Why did the right call Obama a dictator?

1. Boards
2. Politics
3. Why did the right call Obama a dictator?

hivebent4life 2 days ago#1 Some of them genuinely believed it too. In fact, a lot of them did. In what way was Obama a dictator? Also, the same people calling him that are generally the ones who now want Trump to be one. ~Hivebent4Life 3DS FC: 5069-3910-2647 stickyreportquote

TundraKing87 2 days ago#2 Dick fear. reportquote

Phantom_Nook 2 days ago#3 A big scary black man was President, so they went into maximum victim mode. Posted with GameRaven 3.2.2 reportquote

crowkillers 2 days ago#4 Obama was just a guy filling a slot.. Not even close to being a dictator.. reportquote

hoax123 2 days ago#5 Scary brown people. Lock her up! reportquote

EightySix22 2 days ago#6 "Muh guns !" "Michelle wants to force me to eat healthy stuff !" reportquote

TheHonorableOne 2 days ago#7 Obama wasnt a dictator. Terrible ideas but not a dictator. MAGA. reportquote

TaiIs82 1 day ago#8 - "Congress needs to vote on this, I'm not an emperor" - Congress votes overwhelmingly against what Obama wants - "I'm gonna go it alone and do it anyway!" Repeat, repeat, repeat Hero/Legend of 261. Lover of life,free speech,etc. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1196- The man who cared too much. Providing trickle-down knowledge since 2009 reportquote

The_Undying_84 1 day ago#9 They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). PSN: TheUndying84 reportquote

Sczoyd 1 day ago#10 Ooh, remember when executive orders were a sign of dictatorship, despite the previous Republicans signing more?  Then Trump comes along and the conservatives are like "Heck yeah, executive orders! We love those! Trump's working hard to make America great!" Posted using GameFlux (edited 1 day ago)reportquote

mad_hax_man 1 day ago#11 The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators "Hey bridesmaid, love the beard! Give's me something to hang onto!!"- Lord Flasheart reportquote

TheHonorableOne 1 day ago#12 mad_hax_man posted... The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators Obama looked up to Fidel Castro lol. MAGA. reportquote

TorchOfLiberty 1 day ago#13 It was stupid then and it's stupid now. reportquote

Hyena 20 1 day ago#14 EightySix22 posted... "Muh guns !" "Michelle wants to force me to eat healthy stuff !" "Death panels!" "Obama's war on coal!" "He forced gay marriage onto the states!!" "Sending the IRS after the Tea Party!" Also, the Obamacare mandate. That of course, is assuming that you don't delve into the fringe stuff, like "Obama is an ISIS double-agent", "Jade Helm!!!", "false flag shootings", or "Obamacide" (Mind you, the people who believe in Jade Helm also think that Bush was a dictator) Meet Captain Euro, the coolest superhero this side of Aquaman!~~Portal of Evil [Disillusioned Independent] (edited 1 day ago)reportquote

EliteGuard99 1 day ago#15 The right doesn't know what fascism or a dictatorship is obviously. Then again right wingers don't know about a lot of things... "Sessions is like what would happen if a really sheltered home school kid did the fusion dance with everyone's racist thanksgiving uncle" - D_Bart reportquote

Xtopher85 1 day ago#16 mad_hax_man posted... The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators Exactly, and who has somehow made his base unaware that he is threatening the constitution at every turn while they shout "FREEDOM!". His constant attacks against and undermining of the media are endangering our first amendment right to a free press. His potential pardoning of Joe Arpaio would be an attack on not only our fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and due process, but also on the constitutional authority of the Judicial system that convicted Arpaio. His maintaining of his personal businesses - which earn money from foreign sources - are a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. His insistence on a Muslim travel ban violates our first amendment right to freedom of religion. -PSN: Xtopher85 "Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarassment." - Pod 153 reportquote

Heineken14 1 day ago#17 TundraKing87 posted... Dick fear. Lol, better answer than I was going to give, and I also did an audible lol too. Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. reportquote

MegatokyoEd 1 day ago#18 The attacks were hilarious because Obama was somehow a dictator and the weakest president we've ever had at the same time according to the GOP. [NO BARKLEY NO PEACE] reportquote

Heineken14 1 day ago#19 TorchOfLiberty posted... It was stupid then and it's stupid now. Knowing you, I'd be willing to bet you didn't have this same attitude back then.... but since you're a sad troll and can't keep an account for more than a few weeks, it's nigh on impossible to go back and check. Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. reportquote

Xtopher85 1 day ago#20 -PSN: Xtopher85 "Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarassment." - Pod 153 reportquote

#21 (message deleted)

RyanBraun8 1 day ago#22 The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). There are a lot of stupid rightists. Make America Great(ish) Again Impeach Donald "Snowflake" Trump reportquote

DigitalFury_ 1 day ago#23 Xtopher85 posted... mad_hax_man posted... The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators Exactly, and who has somehow made his base unaware that he is threatening the constitution at every turn while they shout "FREEDOM!". His constant attacks against and undermining of the media are endangering our first amendment right to a free press. His potential pardoning of Joe Arpaio would be an attack on not only our fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and due process, but also on the constitutional authority of the Judicial system that convicted Arpaio. His maintaining of his personal businesses - which earn money from foreign sources - are a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. His insistence on a Muslim travel ban violates our first amendment right to freedom of religion. Does it violate our first amendment rights if he is banning non-citizens? Genuine question, not trolling. Currently Playing: Stories of Bethem: Full Moon and Blue Dragon Currently Reading: The Quran and and Tao Te Ching reportquote

Xtopher85 1 day ago#24 DigitalFury_ posted... Xtopher85 posted... mad_hax_man posted... The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators Exactly, and who has somehow made his base unaware that he is threatening the constitution at every turn while they shout "FREEDOM!". His constant attacks against and undermining of the media are endangering our first amendment right to a free press. His potential pardoning of Joe Arpaio would be an attack on not only our fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and due process, but also on the constitutional authority of the Judicial system that convicted Arpaio. His maintaining of his personal businesses - which earn money from foreign sources - are a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. His insistence on a Muslim travel ban violates our first amendment right to freedom of religion. Does it violate our first amendment rights if he is banning non-citizens? Genuine question, not trolling. I suppose not. So that's not directly a violation of the constitution, just a violation of the moral good that the US used to represent. -PSN: Xtopher85 "Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarassment." - Pod 153 reportquote

tankboy 1 day ago#25 He took away our guns and made us all Muslim! reportquote

zeppelin4ever42 1 day ago#26 Xtopher85 posted... DigitalFury_ posted... Xtopher85 posted... mad_hax_man posted... The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators Exactly, and who has somehow made his base unaware that he is threatening the constitution at every turn while they shout "FREEDOM!". His constant attacks against and undermining of the media are endangering our first amendment right to a free press. His potential pardoning of Joe Arpaio would be an attack on not only our fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and due process, but also on the constitutional authority of the Judicial system that convicted Arpaio. His maintaining of his personal businesses - which earn money from foreign sources - are a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. His insistence on a Muslim travel ban violates our first amendment right to freedom of religion. Does it violate our first amendment rights if he is banning non-citizens? Genuine question, not trolling. I suppose not. So that's not directly a violation of the constitution, just a violation of the moral good that the US used to represent. 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Where does it say it applies to citizens only? Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me reportquote

DigitalFury_ 1 day ago#27 zeppelin4ever42 posted... Xtopher85 posted... DigitalFury_ posted... Xtopher85 posted... mad_hax_man posted... The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators Exactly, and who has somehow made his base unaware that he is threatening the constitution at every turn while they shout "FREEDOM!". His constant attacks against and undermining of the media are endangering our first amendment right to a free press. His potential pardoning of Joe Arpaio would be an attack on not only our fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and due process, but also on the constitutional authority of the Judicial system that convicted Arpaio. His maintaining of his personal businesses - which earn money from foreign sources - are a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. His insistence on a Muslim travel ban violates our first amendment right to freedom of religion. Does it violate our first amendment rights if he is banning non-citizens? Genuine question, not trolling. I suppose not. So that's not directly a violation of the constitution, just a violation of the moral good that the US used to represent. 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Where does it say it applies to citizens only? It doesn't directly but the preamble for the constitution states it is for the people of the United States. If you're not a citizen of the United States then you're not one of its people. Currently Playing: Stories of Bethem: Full Moon and Blue Dragon Currently Reading: The Quran and and Tao Te Ching reportquote

TonyKojima 1 day ago#28 DigitalFury_ posted... zeppelin4ever42 posted... Xtopher85 posted... DigitalFury_ posted... Xtopher85 posted... mad_hax_man posted... The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators Exactly, and who has somehow made his base unaware that he is threatening the constitution at every turn while they shout "FREEDOM!". His constant attacks against and undermining of the media are endangering our first amendment right to a free press. His potential pardoning of Joe Arpaio would be an attack on not only our fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and due process, but also on the constitutional authority of the Judicial system that convicted Arpaio. His maintaining of his personal businesses - which earn money from foreign sources - are a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. His insistence on a Muslim travel ban violates our first amendment right to freedom of religion. Does it violate our first amendment rights if he is banning non-citizens? Genuine question, not trolling. I suppose not. So that's not directly a violation of the constitution, just a violation of the moral good that the US used to represent. 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Where does it say it applies to citizens only? It doesn't directly but the preamble for the constitution states it is for the people of the United States. If you're not a citizen of the United States then you're not one of its people. Irrelevant. Not everything has to be taken word for word. The Constitution is certainly not meant to be. Though the XBOX 360 is good in theory, it's hardware limitations say otherwise - Hideo Kojima  PSN - Guncrazy56 reportquote

Wandering__Hero 1 day ago#29 The same reason the left calls 4chan nazis Click the sites these contain to donate to charity for free http://www.thenonprofits.com/ reportquote

DigitalFury_ 1 day ago#30 TonyKojima posted... Irrelevant. Not everything has to be taken word for word. The Constitution is certainly not meant to be. What? How is it irrelevant? How can the constitution and bill of rights be extended to people who are citizens of other countries, which presumably have their own sets of laws? Currently Playing: Stories of Bethem: Full Moon and Blue Dragon Currently Reading: The Quran and and Tao Te Ching reportquote

Xtopher85 1 day ago#31 DigitalFury_ posted... TonyKojima posted... Irrelevant. Not everything has to be taken word for word. The Constitution is certainly not meant to be. What? How is it irrelevant? How can the constitution and bill of rights be extended to people who are citizens of other countries, which presumably have their own sets of laws? I see your point but coming at it from a humanist perspective, wouldn't we wish every country shared identical constitutions to ours? -PSN: Xtopher85 "Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarassment." - Pod 153 reportquote

DigitalFury_ 23 hours ago#32 Xtopher85 posted... DigitalFury_ posted... TonyKojima posted... Irrelevant. Not everything has to be taken word for word. The Constitution is certainly not meant to be. What? How is it irrelevant? How can the constitution and bill of rights be extended to people who are citizens of other countries, which presumably have their own sets of laws? I see your point but coming at it from a humanist perspective, wouldn't we wish every country shared identical constitutions to ours? I guess that depends on whether or not you believe we are the moral compass by which people should navigate their own laws and freedoms. It also assumes that each country is governed by capable politicians, elected by a well-informed populace. I'd be more than happy to see a world where people are free to make their own choices and live their lives the way they see fit. Currently Playing: Stories of Bethem: Full Moon and Blue Dragon Currently Reading: The Quran and and Tao Te Ching reportquote

Itoldyaso 23 hours ago#33 DICK tator. reportquote

zeppelin4ever42 23 hours ago#34 Xtopher85 posted... DigitalFury_ posted... TonyKojima posted... Irrelevant. Not everything has to be taken word for word. The Constitution is certainly not meant to be. What? How is it irrelevant? How can the constitution and bill of rights be extended to people who are citizens of other countries, which presumably have their own sets of laws? I see your point but coming at it from a humanist perspective, wouldn't we wish every country shared identical constitutions to ours? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It says nothing of only applying to citizens. Otherwise we could just sentence any foreigner on our soil without trial  The rightwing, supposed upholders of the Constitution, tend to ignore what it actually states In the Alternative Constitution, rights are only applied to white US citizens in the top 1% that vote for the magic R. Unless a Republican politician says otherwise, in which case say goodbye America, hello Guantanamo Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me reportquote

CyborgSage00x0 23 hours ago#35 The right called him whatever boogeyman of the moment they were peddling. PotD's resident Film Expert. reportquote

Xtopher85 22 hours ago#36 zeppelin4ever42 posted... Xtopher85 posted... DigitalFury_ posted... TonyKojima posted... Irrelevant. Not everything has to be taken word for word. The Constitution is certainly not meant to be. What? How is it irrelevant? How can the constitution and bill of rights be extended to people who are citizens of other countries, which presumably have their own sets of laws? I see your point but coming at it from a humanist perspective, wouldn't we wish every country shared identical constitutions to ours? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It says nothing of only applying to citizens. Otherwise we could just sentence any foreigner on our soil without trial  The rightwing, supposed upholders of the Constitution, tend to ignore what it actually states In the Alternative Constitution, rights are only applied to white US citizens in the top 1% that vote for the magic R. Unless a Republican politician says otherwise, in which case say goodbye America, hello Guantanamo Right. The declaration of Independence also stated the following (not that this governs any sort of US law): We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It does not state that those inalienable rights need only to apply to US citizens. In fact, at the time of its writing, those writing it would have been considered citizens of the United Kingdom. -PSN: Xtopher85 "Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarassment." - Pod 153 reportquote

The_Undying_84 22 hours ago#37 DigitalFury_ posted... Xtopher85 posted... mad_hax_man posted... The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators Exactly, and who has somehow made his base unaware that he is threatening the constitution at every turn while they shout "FREEDOM!". His constant attacks against and undermining of the media are endangering our first amendment right to a free press. His potential pardoning of Joe Arpaio would be an attack on not only our fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and due process, but also on the constitutional authority of the Judicial system that convicted Arpaio. His maintaining of his personal businesses - which earn money from foreign sources - are a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. His insistence on a Muslim travel ban violates our first amendment right to freedom of religion. Does it violate our first amendment rights if he is banning non-citizens? Genuine question, not trolling. I say yes. People coming into our country are prospective citizens, immigrating here is a requirement for citizenship. Therefore discriminating against immigrants on the basis of religion is creating a religious test for citizenship, which is clearly a violation of the first amendment. PSN: TheUndying84 reportquote

Red XlV 22 hours ago#38 DigitalFury_ posted... It doesn't directly but the preamble for the constitution states it is for the people of the United States. If you're not a citizen of the United States then you're not one of its people. This reflects a basic lack of comprehension of how the Constitution even works. It spells out what the government can and can't do. Unless a provision of the Constitution specifically mentions citizens when prohibiting a government action, it means the government can't do that particular thing to anybody. A bad enough dude to save the President. "We chose more government instead of more freedom." - Marco Rubio (R-Florida) on the Bush administration reportquote

TheY2AProblem 20 hours ago#39 "I have a pen and I have a phone." Gee, I don't have the foggiest of ideas. If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1217-the-angry-dome reportquote

action52 20 hours ago#40 The_Undying_84 posted... DigitalFury_ posted... Xtopher85 posted... mad_hax_man posted... The_Undying_84 posted... They called him a dictator AND a weakling who was soft on (insert perceived villain). And then voted in a guy who was incredibly open about admiring dictators Exactly, and who has somehow made his base unaware that he is threatening the constitution at every turn while they shout "FREEDOM!". His constant attacks against and undermining of the media are endangering our first amendment right to a free press. His potential pardoning of Joe Arpaio would be an attack on not only our fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and due process, but also on the constitutional authority of the Judicial system that convicted Arpaio. His maintaining of his personal businesses - which earn money from foreign sources - are a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. His insistence on a Muslim travel ban violates our first amendment right to freedom of religion. Does it violate our first amendment rights if he is banning non-citizens? Genuine question, not trolling. I say yes. People coming into our country are prospective citizens, immigrating here is a requirement for citizenship. Therefore discriminating against immigrants on the basis of religion is creating a religious test for citizenship, which is clearly a violation of the first amendment. Also remember that the original version of the order also affected Americans with dual citizenship. -sent from an old rotary phone reportquote

Red XlV 14 hours ago#41 TheY2AProblem posted... "I have a pen and I have a phone." Gee, I don't have the foggiest of ideas. You don't have the foggiest of ideas about anything, do you? A bad enough dude to save the President. "We chose more government instead of more freedom." - Marco Rubio (R-Florida) on the Bush administration reportquote

atmasabr 14 hours ago#42 hivebent4life posted... Some of them genuinely believed it too. In fact, a lot of them did. In what way was Obama a dictator? Also, the same people calling him that are generally the ones who now want Trump to be one. You could do far worse to research the answer to that question than listening to talk radio a few days Do your own research! reportquote

OtakuD50 14 hours ago#43 TheY2AProblem posted... "I have a pen and I have a phone." Gee, I don't have the foggiest of ideas. *googles quote for context* *laughs my f***ing ass off that people were up in arms about this* Natsume (4th): Lv.99 1000 Affection 23:05:36 1038000GP "Now, gods, stand up for bastards!" reportquote

Jimayo 14 hours ago#44 OtakuD50 posted... TheY2AProblem posted... "I have a pen and I have a phone." Gee, I don't have the foggiest of ideas. *googles quote for context* *laughs my f***ing ass off that people were up in arms about this* @OtakuD50 That was nothing. At this point in former President Barack Obama's tenure as the leader of the free world, right-wing news outlets were condemning his use of Dijon mustard as a condiment. Yes, really. http://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-donald-trump-russia-investigation-dijon-mustard-scandal-fox-fake-623643 The right went utterly insane when a black man was elected president. 261 - More troll food than any other board on the net. What the right sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rYqF_BtIwAU reportquote

RyanBraun8 14 hours ago#45 OtakuD50 posted... TheY2AProblem posted... "I have a pen and I have a phone." Gee, I don't have the foggiest of ideas. *laughs my f***ing ass off that people were up in arms about this* Because Fox News and Breitbart told them what to think again. Make America Great(ish) Again Impeach Donald "Snowflake" Trump reportquote

zeppelin4ever42 5 hours ago#46 Jimayo posted... OtakuD50 posted... TheY2AProblem posted... "I have a pen and I have a phone." Gee, I don't have the foggiest of ideas. *googles quote for context* *laughs my f***ing ass off that people were up in arms about this* @OtakuD50 That was nothing. At this point in former President Barack Obama's tenure as the leader of the free world, right-wing news outlets were condemning his use of Dijon mustard as a condiment. Yes, really. http://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-donald-trump-russia-investigation-dijon-mustard-scandal-fox-fake-623643 The right went utterly insane when a black man was elected president. It was absolutely insane. It gave them the chance to focus and expand racial hate. And the rightwing didn't actually have to come up with policy, which is their biggest draw back as a party. They can raise money, they are masters of the negative add, but ruling is beyond them Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me reportquote

guerrillakidney 3 hours ago#47 The courts have ruled repeatedly that its not just citizens who have constitutional rights reportquote

1. Boards
2. Politics 
3. Why did the right call Obama a dictator?