So, this guy claims a "senior military official" told him Obama is asking if they're willing to shoot American...

So, this guy claims a "senior military official" told him Obama is asking if they're willing to shoot American citizens as a litmus test to be promoted to an advanced position. 

His claims are unverifiable and anonymous and yet the "I hate Obama" brigade is running around the interwebz treating this like it's gospel.

I wonder what "really" happened.
https://www.facebook.com/jim.garrow.1/posts/10151209214442015

Comments

Ou Ija said…
it came from the internet. i would take it with a grain of salt
Jason ON said…
Supposedly, "Jim Garrow" is a Nobel Peace Prize winner...
Clint Udy said…
Honestly, I would think that that is a standard question to ask of any high ranking military individual. The only reason is they swear an oath to defend the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. If a rebel force became too large for police and National Gaurd forces, the military would have to step in.
Read about the Bonus Army, during the Great Depression. Commanded by McArthur, aided by Patton and Eisenhower. Veterans were killed, officers went on to glorious careers.
Marty Nozz said…
Jason ON Nobel Peace Prize?  So what?  They're just giving those away nowadays.

Not really worried about this as I already have plenty of reasons not to like Obama.
Clint Udy said…
Marty Nozz you might want to read up on the requirements of the Nobel Peace Prize consideration and how the winners are selected. You might be shocked.
Calvin Phuong said…
Didn't Obama get the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009? During a time of war no less?
Marty Nozz said…
Oh, but they gave it to Obama for his good intentions.

Hey, I intend to write the greatest comic book ever.  Can I have an Eisner Award now?
Clint Udy said…
An excerpt from Alfred Nobel's will defining who wins the peace prize: 'one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'.
Marty Nozz said…
Ah, so Obama should not have gotten the Nobel prize then.  Thanks for clearing that up.
Clint Udy said…
No, he got it for fraternity between nations and promotion of peace congresses. After he was elected but before sworn in.
Marty Nozz said…
He got it for rhetoric.
Clint Udy said…
Really? Perception of the US around the world went from almost all negative to all positive in a single day. That falls under fraternity of nations. Then he, as president elect, he asked for and received international talks. That falls under peace congresses. He then proceeded after winning the prize to reduce military and promote peace by getting us out of Iraq and having a solid timetable for Afghanistan. He met the requirements.
Marty Nozz said…
All negative to all positive?  Seriously?  

Wow.
Clint Udy said…
Maybe not all positive. But in terms of relations with foreign nations, an almost instantaneous change in perception and feelings towards us the day it was announced that he was president elect. Compared to Bush Jr destroying most of our reputation worldwide. So yes, negative to almost all positive.
Marty Nozz said…
Yep.  Because the world knew that Obama was going to kow tow to them and try to be a "good world citizen" instead of looking out for his country.
Jason ON said…
Being a "good world citizen" is looking out for your country.
Marty Nozz said…
Not so much.  We're sending money we can't afford to countries that don't like us very much hoping to buy their like.  That's a fool's errand.  How about us sticking our noses into Libya without Congression approval?  Oh, and I'm sure China and other countries love us since we've borrowed ridiculous amounts of money from them to the point that my grandkids will likely be paying off that debt.

But Obama is very peaceful.  Just ask anyone on the kill list he was bragging about or the folks that he took out in those drone strikes.

He's a politician.  Smiles while lying through his teeth, just like the rest of them, and he got that stupid peace prize because he was the new popular kid in school.
Jason ON said…
Then you have no concept of how treaties and goodwill economics work. As Commander-in-Chief, the president doesn't have to ask congress to use the military, George Bush proved that. Congress' only authority over the military is to fund it.
Marty Nozz said…
Oh, I know how good will economics works, and it isn't working.  Also, we still can't afford it.

And Bush did go to Congress after 9/11/01 and congress gave their approval to act.
Jason ON said…
False. Congress gave their approval to "threat of force" not "action" of force.
Marty Nozz said…
"Threat of force".  Just the concept is laughable.  OK, we could dive into this, but that takes away from the topic at hand, so I don't agree, but I'll concede that point.

We're still in debt up to our eyeballs, much due to this administration's spending.  So, I'm sure those countries loaning us money are smiling broadly at us.  Quite a few of those countries Obama went to on his ridiculous "apology tour".  The guy looks weak, and he's made the country weaker.  I'm still stunned that he won re-election.
Clint Udy said…
Approval to act in Afghanistan. Not Iraq. The drone strikes: surgical. Especially when compared to the civilian deaths caused by our hands in Afghanistan and Iraq. The kill lists: composed of viable threats to our nation. Collateral damage does happen, but it has been greatly reduced, which falls under military reduction. And until a peace treaty with North Korea is signed, the president can act deploy the military as he sees fit as we are still technically at war.
Borrowing money from China? Been happening for 30± years. Look at the financial figures for the country under each president since Eisenhower when adjusted to 2012 dollars (or 1952, better yet, in 1900). You will see that, when adjusted for inflation, Reagan had he worst debt creation record followed by Bush Jr. The figures even have Obama taking on the last year of Bush Jr budget (2009).
Your arguments are invalid as you have no facts to back them up other than those on Fox.
Marty Nozz said…
Wouldn't know anything about what they say on Fox since I don't have cable.  My arguements are still plenty valid as he keeps spending money we don't have.  So more borrowing, which is something he said was unpatriotic until he was the one in charge.  And its also nice to know that killing bad guys with robots as opposed to troups counts as military reduction.

Now I'm not so surprised he won re-election.
Clint Udy said…
So you may not know what Fox says directly, but your rhetoric shows the news sources you rely upon get their 'facts' from the same fountain.
Yes we are spending, but that goes with congress as well, they create the expenditures. Obama role is to enforce those expenditures. Consider the fact that last year, the House did less than any previous one. Also consider that many of our current expenditures go back to the late 1800's and early 1800's and were never removed when not needed. Then, consider that those same people who create the expenditures lower the revenue coming in. In large part due to those tax cuts (under Eisenhower, the upper class had a 50+% tax rate on anything over $250k. Modern values, anything over appx $5 million). The economy thrived and the rich were still capable of accumulating wealth. The tax rates have been cut dramatically since then. Now 300 individuals have a combined wealth that could pay off 2/3rds of he debt in one swoop (not saying take it all, but increase the taxes on those who can afford it). Social Security and Medicare can both be kept sustainable and solvent by removing the tax cap on income (that hasn't change since instituted).
Do we need to reduce spending, a big hell yes! But not to the social programs that give those in need a fighting chance. Let's start by ending the war on drugs with legalization and taxation similar to cigarettes and alcohol (lower costs for prisons and other federal agencies plus additional revenue that can pay down the debt). Military spending can be cut by huge amounts without significantly hurting their capabilities. Sell off old weapon to buy new (F-16s for YF-22s for example). Cut foreign aid down by 50% (keep 25% of cuts in reserve for disaster relief here and abroad). Rewrite the corporate tax code and make it a flat tax with one deduction (bringing manufacturing and service jobs to the US while employing US citizens (limit to cap of 25% of taxes due annually). Renegotiate trade agreements (Mexico and Canada keep the free trade) and institute tariffs on all imported goods (encourage US made goods and a self sustaining economy). And most importantly, remove the Federal Reserve from current money printers. Put it solely back in the hands of the treasury dept and back with ore (copper, silver, gold, platinum).
Those cuts, combined with increased revenue from taxes, would pay off the debt within 15 years provided no new long term wars occur.

Popular posts from this blog

So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to...

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.