Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him

@okie,

Okie, then king of generalities and sweeping statements says

Quote:

Generalities and sweeping statements won't work

really Okie?

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:

Maybe they had time to discuss mutual friend, domestic terrorist, and Marxist, William Ayers, who is a director of the Miranda International Center, a leftist think tank funded by Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan government?

I'm sure they did. Then they exchanged the secret communist handshake, and discussed the idea of selling Oklahoma off to Venezuela, in exchange for oil....

don't be silly o.e. everyone knows that obama is a socialist. hmm... or is it a nazi. an islamist ?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Apparently, the French President isnt very impressed by Obama.
So much for bringing everyone together on Obama's part...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6106250.ece

Quote:
The US President is weak, the Spanish leader is dim, the German Chancellor is clinging on to France’s coat-tails and the head of the European Commission is irrelevant.

but i thought we didn't care what the frogs thought. "freedom fries" ring a bell? Very Happy

in any case, i get the impression that the only one that impresses sarkozy is sarkozy.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Quote:

but i thought we didn't care what the frogs thought. "freedom fries" ring a bell?

"Frog" is an insulting, demeaning term.
I thought you were above using terms like that, especially when you castigate others for using the same kinds of terms to describe other people.

As for "freedom fries", I thought that was stupid at the time, and I still do.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

don't be silly o.e. everyone knows that obama is a socialist. hmm... or is it a nazi. an islamist ?

You are free to guess as well. Go for it.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

don't be silly o.e. everyone knows that obama is a socialist. hmm... or is it a nazi. an islamist ?

You are free to guess as well. Go for it.

But no generalities and sweeping statements, remember? No "connecting the dots"! Facts and figures are needed!

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Well, the liberal attitude for which Bush was criticized is that the war in Iraq was bogus and should be stopped. Obama has not brought the troops home and doesn't plan to do so in the near future. Certainly Americans and Iraqis have died (in this bogus war) since Obama came into office, and certainly they will continue to do so as long as our soldiers are there. Obama could bring the troops home now if he wanted to. Therefore, Obama is a warmonger.

That has to be one of the stupidest conclusions I have ever seen. Not removing troops immediately in no way leads to a conclusion that Obama is a warmonger.

Quote:

Obviously, this isn't what I believe, but if the logic is true for Bush, it should be true for Obama. You can talk more and drag it out, but ultimately you can't win because I'm right.

In case you didn't realize it, Bush sent US troops into Iraq when there were none there. That is quite a bit different from not yet pulling troops out.

One popular liberal position is that the war in Iraq is unjustified and immoral, and that the deaths are a terrible tragedy which should be stopped. President Obama could bring the troops home if he wanted to, and even given the practical considerations, it wouldn't take two years. Since he chooses to keep them there for a couple of years then, according to the above logic, he is a warmongering murderer. Calling me names instead of attacking my logic is as good as an admission that you can't beat my argument.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

But no generalities and sweeping statements, remember? No "connecting the dots"! Facts and figures are needed!

Dots are facts. One important dot is Obama's friend, Ayers, served or is serving on the board of some leftist organization, the Miranda International Center, funded by Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan government. We know that Ayers and Chavez are probably both Marxists, and Ayers kicked off Obama's political career at his house. Perhaps you don't find this noteworthy, but I do. I am not saying it proves anything, but I do find it to be a valuable dot, to use with other dots.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Dots are facts. One important dot is Obama's friend, Ayers, served or is serving on the board of some leftist organization, the Miranda International Center, funded by Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan government.

Youre sense of timing is precious Okie. When the GOP had been trying to "connect" Ayers and Obama, Chaves wasnt even yet in prison for his failed coup. Youre timelines are just precious.

1 Reply

@okie,

A short summary of the other "dots" that you have kindly brought to our attention during the last couple of weeks:

- Obama gave the Prime Minister of Britain shitty gifts.
- Obama turned down the offer to keep the bust of Winston Churchill on loan for a further four years.
- Obama gave the Queen of England a shitty gift.
- Michelle Obama touched the Queen.
- Obama didn't visit Normandy.
- Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia.
- Obama consented to free a kidnapped captain by force, thereby creating more pirates.

You know what? You're probably right! Your complaints don't sound like the whining and complaining that Democrats did right from the start in regard to Bush - something you criticised them so vehemently for, because they didn't even give him a chance. Nope. Those sound like very valid disagreements with his policies.

2 Replies

@old europe,

oe, your points about what Obama has done, they are mighty shallow in thinking if you think that is what my opinion is based upon. These things are only little snippits of his mindset, but you need to read his book, look at his career, and really do a little more deeper thinking on it. You have to look at the total package, in regard to Obama brings to the table, and that is where it gets dicey. There is little doubt by now that Obama has a different view of the world than most previous presidents, and realize he is not a fan of capitalism.

Whatever Obama is, we do know one thing for sure, the political landscape in America is not going to allow him to over reach in regard to what he wants to achieve as part of his "change" program. So therefore few of us know what his end game would be if left unfettered by the existing political landscape. Obama knows this, as well as his staff, and I am sure they are carefully calculating what they think they can achieve. I suspect his end game would be far more radical than it is now, but many people are surprised at how much has happened in a short 3 months.

Since you are apparently a very liberal leftist or socialist type, at least that is my impression from your posts, you are of course going to try to criticize and marginalize any opinion that runs counter to your idealogical belief. From my experience, leftists also are never completely honest about what they believe, because radical socialism or communism is not that popular, but I do sense you are coming more and more out into the open, as of late. This fact accounts for the fact that the rest of us are always left guessing about leftists and their true agenda. And this is so true with Obama, no doubt about that. But be assured, oe, there are still alot of us left to oppose you guys.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Dots are facts. One important dot is Obama's friend, Ayers, served or is serving on the board of some leftist organization, the Miranda International Center, funded by Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan government.
Youre sense of timing is precious Okie. When the GOP had been trying to "connect" Ayers and Obama, Chaves wasnt even yet in prison for his failed coup. Youre timelines are just precious.

I don't follow your reasoning at all. The connection between Ayers and Obama is not based upon one meeting, but regardless, the primary point is that Ayers is clearly a leftist with a leftist agenda, a domestic terrorist actually, that is clearly established, and the fact that he has had a relationship with Obama means something, I think. You dismiss it, because you choose to. Your motivation for dismissing it, I'm not sure, I am still trying to figure out your politics and mindset, it seems very conflicted at this point. If the relationship was anomolous and totally inconsistent with the rest of Obama's political position, then yes it would mean little or nothing, but it only adds to the many other like trademarks and relationships in Obama's career.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

This fact accounts for the fact that the rest of us are always left guessing about leftists and their true agenda. And this is so true with Obama

Preciousness again. I guess youre saying that e of the progressive side are, in your mind traitors or subversives?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
This fact accounts for the fact that the rest of us are always left guessing about leftists and their true agenda. And this is so true with Obama
Preciousness again. I guess youre saying that e of the progressive side are, in your mind traitors or subversives?

I think you made a typo, but if I understand your statement, I realize the country incorporates a measure of socialism already, as in the tax code, and as in social security, etc., however there are alot of us that believe outright communism or Marxism is anti-American and anyone that tries to institute it would be traitors or subversives, yes, that is absolutely correct. Most of us are willing, and in favor of a measure of socialism, but we are very much opposed to the destruction of capitalism, and if we sense that somebody is a threat, it gets us very concerned and very engaged politically.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
but i thought we didn't care what the frogs thought. "freedom fries" ring a bell?

"Frog" is an insulting, demeaning term....

now you embrace your sensitive side ??? Laughing

jeez.

but, your comment still doesn't explain why a conservative would give a rip what the frogs thought about obama.

0 Replies

@old europe,

By the way, oe, I have posted on the following thread link some information on the Nazi Party 25 points, and an interpretation of them, in terms of how each point relates to left or socialistic, or otherwise. Since you and I have debated whether the Nazi Party was actually a socialist party, you claiming it wasn't, despite the name, I have provided more fodder for my argument that it clearly was, and it follows that Hitler also was clearly a socialist. Something that I have found interesting also from more reading, is that Hitler seemed to link the Jews and capitalism as being bound together, thus his hatred for Jews spilled into capitalism as well, at least that is one assessment I came away with after reading those 25 points as well as some of Mein Kampf. Mein Kampf is one piece of confused writing, I agree with what Mussolinni said once, that is was too boring to wade through it, or some such comment.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-2#post-3628207

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Nazi, Socialist...

Looking at the political spectrum from left to right, with socialist on the left and fascist on the right, isn't really accurate.

Instead, any form of government in total control of the state and the individual should be on the left; whether fascist, socialist, or an oligarchy, it should be on the far left of the scale.

Anarchy, of course, would be on the right.

The US is a republic, and is in the middle.

So Nazi, Commie, who cares? We have a party that is attempting to take control of the government via outlandish economic policy, polarizing Homeland Security reports, taking control of the US Census, and inserting the federal government into aspects of the everyday citizen that have never been attempted in the past.

Yeah, they were elected. So was the Nazi Party in 1933...

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

On the Conservatism thread, it has been difficult to keep the focus on points of modern Conservatism which would be on the right side of the spectrum, but there have been a few bursts of good discussion on that. The Republic that the Founders put together for us was about halfway between the middle and the far right (anarchy) as the Left and Right is usually defined in the USA.

So determined were the Founders that government would not be allowed power to interfer with the natural, God-given, unalienable rights of the people., that the entire Constitution was written with that concept in mind. Every aspect of the original Constitution was to provide checks and balances to ensure that government would be able to protect the people from enemies foreign and domestic and be able to prevent the people from doing violence to each other, but it would otherwise stay out of the people's business.

The trend away from that concept didn't start with President Obama but has gradually escalated until we now have an avalanch of government growth and grab for power of incredible proportions. If we don't put the brakes on it, I for the first time see a real possibility that we will lose our Republic as we have known it.

That in a nutshell is what most of the Tea Parties have been about this year. I hope the people stay motivated in that way.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

We've been blessed beyond what any of us could ever hope for in this country, Foxfyre, but freedom without responsibility is doomed to fail. Apathy and unhappiness leads to irresponsibility, and eventually servitude. That is what all the Obamamania is about, too many people want Obama to take care of them, or some such person. They believe more in Obama and a government to solve their problems than they do God Almighty. I don't know if there is a reservoir of people that can turn this around for a while, but longer term I am not real optimistic.

1 Reply

@okie,

How could a mostly untrained, under funded, poorly armed, ragtag bunch of colonists making up a disorganized Army hope to defeat a highly trained,m well-equipped British army when England was in its glory days? There were a lot more British than there were Americans at the time. But, with a little help from their friends, the Colonists did prevail and took their freedom from what they perceived to be an oppressive and overly intrusive government.

Well, the French probably won't help out this time, but what we have going for us is that there are a lot more of us than there are of what Rasmussen describes as the "Political Class":

Quote:

Monday, April 20, 2009
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans have a favorable view of the “tea parties” held nationwide last week, including 32% who say their view of the events is Very favorable.

Thirty-three percent (33%) hold an unfavorable opinion of the tea parties according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.

While half the nation has a favorable opinion of last Wednesday’s events, the nation’s Political Class has a much dimmer view"just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite. Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.

One-in-four adults (25%) say they personally know someone who attended a tea party protest. That figure includes just one percent (1%) of those in the Political Class.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
general_politics2/51_view_tea_parties_favorably_political_
class_strongly_disagrees

Considering how much the leftwing bloggers have smeared the Tea Parties and the pointedly negative, intentionally misleading, or non existent coverage from the MSM (also members of the Political Class), that 51% approval up there is astounding. And think how it will grow if those in that 51% keep speaking the truth, calmly and without extremism, about what is happening to us.

I don't think it is time to be pessimistic yet. Much better in focusing on what we know to be right and good and keep beating that drum.

1 Reply

Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know