I’ve really begun to wonder if Obama has done more damage to America than Bush did. Here’s Obama’s lies about Snowden when ask about a pardon.

Obama weighed in on the matter on Friday. During his European tour, he was interviewed by Der Spiegel—the largest newspaper in Germany, a country where Snowden is particularly popular. After discussing a wide range of issues, he was asked: Are you going to pardon Edward Snowden?

Obama replied: “I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves, so that’s not something that I would comment on at this point.
And it’s total bull. Ford pardoned Nixon before he was charged and Carter pardoned the Vietnam draft resisters en mass without charges or even identifying them. This mass spying which will probably continue under Trump and surely would have continued under Clinton is why the voters gave the government the finger in this last election. The NSA spying is a crime against humanity creating a single point of failure for civilization. Bush and Obama should be the one’s going to jail. Snowden is a hero.


  1. Jeff A says:

    Obviously he meant “can’t” in the “won’t” sense i.e. a personal standards, not legal sense.

    People say they can’t do stuff all the time when they actually mean they won’t because of a variety of other factors. Can one check if he has only pardoned chard and/or convicted people? Otherwise this is specious line of reasoning calling it a lie.

    • bobbo, we think with words and flower with ideas says:

      Its still a lie coming from the President speaking AS PRESIDENT. In effect, he pardoned the hundreds if not thousands of BANKSTERS that drove the World Economy into the ditch, in which we are still floundering and Trump is Planning a repeat of, by his STUNNING failure to prosecute.

      “There’s something that ain’t quite right about that boy.”

      Prosecution under LSD might reveal it, but thats about what it would take.

      • Tim says:

        As usual I need some kind of secret decoder ring found only in a 1960’s cereal box to decipher what you are talking about.

        Example #1: ” In effect, he pardoned the hundreds if not thousands of BANKSTERS

        That never happened, there was no pardon of Banksters. That he did not choose to prosecute his Masters does not constitute a pardon.

        Example #2. Trump is Planning a repeat of, by his STUNNING failure to prosecute…….

        Trump is PLANNING a repeat of…. what? a pardon that never happened? What are you talking about? Who’s STUNNING failure to prosecute? Trump’s? That’s what it sounds like you are trying to say. It makes no sense in any language I am familiar with, and I know several.

        Example #3. Prosecution under LSD might reveal it, but that’s about what it would take.

        Prosecution under LSD? I don’t have any idea what this means unless its a reference to the hallucinogen, and even then it means nothing.

        I know when you are typing things off the top of your head, you get it. To yourself, you may sound like one of the most witty and intelligent people you’ve ever encountered. But to the rest of us, it’s just gibberish.

        • bobbo, we think with words and flower with ideas says:

          Tim needing more than a dictionary says:
          11/25/2016 at 2:52 pm

          1. As usual I need some kind of secret decoder ring found only in a 1960’s cereal box to decipher what you are talking about. /// Its no secret. Just an appreciation for fine English….. usually “context.”

          2. Example #1: ” In effect, he pardoned the hundreds if not thousands of BANKSTERS

          That never happened, there was no pardon of Banksters. That he did not choose to prosecute his Masters does not constitute a pardon. /// Key word/concept there is: “In effect…” it transcodes everything I posted to conform to your everyday and correct understanding of pardons. But you don’t need to pardon if you never prosecute. Can you find any pleasure at all in the emphasis?

          3. Example #2. Trump is Planning a repeat of, by his STUNNING failure to prosecute…….

          Trump is PLANNING a repeat of…. what? a pardon that never happened? What are you talking about? Who’s STUNNING failure to prosecute? Trump’s? That’s what it sounds like you are trying to say. It makes no sense in any language I am familiar with, and I know several. /// Yes…you’ve mentioned that before. I can order beer and find a bathroom and order a taxi in about 8-10 different languages…but I’m fluent in only one. Your confusion on this point is purely lack of reading skills. The meaning is clear when you recognize that dependent phrases must be read in conjunction with their antecedent/parent proposition. In this case: as best as can be prognosticated, Trump is going to drive the world economy into the ditch….because he is going to drive the USA economy into the ditch and the rest of the world will almost unavoidably follow. Its very clear…your failure to follow I assume mostly because your eyes glazed over right from the start????

          4. Example #3. Prosecution under LSD might reveal it, but that’s about what it would take.

          Prosecution under LSD? I don’t have any idea what this means unless its a reference to the hallucinogen, and even then it means nothing. /// That reference is more obscure and not abundantly clear. I should have said given a deposition which is part of a prosecution, but I jumped the gun. Otherwise, the USA military used LSD as an interrogation truth serum and found it to be quite effective on many people…. it detaches the subject from his morings to reality including the lies he wishes to tell. I don’t know….but I find the same thing happens to me with beer.

          5. I know when you are typing things off the top of your head, you get it. To yourself, you may sound like one of the most witty and intelligent people you’ve ever encountered. But to the rest of us, it’s just gibberish. /// Those two thoughts are not inconsistent.

          Reply /// Hope the above helps. We never stand as tall as when we stoop to help the disabled.

          • Tim says:

            Har, thanks for clearing that up. Where was that bobbo filter I heard about?

          • bobbo, we think with words and flower with ideas says:

            Is that because you disagree and only want to read that with which you agree, or because its too nuanced for your bumper sticker preferences?

            Personally, I find more personal growth possible when reading what I disagree with if there is some logic to it and a few supporting facts, and difficulty to understand, within limits, is always an opportunity to grow.

            Your brain: a thinking complex of firing neurons….. or a doorstop?

          • Tim says:

            No, the “nuance” only works in your own thick skull. Its no surprise to me that the moderator wants to blacklist you, I can only imagine how may other forums you have been banned from.

            Good luck with your schizophrenia.

          • bobbo, we think with words and flower with ideas says:

            Say Tim: you post you don’t understand my post and yet it easily makes sense as I set forth in further detail. That is the very definition of nuance.

            You do know that words have meaning?

            After you buy that dictionary, you should spend some time reading it.

            ….and why the Personal Attack? Shouldn’t take any nuance at all to apprehend such attacks are about as impactful as your level of understanding expository English.

            I could go on, but I am hamstrung by the Guidelines:

            “….and the priests in black gowns, were making their rounds,
            and binding in briars,
            my joys and desires.”

            Good stuff.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Your explanation of how to comprehend reading suggests you are trying to learn. We will see how well you apply these lessons in the future. Now lay off the CAPS.

          • bobbo, we think with words and flower with ideas says:

            TWO doorstops.

            ………..We’re having a sale: Black Friday.

      • Jeff A says:

        So there are two ways to interpret this statement that are consistent with the usage of the English language. 1) Can’t = legally unable to issue a preemptive pardon 2) Can’t = wouldn’t issue a preemptive pardon.

        Since #1 is inconsistent with widely available facts and #2 is consistent with all known facts, the only reasonable stance is that #2 was what was intended.

        Therefore #1 would be a lie or mistake, but interpretation #2 is not a lie.

        If you are going to be that strict about the “can’t” vs “won’t” terms, we should be equally strict in observing that neither Snowden nor “Banksters” (whatever those are, legally) have been officially charged or officially pardoned. I have no idea how they can be used to demonstrate an inconsistency in his statements or position.

        • bobbo, we think with words and flower with ideas says:

          So there are two ways to interpret this statement that are consistent with the usage of the English language. //// No, the clear point made was that at issue is PRESIDENTIAL language.

          Note the emphasis.

          • Jeff A says:

            That is emphasis you seem to be introducing out of cloth to create an inconsistency. He did not use that word.

            You seem to think that everything a president says is meant to be the strictest of legal interpretation. He was giving an interview and speaking off the cuff, not testifying in a court of law or a issuing prepared statement in any official context.

            Mine interpretation is consistent with all his other words and actions; yours has him making an obvious lie for no reason.

            I think we have to just agree to disagree.

          • bobbo, we think with words and flower with ideas says:

            Jeff A sticking with the first thought out of his head obdurately says:
            11/26/2016 at 9:06 am

            1. That is emphasis you seem to be introducing out of cloth to create an inconsistency. He did not use that word. /// In cloth, fully clothed, what I created was an example of CONSISTENCY. Obama CAN PARDON by way expressed statutory action, or “in effect” by refusing to prosecute the same crimes that he can pardon. The two actions have the same consistent effect: no jail time for guilty criminal parties. Seems obvious to me. What is the gap in your appreciation other than nuance?

            2. You seem to think that everything a president says is meant to be the strictest of legal interpretation. He was giving an interview and speaking off the cuff, not testifying in a court of law or a issuing prepared statement in any official context. //// that is exactly correct. When the President speaks off the cuff ((if that is even what he was doing)) his words direct the destiny of many people involved or even the mood of the Nation as a whole…even the whole world. Most people will get corrected when incorrectly saying can’t instead of won’t because they have very different meanings………most of the time. If President O meant to say he could not “personally” pardon Snowden then THAT is what he should have said. Course…. if you are a fanboy of sloppy communications so you can make anything of it that you wish…I would continue to disagree. Words have Meaning.

            3. Mine interpretation is consistent with all his other words and actions; yours has him making an obvious lie for no reason. //// All his other words? Ha, Ha …. he has uttered a lot of words. When else has he said can’t instead of won’t? Any vague recollection there?? It doesn’t matter…using can’t instead of won’t when its a lie that you agree is what it is, is for EMPHASIS and to stop debate and to win people to his side of the argument. Most politicians can’t stop themselves from such pandering. Put a “sic” after that last can’t…. to display the nuance thing and mys sense of humor and word-play.

            4. I think we have to just agree to disagree. /// No. I do not agree/tolerate your refusal to apply dictionary meanings of words to Presidential announcements on whether groups of people go to jail or not for revealing illegal governmental and private mass surveillance of you and me. I just can’t do it.

        • bobbo, we think with words and flower with ideas says:

          I have no idea how they can be used to demonstrate an inconsistency in his statements or position. /// Either action is an example of Obama’s exercise of discretion within the powers that he is totally capable of doing.

          I’ll put you down for a doorstop.

  2. Mr Diesel - Trump Won, Piss Off Crybabies says:

    Oh that’s hilarious. Of course he is lying. He has been since was doing drugs in his buddies van.

  3. NewFormatSux says:

    He also said he can’t hand out amnesty by executive order, and then he did that.

  4. Ah_Yea says:

    Good news for us, bad news for all Dem’s!

    Using this logic, he also cannot pardon Loretta Lynch, John Podesta, Donna Brazile, Harry Reid, and numerous other scum sucking lowlifes.

    And don’t think they won’t get prosecuted. Just because Trump said he won’t pursue legal action against Hillary, that doesn’t mean Jeff Sessions or Congress won’t!

  5. IM78 says:

    Re: “Har, thanks for clearing that up. Where was that bobbo filter I heard about?”

    Yeah. What about that? I’d like one too.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Hmm, maybe I should commercialize it. And given how much JCD endorsed Google Books and said the authors who objected didn’t realize they are making more money from it, perhaps I should do my own version of the blog with the ads removed, call it Dvorak Unadded.

  6. NewFormatSux says:

    So Marc, you say Snowden deserves a pardon. How do you reconcile this with thinking that Trump is so horrible, Clinton had to be elected to stop him, and Wikileaks doing the opposite?

  7. spsffan says:

    While I agree that it is total bull, this matter has nothing to do with Trump getting elected.

    The F U to Washington is all about the economy, stupid. If people cared about their privacy, there would be no Facebook. Yet, it thrives!

  8. Phydeau says:

    http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2011/09/10/republicans-dragging-us-toward-a-new-civil-war/comment-page-1/#comment-1897791

    Five years ago I said:

    You wingnut morons don’t realize… you already have your Republican president.

    If you were kidnapped by aliens right before the 2008 presidential election and deposited back on earth today, you’d see a president who:

    1. Refused to prosecute obvious lawbreakers from the Bush administration — torturers and people who spy without warrants and much more.

    2. Refused to prosecute Wall Street criminals, despite lots of evidence that their illegal activities put us in this depression.

    3. Introduced a rehash of the 1994 Republican health care proposal, where millions of Americans are forced to buy medical insurance from private companies. The same kind of program that Republican Mitt Romney pushed thru in MA.

    4. Not only continued Bush’s spying programs, but claimed the right to assassinate any American anywhere in the world, without any due process — trial, jury, sentencing, none of that.

    5. Expressed an interest in cutting Social Security and Medicare.

    6. Hired Wall Street insiders as key aides in his administration.

    7. Started a couple more wars (Yemen, Libya) without Congressional approval.

    8. Continued the tax cuts for the rich.

    If you didn’t know the results of the election you’d assume that the Republican won, wouldn’t you?

    The Democratic party has taken over the “moderate” Republican position. The Republican party has gone over the edge into insanity. The Democrat will get elected in 2012, again, and continue his Republican policies, again.

    Current events have proved me right once again. Obama was the moderate Republican. Bernie (who I supported) was the Democratic candidate. Clinton was the Republican candidate. The actual Republican party went over the edge into insanity and nominated Trump, who conned enough desperate people into voting for him to win. And here we are, with the inmates running the asylum. :/

    • Phydeau says:

      The rest of my old comment:

      You morons have won and you don’t realize it. There is no political party in America that represents non-moron average Americans — the ones who want the rich to pay their share of taxes. The ones who want lawbreakers prosecuted, even the rich lawbreakers with fancy lawyers. The ones who want to get us out of wars. The ones who want to preserve Social Security and Medicare. The ones who want a fair playing ground in the business world, not crony capitalism. The ones who want the government to follow the Constitution when spying on Americans. No political party represents us any more.

      You think Trump is going to make rich people pay their taxes? He’s already proposing to cut taxes for the rich and increase taxes on the non-rich. You think he’s going to prosecute rich lawbreakers with fancy lawyers? You think he’s going to establish a fair playing ground in the business world, Mr. Crony Capitalism himself? You think he’s going to stop spying on Americans? Dream on. 🙄

  9. Bidobi says:

    Not wrong or idiotic…. just so very hypocritically self centered.

  10. Neal Layton says:

    Snowden is a complete traitor, why would anyone think he should be pardoned? Obama, is also a failure, but I have to agree with him on this one. Let Snowden fry as the terrorist he is.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 13504 access attempts in the last 7 days.