress in the wake of last night’s airstrikes is troubling.

The Obama administration has insisted that action against ISIS, whether in Syria or Iraq, is justified by the 2001 and 2002 congressional authorization of military force against al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. ISIS “is the true inheritor of Osama bin Laden’s legacy,” a White House official told the New York Times in response to written questions. Of course ISIS and al-Qaida are themselves enemies, which undermines that argument.

The White House insists it doesn’t need U.N. or Syrian approval, eiher, presumably because it has now declared that it was striking a group we hadn’t known about until last week, Khorasan, an al-Qaida offshoot, which is reportedly preparing “imminent” operations in the U.S. and Europe.

While Syria didn’t approve the airstrikes, it didn’t defend against them either after being notified they were planned. Still, allies like Russia and Iran say the U.S. effort was illegal without either Syrian or U.N. Security Council approval. The U.S. can say the existence of an “imminent” threat made a defensive strike legal under international law. Of course, 10 days ago U.S. officials assured Congress that there was no “imminent” threat to the U.S. That should bother Congress as well.

Nothing stops Congressional leaders from calling members back into session to debate the Syrian strikes – nothing except their desire to focus on winning the midterm elections, which time off the campaign trail plus a controversial vote would complicate. House Speaker John Boehner says he has no problem with the president’s strikes in Syria. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the relentless purveyors of more war, likewise praise Obama’s move – that’s rare for them — but now want him to move on Bashar al Assad.

“The Administration…must recognize that it is neither effective nor moral to train and equip thousands of Syrians to fight ISIS, but make no commitment to defend them from Assad’s continued air strikes and barrel bombs,” McCain and Graham said in a statement. Noting that Obama threatened military retaliation if Assad interfered with Monday night’s airstrikes, they say the president should do the same if Assad continues to attack the “moderate” rebels we are backing to fight ISIS. Attacking Assad at the same time as ISIS would turn a chaotic country into bedlam.

GOP Congressman Jack Kingston, who’s on his way out of Congress after losing his Georgia Senate primary bid, spoke rare truth about his colleagues’ refusal to schedule a vote on the Syrian strikes before the midterms. ”A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’” said Kingston. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.” (Kingston thinks Congress should vote on the airstrikes, but he told me Friday, on the set of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” that he doesn’t believe Obama needs authorization legally to act.)

With the president set to address the U.N. General Assembly, it’s a tense time for the U.S. to challenge international law. “In the aftermath of Russia’s clear violation of international law in Ukraine, we should be seen as committing further to the adherence of international norms, not undermining it,” the Center for American Progress’s Ken Gude, who has supported the anti-ISIS campaign in Iraq, told the Daily Beast. “What could happen here is that the norms that govern states’ application of force take a hit and those norms, largely enforced by the U.S. and that work together for the benefit of America and our allies, could be weakened.”

These are all questions Congress should be asking, but very few in Congress seem to care. With military and civilian leaders saying the Syrian campaign could last not weeks or months but years, Congress needs to vote to authorize what is clearly a new war.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+3 / -1
#9  Top Rated Post
If he rendered a proper military salute, the ODS sufferers would scream that as somebody who never served, he has no right to render the salute.

If he rendered something close to a military salute, the ODS sufferers would pick apart every detail about how wrong it was (ignoring the fact that the services salute differently).

If he makes a non-saluting gesture, the ODS sufferers will scream about how he's not saluting.

If he makes no gesture at all, the ODS sufferers will shriek that he's disrespecting the military.

You can see it down in the thread about the airstrikes. The ODS sufferers are generally delighted that we're a-killin' them ragheads, but they will do nothing but criticise Obama.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#10
Yeah yea, salute I'm drinking coffee here...
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+3
#11
Quote:

... they will do nothing but criticise Obama.



You mean to say they are playing the,






card again ?
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+3
#12
Bush and Barney:










BROKEN RECORD!
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#13
Oh, dear! And Bush was a devil-may-care, flying fool, good guy hero!

Maybe they didn't cover saluting in OTS.

By the way, goph, how is it petty and pathetic for the ODS sufferers to make a production of Obama's "salute," and not petty and pathetic for you to make a production of Bush's "salute?"

Just wondering. . .
 
Corduroy
+2
#14
Why doesn't Obama salute with his dog? What? Is Obama's PORTUGUESE dog better than you, me and THE TROOPS? See, George Bush honoured THE TROOPS by saluting with his dog, showing proper respect. But where's Obama's? Nope, he salutes with coffee. Probably fair trade, organic coffee from some Caribbean socialist paradise. Ugh.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Oh, dear! And Bush was a devil-may-care, flying fool, good guy hero!

Maybe they didn't cover saluting in OTS.

By the way, goph, how is it petty and pathetic for the ODS sufferers to make a production of Obama's "salute," and not petty and pathetic for you to make a production of Bush's "salute?"

Just wondering. . .



Well gee, it's not like I referred to your real president as a "dick", did I ?
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+1
#16
That was actually pretty cool didn't spill a drop. Obama has not been a bad
President over all in my view. Like all he made some mistakes but in the
grand scheme of things he has done alright didn't go far enough with medicare
though should have cut the for profit outfits out of the game for the most part.
 
Corduroy
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

That was actually pretty cool didn't spill a drop.

He probably didn't spill a drop because the cup was empty. Obama, who hates Jesus, was probably carrying it off the plane to find a recycling bin to toss it in, because he's a weak-kneed filthy hippie liberal who thinks GOD and GUN RIGHTS won't protect the Earth.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#18
Reaction from veterans and service members has been mixed. Brian Jones, a recent Marine Corps veteran, wrote on the military-themed Web site Task and Purpose that the “presidential salute isn’t a real thing.” From his post:

So now thousands of people got their jimmies rustled because the busiest and most important man in the world forgot to switch his pumpkin-spice latte from his right hand in following an imaginary protocol on his way to address the United Nations about a war he just entered. I can’t imagine what possibly could have been on his mind.

This isn’t the first time Obama has botched the salute. Last year, the president boarded Marine One without saluting the Marine by the door. Realizing his mistake, he quickly debarked and shook the young corporal’s hand, telling him, I assume, how profoundly sorry he was for offending him. For the past six years, the Obama administration has been plagued by accusations of being everything from treasonous to unpatriotic and distant from the military community. It’s a largely partisan critique of a liberal president, and Obama’s critics have often bent history to pretend his predecessors behaved differently and that the president has failed to meet some sort of standard.

Fred Wellman, a retired Army veteran, also criticized the reaction, saying it was “ridiculous.” He added that so was defending Obama by pointing out that President George W. Bush also was photographed giving an awkward salute.

Paul Rieckoff, an Army veteran and founder of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of American organization, had a more concise reaction to the controversy: “Dumb.”

But J.R. Salzman, a wounded Iraq War veteran, thinks the criticism is warranted, however — and that civilians who dismiss it don’t get it.


To see pictures of the Twitter responses, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/c...d-day/?hpid=z5
 
Locutus
-1
#19
really, who doesn't respect this mongrel?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#20
Gopher, On the surface this is funny, but it diminishes the tradition of saluting.
And yes, Bush looks like a dick too. Put the damn Bunny down and give a proper salute.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Gopher, On the surface this is funny, but it diminishes the tradition of saluting.
And yes, Bush looks like a dick too. Put the damn Bunny down and give a proper salute.

Tradition, my red a$$. There is no "tradition" of the President saluting the Marine guards. First one to do it was Reagan, and he did it as a joke, FFS. It ain't like this goes back to George Washington, much less John Hanson.

This is just another example of how desperate right-wingers are to hate the ******.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Tradition, my red a$$. There is no "tradition" of the President saluting the Marine guards. First one to do it was Reagan, and he did it as a joke, FFS. It ain't like this goes back to George Washington, much less John Hanson.

This is just another example of how desperate right-wingers are to hate the ******.

Desperate about what? Don't be an idiot.

Saluting has been around longer than the United States, never mind your Commander and Chief. This isn't a right/left issue for me, it's about not making a mockery of a time honored tradition. How many Officers use their coffee cup or a bunny to return a salute? None. You know why? Because when you are given a salute you respond with a salute and guess what?

If your hands are full you can give an eyes right or left. Turn the head and acknowledge. That easy.

It was stupid of Bush and stupid of Obama. They are the Commander and Chief for f_ck sake. This makes them not a Officer but the Officer and if they are saluted it is incumbent upon them to return the salute with the same respect with which it was given.

Have a little pride in your country. You don't have to piss on it every day.
Last edited by Retired_Can_Soldier; Sep 25th, 2014 at 07:27 AM..
 
Walter
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Have a little pride in your country. You don't have to piss on it every day.

Amen.
 
Kreskin
+1 / -1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

If he rendered a proper military salute, the ODS sufferers would scream that as somebody who never served, he has no right to render the salute.

If he rendered something close to a military salute, the ODS sufferers would pick apart every detail about how wrong it was (ignoring the fact that the services salute differently).

If he makes a non-saluting gesture, the ODS sufferers will scream about how he's not saluting.

If he makes no gesture at all, the ODS sufferers will shriek that he's disrespecting the military.

You can see it down in the thread about the airstrikes. The ODS sufferers are generally delighted that we're a-killin' them ragheads, but they will do nothing but criticise Obama.

If he just IS they will find or invent a problem.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Desperate about what? Don't be an idiot.

Saluting has been around longer than the United States, never mind your Commander and Chief. This isn't a right/left issue for me, it's about not making a mockery of a time honored tradition. How many Officers use their coffee cup or a bunny to return a salute? None. You know why? Because when you are given a salute you respond with a salute and guess what?

If your hands are full you can give an eyes right or left. Turn the head and acknowledge. That easy.

It was stupid of Bush and stupid of Obama. They are the Commander and Chief for f_ck sake. This makes them not a Officer but the Officer and if they are saluted it is incumbent upon them to return the salute with the same respect with which it was given.

Have a little pride in your country. You don't have to piss on it every day.

I'll pass your instructions along to the White House, mmm-kay? I'm sure they'll leap to it.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+3
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Gopher, On the surface this is funny, but it diminishes the tradition of saluting.
And yes, Bush looks like a dick too. Put the damn Bunny down and give a proper salute.





Good of you to apply the same standard to both.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Gopher, On the surface this is funny, but it diminishes the tradition of saluting.
And yes, Bush looks like a dick too. Put the damn Bunny down and give a proper salute.

A President returning the salute is a tradition that dates back to Reagan. A President is a civilian. The salute isn't required
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

A President returning the salute is a tradition that dates back to Reagan. A President is a civilian. The salute isn't required

And arguably isn't even permitted. Even military members do not salute when not in uniform. When and where and how to salute are covered by the regulations and training manuals of the Defense Department and the services, none of which apply to the President. Any attempt to say he should salute, or not salute, or how he should salute, is pure ODS crap.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

A President returning the salute is a tradition that dates back to Reagan. A President is a civilian. The salute isn't required

Commander and Chief.

Make all the excuses you want. The President is their Commander and Chief.

 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Commander and Chief.

Make all the excuses you want. The President is their Commander and Chief.

He's not a sworn member of the military. He's not in uniform. The Uniform Code of Military Justice and the regulations of the Department of Defense and the services do not apply to him. No amount of calling him Commander in Chief will make him a soldier.
 

Similar Threads

0
High quality pumpkin carvings
by Locutus | Nov 2nd, 2011
4
From the Pumpkin Patch and Beyond!
by petros | Oct 21st, 2011