Here is how the libs get rid of Obama.
They make him the world's problem.
In early March, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivers a passionate address focusing on a new problem facing our world: collapsing currencies. In its wake, the traditional problems of poverty, disease, civil strife, unemployment, and social justice have gotten worse. To deal with these massive problems, in coordination with leaders of 30 major countries, he announces the establishment of a worldwide organizing and coordinating institutional body to manage the affairs of the world's leading economies. To the contemporary American liberal mindset, such an organization would have great appeal, as a way of keeping in check the selfish America of which they are so ashamed. To them, it would enjoy legitimacy higher than the U.N., the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and even the National Football League. It would direct programs requiring resources and responses of the world's richest countries. They must pay their fair share. (Sound familiar?)
In the biggest surprise of the century, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon nominates President Barack Obama to lead this organization. He sees Barack Obama as the perfect (and indeed, the only) choice to be the first prime minister of the World Social Order Federation, which will formally begin operation in February 2013.
Shortly after this speech by the U.N. leader, Barack Obama and his Teleprompter announce to the country that solely because of the awesome responsibility thrust upon him, he most regretfully has decided not run for reelection as president of the United States. In the same speech, Barack and his Teleprompter announce his endorsement of...drum roll, please...Hillary Clinton to succeed him as president.
Re: Here is how the libs get rid of Obama.
I never even in my wildest thoughts figured you could do it. First, the "libs" don't want to get rid of Obama and secondly, you have now surpassed MORON status.
I started smelling BS when I got to this line....
"To the contemporary American liberal mindset, such an organization would have great appeal, as a way of keeping in check the selfish America of which they are so ashamed."
The writer knows nothing. If we feel any shame concerning America, it is because we have a group called the Tea Party and politics to the right of John Birch who are willing to sacrifice the good of the nation for their personal ideals. Who's selfish, really?
This is poppycock to the highest degree. How can someone be so out of touch?
and thinking more on it
The good of the nation definately could not be defined by personal ideals. That would by defination not represent the nation. It would have to be determined on a larger scale in a representative democracy. However, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would be more apt to draw from both sides to find what is good, because in my opinion, netiher is completely right. I am not sure the far right listens to anyone as with the far left. However, I have seen the left bend to the right more often than the contrary.