He also won the Nobel Peace Prize before a lot of what you're talking about occurred.

Very true. Hell people STILL believe that he was a peaceful president

If they didn't achieve what they hoped, doesn't that mean that they wanted him to be more peaceful?

this

It was a weird choice since Obama ran on the promise he would re-expand the Afghanistan war, and did.

Source on re-expanding the Afghanistan war?

I strongly remember him running on a promise of winding out of the middle east. And even found some documentation of that in regards to Iraq. I cannot find any campaign promises saying he would "re-expand" any wars. Would be odd since liberals claimed to be anti-war in '08 and blasted Bush for it. Weird how things changed in that regard...

Based on your post history, you seem to be spreading misinformation intentionally. Perhaps trying to re-write history. Calling you out until you can prove me wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/26/808280/-

And yet the media still promoted him as a peaceful leader.

No that is what conservative media keeps claiming.

That doesn't make it better though?

He had not done any of the things outlined in this post when he won the Peace Prize.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. All I did was state that he won the Prize early in his presidency, before he had the opportunity to do the stuff you listed in this post.

Seriously? Your not sure what I'm getting at? Okay, how about this. The Media portrayed him as a peaceful man that everyone loves and he loves everyone. Then he decides to bomb 7 different countries using hundreds of thousand of bombs and kills thousand of people. Don't you see? The media manipulated our minds into thinking he was a great and peaceful man when in reality he was a warmonger.

Even if we assume all of this is true, it isn't at all relevant to what I said before. All I stated was that he won the Prize early in his presidency, before he did any of this stuff you've listed. I didn't make a statement about what he did during his presidency. You saying he won the Prize despite all of the stuff you listed is incorrect because he won the Prize before he did any of that.

There isn't any misinformation in my replies. You do realize all I've said is that he won the Prize early in his presidency. That's an easily verifiable fact. To say that he got the prize despite things that occurred after he received the Prize is just simply incorrect. I don't even know what you're trying to argue about.

There are two different arguments/conversations going on here.

I know.

Han?

Leia?

I thought your point was against the Nobel prize people. Now it's the media manipulating us. Really shotgunning it out.

No. What I'm telling you is that the Nobel committee is not conspiring with the american media.

You think he had a game plan to lose half of iraq to isis or that he planned the Arab Spring?

Do you think he had a plan in 2008 for isis invading half of iraq or russia taking ukraine?

According to [the Atlantic] Obamas foreign policy doctrine when he came into office was litterally "don't do stupid shit".

While I'm sure he had many ideas and plans, I heavily doubt that Obama is psychic and able to predict all future foreign policy crisis' before even coming into office.

Just like the current one!

No? Haven't you been watching Trump?

A gameplan doesn't mean knowing how a war is going to progress... Even powerful people can't simply orchestrate global events with enough precision to follow an eight year military plan involving countries and groups that weren't involved or didn't exist at the beginning of the plan. You REALLY want to believe in conspiracies if you think that he was planning at the beginning of the 8 years for Iraq to look anything like it did at the end. And you have to totally ignore the fact that it looks like Obama failed fairly pretty spectacularly there. But that was probably just for appearances and all part of the conspiracy, huh?

Did you know he ignored intelligence reports about the rise of isis? So while that may have not been his game plan per se. He literally sat on his hands while isis overran parts of iraq and syria.

Just passing that info on is all.

Just passing that info on is all.

Now source that info so we have a reason to believe you.

But he still did them, I guess I'm failing to see why it matters if it happened before peace prize or after?

He said Obama won the Prize despite doing the stuff listed in the post. The word "despite" make his title factually incorrect, as events that occurred after he won the Prize obviously could not influence the decision to award him the Prize.

Holy shit.......... The point is this is a miss leading post.

FAKENEWS as some may call it.

OP's entire statement that he is trying to make with his head line and the whole "BUT OBUMAH" narrative he tries to portray is simply shot down by the simple fact that Obama did none of those things before he was awarded the prize...

I'm not advocating for OPs point, I'm just tired of everyone throwing around comparisons because, to be perfectly honest, they're all corrupt and none of them are any better or worse than the one before them.

none of them are any better or worse than the one before them.

Just so not true. Everyone that assumes the presidency has been equally good or bad? Jackson was equal to Carter? Nixon was equal to Roosevelt? It's one thing to recognize that both sides are corrupt but there is no question that there are degrees of corruption, and that some presidents are highly preferable over others.

It's also one thing to recognize that being the President does not grant ultimate power... sure, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Obama are not comparable personality-wise or how they're portrayed. My point is that they are not the only ones being portrayed and the way our government has been for the past 50+ years is absolutely corrupt and I don't think it's right to put that on one specific person.

You wouldn't put all the blame on one person for sure but the President does in reality have a lot of power. He really can unilaterally launch nukes, for instance. And various presidents have used that power in pretty sweeping ways - In committing troops, for instance. Or in executive orders. These things really are ultimately executed by one man, with help obviously, but he is the switch on which these decisions turn. And some presidents have made clearly bad, selfish, devious decisions, and some have made more virtuous ones. That's not all the system they're in, that really is them. We really did go into Iraq and Vietnam on the orders of one man.

He had not done anyTHING when he won the Peace Prize.

That has nothing to do with the point I or OP is making.

I disagree.

There's nothing really to disagree about. What you said has no bearing on the points made by either myself or OP.

You said he won the nobel peace prize before any of those "bad" things that OP suggested.

I said he won the nobel peace prize before doing anything "good or bad" (implied) and that's not relevant?

Hmm. I hope you understand words one day.

Considering my comment was directed specifically at OP, hence my usage of the word "you", and was meant to be a criticize of OP's faulty logic and misuse of the word "despite", yes, your comment was irrelevant. I was not saying whether or not Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. It's also irrelevant in that it adds next to nothing to the conversation.

It's funny that you've said I don't understand words, since my original comment was a direct criticize of OP's misuse of the word "despite", something that you didn't pick up on, despite me having replied previously to others further elaborating on my comment.

So, I hope you understand words one day. Also, just so you're aware, this comment is actually directed at you.

Enjoy your day. I seriously don't understand why you went the direction you took in replying to my comment in the first place.

Hahaha hilarious you mention that specific event. I was just talking to my wife this morning about how STUPID that explanation is. There's no FUCKING way a passport turns up in the rubble like that.

Enjoy your day. I seriously don't understand why you went the direction you took in replying to my comment in the first place.

So you're complaining that the Nobel committee couldn't see the future?

From another poster on here: "Obama ran on the promise he would re-expand the Afghanistan war"

And they still gave the nobel peace prize to that corporate warmonger. And the media praised him

Before ALL of this occurred. He was awarded Peace Prize almost immediately upon election.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with the points I or OP made.

Are you saying it should be taken back? The donated award money should be pulled from whomever received it?

Which in and of itself was stupid, he did nothing to deserve it. Then again neither did Henry Kissinger.

Reminder: Obama started his presidency at war with his inauguration coverage having a red banner at the bottom reading "THE ECONOMY AND WORLD IS ENDING"

Ah... 2008.

sauce?

The housing market crash of 2007

his inauguration coverage having a red banner at the bottom reading "THE ECONOMY AND WORLD IS ENDING"

No, the "his inauguration coverage having a red banner at the bottom reading "THE ECONOMY AND WORLD IS ENDING" banner.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hyperbole

And the media praised him as the bravest president ever

CNN couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough

He also chose his cabinet based off of a list given to him by Citi Bank of their approved candidates. This is right after the market crashed. The same types of bankers that crashed the market chose his cabinet..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet

They were funding both his and McCain's campaign. They gave more to Obama but they would have won either way..

Yup, very smart. Underestimating TPTB would be a mistake.

Yup, very smart. Underestimating them would be a mistake.

I think it belies the notion that there are "sides"

The sides are for the simple-angered who think one side is truly different. Both have the same boss on the tip top.

Though, trying to disparage democrats for a ten year old "conspiracy" in the midst of a Trump scandal...one could argue is tacitly taking a side.

Thats the establishment right there. The left and the right eating from the same hand, defending the same interests.

This is a big reason why I supported Trump. It's not my perception that he's [as] owned by the banks. That may be wrong, however, and even if it is correct, plenty in both parties are still owned by them. Hell, they print and dole out our money.

Yeah, the guy that puts only billionaires in his cabinet and repeals the wall street regulations put in place after the global economic crash isn't at all in bed with the banks.

Van Jones = a literal communist.

fuck that dude.

Have you wondered why no bankers got charged for the market crash in '07-08?

Because there was no actual criminality in what they did. You have to break a law to be charged.

He chose his cabinet based off of a list given to him by Citi Bank of their approved candidates

Blatant misinformation. Mike Froman was Deputy National Security advisor under Clinton, and worked for the Treasury department for a time, before moving to Citigroup during Bush's administration. He was friends with Obama since Harvard, and was even a foreign policy advisor during his 2004 Senate run. When Obama won in 2008, Froman left the private sector to join government again, and was a member of Obama's transition team. The lists he passed along were potential diversity hires.

The same types of bankers that crashed the market picked his cabinet..

Froman is a lawyer, not a banker. That's why you don't listen to zerohedge.

"why no bankers got charged for the market crash in '07-08"

Huh, because they did. The idea that no bankers went to prison for crimes related to the financial crisis is a myth, according to the watchdog overseeing the federal government's bailout fund.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/companies/bankers-prison/index.html

Did you even read your article? They weren't charged for the market crash, or even any of the events leading up to the great recession.

AND that was the purpose. "The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."

so you still saw bankers continuing to do crimes even AFTER the biggest issues were thought to be addressed. But then again Iceland may not count, huh?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-31/welcome-to-iceland-where-bad-bankers-go-to-prison

What are you even saying? You're trying to assert that bankers were convicted for their roles leading to the market crash, but you're providing nothing to back that at all. You just provided a link that talks about people that were convicted for acts done years after, and now you're talking about Iceland??

OK, quit moving the goalposts. I discussed TARP because that was the resolution imposed by Bush and followed by Obama to resolve the issues with the banking frauds. Bankers got arrested for that.

And ICELAND actually put bankers in jail for their 2008 fraud. Did you not read that article.

And no I did NOT say that bankers went to jail for the 2008 and that is a shame. Why? Big pockets lends to big protections.

OK, quit moving the goalposts

You're the one moving the goalposts.

"Why no bankers got charged for the market crash"

Is the original assertion you have been trying to refute, entirely unsuccessfully.

Uh, I did refute it by showing that Iceland prosecuted their bankers and that bankers involved in continuing fraud based on the TARP are being prosecuted. But I'm sure that you will want to dispute those FACTS because it just makes you look naive' and one who wishes to push a narrative.

"Why no bankers got charged for the market crash"

Since you keep forgetting the subject we're discussing.

and I showed that Iceland did that. IN CASE you forgot that I proved the point

Iceland has less than nothing to do with the market crash.

So that's ONE person, and they still worked for citi. You have made huge logic errors while belittling others.

That's the only person who sent Obama candidate lists, and he was on his transition team. He still works in government as a US trade representative too.

What's, because they're not leftist? Let me guess, you're going to say they're liars, right? Have you forgotten where you are?

No, because he's an idiot. Not only does he spread misinformation like it's his job (because it is), but he's also quite literally the worst person to listen to for anything stock market related. He's constantly and consistently wrong. I don't care what someone's politics are, I care if they're stupid and bad at what they do.

Fraud is a crime

I know. But they didn't commit fraud.

K.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/upshot/how-mortgage-fraud-made-the-financial-crisis-worse.html

New academic research therefore deserves attention for providing evidence that the lending industry’s conduct during the housing boom often broke the law. The paper by the economists Atif Mian of Princeton University and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago focuses on a particular kind of fraud: the practice of overstating a borrower’s income in order to obtain a larger loan.

They found that incomes reported on mortgage applications in ZIP codes with high rates of subprime lending increased much more quickly than incomes reported on tax returns in those same ZIP codes between 2002 and 2005.

“Englewood and Garfield Park are two of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago,” they wrote. “Englewood and Garfield Park were very poor in 2000, saw incomes decline from 2002 to 2005, and they remain very poor neighborhoods today.” Yet between 2002 and 2005, the annualized increase in income reported on home purchase mortgage applications in those areas was 7.7 percent, strongly suggesting borrowers’ incomes were overstated.

K. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/upshot/how-mortgage-fraud-made-the-financial-crisis-worse.html

New academic research therefore deserves attention for providing evidence that the lending industry’s conduct during the housing boom often broke the law. The paper by the economists Atif Mian of Princeton University and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago focuses on a particular kind of fraud: the practice of overstating a borrower’s income in order to obtain a larger loan.

They found that incomes reported on mortgage applications in ZIP codes with high rates of subprime lending increased much more quickly than incomes reported on tax returns in those same ZIP codes between 2002 and 2005.

“Englewood and Garfield Park are two of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago,” they wrote. “Englewood and Garfield Park were very poor in 2000, saw incomes decline from 2002 to 2005, and they remain very poor neighborhoods today.” Yet between 2002 and 2005, the annualized increase in income reported on home purchase mortgage applications in those areas was 7.7 percent, strongly suggesting borrowers’ incomes were overstated.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcgrawhill-sandp-civilcharges-idUSBRE9130U120130205

The government is seeking $5 billion in its civil lawsuit against Standard & Poor's, accusing the ratings service of defrauding investors, in one of the most ambitious cases yet from the Justice Department over conduct tied to the financial crisis.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-state-partners-secure-1375-billion-settlement-sp-defrauding-investors

Justice Department and State Partners Secure $1.375 Billion Settlement with S&P for Defrauding Investors in the Lead Up to the Financial Crisis

https://youtu.be/zIosqvczEJI

This is Bill Black, PhD, who put away tons of bankers during the S&L crisis and has repeatedly said that the bankers broke many laws in the run up to 2008. How much experience do you have in prosecuting bankers?

Much less than the then-Attorney General and U.S. Attorneys who all said there was no criminality.

You have to break a law to be charged.

They (and the regulators) should've been charged with fraud - they sold junk bonds as AAA+ ones.
Whether or not they honestly believed packaging them together would somehow improve their quality would've been determined in the trial - but they definitely should've been charged with it.

they sold junk bonds as AAA+ ones.

No, they didn't.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/untouchables/

There was plenty of criminality. Its embarrassing that you are being upvoted.

According to the Attorney General and multiple U.S. Attorney's, there wasn't.

Nobody got charged because they didn't break any laws. When Obama tried to change the actual laws, people criticize him. On this very sub I've seen the cognitive dissonance.

Wrong. Holder was a citibank plant. He didn't want to prosecute his buddies.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/untouchables/

Obama was handed a complete and utter global economic meltdown and was able to turn the ship around completely by the end of his presidency.

If that's what you think happened, then you're deluded

That is literally what happened though. The economy was handed to Trump in fine condition. It was handed to Obama in a horrible state. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking that you can even try to argue that point.

What the fuck are you smoking that you think YOU have a valid point? You've assumed your point is true. This is stupid.

I like how you just keep saying he doesn't have a valid point in that it is stupid when he actually has a valid point because he's stating facts it just causes you so much cognitive dissonance that reality is not what Alex Jones tells you it is

I don't watch that nutcase. I have a very firm grasp on reality. I just know how to spot a good source. Believe what you want.

Yeah I'm sure by good source you mean any conspiracy website with unsubstantiated information that appeals to right-wing hacks

Wow.

Amazing response, you are an intellectual giant​ sir.

taupro777, can you cite accurate information back up your vitriol, please?

If you actually meant this, you would have replied to me. Either way, would you even accept it if I did? I doubt it.

I wasn't a part your earlier big boy reddit battle. As an outsider I was just interested to see why you are so passionate about what you are passionate about.

Dude look at the fucking charts...you're a fucking idiot. I literally posted a link that takes you right to a screenshot of the markets over the last decade and a half. It's literally right in front of your face you dumb shit.

[citation needed]

Just like Trump did, which I likely why all the banking regulations Obama put in place are now gone....

Special place in hell for these scallywags.

Why do you fault Obama for the Nobel committee's choice. When he ran for President he was promising to re-expand the war in Afghanistan.

Obama did not run on a peace platform. But conservative media acts like he did.

No they gave it to the American People, but you can't award something to 300 million.

Obama didn't campaign for it, nor did his voters, so why all the bitching and moaning?

Oh for goodness sakes, reporting on how Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and other special conservative media talked Obama is not a reflection of how the MSM talked about Obama.

I do read and scan conservative news providers often, do you ever pay any attention to what this MSM you attack all the time actually says?

I am guessing no, or you wouldn't be pretending special conservative media propaganda is representative of the official propaganda called MSM.

What misinformation? How does it compare to your own?

You are stating what conservative media said. I just told you Obama ran on the promise to re-expand the Afghan War, and the Democratic voters knew this.

You were fooled not Obama's voters.

Uhh yes we were. Obama promised us change and peace. We got war, death, and thousands upon thousands of civilians killed.

Do you seriously love Obama so much to ignore this?

The point of the post is very clear. People praised Obama so much that he got a freaking NOBEL PEACE PRIZE credited to him. Even though he droned hospitals

No that is just another conservative attack lie. Obama said he would re-expand the war in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/26/808280/-

I believe the Peace Prize was intended to thank the U.S. voters and the committee had no idea how this President would be attacked and how that very prize would be turned into a weapon.

And really what is your point, neither Obama nor the American public pushed for the prize.

Pretty sure the line was hope and change.

And he did pull out of Iraq the only problem was it was too late and fringe groups that made up ISIS banded together to increase their power in the disrupted Middle East.

media is mostly conservative

Lol wut

Democrats are insane, they are completely brainwashed at this point by the media. And it is getting worse.

Anyone who trusts their government is insane.

But Republicans hold the majority... what powers have liberals amassed? I think any extremist left or right is borderline psychotic, you have a loony left crying because Hillary lost and Trump is president, and you also have a loony right who is murdering people on a train because of a religion.

Ah I can see the confusion here, I should have been more clear about one thing: I come from the UK and Corbyn the Communist worries me greatly.

The left still holds intense political power in America however, do not assume that them not holding the political majority weakens them in any credible way, these people are still running your colleges, highschools and universities.

I'm curious, what's your opinion of what the liberals are doing while in power of these schools?

they are politicizing them, pushing the social justice agenda. I'm honestly not sure how prevalent the problem is but my understanding of it is that many of the professors tend to be highly left wing and they can, do and will push their political beliefs upon those they teach.

Left controls the media, universities, and EVERY SINGLE MAJOR SOCIAL MEDIA SITE. Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit all have admins that throttle republicans and purposely raise liberal narratives

Isn't it weird that institutions where information and knowledge are valued are "controlled" by liberals.

I understand this, my comment was in reference to government, but since we're here...

Media, you can change the channel, the narrative that fox pushes is the same concept just a different angle, their not fair and biased. No media source is. All media is corrupt and has an agenda, no media source is better than the other.

I don't know enough about the liberal influence in universities, I took a different path in life. I'd like to hear more.

If people are believing and falling for the BS that's happening on social sites and the agenda they push, then those people are not thinking outside their own world and refuse to accept a different perspective. That works for both sides, the majority of my family is conservative and supports Trump, the majority of things I see them share are just blatantly false. Same goes for both sides, each side is using the same tactics because it works.

How they all win and we continue to lose, is they don't want any side to prevail, keep the status quo. Obama didn't just decide "hey Americas Gays have rights too", Americans petitioned and fought for that right for many many years. Obama was just president during the largest outcry and knew it was what the people wanted so he "allowed" it. Obama isn't a hero, he just saw that the majority of Americans wanted this right, so he passed it. If people weren't fighting for it, there would t be the need to change it.

They want us to continue fighting each other, as long as we do that, all they have to do is sit back and enjoy life while we make fools of ourselves.

I want free healthcare I want free tuition to colleges I want everyone to be able to access the same opportunities and I don't want wealth, race or religion to dictate how well I do and how hard I have to work to "make ends meet". NO American or human, should have to work 2 jobs to feed their kids, no human should have 5 kids if they can't afford them, I grew up in very conservative areas as well as liberal ones, and know that this is all sides of the spectrum. No party is excluded.

I want a kid in the ghetto or rural area to have the same opportunity as the kid from a rich family in a wealthy city.

I'm tired of seeing us eat each other alive while dough bags tell us we're different and we don't want to the same things in life.

Have your guns Have sex with and marry whoever (consenting) Believe whatever religion you want Change your gender Pay your taxes

As long as you support your fellow American and do no harm, why should I care how someone loves their life.

Sorry for the rant, I live in the mountains and do get to discuss this that often.

Media, you can change the channel, the narrative that fox pushes is the same concept just a different angle, their not fair and biased. No media source is. All media is corrupt and has an agenda, no media source is better than the other.

Fox News is a bad example as it is very similar to the other sources of news. Many on the Republicans are RINOS (Republican's in name only). They are as much as part of the problem as the Democrats and the rest of the MSM. The only true conservative or Republican sources of news are all alt news sources. I agree, all media has an agenda though.

I don't know enough about the liberal influence in universities, I took a different path in life. I'd like to hear more.

It's fucking atrocious. Nearly all your professors are communists. Universities are indoctrination centers now, not institutions of learning or debate. The administrations are all leftists and often deny conservative speakers or groups places/spaces to speak. The University's now serve as the experimentation chambers for all the crazy social agenda's of the left. If you are male and get accused of sexual harassment on campus, kiss your ass goodbye because it's very unlikely you will get a fair hearing or be allowed to stay, regardless of guilt. I know of more than one young man that was falsely accused, proved their innocence in courts and were still kicked out of school simply because a female made a complaint. It's a really sad state of affairs.

Obama was just president during the largest outcry and knew it was what the people wanted so he "allowed" it.

FYI, Obama didn't have anything to do with it. The Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was a right. If I'm not mistaken, Obama didn't even change his mind about the issue until 2011, just in time for the 2012 election.

They want us to continue fighting each other, as long as we do that, all they have to do is sit back and enjoy life while we make fools of ourselves.

There is some truth in there, but it's also true that there is a real fight going on within society about what should and should not be allowed. As an example, I don't care anything about the gay issue. Be whatever sexuality you want to be and have sex (or don't) with whomever you like (as long as they consent). However, many of the same people that pushed for gay rights are now pushing for so called trans rights that will put grown men in bathrooms with little girls. It's fucking absurd and disgusting and that shit has to be fought. We have more sex offenders in this country than we do trans people.

I want free healthcare I want free tuition to colleges

There is nothing in this world that is free. When you say you want something for free, all you are really saying is that someone else should pay for it. No one should be forced to pay for anyone else.

I want everyone to be able to access the same opportunities and I don't want wealth, race or religion to dictate how well I do and how hard I have to work to "make ends meet".

This is unrealistic and ignores all of human history. What you are asking is for humans to be something else besides humans. I bust my ass everyday to make sure my kid has everything they could ever want. Why should a kid with parents that didn't do that benefit from all the other parents that do? If the parents are taking care of their children and they lack opportunity, that is sad for the child. However, demanding that others pay the way for a child they never had is not viable either. What are you asking for simply isn't possible in a human system.

NO American or human, should have to work 2 jobs to feed their kids,

This is absurd. Not all work is equal and people do not value everything the same way. Not all people are created equal in their capabilities. Those with better capabilities will be paid more.

no human should have 5 kids if they can't afford them

Then none of us would be here. Through history, people have more kids the less able they are to afford them, precisely because they need to generate more money and the only way to do that is to add to the family labor pool. Highly developed nations have less children for exactly this reason, the labor just isn't needed by the family.

I want a kid in the ghetto or rural area to have the same opportunity as the kid from a rich family in a wealthy city.

See above.

Have your guns Have sex with and marry whoever (consenting) Believe whatever religion you want Change your gender Pay your taxes As long as you support your fellow American and do no harm, why should I care how someone loves their life.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'd only add that people should not grub about after other people's money either.

They've amassed political power? Thank goodness, for a second there I thought Republicans held all 3 branches and that the CEO OF Exxon was Secretary of State.

"They've amassed political power? Thank goodness, for a second there I thought Republicans held all 3 branches and that the CEO OF Exxon was Secretary of State." - /u/Angelisfa11st

Completely misses the fucking point about not trusting governments in the rush to push their own political agenda

Americans are brainwashed to hate each other, your two party system is perfectly set up to create and Us vs. Them mentality. Most discussions I see online eventually digress to "Republicans have a mental illness" or "Democrats are brainwashed".

The fact that you think that way shows that you've been brainwashed yourself.

Can you tell me if I'm brainwashed? I can't tell.

I don't know, do you think in terms of black or white? Are you extreme to either end of the political spectrum? If you answered yes, then you probably are.

Sweet. I'm not. Thank you for clarifying.

Really? You are in r/conspiracy and you don't know that the media is on the side of the Democrats? Were you in a coma for the last 2 years or something?

But wait, by reading your comments I can see that you are just another anti-trump person who forgot how to think for himself.

And you don't even notice how you are just repeating what the media wants you to believe.

Nice of you to make assumptions, my point wasn't about the media. If you're thinking in absolutes that's all I need to know that your perception is skewed.

Yeah, cause Democrats are the ones that only listen to Trump approved news and call everything else fake news. Democrats are definitely the "brainwashed" ones.

Right. Because democrats aren't totally harping on the anti-Trump hysteria while chasing a Russian collusion narrative that's failed to produce any evidence for the last 11 months. Not brainwashed at all.

Not like anti-Trump propaganda from Buzzfeed or Salon ever makes it to the front page at all, because that would be ridiculous.

A Benghazi believer is calling someone brainwashed.

Who said I'm a Benghazi believer?

You? The one that believes Trump is a Russian spy buying into the delusion? Heh, yeah I'm sure your reasoning is level headed.

chasing a Russian collusion narrative that's failed to produce any evidence for the last 11 months.

You just displayed how much you swallow the Trump stream Media when you say there's no evidence. All the international organization you call fake news have reported and continue to report on the mounting evidence that continues to emerge re Russia. On the whole of the Earth, literally the entire planet, YOUR little faction is the only one that screams there's no evidence. Does that remind you of anyone? Maybe a cult? Maybe a group that is...brainwashed...?

You just displayed how much you swallow the Trump stream Media when you say there's no evidence. All the international organization you call fake news have reported and continue to report on the mounting evidence that continues to emerge re Russia.

If there was evidence, we would know about it. A phone call, a tape recording, an email, literally anything that displays communication of collusion. And no one can provide it because there was no collusion. An FBI investigation hasn't even produced anything.

The literal evidence you have is random bullshit like "so and so according to anonymous US officials state person X went to Russia on vacation" to which is sensationalized on Reddit to COLLUSION MUH DRUMPF COLLUDED.

You know damn well you soak up the bullshit from top comments on Reddit to form your views on "news" that's posted here before you even read the article so it's ironic when you talk about "cults".

Oh I wasn't aware that all my opinions are formed by the top Reddit comments. Thank you for letting me know and for offering that very accurate analysis of where I get my beliefs.

I'm also really surprised that someone that gets all their info from Trump approved sources doesn't believe in any of the vast evidence that's been reported thousands of times by hundreds of organizations that are all accountable to international critique. I'm amazed, really, that the views you're repeating re Russia are so nuanced and take into account all of the obvious pieces of evidence we do have, and offers a reasoned view of the reality the entire rest of the world sees. Oh wait, you just repeated the same shit every Trumper says? Fake news fake news fake news? You mean you show now signs of considering any point of view other than what Trump says is true? Oh, yeah actually that's exactly what I expected.

Oh I wasn't aware that all my opinions are formed by the top Reddit comments. Thank you for letting me know and for offering that very accurate analysis of where I get my beliefs.

Only a complete and total fucking moron would say there's "evidence" of collusion and start crying about fake news because that's literally what the top comments regurgitate every single time on every piece of propaganda that's upvoted to the front page.

Because you seem to be having a hard time responding to the substance I'll quote it again.

If there was evidence, we would know about it. A phone call, a tape recording, an email, literally anything that displays communication of collusion. And no one can provide it because there was no collusion. An FBI investigation hasn't even produced anything.

Democratic and Republican congressmen have gone on the record to say there is no evidence of any collusion. So tell me, given the fact they have a security clearance to add, what're they missing that you and the top minds of Reddit seem to have all figured out? Where's the collusion that the FBI and government officials can't find but you Redditors and arm chair investigators can?

Your entire response is repeating the same bullshit from the first reply about "fake news". Yeah okay I'm sure the real news like buzzfeed and huffingtonpost has you believing collusion that hasn't produced any evidence.

And the NYT. And WaPo. And NBC. And CBS. And the BBC. And Al Jazeera. Etc. Etc.

Tell me again, where do you get your information? I'm sure they are as well respected international sources right?

You talking about the NYT story which alleged contacts with Russia that James Comey claimed was fabricated?

Hmm, maybe. But we won't talk about that.

Now that we're on that topic, why don't you link me a news article from any of these sources that claim evidence of collusion?

Mean time, try and respond to my comment in its entirety, ya know, the part where congressmen with security clearances and all claim no evidence of collusion yet you redditors seem to know more.

I'm not interested in trading links so that you can diatribe about how this is just reddit's top minds thinking and not anything that counts as evidence. My point that Trumpers are brainwashed stands. You've done nothing but repeat what the Trump media has pushed and you've repeatedly denied that there's even a shred of truth to what the media of the entire rest of the world is reporting. That demonstrates how insulated your information source is. You take a small instance of congressmen with security clearances saying they don't have evidence and ignore all the intel services saying there's reason to pursue and investigation, and all the congressmen that do want to pursue an investigation, and all the, again, international pulitzer prize winning journalists that continue to report circumstantial evidence. But because there's no particular email that's been produced already, it must all just be a hoax perpetrated to persecute Trump and everyone that wants to pursue an investigation is brainwashed!

How you don't see that this is heavily motivated (biased) thinking, I'm not sure. The main function of saying "there's no evidence" isn't actually to describe the real world--we KNOW there's evidence, Trump called for the Russians to hack more of Hillary's emails on international television. That alone, without all the other copious amount of shit (his cabinet member illegally communicating with them, firing the person leading the investigation), should make any American say, "Huh, why does this person want a foreign power to meddle in our election?"

You yelling "no evidence" isn't a description of the state of the case, it's an attempt to absolve Trump of any wrongdoing. We have assloads of reasons that have been amassing for the last year to at the very least question if this man is truly putting country first, and that alone should warrant an investigation from anyone that is promoting country over party. But that's why Trumper's are brainwashed... When you say there's no evidence, what you're saying is, I don't want Trump to be guilty. When you speak, when you argue political issues, you're not doing it from the perspective of someone looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions from it, you're looking at what Trump says is true, and then picking your evidence from that.

And obviously majority opinion is not any kind of standard, but just consider why literally the whole world except Trump supporters and people loyal to Russia agree more or less with what I'm saying and think that you guys are dead wrong. That maybe should give you pause, that the uk and germany and france and canada and china and australia and india and sweden and costa rica and brazil and japan and south korea and etc and etc and etc agree that you guys and your breitbart echo chamber are no longer speaking about the real world.

I'm not interested in trading links so that you can diatribe about how this is just reddit's top minds thinking and not anything that counts as evidence. My point that Trumpers are brainwashed stands. You've done nothing but repeat what the Trump media has pushed and you've repeatedly denied that there's even a shred of truth to what the media of the entire rest of the world is reporting. That demonstrates how insulated your information source is. You take a small instance of congressmen with security clearances saying they don't have evidence and ignore all the intel services saying there's reason to pursue and investigation, and all the congressmen that do want to pursue an investigation, and all the, again, international pulitzer prize winning journalists that continue to report circumstantial evidence. But because there's no particular email that's been produced already, it must all just be a hoax perpetrated to persecute Trump and everyone that wants to pursue an investigation is brainwashed!

How in the fucking world do you think Congressmen, more specifically people in intelligence committees saying there is no evidence of collusion is a small instance? You don't think that's bias thinking? That's huge. You and your political beliefs don't get to decide if Trump's guilty or not. We have a governmental process and people that have insider information with security clearances to deal with sensitive information. Those same people say no evidence has been found so I'm going to take their word over it than the NYT stating "person X" from 10 years ago contacted a Russian official.

I'm not repeating the Trump talking point, I'm "repeating" the facts. The fact is that there was no collusion because absolutely no evidence has appeared forth.

But because there's no particular email that's been produced already, it must all just be a hoax perpetrated to persecute Trump and everyone that wants to pursue an investigation is brainwashed!

An email, a phone call, a tape recorder, literally anything. This has been investigated for months, and so far it's been nothing but anomalies that you've tried to pin as evidence. Example - Michael Flynn...the so called Russian spy...that started out in the Obama administration yet people tried to use him as being the damning piece of evidence. Nope, just another series of stories with incomplete information on a political witch hunt.

You yelling "no evidence" isn't a description of the state of the case, it's an attempt to absolve Trump of any wrongdoing. We have assloads of reasons that have been amassing for the last year to at the very least question if this man is truly putting country first, and that alone should warrant an investigation from anyone that is promoting country over party. But that's why Trumper's are brainwashed... When you say there's no evidence, what you're saying is, I don't want Trump to be guilty. When you speak, when you argue political issues, you're not doing it from the perspective of someone looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions from it, you're looking at what Trump says is true, and then picking your evidence from that.

Want to investigate him for wrongdoing? Go for it. Spend 11 months and come up with absolutely no evidence? Yeah, then you got problems.

Also, get that "Trumper" shit out of here because it's a pathetic way to try and get some high ground. I'm not some t_d poster that will refute your points with cuck or MAGA so let's not act it.

And obviously majority opinion is not any kind of standard, but just consider why literally the whole world except Trump supporters and people loyal to Russia agree more or less with what I'm saying and think that you guys are dead wrong. That maybe should give you pause, that the uk and germany and france and canada and china and australia and india and sweden and costa rica and brazil and japan and south korea and etc and etc and etc agree that you guys and your breitbart echo chamber are no longer speaking about the real world.

Ironic you talk about brietbart when you have buzzfeed and their famous dossier which I just so happen to call bullshit the moment I heard of it. Would ya look at that. Many months later I'm still right. No evidence shows that dossier was verified. Small tidbits of the 30 page document were verified while the flashy headlines it produced were completely fabricated.

I'm sure the Russia collusion story will be right up there with the dossier soon because the track record of bull stories making the top page of Reddit while you naive arm chair investigators eat all the shit up tends to fairly bad.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

The thing is, if I don't believe Buzzfeed, I still have the swathe of all the rest of the main stream media to pick from. But if you disbelieve Breitbart, you don't have a lot of other places to go and still believe in Trump (and given the rhetoric you've used you might be surprised where a lot of these ideas were first said (Breitbart)).

Again, you're ignoring the congressmen and intel services who do want to pursue an investigation. And they outnumber the ones you're talking about. And the reason the investigation is going on is because they think that the evidence that has emerged is more than "anomalies" and a "political witch hunt." Whether or not you post on t_d, Trumpers are the only ones that don't count all this obvious evidence as evidence. It was the same tactic OJ's lawyer's used, they convinced the jury that you had to have absolute proof to convict someone in a murder trial. But that's not how the world works, or law, or politics. You're not always going to have a tape and you can't demand that as the only standard or a lot of murderers and terrorist go free. In most cases you go with the most likely explanation for all that's happened, and you know what? A lot of people think collusion connects all those dots. But you're probably right that they're all anomalies.

As long as we're critiqueing each others responses, you really like to show one instance where you can refute something I've said and act like it refutes the whole thing. I name multiple news organizations that agree with me, you disparage one NYT story that they issued an apology for. I name 10 countries, the most powerful in the world other than us, that think you guys are off your rocker...and your respond by slamming buzzfeed.
I'm not sure we're playing the same sport here.

The thing is, if I don't believe Buzzfeed, I still have the swathe of all the rest of the main stream media to pick from. But if you disbelieve Breitbart, you don't have a lot of other places to go and still believe in Trump (and given the rhetoric you've used you might be surprised where a lot of these ideas were first said (Breitbart)).

I was going to say this earlier but I didn't think it'd be worth it because I thought it was just pointless filler, but no, I don't at all use Brietbart. The last time I visited their site was probably 5 months ago when another user linked it, but that's besides the point. You can check my posting history on it. I don't read it, use it as sources, reference it, or post on threads that link to Brietbart.

So, enough of this nonsense because you've referred to it now multiple times. I use Buzzfeed as one example because I know for a fact you were salivating when the dossier story broke, and therefore you classified buzzfeed as a credible source. I called bullshit on the story the moment it dropped and I was proven right. You, on the other hand, were proven wrong. So it's not like your track record is very good on calling bullshit stories.

I use the entire media to stay informed. What I don't do is play games and cherry pick what to believe, find out something might be wrong, then just forget about it like it's nothing. That's exactly what you're doing, though. You just forget the countless stories that turn out to be wrong because the MSM will just harp onto another story like its nothing. It starts from rape allegations, goes to hookers, and now we're at Trump colluding with Russia. You probably are all fine and dandy with it. But for me, it leaves me skeptical of most things that are plastered in the media. Again, right now we're at Trump colluding with Russia which initially raised some alarm in me, but after months of hearing no evidence over and over again, it's not hard to realize that the entire MSM is just milking the story, while certain organizations just use it to push their agenda.

Again, you're ignoring the congressmen and intel services who do want to pursue an investigation.

You think this qualifies something? You think this means his guilty? Those congressmen are literal democrats who of fucking course would want an investigation. They're playing games of politics. Were you not around for the last decade where this happens all the time? I'm mind blown you even make a point like this because it's obvious why people would want an investigation that deviate from getting to the bottom of whether or not Trump actually did collude with Russia, but more so involve party politics.

I don't know what a "intel services" is.

And they outnumber the ones you're talking about.

Again, really ridiculous point. This isn't about numbers here. Numbers does not qualify anything.

And the reason the investigation is going on is because they think that the evidence that has emerged is more than "anomalies" and a "political witch hunt."

You don't know this for jackshit. You don't know why their continuing the investigation at all. What it looks like at this point is a political witch hunt involving party politics because they've failed to produce any evidence of collusion.

Whether or not you post on t_d, Trumpers are the only ones that don't count all this obvious evidence as evidence.

Let me explain something simple. You have a claim that Trump colluded with Russia. Fine. Trump has denied it, so the burden of proof is on you. If you believe Trump colluded so strongly, where is the evidence that he did? You need evidence to prove your assertion. Not "he said she said person X went to Russia a decade ago something something Michael Flynn"

It was the same tactic OJ's lawyers used, they convinced the jury that you had to have absolute proof to convict someone in a murder trial. But that's not how the world works, or law, or politics. You're not always going to have a tape and you can't demand that as the only standard or a lot of murderers and terrorist go free. In most cases you go with the most likely explanation for all that's happened, and you know what? A lot of people think collusion connects all those dots. But you're probably right that they're all anomalies.

Irrelevant filler. I bet you felt so clever trying to compare this to the OJ simpson trial but honestly they're not at all similar and it's a ridiculous comparison.

As long as we're critiqueing each others responses, you really like to show one instance where you can refute something I've said and act like it refutes the whole thing. I name multiple news organizations that agree with me, you disparage one NYT story that they issued an apology for. I name 10 countries, the most powerful in the world other than us, that think you guys are off your rocker...and your respond by slamming buzzfeed.

Uh, I can really get the vibe where you seem extremely young and naive because you think this is a game we're having and it's about "sides" rather than an actual discussion/debate. Multiple organizations that "agree with me". Yeah I'm sure those new orgs really "agree" with ya. Sure are on your side.

Look, I've explained above about why this Russia story is total garbage above, and why there is reason to believe there is.

Also, I'm not going to even read what you say next unless you individually quote chunks of text then refute the points individually because it's consuming way too much time to decipher what part of my response you're replying to when you don't do that

So if you'd like to end it here just type out one giant ass paragraph because I won't read it.

Okay.

I know for a fact you were salivating when the dossier story broke, and therefore you classified buzzfeed as a credible source.

Again, we're not playing the same sport.

I have a track record of calling the story from Buzzfeed bullshit from the start. I highly doubt you do, so feel free to prove me wrong. Go for it. Where you skeptical of the story when it first dropped? I sure was, and I provied it.

/r/iamverysmart

/r/im14andthisisedgy

This is highlighting a bigger point that you're worst than the dipshits in t_d. The "trumpsters" have Brietbart while you have Buzzfeed.

You know that you've spent pages trying to convince me how in to Buzzfeed I am.

Like how you did to convince me of Breitbart? Except you can't point to one time where I ever believed, spread, read, ect. a story from that site. Meanwhile, you can't deny that you didn't hop on the dick of that dossier. I can. That's the difference.

You have literally no idea what I think about that dossier at all and yet your entire point hinges on it. You're arguing against it as though I wrote it and I haven't even referred to it once. Boy I hope you're right.

Your entire stance is the Breitbart stance. So whether or not you literally read it you read shit that has read it and you shit that shit out.

You have literally no idea what I think about that dossier at all and yet your entire point hinges on it. You're arguing against it as though I wrote it and I haven't even referred to it once. Boy I hope you're right.

I have no doubt that you didn't harp on the dossier story because you have yet to deny it. It's very clear that you eat up any anti-Trump story and the dossier isn't an exception.

Your entire stance is the Breitbart stance. So whether or not you literally read it you read shit that has read it and you shit that shit out.

the fuck are you even talking about at this point...

:-* Enjoy sucking Trumps asshole!

Don't cut yourself on that edginess, edgelord.

The media is mostly conservative?

Yes. Look at the owners.

Are you dumb?

Did you seriously just say that most of the media is conservative?? 😂😂😂

Media is mostly conservative? What planet are you on mate?

The media has been nothing but corporate conservative since the 80s and have supported the attack on Social Security/Medicare, wage suppression, privatization for profit from tax money of all government services, voter rights and these other core liberal policies.

Public funded college education, (once available tuition free or very low

tuition at state colleges and universities).

Affordable health care for all

A livable minimum wage

The corporate conservative news pushes charter schools and school vouchers supports privatization of Social Security funds and Medicare and Veterans care.

That is one of the very successful lies perpetuated by the MSM themselves but especially by conservative media . . . the lie that the MSM is liberal.

This reply also for /u/AggiePetroleum and /u/ painterpm

You are thinking about social democracy with those "liberal policies". (Really, not the same thing at all.)

So yes, the MSM is liberal, you just don't know what liberal means.

Are you now goingn to explain how liberal is really a libetarian idea about no government meddling in t rade, labor, environment etc?

Because, in the U.S. the ideas I listed are considered liberal, and I agree democratic socialist would be more accurate

but even more accurate would be the definition, tightly regulated capitalism,

or capitalism regulated to protect labor, the environment and the nation. itself and that would include taxes.

Socialism never works. Stop dreaming about utopia and focus on the real world.

You're very, very wrong here. What you want is socialism, not liberalism.

That's not even close to socialism.

Saying that the MSM is conservative is so off the charts crazy you belong in a mental institution. The way you perceive reality is so far from actually reality that you honestly should consider getting some help.

The MSM are open Democrats/Liberals they even say so themselves. There's one channel on the right and that's Fox. On top of that all the major newspapers. Then you have social media Twitter, Facebook are openly left so is reddit. In Hollywood you literally have to hide that you're a conservative if you want to work.

So to sum up the media is run by leftist, they censor for leftist and they say that they are leftists. Explain to me how you could possibly think that they are not?

I posted the reasons when I said they are corporate conservative.

Just because they don't sound like Fox who specializes in shouting the hate and fear mongering with large servings or religious and race bigotry, doesn't mean they are liberal.

The MSM serves the same stuff but with a great deal of subtlety.

Big corporations will favor big government thereby they will be left which they are. Higher taxes are no problem when you can eliminate the competetion with regulations through a corrupt and way too powerful government.

Fear mongering is done just as much by the other channels E.g. Cops are killing black people, Conservatives are evil/Hate gays/racists, Far right is violent, Trump and Russia will kill us all. In fact it's obviously worse.

What fear mongering are you talking about from Fox? Islamic terror is dangerous? Is that not the case?

Big corporations don't pay much in taxes, Average is about 12-13%

The taxes have been pushed down.

I think terrorism has been the big ticked fear issue since 2001 and is pushed as hard by the MSM as fox pushes it.

Fox really pushes the, fear immigrants, especially illegal and refugee immigrants oh and of course, the really bad ones are from Mexico or are Muslim.

I just said they don't care about taxes.

What is wrong with not wanting ILLEGAL Immigrants to enter the country? There's a reason we have countries you know. The really bad immigrants are Muslim. Statistics show Muslims do not assimilate(look at Europe) and you risk letting terrorists in. This isn't fearmongering this is the truth based on facts.

Cops are killing black people, Conservatives are evil/Hate gays/racists, Far right is violent, Trump and Russia will kill us all. This is fearmongering because these are lies based on nothing.

The question is can you comprehend the difference?

The media is mostly conservative

XD

What motivation does the Nobel committee have to promote warmongering.

All that sweet, sweet dynamite money?

Nobel committee = big dynamite ??

yes because that is something that is still used in warfare....

Nobel prize money comes from the creator of dynamite.

Just an FYI.

Yes. Because he was guilty about the destruction his invention caused and wanted to make a positive contribution to society...

I aware of where the money came from, I'm also pretty certain it doesn't make the nobel prize a conspiracy by the weapons industry.

Cool... I never said it was.... You're probably responding to the wrong person..... It's okay...... Not everyone understands Reddit....... or ellipses........

Why are you claiming that he won the award during or after his presidency, when really they decided to the give him the award before he was even inaugurated? And why are you refusing to answer any of the many questions that ask this same thing?

I'm not american. I don't like Obama, not do I support him. I question you becasue you are spreading lies and misinformation for further your political agenda. On r/conspiracy. You are a straight propagandist.

Look at he title of your post . "Obama one the novel peace price despite being at war..."

No, this is wrong. He won the novel peace prize, then he was at war, he did not win it "despite" being at war, he won it before he was at war.

But of course this doesn't fit your agenda. It sounds alot more nefarious if you make it sound like he won the award after being at war for 8 years, so of course that's what you say. Truth doesn't matter to you to partisan hacks like yourself.

Haha, fairplay your comment made me laugh. 1. Everything I stated about Obama is a fact.

Nope.

1. Obama inherited the Iraq war so he was at war when he won it.

Nope. Firstly, he wasn't even president yet when he was awarded it, he was when he accepted it, not when he was awarded it. Secondly, you said "despite being at war for eight years". This is simply a lie.

1. I have an agenda, it's to unite the people against the government and expose lies, I'm not on any political side, I'm on humanitys side, I think you're the one with the political agenda here?

Nope. Your agenda is pretty clear. "Nothing wrong is happening in government right now. The DNC is evil. Obama is the bad guy we should be focusing on, not the guy currently in the white house.

1. Thanks for the personal insults, it shows your intelligence.

Insults prove a point when warranted.

The truth here is the media painted a fake picture of what Obama would be like as a president then at the end of the campaign he's killed thousands.

Then fucking say that. No need to make up lies about him winning the Nobel peace prize after he was at war for 8 years

Do you not agree the media painted Obama as a saint?

Of course.

That makes it even worse if true. They awarded a presidential candidate the nobel peace prize during the election or before the election, your saying?

So you don't even know the facts around the topic you are complaining about? How pathetic. You dont even know why, or when, Obama was awarded the prize, do you? Did you really think it was after he was president?

Because that isn't influencing peoples opinion. How do you know my agenda? You don't know shit about me. You've just made up a quote from me?? and your telling me I'm making up lies?

That is exactly what I am doing, because it's true.

Re-read my post, I've worded it correctly now and its a valid point. Obama still has the award credited to him even after what he's done for 'world peace'.

But the award was given to him from his Work before he was president, not during or after. That's why he was awarded the prize before his presidency. Now what are you saying? That he should have had the award stripped from him after he killed a bunch of people as president?

I have no political agenda, if anything I've posted this to show that the media can paint a picture of our leaders and the people will believe anything they say, we should always be focusing on people in the white house and their wrongdoings.

How did the media do this? Can you show me a specific instance where the media excused Obamas actions by saying "oh he's a nobel peace prize winner, it's fine". Did the media actually do this? Or are you lying again? Because I remember the media being critical of the fact Obama won the award when there was better candidates out there like here, for example

This post is to make people think twice about their governments. One question before I stop replying, Do you not agree that it's wrong that Obama still has a nobel peace prize credited to him even after he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths?

No I don't think it's wrong, because there is no alternative. Nobel peace prizes can't be taken back. That is a fact. Bitching about it wont change the fact. He won an award, then he seemingly failed to live up the thing that award praised him for. What a surprise, he's just another politician. He also isn't in power anymore so who the fuck cares. See? The only reason for this post is to distract form real, current issues

Which side are you on? Obama's I'm guessing.

See, this is my point. I'm not on anyone's "side". You are, becuse like I said, you are a partisian hack, but I'm not even American. I don't give a shit about your politicians. But you are intentionally spreading misinformation and lies, that I do care about.

I know the facts, you really don't though, honestly you don't man, re-read things and stop putting words into peoples mouths.

Im not. The headline you wrote says enough. It is a straight up lie meant to trifk people onto believing the award was given to him after he had been at war for 8 years.

I can't reason with you because your attacking me for calling out Obama for having kept his Nobel Peace prize after he ordered the deaths of thousands.

So that's what you are arguing now? You aren't upset that he was awarded it in the first place anymore, only that he kept it? Jeez, talk about changing your argument after you've been absoutely obliterated and proven wrong.

You'll believe what you want to believe, I think I can hear Obama calling, he needs his asshole licked clean again kid.

Something something personal attacks. How hypocritical of you.

YES, that's exactly it kid fairplay, you've figured it out, after all that bullshit you wrote that, really is intended to distract us from the real issues. He should be stripped of the award and it should be front page news to open peoples eyes, but that won't happen in our reality.

No, it really shouldn't. He should be charged with crimes, not stripped of a meaningless award and publically humiliated.

Bottom line is: You support a president who supports killing children and you'll blindly defend him against strangers on the internet who point out what he actually did as president, I would really re-think your life before it's to late.

Hahahahahaha you fucking moron, I was out protesting Obama everytime he set foot in my country. I was fucking arrested in Toronto for protesting Obamas wars in a place I wasn't supposed to be. You are such a moron, you've comepletely lost the argument so now you are just claiming I'm an ignorant bootlicker. No my friend, that is you.

No, we are not on the same side. I'm not on anyones side, especially not yours. There are plenty of things to hate Obama for, making up lies about him like you are doing is not necessary and actually hurts any opposition towards government corruption. Don't lie. Stick to facts, truths, and be specific.

I just read through this thread. I'm hardly the only one to take offense to your obvios misinformation. you are having this same argument with multiple people ATM. why don't you just admit you were wrong? Why can't you just admit you are attempting to spread misinformation about Obama? You even edited your post to 'clarify' your point after you've were called out on all the falcities. That's not "clarifying", it's backtracking

Im arguing with you for a reason. I see posts like this all the time about politicians who deserve to be hated. Posts like these do not help because they are based on a lie, so people see this post and think "oh look, another Trumper hating on Obama for something he did not do" and forget about the real war crimes Obama committed. You, by making this post, are helping the media paint Obama in the good light because this post is just straight up false, and people recognize that,so they think "oh look, more lies about Obama. He probably wasn't even that bad".

What lies about Obama have I spread?

Youve repeatedly stayed Obama recieved the nobel peace prize despite being at war for 8 years. This is a lie. Obama recieved it prior to being at war for work he did prior to being president.

I'm helping paint Obama in a good light, are you being serious?

Yes. You make up lies about Obama, people call out those lies, you don't ad kit you were wrong and keep on changing your argument. People see this and think "oh look, more lies about Obama. He wasn't that bad, why would people need to make up lies about him if he was actually bad?"

We're on the same side, we're human beings, if you want to act on your own and make up lies about yourself, then go ahead.

What lies do you think I made up? Being arrested at the G7 protests in Toronto? Hundreds of people were arrested. Are we all liars?

The only way we can beat the government is if everybody is on the same page, your clearly defending Obama and telling me stop trying to open peoples eyes, I won't stop, you carry on what your doing, I'm sure you have an end goal.

Im on the side of truth, you aren't.

I'm just gonna say my end goal is exposing how corrput the government is, judging by your post history, you like to try and spread misinformation to shut down posts.

LMAO, and you spread misinformation in your own posts.

Your what the government and it's sad, every man for themselves thinking they're right, starting arguments for nothing and getting paid in the process. We all meet our day of judgement. Good day.

Now I'm a paid shill for calling out your lies?

I've corrected my mistake, it was just the one, and made my points more focused, there are dozens of points you could take from this and thankfully people are, that's why I posted it here because people have more open minds and don't try to shut down a valid discussion based on a context error.

Youve never corrected your mistake. And it wasnt a mistake, it was blatant and intentional misinformation. Now you are backtracking. You are a shill.

I don't believe a word you say, sorry, when you can believe 9/11 happened the way it did.

I believe this? Why are you bringing up 9/11? Can you quote me where I 9/11 went down the way government said, or is this more of your disinformation and lies?

I see from your post history that you add nothing valid to any post you comment on, so yeah, why are you ignoring all the valid points in my post and focusing on the point he won the award before he was president?

Because your entire argument is based on lie that he won the award after he was at war. You invalidated the rest of your points the second you told that lie.

You seem to hate Obama yet your arguing with me over a post I made calling out Obama. Yeah, you really are on 'no ones side'.

So I can't call out your attempts at lying without being an Obama supporter? Wtf?

What specifically about my comment hisotry to take offense to? Just saying 'look at your comment history' means nothing. Quote me if you have a problem with what I wrote.

Youve called me shill far more times that I have you, and you've used way worse insults that I have. You are such a fucking hypocrite.

What exactly do you think you figured out about me?

So you can't quote one specific post from me to back up your claims about me? Got it. That tells me all I need to know, you are a big fan of misinformation and outlandish lies.

Your entire post was invalided when you decided to lie in the heaviness. I'm arguing with you because you are doing a disservice to people and this subreddit as a whole.

Lmao, you actually can't back up a single statement about me with evidence. No wonder you just outright lie about Obama, facts and truth mean nothing to you. It's like your an Alex Jones fan or something.

No, that's not how accusations work. You said I'm a liar and I routinely lie in posts, yet you are unable or unwilling to back that up with evidence.

Are you not a Trump supporter?

340 million is not wealthy in terms of real wealth, I was referring to the comment that "all the wealth in the country is concentrated" this is so false. The royal family is not even the wealthiest family in country, like you said, there is 301 people more welathetier than the Queen. This is not an example of "concentrated welath" like OP was implying. He implied most of the wealth in the UK is controlled by the royal family. Context is important, you know.

Now answer the question. Are you not a Trump supporter?

Not at all. I'm anti-government, which I've stated numerous times! I just like to show how they put on these stage shows for us and get the public behind certain people.

That's funny, your entire post hisotry is you rabidly defending Trump at every chance I get.

340 million is not wealthy? Are you seriously this deluded? The Queen can do whatever she wants almost anywhere in the world, that real wealth my friend.

Dude, read the fucking conversation. You are taking me words out of context, I didn't make a reddit post claiming the Queen was wealthy, I was responding to a comment that stated all the wealth the UK is controlled by the royal family. This is ridiculous, and when compared to the wealth within the UK the Queen doesn't compare, not by a long shot. And it certainly is not concentrated. That's what I was replying to. So, like I said, most of that Wealth is tied up in property controlled over government, so they have no access to it.

You can't call me out for spreading anything when your using statements like 'The royal family isn't wealthy', That's just stupidity.

Sure I can, becsuse in the context of my statement I am not wrong.

Pro-Queen, Pro-Obama, What else Pro-Abortion? Pro-War?

Do you actually think anyone who disagrees with someone else about a public figure is supporting that public figure? I'm not going to agree with someone who says "all the wealth in the UK is concentrated in the royal family", and me disagreeing with this person does not make me supportive of the queen.

If you had 300 million dollars tied up in property that is legally controlled by the government, would you consider yourself wealthy? I was trying to gear up support for the Queen, just explaining how the royal family brings on tourism revenue in the UK. Whether or not you support the Queen does not change this objective fact.

Funny you claim I'm a fan boy when you are quite literally a Trump Cultist.

But conservative media acts like he did.

Yea, that's who was acting.

Obama did not run on a peace platform.

Yes, he did.

Nonsense, He ran on the promise to re-expand the Afghanistan War and did.

As for Gitmo, he did issue an E.O. immediately after taking office to close it. Don't you remember how the filibuster controlled Congress refused to fund the closing?

Don't you remember all the push back, "don't incarcerate those prisoners in my state," push back?

Do you claim to be an Obama voter and only read conservative misinformation?

He won for being the first black president. Nothing else.

He didn't seek the prize, why do you keep bitching about i?

And why is this news or a conspiracy are all these attacks on Obama and Hillary just more distraction form Trump's huge recent blunder about Qatar? Where the U.S. Base that is the central U.S. Command Center for the Middle East is located?

I'm not bitching. Thats how I saw it. His first year was just about budget short falls. He didn't do anything else.

he won for not being Bush

I believe that as well. Same with trump. If Obama only did one term, no way in hell trump would've been elected.

Trump won because the dems ran Hillary.

And because people were tired of Obama

Uh huh.

Obama was significantly more popular than Trump during the Donald's inauguration. If he could have run a third term against Trump he would've easily won.

The picture of Trump's inaguration was actually purposely deceiving WARNING: LONG WALL OF LINKS INTERACTIVE GIGAPIXEL IMAGE:

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

...some screenshots:

http://i.imgur.com/0OqGpVl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/MXsiLmT.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/LWvaf2X.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/dTCsFhk.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/xq1FO3f.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/RKrJ6CR.jpg

Two screenshots which show people who couldn't get in:

http://i.imgur.com/IepsikG.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/01cK0JA.jpg

"...Sean Spicer was correct. The crowd grew significantly just as the event began. Yes, this was mostly due to the crowd being intentionally delayed from attending. Yes, tens of thousands of people could not get through the screenings. Yes, the federal workers and DC Park and Security leadership made attendance more difficult than any previous inauguration.

Yes, every imaginable tool and technique was utilized last week to provide the maximum level of crisis and discomfort…."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/01/21/definitive-cnn-gigapixel-image-of-crowd-during-trump-inauguration-speech-confirms-sean-spicer-correct/

Fake News media spread this comparison (Obama inauguration vs Trump inauguration):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2wavw-VQAEupAc.jpg

You might have seen the PBS timelapse video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg

That video is Fake News!

They suggest ("We’ve created a time lapse of 7 hours of footage on the mall, from the beginning of the morning through Donald Trump’s inauguration.") a full timelapse in that clip...it is not.

You can actually see the edit (cross fade) clearly (at 0:46). They intentionally cut the footage which shows the biggest crowd.

Here's the edit (cross fade):

http://imgur.com/gzITXlU.gif

P.S.:

Here are videos/pictures which show liberals blocking security checkpoints:

https://twitter.com/LovelaceRyanD/status/822464514293661696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/LovelaceRyanD/status/822432946812555264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/LovelaceRyanD/status/822429564156702720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/AlexR_DC/status/822435603031724032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/AlexR_DC/status/822433942733258752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/AlexR_DC/status/822438363567390720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://i.redditmedia.com/c3fHHP8HkB41Bx7DBHr8mvsxKHMLG4K9d4M-Pw6zgOA.jpg?w=632&s=efe96110cd0ef6316554243d6f019736

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/822430787651964928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/822433180842070017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

http://i.imgur.com/3JD3tfz.png

"Black Lives Matter and other groups forced the shutdown early Friday morning of at least two inauguration security checkpoints, including the one where Sollars said she was attacked — as demonstrators followed through on threats to disrupt President-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural ceremonies. The Black Lives Matter protesters at first started chaining themselves to fences in front of a checkpoint near the Capitol, after which the Secret Service closed the gates and shut down the entrance.

“We are here to let people know this presidency is not legit. It goes against hundreds of years of democracy — black lives matter,” BLM DC’s Tracye Redd told FoxNews.com.

At one point, the activists repeated the cry, “Shut it down!”

Officers afterward directed spectators to other entrances, though both checkpoints were later reopened. The efforts were part of an operation apparently under the umbrella of DisruptJ20, which vowed to blockade and shut down security checkpoints"

http://www.libertyheadlines.com/windows-smashed-cars-torched-inauguration-protests-turn-violent/?AID=7236

EDIT:

"Trump Inauguration OVERFLOW crowd pictures"

https://twitter.com/Tyrannocankles/status/823049899155619840

https://twitter.com/Tyrannocankles/status/823051767424368640

None of these images show a direct comparison. The Mall is very long, so from the point of view of the shots you included it would look much more full than a rear aerial shot.

I mean 800,000 people is still a whole hell of a lot of people, just not enough to fill the same amount of space as 1.7 million people.

If you watch this timelapse you can see the actual inauguration in it, which the you claim PBS one cuts out, and you can still see those large white spaces in the crowd that the aerial shot shows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjKCVa6vPdM

Have a look at that time lapse though. There is a fairly noticeable section cut out, where the light suddenly dims massively (and notably does not increase again, as people try to claim that clouds passed over).

We debunked the first picture that started all of it. I'm not denying that Obama had more people come to his inauguration, come on he was the first black president. But it wasn't nearly as empty as that one photo that everyone spreads around made it look

However I will say that Obama would have definitely won against Trump if he could have.

And I also believe that Bernie would have had a MUCH better chance of winninf than Hillary did. The DNC fucked up big time

That's why he left office with one of the highest approval ratings of any departing president, right?

Clearly ment to say because he didn't choose a potato as a vp.

So any random black person could have won?

Riiiiiiight. And Trump win because Americans are morons and racists, right?

I'm glad you got your upvotes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

That is from 2002, 6 years before he ran for President.

The article is from 2009

The speech is from 2002, looks like dirty op to me.

The Koch NPR?! Lol. Ok, you got us. Nice job. But next time you decide to troll maybe pick a subject not as important as war. Enjoy your upvotes.

Since the last funding cuts during sell out Bill Clinton's term, NPR only receives about 25% of its funding in tax money that means the conservative think tanks took up the slack and also of course demanded content control. I don't know if you listened to them in the 90s versus now, but they are not the same beast.

If you listen to them their "experts," are all from conservative think tanks and they have fired nearly all the former talkers and the ones they kept are revolting. I can't listen for even 10 mins it makes me want to puke.

It isn't an article, it's a transcript of a 2002 speech.

Published by NPR in 2009.

The words were spoken in 2002, and yes published (unchanged) in 2009. I don't really understand why you're posting it, and want it to be from 2009 ... But that was a very well written and well delivered speech. It says loudly that Obama can see the difference between necessary and unnecessary wars.

It says loudly that Obama can see the difference between necessary and unnecessary wars.

Hilarious.

I'll just believe that you copied the wrong link and aren't actually thinking of the transcript you actually linked to. This was a speech at an anti-war rally during the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

In his defense he tried to numerous times. He removed most prisoners from it.

Yah everyone was excited about closing it, then they all found out that they'd need to be moved to one of our states, and all the states were like...nah.

He tried harder to bomb every Country he could.

Hey nice deflection!

He could have closed it with an Executive Order, but hey keep defending the Warmongering Corporatist like a good little boy.

You mean like this one?

He could have closed it with an Executive Order,

That's patently false.

Holy shit, you're actually mentally handicapped, aren't you? He did issue an executive order to close it, you dolt. Congress overrode it.

He could have closed it with an Executive Order,

You mean like the one he issued 2 days after he took office?

The one he was forced to rescind because congress blocked funding for it?

That Executive Order you mean?

Clearly a Genji main

/r/unexpectedoverwatch

What's the conspiracy?

He was awarded the Nobel less than a year into his first term.

None or very little of what's in your title had happened by then.

Obama won a nobel peace prize despite having been at war longer than any president in US history and dropping over 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone

He was awarded the Nobel in 2009, how could the committee judge him based on how many bombs where dropped in 2016?

The path to hell is paved with good intentions...

You really don't think it was because he was a black president and because of the US's relatively recent history regarding slavery and civil rights? Because I think that's what it boils down to.

Better?

So the Nobel prize committee wanted him to be a warmonger and thus preemptively awarded him the Nobel prize so he could have a peaceful cover for all his warmongering? Just like all the nobel prizes given out in medicine are actually for creating epidemics. And for economics are for creating poverty. Oh those sneaky Nobellites.

Did Obama shit in your cereal this morning? What the fuck has Obama done to you personally that was more detrimental to your wellbeing than what Bush did during his 2 terms or the orange buffoons current term?

(((they)))

actually only a few of those were ongoing and with Iraq we pulled out under Obama and he put troops right back in.

He did put us into more conflicts than any previous president.

He did put us into more conflicts than any previous president.

Source and methodology? Also, a simple numeric count is going to be misleading, since (1) many presidents didn't serve a full 8 years and (2) the scope of the US's involvement has varied widely across conflicts. Putting the Vietnam War or WW2 on the same level as US involvement in the Libyan Civil War is just silly.

a simple google search will give you the sources. This isn't some big secret.

My Google searches aren't pulling up any analysis that gives that conclusion, and I'm usually pretty damn good at finding information.

Funny how you disapeared the last time we were discusing libya

Sorry?

Its clear you lack the ability process information or hold a clear bias, why are you still here debating the same subject? You dont read sources you just duck them when you cant refute them.

seems like you aren't that good. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/243299-democrats-buck-obama-on-water-rule

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

That article doesn't say anything about this claim:

He did put us into more conflicts than any previous president.

Do you think Obama was a good President who stood by his original platform?

no, he went off the party rails and start his own personal crusade.

Remember that the Democrats actually voted against him numerous times and that even led to him using EOs to pass legislation that both parties voted down.

None of that happened.

actually yes it did happen and it's public knowledge. Only takes a couple seconds on google to find where the Democrats killed the Dream Act, voted against his water bill and even voted against his EPA expansion which led to him using EOs to grant those powers to the EPA.

Maybe you need to expand your reading to more than just leftwing blogs.

The Dream act had absolutely nothing to do with Obama. It was first submitted to Congress in 2001 as a bipartisan initiative to overhaul immigration laws. Immigration is a fairly contentious issue if you haven't noticed, which is why there hasn't been major reform for decades. When Obama wrote the EO regarding the EPA the dems were the minority party in the legislature and the Dems are not some monolithic party. A Dem from W. Virginia isn't going to vote for something that is going to be incredibly unpopular amongst his constituents, especially environmental protection laws. There was no Obama "water bill". That's not how government works. I don't read any left-wing blogs and I was alive and engaged with the world around me when these events took place, I remember what happened. I lived it. I don't have to Google shit. Being that I witnessed these things happen it seems to me that YOU are the one who is googling bullshit and repeating things that you find that are meant to rile up the rubes. You have no idea what you're talking about and are making a fool of yourself.

He did put us into more conflicts than any previous president.

Yeah I don't think counting like that really makes sense, considering the death toll for said conflicts is far far less than those engaged in under other presidents. And the troop commitment number.... And half the conflicts were ones we were already in.

oh so now you're going to play semantics to try and downplay the fact that Obama DID get us into more conflicts worldwide than any other president.

You're playing semantics when you rely on the phrasing, "He got us into more conflicts than any other president" without qualify whether those conflicts looked anything like conflicts in the past. If we're gauging is warmongeringness surely we have to consider the state of the world when he became president and what the actual cost to human life was in these conflicts. If you just harp on that phrasing it just means you really like that one stat, it doesn't actually say much about his character.

huh? The statement is a simple fact. He got us into more conflicts than any other president. YOU want to argue it by making clarifiers that fit your agenda.

Yes, but you're bringing it up because the implication is that he must be really hawkish. I'm saying that even if it's true that he got us into the most individual "conflicts" ever, that stat certainly doesn't mean he was the most warmongering.

warmongering? So you're now redefining "warmongering" as how many lives are killed? I see.

Sorry but facts are facts no matter how hard you and others want to try and spin shit because you don't like those facts.

You look like the one spinning facts and semantics to fit an agenda here. Especially since, by your own admission, you're counting Iraq twice.

yes I am because we pulled our troops out of Iraq but Obama decided to send us back in there.

I like how you're saying "facts are facts" but only your one fact is the one that counts when judging if Obama was a warmonger. Only you are the arbiter of what makes someone a warmonger and only that one phrase - that he started the most conflicts - is what's important to the discussion. We can't break down that sentence to see what each of those words are actually referring to in the real world, we just have to take that sentence at face value and then agree he must have been the most warmongering president ever. This'll definitely produce an accurate view of the world.

It puts Obomba right at the top of the worst leaders in the history of mankind. He was also the first to murder one of his own citizens via drone strike. Disgusting!!!

He did bad military shit but it's so moronic to say he's the top of the worst leaders in the history of mankind. Please. Read a 20th century history book.

Well, aside from his bombings, he DOUBLED the national debt. That's 2X. Disastrous for the lower classes, what a shame!

Well Reagan tripled the national debt. Was he a terrible leader because of it?

Obviously, but even that doesn't really compare to Obomba's recklessness.

OP just wants anti-Obama talk

Wars that Obomba promised to end, which he escalated upon taking office.

No. He was given the Prize as a message and reminder of his potential. I'll give you a minute to google the Nobel Committee's statement.

I'm not defending. I'm explaining that the Peace Prize was intended to inspire him. Whether or not it worked is another story.

Did you know Henry Kissinger also won a nobel peace prize?

Yes.

He won it because he wouldn't let Nixon drop nuclear bombs on random countries while drunk.

He won the Nobel Peace prize for not being George W.

Thats hilarious because he literally was bush jr.

I don't think you know what the word "literally" means.

Literally Bush Jr. Jr.?

/u/Bannednot4gotten just means that Obama was the biological son of Bush.

I thought he was a Muslim Nazi Communist Kenyan?

Yep. Both are true. But you know the right wingers will never see the real truth. That W was the first black president.

Socialist not Communist.

Here is the informal definition according to a quick google search: informal used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.

That's cool, and by cool I'm using the informal sense where I mean it's kind of fucking stupid, but in a sarcastic way. Someone would probably be forgiven for thinking otherwise, though.

cool Ehh I only see an informal version of this being used as an adjective coolly.

Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cool

It's a shame you were downvoted by people buying downvoted points, many of the policies Bush put into play, Obama not ONLY continued, he actually ramped up. Case in point, the Patriot Act. Article from far right Fox News lovers the International Communist League.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/993/war_on_terror.html

Probably because there were a plethora of issues that separated the two of them, this not being "literally" alike.

Downvote points available here.

Posts that speak to truth get down voted hard by bots(both human and artifical). First it looks like your post is discredited and ppl disagree, second it convinces you to post less because it honestly feels much nicer (short term) to just take the blue pill.

because bots . . . read and consider all comments and vote accordingly?

He was significantly worse

Nominations closed 11 days after he took office.

Wow. They just knew he'd do such a good job

They were hit by Obama-fever, a lot of people baught his message of "hope and change".

To add to that. It was the Nobel Committee that made the decision to award it to him. Obama receiving the prize for ridiculous reasons should be on them.

It is on them. They are a bunch of leftists. (See: Kissinger)

Kissinger was a registered Republican who was appointed by a Republican.

He was awarded the Nobel Peace prize by the leftist Nobel klan.

The New World Order proponents don't care about your party affiliation.

You are (1) one of them (2) a slave, or (3) a useless eater.

Even among the blood drinkers, there are role players and there are key players.

Why do you thing nothing ever changes? Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, Trump. Did you ever really had a say ...

See John F. Kennedy

This reads like a beat poem. Which is to say that it hurts to read.

It causes me pain to admit it - we've been had.

You've just done an excellent job of demonstrating how this sub sees through the text on the screen to see exactly the message they need to see in order to justify their ludicrous "facts".

well, thanks.

What had he done by then?

Which makes it all the more rediculous.; it lacks even the "peace through firepower" argument.

Trump will win the Nobel Peace Prize as well. His win will be for pioneering a method whereby a historical enemy is allowed to influence elections and policy, thereby aligning the governments towards common goals.

Yeah, he basically won it for not being Bush. I can already tell you who's going to be winning in 2021... the President that can finish a sentence with a coherent thought.

Also, WWII was pretty long...

There was zero reason to even consider him for it let alone award it, at any point in his life.

A total joke.

Fucking THANK YOU! Who are these people rewriting history? Oh yeah...people with Winston Smith's job from 1984 who work for various governmental agencies around the world.

Eh, I'm not the biggest Obama fangirl in the world, but a lot of those numbers reflect the changing nature of warfare over his term. Of course he used more drones- drones got more usable. What are the statistics on troops deployed and killed, for comparison?

We use our ME wars for fun and profit (and I know Russia enjoys creating new refugees to put pressure on the EU). A guy like Obama was never going to be able to stop it, if he even wanted to. The funny thing about conservatives constantly branding liberals as weak is that the liberals than overcompensate militarily to escape the label. It's all part of politics.

Don't you also say things like "I flew to Hawaii" rather than saying "I sat in a plane in which a pilot flew to Hawaii"? It sounds like you're grasping at straws with your arguments in this comment section.

I agree that they are grabbing at straws, but you don't say you personally exterminated your theoretically termite infested house if you hired an exterminator. One should say an exterminator took care of the issue if they wanted to communicate properly.

That's not really a counter example when most people say "I'm fumigating my house" to mean "I hired an exterminator who is fumigating my house."

Haha dude. He also didn't kill Osama Bin Laden. I'm about 75% sure that Bin Laden died YEARS before that. In fact Fox news reported on his death back in the early 2000s as well as many other places. Look into it, I think you'll agree that was pure smoke and mirrors.

So incredibly dumb

Why?

Obama Bin Laden doesn't even exist. It was the Koch brothers in alternating beard costumes to fuel propaganda on Fox News and conservative radio to fuel the start of the fourth reich. Look into it, the evidence is there.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead

Where did he ever say "I killed Osama Bin Laden"?

The Nobel committee gives out peace awards in order to start wars. That's your conspiracy? The fucking peace prize committee? The Norwegians?

That's called "disappointment". That usually occurs when expectations are too high, e.g. after the media overhyped something. Happens all the time. Maybe the journalists also had high hopes and wrote about it. There was a wide euphoria in 2008. Groupthink or something, an overall hysteria. Doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Maybe you shouldn't accept the opinions of the press and think for yourself next time. "Media manipulation" lmao. Just read reports instead of opinion peaces if you are so easily "manipulated". It's only a conspiracy if it's planned and controlled by a small circle of people.

The man was at least literate, decisive, and had nowhere near the level of conflict of interest that Trump has. Not to mention, Trump doesn't even care about the fucking planet we live on enough to preserve it for his future billionaire sons and daughters. All he cares about is the creation of short term wealth for himself.

he won because of US are so racists that a black person becoming a president is something...

Well, he was half black, so it would be accurate to say that a lot of people overlooked the fact that he was half white while being made comfortable that he kind of looked not too black, and he was the first president who was only half white.

I love the revisionism going on in this thread. Obama ran as an empty canvas, and the idiots painted in whatever rosey bullshit they bought into the most. Nothing had changed about the man or his fans.

I disagree, there was a huge change in candidate Obama and President Obama..

To be fair it is like that with all politicians

If you like your plan, you can keep it!

Corbett Report did an excellent segment on Obama.

Obama: A legacy of ashes

Sad that this gets downvoted here now.

It was all about his "potential".

he was given that before he did anything, it was mostly wishful thinking

I remember and it's really fucking sad. 17 years of this bullshit now. At least we've had small breaks in the past. The whole thing has got to go. I will vote for anyone with a strong anti-war policy. This whole thing will bring us all down. End The Fed.

Its not just anti-war, its pro-disarmament of the US military. Just read Eisenhowers Farewell Address from 56 years ago.

As long as this much corruption and potential for profit exists with such an expansive war machine it will never be sated.

It's stereotypical rent seeking. It is far easier to create a need for defense than to create other forms of wealth. Therefore, destabilized nations so that we have an excuse to intervene and create more war. Unless we start treating cases of rent seeking as a crime it will continue.

It damn well should be a crime. It's fucking retarded for anything to think otherwise.

Along with planned/designed obsolescence. Criminal greed is criminal.

AMEN brother. I would like is to sign into the ICC and make it have teeth... then we must put all our past war criminals in The Hague.

Trump inherited the Syria crisis though. Obama may have inherited Iraq but he authorized destabilizing another half dozen countries like Libya.

Obama decreased military spending, Trump wants to increase by 50 billion, Trump is the clear war monger.

50 billion is not a lot when you don't have the Iraq war going on. Also I can bet that the funding of terrorism/"moderate rebels" exceeds the 50 billion saved. The funding of rebels also has the cost of killing ISIS attached to it.

Want to try that in English? How is 50 billion being saved by increasing the budget by 50 billion. And are you seriously telling me with a straight face 50 billion is a small amount to you? Some of us are tax payers, maybe i don't want to fund endless wars with my tax dolars.

And yet, I bet you think Obama was a great president.

I'm sure buddy here was criticizing Obama when he put us 10 trillion dollars more in debt.

Something a lot of dems don't understand, as they tote the "great" economy Obummer left us with

Just so you know, calling him "Obummer" instantly makes you look like a fool and removes all credibility from anything you say.

No fuck Obama, dude put us 10 trillion in the hole with nothing to show for it.

As long as you don't resort to petty name calling, then we can have a discussion. And yes, the debt accumulation under Obama was very concerning for liberals and conservatives alike.

That's just as stupid as saying a spelling mistake makes your entire point moot.

No because a spelling mistake is unintentional. You are calling him Obummer intentionally and it makes you sound dumb.

Only if you're deluded enough to think he was a good president. If you aren't, it sounds fine.

He did some good things and some bad things. Regardless, calling him stupid names like Obummer makes you sound like a 5 year old. The same way calling Trump "Drumpf" is juvenile.

That's fair. You're right. Namecalling is a bad idea. But still, you ignored my whole point for that.

Seriously. I feel the same way when people say Drumpf/Dump etc.. I hate Trump but that's just childish.

Yep it just turns any debate into a childish shouting match. The whole Drumpf thing is really dumb, as is "Obummer"

How much did you save in taxes under the Obama admin?

complete bullshit. who cares if spending went down.. THE BOMBS AND ATTACKS DID NOT lmao. obama is the biggest warmonger since bush (surprise they all campaigned against trump the ANTI ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE)

trump is so fkn badass hes got all media , bushs , obamas, soros, and clintons against him... pray for trump

Trump's use of drones is already surpassing Obama's at this point in his presidency. Sorry that facts get in the way of your all caps.

post proof or gtfo

https://www.cfr.org/blog-post/not-so-peaceful-transition-power-trumps-drone-strikes-outpace-obama

Apologize or gtfo.

bro posting a link to CFR in this subreddit is equivalent of posting a link to hillarys personal blog LMAO

WTF, it's non partisan and a long distinguished history. But go ahead and only trust infor wars and storm front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

why do you assume what i trust?

Because supporting Trump requires that you get your information from extraordinarily bad sources.

i found out he said no to the TPP and paris accord on cnn.... those are amazing things he did.

The post you replied to had nothing to do with war spending. And it was true. Trump inherited Syria. And Obama destabilized a number of countries. Syria being one of them.

Proof?

Are you serious?

Slave trade is back in Lydia now.

Nintendo is releasing another Metroid game.

Looks like I can also say things with no context or meaning, that was fun.

Lol, I figured you could connect the dots, guess not. Who took out Gaddafi?

Technically it was Hillary that was gung-ho about it, but she was part of his Obama approved it.

He just didn't think about what would happen afterwards, to paraphrase the dumbass.

Good thing Trump is in charge now

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/the-goal-is-to-destabilize-syria-sean-spicer-baffles-reporters-with-trumps-middle-east-policy/

Wow you guys have a really time admitting good factual points. Every single thing you comment is "trump is worse" without admitting the posters above you are correct

Obama freely admits Libya was his biggest mistake. Something narcissist and psychopaths will never do. Bush and Trump will never admit to any wrong doing ever, they're subhuman.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Trump runs the same policy of fucking up every country the US can fuck up for profit. See the stuff in Syria, and Yemen and so on. It's even a little more in the spotlight at least then it was under Obama.

Seriously? He hasn't started any military intervention. You're nuts.

What has this board become, a partisan haven ?

He authorised a raid in Yemen the very first week, there was the entire Syria thing, with bombing a foreign state over unsubstentiated allegations and droping a giant bomb on Afganistan. There is more, but I really am too tired to research it now. Using google should not be hard for somemone who apparently isn't "nuts".

I meant new interventions. Continued military activity in countries opened by Obama however...

I meant new interventions. Continued military activity in countries opened by Obama and Dubya however...

FTFY.

Classic Obama supporters. Blaming things on Dubya nearly a decade after he was president. And Dubya was responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan. Not Syria, Libya, etc. Keep pushing that narrative!

So has Yassir Arafat won it. That one right there should have just been the end of the Nobel Peace prize.

If you want an anti-war president, then Adam Kokesh is who youd want to vote for in the 2020 election. Hes the founder of veterans against the war and his goals are to minimize government quickly. Hes an anarchist at heart but running for the libertarian party

Obama didn't run anti-interventionist. He just didn't talk about that stuff a lot and the media didn't dwell on it. But keep in mind Obama was always war hungry.

He was lucky to have the (D) next to his name coming out hot after Bush. It was a no-brainer for the American people who thought they were voting to get out of war.

Obama just had to say "Yes we can" and "change" to get Americans into the booth after Bush.

Military spending under Obama went down, Trump wants to increase it by 50 billion.

Obama preferred a proxy army instead of the US Armed Forces.

Drones, he preferred drones. You know who hates drones? Our enemies, because they work with no loss of American life.

One of the commander in chief's responsibilities is to prioritize American life over enemy lives, that's just the nature of the beast. Unless you're Trump, then you prioritize Russian lives over American lives. When given a choice between sending ground troops with possible American lives and civilian lives lost or sending drones with no american lives and fewer civilian lives lost then it would be irresponsible not to choose drones.

thats why i never understood the hate for the drone program(apart from all the civilian casualities(but they are sand people so who cares/s)). Its a pretty efficient way to complete a mission with out US causalities

Yeah fuck the 98 percent of people killed by them that are innocent collateral damage.

Got a source for that number?

It is 90 percent. They fudge the numbers by claiming innocent people are guilty by association. War crimes, if you ask me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

thanks was going to post this

Also, don't forget that we have droned American citizens without a trial.

Honestly the constant threat of Drones above your head breeds the resentment that leads to terrorism.

Apparently you didn't see the Comey hearing.

Huh?

Fuck these guys are evil

So we just gonna ignore that it was bush who got us into that war under false pretenses. Typical.

No, but you can bring it up like I did.

If you want your voice in the conversation then add it. It's not magic.

What do you think GWB stands for?

Hitler was nominated for one. Glad that didn't pan out.

The reason he was given a Nobel Peace prize is becuase during the bush years our allies' approval and trust in the United States fell to rock bottom levels and Obamas election immediately reversed that.

I think most of that came from Obamas promise to respect international institutions (which were ignored in the invasion of iraq) and the fact that Obamas politics line up with the majority of our Europeans friends.

You have to remember that the peace prize is decided on by a collection of Norwegians so it is going to be inherently eurofocused.

Nobel Peace Prize = War Criminal Prize.

Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech was about the contradiction of being a war-time President and receiving the Peace Prize. You should watch or read it. It might give you some perspective. You should also know that, at the time he was awarded the prize, the committee directing cited his "Open Hand" speech given at his Inauguration, the very day of his Presidency. It was the first time that a leader of the Western World had acknowledged the injustices suffered by the Muslim World and offered to make amends. That is why he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

It was the first time that a leader of the Western World had acknowledged the injustices suffered by the Muslim World

The Ottoman empire would like a word with you.

Yet the Spanish Empire (Catholic Institution) and their Inquisition aren't as evil as Ottoman Janissaries which were taken from Christian Families and reported better lives after "enslavement"?

The same could certainly be said for tribal africans shipped to the caribbean, which of course were either bought from arab slavers, or the tribe who made the capture itself.

Are you going to argue for slavery now?

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

I thought he got it for not being a Bush, just like the next president will get it for not being Trump.

Reminder-all of your presidents are war criminals. This current shithead will be no different, in fact he will want to kill more innocent people cause he is the best at everything.

Who gives a shit if he keeps a stupid award or not. Non-idiots know it's a farce and the idiots prolly don't know wtf the award means ne way.

Which country's leaders aren't war criminals. Maybe Switzerland + other small nations. The rest are globalist NWO stooges.

Switzerland is actually the seat of world power, it's exactly why no one is allowed to touch them in any war.

West Wing TV show dialog from a General trying to convince Leo not to support a new proposed war crimes tribunal:

[Leo has just been told that a target he bombed while in Vietnam was civilian] Leo McGarry: Why did you tell me that?

USAF Gen. Alan Adamle: Because you could be charged and tried for a war crime.

Leo McGarry: [long pause, very distraught] WHY did you tell me that?

USAF Gen. Alan Adamle: All wars are crimes.

The only difference is that the media wont cover up Trumps misdoings. The media couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough evenwhen he was blowing up hospitals.

A lot of people in here trying to defend a guy who ordered an airstrike on a hospital. "I'm no Obummer fan, but WAR IS HELL AMIRITE!!???"

How is this even a conspiracy hahaha.

It's not, just just anti-Democrat, so it fits right into the new format of /r/conspiracy!

You can tell who voted form him in this thread and can't admit they misjudged him.

Or maybe this is /r/conspiracy and there is no conspiracy here?

You ever think that one man doesn't have the power to control the biggest militaries in the world? This applies to both trump and obama. You seriously think one person gets voted in and has all of the control and can make all of the decisions? You dumb bro? The world we live in is everything is so big, individuals in government have no control, no power.

Maybe it was the Nobel Pieces Prize. Then he definitely deserves it.

Reminder: stop thinking about Trump.

Reminder: the democrats are the problem.

Reminder: Hillary is the real bad guy.

This is exactly what this post is.

Reminder, we haven't had a peaceful president in ages.

Reminder, it might be they are all bad for some reason.

As long as we have a symbol to collectively hate, the party can keep us divided. There is one party, and they keep us roaming from one to the other. break the cycle. Vote third party. End this nonsense.

Many Bernie fans did.

He wasn't third party. He was as left as Stalin

Who cares fucker? The point was many Bernie fans voted 3rd party.

Man, clearly you're unintelligent and still really salty

Stupid and salty, that is me.

And then Bernie had his nomination stolen from him by Hillary

That peace prize was the first thing that really woke me. They gave it to him so fast and he didn't even do anything that would have warranted it.

He was also the first nobel prize winner to bomb another nobel peace prize winner (doctors w/o borders)

As Noam Chomsky argued all US presidents are War Criminals if we use the Nuremberg principles

Alfred Nobel is turning in his grave.

This is proof that we live in The Matrix.

Bu....bu.... BUT DRUMPF!!!

Didn't he get it like a month after he was elected too? It was like a participation award

so where is my Nobel's peace prize?

I was 13 or 14 when towers fell. I was a freshman in high school. Im 31 now. Its all just sad

Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.

but... 'Murica and Freedom! /s

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/betternews] Reminder: Obama won a nobel peace prize despite having been at war longer than any president in US history and dropping over 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone, killing thousands of people in 7 different countries.

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

It was for economics.

He won the nobel before becoming president...and he inherited all the wars we were in from Bush... This is a conspiracy only if you're looking for it.

Yes, he expanded the war more than ever

And he got the nobel before all that.

Although he committed fewer war crimes than Clinton, the Bushes, or Reagan. Hooray for progress!

How is this even voted up? 5 month account with huge karma needs to remind us that previous president wasn't peaceful? When was the last peaceful president, OP?

He was awarded the Nobel prize before becoming President.

And what in the fuck does Obama getting a jerk off award 9 years ago have to do with anything, other than the actual conspiracy by Russian shills and t_d to control /r/conspiracy so the front page has as little about Trump being a literal Manchurian Candidate.

At least try and pretend you're not a bullshit subreddit and a literal faggot OP.

He actually won it before he even started his presidency. Which is even crazier.

I also think it was weird to award Obama the prize when he hadn't yet accomplished a lot. OTOH, the prize was awarded in 2009; I'm pretty sure the Nobel committee did not take his 2016 airstrikes into account and I'm not sure what OP is hoping to prove by putting it out there now. Effectively the title should be "Obama awarded Nobel prize despite the fact that he went on to become...." which, though more accurate, admittedly doesn't have the emotional punch of OP's original title.

MIC runs the show.

Try harder, Douchebags. Trump is a fucking reality TV show star, who won the electoral votes, not the public by millions. Enjoy his presidency while it lasts, he sure as fuck won't last half of Obama's time.

If you watch MSM youre watching more reality TV than Donald Trump ever had his own hands in

MSM is such a cute acronym you guys use, i tell ya. But yea, you're right, it's reality and on TV after all.

As in "you guys" you're assuming I subscribe to a certain political belief, or group of people, which I do not. I can then make the same assumption that you subscribe to the belief that if someone is not with you then they are against you, which has proven countless times to be an incorrect logic. Either way, I find the current state of American politics, and peoples ideology towards it to be amusing.

inb4 he's not going anywhere until 2020 at least, and probably getting another term. Sorry about your tendie feelies

You don't won't a Trump impeachment...trust me. The half the country that put him there are the ones with guns that know how to use them.

What does that have to do with an impeachment? Are you that edgy to imply that your fellow low IQ republicans would threaten to kill citizens if there were to have one?

Obama isn't the president anymore, stop trying to deflect attention away from our current Embarrassment in Chief.

I live in Norway and the Nobel Peace Prize is corrupted and just a political tool to create goodwill between the state and other nations at this point.

We are America's obedient guard dog against Russia and have been since WWII and the cold war. It's just a political game

He didn't win the peace prize despite any of this... He won it before.

Yassir Arafat got one too and he's a literal terrorist, in both cases it was a symbolic gesture for hope for the future, not for any actual achievement.

So? If you want to get outraged, remember that Henry Goddamned Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize after ordering a genocide in Laos.

Yeah I'm not sure what conspiracy this is proving or trying to prove. The Nobel peace prize has been a joke for decades

I love when Trump trolls twist history.

But he was given the prize before doing any of that. All it does is give yet more evidence that the non-science Nobel prizes are complete bullshit, which you should already know because Henry Kissinger was given the peace prize for killing millions of civilians in order to win an election.

Because the novel peace prize has been bullshit for decades

But he's a nigger so it's cool.

The irony is alfred nobel invented dynamite and other explosive devices. He felt guilty so he made this dumb fucking prize to cover his sins.

An actual piece of fun trivia and a correct usage of "irony." Bless.

how the fuck is this a conspiracy you useless mouthpeice.

I always see this about Obama sending more drone strikes than anyone else.

Guys. Drone technology was shit during the Bush years. We've made leaps the last two decades. Of course Obama is going to use more drones if the military is using more drones.

This doesn't belong here..wtf are the mods?

It is night time in Russia so they are asleep.

Long time lurker but I had to finally sub for this one.. they went 1337 on Afghanistan? Knowing how nerdy those guys behind the joysticks are it seems like a weird coincidence.

1 bomb dropped per 20 minutes...

Actually he won it before doing those things. Nice try though.

Yes. He did win it because he happens to inhabit an African American body and his marketing team was on to something with they're yes we can campaign. 8 years later no they didn't.

He won it "In advance" as a strategy by the Nobel Committee to see if the award could serve to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. This strategy proved to be a catastrophic failure.

As Noam Chomsky says - the US drone campaign is one of the worst terror campaigns in history.

Nobel peace prizes are worthless as are just about every other big fancy prize. Just a bunch of circle jerking.

But he was the first black president!!!

Is this sub just one huge joke or something?

nah, obama won the nobel peace prize for not being bush

It was bullshit that he got the award, but not his fault.

Why are you implying he won the prize in 2016 after all those attacks? He got the prize 7 years earlier for good reason. Not for the shit that happened afterwards you dummy.

for good reason.

And you're calling someone else a dummy.

The award wasn't just for him potentially pulling out of wars. Obama at the time was putting focus on stopping nuclear proliferation attempting to reach out to the Muslim world. Little did we know.

It was for his work in nuclear proliferation, most if it was done before his presidency

Yes, dummy. I did.

The official narrative of the awarding was to "encourage him to fullfill his promises", ofc there could be a hidden agenda, but remember this was in 2009, not 2016. Obama had only been president for a year, not 8.....

Barely even a year, but true enough.

To be fair everyone knows they just gave it to him for being the first black president. He didn't even have time yet to win these records!

...or wait is the conspiracy that they knew in advance and gave him the award to cover it up?

I believe they gave it to him moreso on the promise that he was going to "repair" America's standing in the world (i.e. pulling out of Iraq, closing Guantanamo, etc.). Didn't really turn out that way, so it's super dumb in hindsight, but the world really did believe in Obama when he won.

Trump: "Is that a challange?"

Since he's a Democratic lefty it doesn't matter what he did. They still love him

You forgot to mention: he went up to the podium, accepted the peace prize, and gave a speech about the necessity of war. You can't make this shit up. He was spitting right in their faces.

That award means nothing now

One government United, working against the will of the people they have systematically divided.

Lol

He got that before he was really in office very long huh?

A black comedian even made jokes about getting the novel peace prize for being elected president while other black Americans got shot for being black and president of their car. (I know I fucked it up but you get the idea )

Lol nice

Its funny how people see this yet forget that the President doesn't make all of these decisions...Especially when it comes to the military. And also, he was already in a war that was started by Bush Jr, so why not attribute that war time and deaths to Bush Jr?

It's my hope that Trump does such a good job solving problems in the Middle East that they are forced to give him Obama's medal. Not an equal one. I hope they take Obama's away from him and put it on someone else's neck. Obama never deserved a Nobel Peace Prize, nor did he do anything to become worthy of one.

This post is bad. And you should feel bad.

Reminder: Obama got his Peace Prize at the beginning of his first term.

Honestly the way you phrase this shit it sounds like they handed it to him after being at war for 8 years, which is untrue. The rest is true, but it just undercuts the point you're trying to make by getting basic dates completely wrong.

And yet this sub doesn't seem to care about Trump doing the same shit left and right. Hmm...wonder why.

Nobel invented dynamite, so it's probably all tongue-in-cheek anyway.

I think that absolutely no president should even be considered as a possible winner to a Nobel Peace Prize, much less a american one.

I don't recognize this. He never STARTED any wars.....

He was given a Nobel prize because he's black.

hate it when webster keeps changing definitions of words

I think the real lesson here is that Barrack Obama was so good at running for president they gave him a Nobel prize for it. Curious that he was never able to establish a presidential image that was anywhere near as potent as his image as a candidate.

Why do we need a reminder? The guy just left office 5 months ago. We have a new pile of shit to deal with. Remind us about Obama after you remind us about Iran/Contra, 911 being an inside job, the Clinton death trail, etc etc etc. This post is just deflection, and poorly done.

They still should have revoked it.

I always love how the top comments in r/conspiracy posts are the ones that point out how stupid the post is!

So this isn't a conspiracy... Just an attack on Obama

You think he deserved the prize as a record breaking war mongerer?

No but it's hardly a conspiracy. Its not suited for this sub

How is this a conspiracy?

He was nominated basically as soon as he was elected. The prize lost any credibility it had when he won. What had he done to deserve it?

According to the Nobel Committee, work towards nuclear nonproliferation as a senator, and a bunch of filler that amounts to "we hope this dude isn't Bush".

Pretty much

He wasn't bombing people. Obama was bombing ideas. A big difference. For example, Sadahn Hussein, he gassed his own people. He wasn't gassing ideas. That doesn't even make sense, gassing ideas. Ideas can be a gas though...but I digress.

31% downvoted. Wow.

People bitch about Trump people coming in and posting...at least we don't downvote the shit out of a post that is truthful, because it doesn't fit our narrative.

Maybe it's being downvoted because it's misleading and also not a conspiracy.

What is false or misleading about it?

That Obama won the peace prize "despite" anything. He won the prize before anything that OP mentioned had happened.

So he wasn't bombing and droning people before that?

I will note that OP changed what he had originally said, and it had emphasized more the Wars that Obama was involved in, which were obviously begun long before his presidency began. Even if he had managed to end the wars in the Middle East by the second year of his presidency, it would've been after the prize was awarded.

As for drone strikes, yes they increased during his presidency, even in 2009, but he also called for leaving Iraq as early as February 2009, and draw-down operations began in 2010.

PROOF, that the entire Nobel peace price is a tool used by the globalists. It also proves that Barry is a shill.

He won a Nobel Peace Prize for not being bush. The leaders of the American democracy are now being measured by how little they light it on fire not whether or not they put the fire out.

Yeah I thought he won the award after like 5 months in office haha

He's just that cool, man. And while that may seem like a joke, it's actually something to consider--he's a president that avoided looking like a war monger or a person that n power who surrounded himself with war mongerers. He kept a cool persona and sidestepped the problems you cite above. I'm not saying I agree with that characterization, but it's how a lot of ppl, not just liberals, know how to talk about him stylistically.

I have never understood why he won. He did nothing to deserve it. Ever.

Yea but it was mostly middle eastern people, so it doesn't count for him.

So why don't conservatives celebrate him for dropping all that FREEDOM on evildoers? YEE-HAW!

Most of this didn't happen until after his Nobel prize. I feel like ever since T_D became private, this sub has become a new home for the same people.

He should return it.

Somehow, death by drone without declaration of war or trial has become acceptable?

Also, GITMO.

Ah so "but hillary" has lost its effectiveness now? Now we get but Obama as the deflection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jHe5OjAm_E

Non science related Nobel prizes are basically popularity ribbons.

Fucker should give it back!

Holy shit it's shilly in here. People defending drone strikes killing innocents in r/conspiracy?! You guys suck at this.

The community (as a whole not just reddit) has changed since I first discovered it 20 yrs ago.

The big conspiracy theory of today is information.

People are becoming brain washed from "news" that is just infotainment. Very little real journalism exists anymore. Conspiracy used to be about seeing the bigger plan, but we are being bombarded from all sides now with politic news, and it's making a box for us. The "russia scandel" is taking all the oxygen out the room at the same time.

Can you believe some people now think wikileaks is Russian propaganda? The same people that broke snowden, and thru Chelsea manning showed us first person what this country was doing in the middle east.

The only news source I trust is consortium. Here's an article they published on this topic. The guy who founded this group broke iran contra.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/12/how-the-establishment-imposes-truth/

I doubt that anyone in here actually defends that

in war longer than any US Presidents? How? USA is in war since forever.

link

We have been at continuous war for decades. Now they have the tech that let's them push the deaths into the back of everyone's mind. They even say on the news that our "precision" missiles have hit terrorist nests, when in reality those missiles are fairly innacurate and large- I've heard about 300 ppl die whenever they launch.

It's disgusting. Blood money for guns and bombs and death.

It's evil. God is getting pissed off.

Serious question: have Nobel Peace prizes ever been revoked before?

Seems not, the organization the hands them out also has a rule that specifically says no appeals can be made for the decision of being given a nobel prize

Nobel prizes don't mean that much

It was more a Nobel black prize.

He won the prize because the people in Norway that choose the winner are mostly former politicians. They did it to show good will towards the president of the US. They are the corrupt ones.

US still hasnt seen any reprocussions from its war crimes.

He won because the former Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjørn Jagland, which is responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, wanted to meet the handsome new president of the US.

Jagland is an idiot who throughout his entire political career has been forced out in the sideline, but manages to fall into way too good positions afterwards.

The Nobel Peace Price is now tainted due to his need to feel important.

He was awarded the prize for being partially black. Just like everything he will be remembered for, it will be historically rewritten because of it. Every statute and law he put in place will be holy scripture until America falls because he was CHANGE

Ya know... The Nobel Peace Prize has a uniformly bad record. Even Henry Kissinger won it!

And the fake MSM news media barely mentioned any of the warfare.

"Peace movement" falls asleep when a Dems do the killing.

Just like trump now..

You have to ask yourself if there are really that many people that qualify as terrorists.

actually only a few of those were ongoing and with Iraq we pulled out under Obama and he put troops right back in.

He did put us into more conflicts than any previous president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/26/808280/-

Did you know he ignored intelligence reports about the rise of isis? So while that may have not been his game plan per se. He literally sat on his hands while isis overran parts of iraq and syria.

Just passing that info on is all.

This is exactly what this post is.

Reminder, we haven't had a peaceful president in ages.

Reminder, it might be they are all bad for some reason.

Many Bernie fans did.

I'm curious, what's your opinion of what the liberals are doing while in power of these schools?

And then Bernie had his nomination stolen from him by Hillary

t. t_d poster, by definition believes in fascism and censorship

Are you dumb?

OP just wants anti-Obama talk

You are thinking about social democracy with those "liberal policies". (Really, not the same thing at all.)

So yes, the MSM is liberal, you just don't know what liberal means.

Man, clearly you're unintelligent and still really salty

You're very, very wrong here. What you want is socialism, not liberalism.

That's not even close to socialism.

Amazing response, you are an intellectual giant​ sir.

Who said I'm a Benghazi believer?

You? The one that believes Trump is a Russian spy buying into the delusion? Heh, yeah I'm sure your reasoning is level headed.

Wars that Obomba promised to end, which he escalated upon taking office.

Yeah fuck the 98 percent of people killed by them that are innocent collateral damage.

move the goal, move the goal!

That's it, I'm now convinced you have no idea what that term means.

Sad excuse when the information is presented and one does not even consider that they are so wrong to admit it.

Yeah, tell me about it.

Here is the US banking executive that put in jail for the 2007-8 issue. AND it even brings up another point on WHY no top executive will ever be prosecuted.

Okay, so literally one did. That really doesn't address the spirit of:

"why no bankers got charged for the market crash in '07-08"

at all.

Yep it just turns any debate into a childish shouting match. The whole Drumpf thing is really dumb, as is "Obummer"

Saying that the MSM is conservative is so off the charts crazy you belong in a mental institution. The way you perceive reality is so far from actually reality that you honestly should consider getting some help.

The MSM are open Democrats/Liberals they even say so themselves. There's one channel on the right and that's Fox. On top of that all the major newspapers. Then you have social media Twitter, Facebook are openly left so is reddit. In Hollywood you literally have to hide that you're a conservative if you want to work.

So to sum up the media is run by leftist, they censor for leftist and they say that they are leftists. Explain to me how you could possibly think that they are not?

Also, don't forget that we have droned American citizens without a trial.

I have a track record of calling the story from Buzzfeed bullshit from the start. I highly doubt you do, so feel free to prove me wrong. Go for it. Where you skeptical of the story when it first dropped? I sure was, and I provied it.

You know that you've spent pages trying to convince me how in to Buzzfeed I am.

No but it's hardly a conspiracy. Its not suited for this sub

Honestly the constant threat of Drones above your head breeds the resentment that leads to terrorism.