I don't intend to get into a conversation about it, but I think Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining the origins of the term "Uncle Tom" in a negative light.

From Wikipedia:

The term "Uncle Tom" is used as a derogatory epithet for an excessively subservient person, particularly when that person perceives their own lower-class status based on race. It is similarly used to negatively describe a person who betrays their own group by participating in its oppression, whether or not they do so willingly. The term has also, with more intended neutrality, been applied in psychology in the form "Uncle Tom syndrome", a term for the use of subservience, appeasement and passivity to cope with intimidation and threats.

The popular negative connotations of "Uncle Tom" have largely been attributed to the numerous derivative works inspired by Uncle Tom's Cabin in the decade after its release, rather than the original novel itself, whose title character is a more positive figure. These works lampooned and distorted the portrayal of Uncle Tom with politically loaded overtones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

What more do you want Obama to do right now, oldroy? He has had the Navy and Air Force carry out hundreds of air attacks against ISIL and has provided exactly the support to the Kurds and Iraqi army the professor in this clip is talking about. ISIL advances in Iraq have been stopped and even reversed in some places, and Iraqi and Kurdish forces are now fighting them effectively.

Do you want Obama to put more American boots on the ground there? How many would make you happy?

Is that the only kind of military action you understand? How many more billions, or even trillions, do you want to add to our national debt?

Do you want YOUR grandson or great grandson to go there and fight? Does it not make more sense to have the Iraqis and Kurds fight ISIL than us?

Or are you bitching and spreading anti-Obama hate just because you don't like him?

A 2-minute compilation of snippets from a 35-minute speech is hardly evidence of how well Obama's speech was received. The whole tone of his speech was one of seriousness about the troubles of veterans, and the relatively small, mostly elderly audience applauded respectfully in many other places during the speech. Those moments, not surprisingly, were left out of this little compilation of snippets. That's not to say that he got the same enthusiastic applause as he would have gotten at a political rally, but considering that this group is one that regularly drinks the right-wing, anti-Obama koolaid, he did ok, even with them. If you watch the speech at the link below, compare the applause that heroic veterans he pointed out received to the applause he received in other parts of the speech. Not much difference. He was received more warmly by this relatively hostile audience than this 2-minute video clip would suggest.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/08/26/president-obama-addresses-american-legion

You would need to provide specific examples of the founding fathers being portrayed in those negative ways for your post to mean anything. I don't believe that is happening. If "There are so many more," I'm sure you would have no trouble providing some examples.

This has nothing to do with Obama, but golf has long been an activity that politicians and senior military officers have used to conduct casual meetings with other leaders. I imagine that CEOs and other business leaders do the same. When sharing a cart or walking together, they can discuss business, then have time to digest issues on their own when they go their separate ways to play their next shot. Then they rejoin their partner and continue their discussion.

Back when I was an admin aid to a 4-star admiral in the Pacific theater during the Reagan years, he was more or less ordered to take up golf because senior leaders from Asian countries liked to discuss business while golfing. There was always a fear (on both sides) that offices were bugged, and the open air of a golf course lessened the chances of being overheard or recorded. He had previously hated the game, but he took it up and ended up liking it. I imagine the same sort of thing goes on today.

I don't know if Obama golfs for the pure enjoyment of it, to relieve the stress of the office, or to conduct private meetings. Find out who he golfs with mostly, and you would have a better picture. Remember, Obama did not golf until he became president.

I never said that the military avoids Obama's orders. And your claim that captains and generals "have been thrown out recently" is complete hogwash. Never happened. I work with recently retired, senior military officers every day, and NOT ONE of them was "thrown out". There is simply the normal drawdown that follows every war. Simple as that. If there were so many captains and generals being thrown out (rather than just retiring normally), don't you think that just one of them would have gone public with it? The whole notion is absurd and illustrates a lack of understanding of the military.

You are drinking way too much koolaid, old friend.

What I find fascinating is that anyone in their right mind would believe that our military would undertake a rescue mission like that with 30-day-old intelligence. It might have taken 30 days from when the initial plan was proposed before the go-ahead order was given, but there is no way in hell that our specops teams would conduct a mission without current intel. You can bet every dollar you have that the intel they had was as current as it could have been. Did you notice that the report said that it's likely that the hostages had been moved within "hours" of the rescue attempt?

Haters' brains don't seem to work very well.

This is just one more example in a long list of cases in which Obama haters glom on to some isolated factoid and fabricate a story around it.

There are medications you can take to solve your problem, Tasine. You should ask your doctor about them.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Sorry, Broken Arrow. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you have been believing some odd rumors about Mr. Rogers. I copy-and-pasted the below from Snopes, but you can find the same stuff in just about any other site that comes up with an internet search:

Not only did Fred Rogers never serve in the military, there are no gaps in his career when he could conceivably have done so. He went straight into college after high school, he moved directly into TV work after graduating college, and his breaks from television work were devoted to attending the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (he was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1963) - RetNavyCWO Note: President Kennedy established the SEALS in 1962, when Mr. Rogers was 34 years old - and the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Child Development. Moreover, Fred Rogers was born in 1928 and was therefore far too old to have been a draftee during the period of America's military involvement in the Vietnam ground war (1965-72) and too established in his career at that point to have run off to enlist.

Fred Rogers never served in the military, and he bore no tattoos on his arms (or any other part of his body). He wore long-sleeved shirts and sweaters on his show as a stylistic choice, in order to maintain an air of formality with youngsters. Although he was friendly with the children in his viewing audience and talked to them on their own level, he was most definitely an authority figure on a par with parents and teachers (he was Mister Rogers to them, after all, not "Fred"), and his choice of dress was intended to establish and foster that relationship.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/mrrogers.asp#6BTwSer0sQJwH0EJ.99

There are no 5-star generals. Four stars is as high as they go.

Have YOU read Executive Order 13662? I don't think so. I think you just read what some rightwingnut posted somewhere, figuring people wouldn't actually look it up, and tried to pull the same bullshit here. EO 13662 says nothing about restricting gun rights. It's one of the executive orders placing sanctions against Russia. WTF are you talking about?

Executive Order 13662 of March 20, 2014 Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emer- gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, and expanded by Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014, finding that the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation, including its purported annexation of Crimea and its use of force in Ukraine, continue to undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State: (i) to operate in such sectors of the Russian Federation economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, such as financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering, and defense and related materiel; (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 2. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 3. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, and expanded in Executive Order 13661 and this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to: (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 6. For the purposes of this order: (a) the term ‘‘person’’ means an individual or entity; (b) the term ‘‘entity’’ means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; (c) the term ‘‘United States person’’ means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and (d) the term the ‘‘Government of the Russian Federation’’ means the Government of the Russian Federation, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of the Russian Federation.

Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, and expanded in Executive Order 13661 and this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec. 8. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 9. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

You might want to be careful about what information you learn here that you pass on. Lots of BS gets posted on this site. You might lose some credibility with your "people" if you accept everything at face value.

Patty, you should just go ahead and change your screen name to "Putin's Bitch." That way everybody would know where your loyalties are.