The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: alfsauve on September 13, 2010, 08:56:20 PM

Title: You are NOT my keeper
Post by: alfsauve on September 13, 2010, 08:56:20 PM

So this is from  the President's latest fund raising missive.

Quote

"When Michelle and I decided that I would run for President, it was because of a shared belief in the power of community and connection, a commitment to the idea that we are our brothers' keepers."

Now I read this that what he believes is in the rule by the "good-old-boys/girls-club"  and that some, like himself are impowered to take care of the rest of us.

JUST TO BE CLEAR.

I DID NOT APPOINT NOR DO I WANT  Barack Hussein Obama or his wife as my keeper.  Nor anyone else for that matter. 

Title: Re: You are NOT my keeper
Post by: Ichiban on September 14, 2010, 04:58:30 AM

But that is the libtard's view of the great unwashed:  We're too stupid to take care of ourselves so we need the really, really smart people to take care of us - whether we ask for it or not.

Title: Re: You are NOT my keeper
Post by: alfsauve on September 14, 2010, 05:26:00 AM

For those who may think I'm nitpicking at his statement

Quote

.....we are our brothers' keepers.

I believe the pronoun "we" would refer to Michelle and Obama in this sentence.   If the pronoun was suppose to be collective, I would have written it, "we are ALL our brothers' keepers." 

A Freudian slip? 

Title: Re: You are NOT my keeper
Post by: Pathfinder on September 14, 2010, 06:21:21 AM

Quote from: alfsauve on September 14, 2010, 05:26:00 AM

For those who may think I'm nitpicking at his statement

I believe the pronoun "we" would refer to Michelle and Obama in this sentence.   If the pronoun was suppose to be collective, I would have written it, "we are ALL our brothers' keepers." 

A Freudian slip? 

It could be the use of the royal "we" - as in "we are not amused".

But I agree - who the f..k asked them to intervene? Who told them it was acceptable in this country to do what he has done?

Title: Re: You are NOT my keeper
Post by: tt11758 on September 14, 2010, 04:29:29 PM

Quote from: Pathfinder on September 14, 2010, 06:21:21 AM

It could be the use of the royal "we" - as in "we are not amused".

But I agree - who the f..k asked them to intervene? Who told them it was acceptable in this country to do what he has done?

And more importantly, where in the Constitution does it specify that the President, or anybody else, is their brother's keeper.

Hey Barry, you wanna be your brother's keeper?  Then send a few bucks to your brother.   You know, the one who's living in a shack in Kenya.  (a.k.a. "The Home Place")

Title: Re: You are NOT my keeper
Post by: jp1 on September 14, 2010, 07:33:03 PM

They think we are Homer Simpson.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama%E2%80%99s-regulatory-czar-demystified-for-homer-simpson-america/

Title: Re: You are NOT my keeper
Post by: twyacht on September 14, 2010, 09:19:40 PM

Thanks jp1, they do not speak for you, me or the great portion of America that refuses to wear blinders, and shake off the Magical Obama Pixie Dust.

Cass Susstien, and not this admin. speak for me, my impulsive buying is an ammo sale online, or a sweet deal on another firearm.

and once again, BHO is WRONG on his interpretation.

Let's review the "context of My Brother's Keeper"

Crystal Clear from my interpretation.