Obama '08?

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

as for my thoughts on conservatives and their love for terrorism, terror sells, terror gets votes among a segment of the population, just like handouts do for others, really two sides of the asme coin

That is about as ridiculous of an opinion as could be possible. For example, when crime rates escalate in a town, the town's citizens will respond to a sheriff that talks about an effective policy to reduce crime there. You could also make the accusation that "crime sells," for that candidate to talk about what the citizens care about. Of course, your reasoning that "terror sells" is equally as ridiculous. People care about national security and therefore they respond to an administration that recognizes a problem, talks about it, and proposes real policies to combat the problem. To ignore the problem is something that only idiots would do, or people that may wish to ignore it for political purposes, or maybe they even have sympathies for terrorists, heck I don't know why any sane politician would want to sweep a significant problem like that under the rug as if it does not exist.

1 Reply

@okie,

from an outsiders perspective, it looked to me that after 9/11 the conservatives campaigned on using fear as one of their big selling points

true everyone wants to be safe, but 7 years on from 9/11 with no major problems, either through good policing or sheer luck, without more transparency, it's not obvious which

in 2008 the party that sold fear of no healthcare or social safety net, captured the needs/fears of the majority, or at least enough to win

what the party in power or it's opponent does from here on out is the next elections story

1 Reply

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE OBAMA LYING THIEVING INSIDIOUS COVETERS ARE PURSUING AND A SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP?

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=socialism&x=19&y=10
Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: sshlizm
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods: as a : FOURIERISM b : GUILD SOCIALISM c : MARXISM d : OWENISM
2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property <trace the remains of pure socialism that marked the first phase of the Christian community -- W.E.H.Lecky> -- compare INDIVIDUALISM b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state -- compare CAPITALISM, LIBERALISM c : a stage of society that in Marxist theory is transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and payments to individuals according to their work

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=dictatorship&x=14&y=9
Main Entry: dic·ta·tor·ship Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: diktd.(r)ship, -t- also
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
1 : the office or term of office of a dictator
2 : absolute authority or power <there should not be a dictatorship, that is, social choice conforming only to the will of one man -- H.M.Somers> <the exploitation of labor by industrial dictatorship -- Roger Burlingame>
3 : a form of government in which a dictator or small clique has absolute power without effective constitutional limitations <after the revolution the country became a dictatorship under a former army officer> : a despotic state <a war between a democracy and a dictatorship>

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Ican, thanks for making the case that this administration is not socialistic. It is not even close.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

I guess okie will have several more on his Ignore list.

You can't correct okie on terminology and get respect from him. LOL

On second thought; it's probably more respect for those who challenge okie's use of words. Has okie ever provided historical or current evidence for his opinions about our current president?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

i try to never justify anything i post with facts or figures, i just try to post my opinions on how i view the subject

as Homer says, you can prove anything with facts, i'd rather just give my opinion right or wrong

1 Reply

Quote:

More question legality of Senate Healthcare Bill
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 1/4/2010 8:50:00 AM
A constitutional historian says American courts would have to overturn their last 80 years of jurisprudence to uphold the constitutionality of the healthcare bill in Congress.

Thirteen Republican attorneys general are threatening to file a lawsuit against the Democrats' healthcare bill if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) refuse to remove a provision being called the "Cornhusker Kickback" -- the nearly $100 million Medicaid deal Democratic Senator Ben Nelson secured for his home state of Nebraska. Ostensibly, the deal was in exchange for Nelson's vote -- the 60th of 60 needed -- favoring the legislation. As reported earlier, the senator's decision has angered many Nebraskans.

In a letter sent last week, the 13 attorneys general argue the provision is "constitutionally flawed" and violates the U.S. Constitution's protection against "arbitrary" legislation. Constitutional historian David Barton, the president of WallBuilders, also believes the provision is unconstitutional.

"I think there's huge constitutional problems with this thing," exclaims Barton, "and it may be that we see the power of Congress limited constitutionally through a number of different venues by these various lawsuits that are out there."

Barton notes that court challenges are looming over the bill's individual mandate, as well as its anti-trust provision that forces a government monopoly. Texas Governor Rick Perry has also threatened to file a lawsuit, arguing the bill violates states' rights outlined in the Tenth Amendment.

Just before Christmas, The Heritage Foundation also questioned the constitutional legality of the healthcare legislation, publishing a legal memorandum charging that the individual mandate "takes congressional power and control to a striking new level."

The letter to Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington state. Four of the Republican attorneys general are running for governor in their respective states

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Ican, thanks for making the case that this administration is not socialistic. It is not even close

You're welcome!

The Obama Lying Thieving Insidious Coveters are not socialists. The Obama Lying Thieving Insidious Coveters are lying thieving insidious coveters. They may be gangsters, but they are not socialist gangsters.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd, Hey, most of us offer our opinions, but we try to at least have some respect for honesty and common sense.

Nobody is ever 100% right, but we make an effort to at least have something to support our position, and use words that have a common definition.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

from an outsiders perspective, it looked to me that after 9/11 the conservatives campaigned on using fear as one of their big selling points

true everyone wants to be safe, but 7 years on from 9/11 with no major problems, either through good policing or sheer luck, without more transparency, it's not obvious which

Any politician that cares about the country and national security should propose policies to combat the problem and protect the country. After all, terrorism is a real problem in the real world, and in a world with WMD, nuclear, biological, etc, it would be very naive to understate the threat and to ignore it. After all, terrorists are more aligned with the radical Islamic movements of the world, and they would love nothing better than to get their hands on WMD and raise the stakes in their fight by causing alot more destruction, possibly much greater than 9/11. After all, we know the radicals are aiming at the Western world and culture, and the kingpin is us. It is also my opinion that alot of Europe has placed their heads in the sand and are ignoring the true scope and potential growth of the threat worldwide, including in their countries. One of the angles being played by the Islamic world is it immigrate into and out populate the traditional populations of many countries of the world. This is obvious in countries like Great Britain, France, Germany, and Denmark for example, and this angle is in more beginning stages here in the U.S., but there are cities like Detroit that have grown huge Islamic populations.

Quote:

in 2008 the party that sold fear of no healthcare or social safety net, captured the needs/fears of the majority, or at least enough to win

I would characterize it something different than fear, it was a collection of promises to give things to people, in exchange for votes, although that was not the stated purpose. Obama and the Democrats took a problem that does exist, but mischaracterized the causes and have therefore advocated wrong solutions for the wrong reasons. Their policies have not addressed the causes of the problems, but instead are aimed at enlarging their power, not helping the people or respecting the rights and liberty of the people, which should be sacred.

Quote:

what the party in power or it's opponent does from here on out is the next elections story

I think the Democrats will continue to try to use demagoguery against Republicans by mis characterizing the problems and their causes, and continuing to blame conservatives for them, when it is they that are the culprits. The Republicans must not succumb to the idea that they should not be very very aggressive. They should go back to their conservative roots and pound away at the principles of life, liberty, and freedom, and everything that supports those principles, and characterize the Democrats as the radical extremists that they have become in this country.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Ican, thanks for making the case that this administration is not socialistic. It is not even close

You're welcome!

The Obama Lying Thieving Insidious Coveters are not socialists. The Obama Lying Thieving Insidious Coveters are lying thieving insidious coveters. They may be gangsters, but they are not socialist gangsters.

I disagree, ican. I believe Obama is a Marxist at heart, after all he learned alot of his philosophy from Marxists that he had as mentors and teachers. And Marxists are lying thieving insidious coveters, they take what producers earn and create and give it to those that do not, in exchange for votes to expand their base of power in their hope to solidify their power and position as heads of the government until they can eventually disband with fair elections. This is their pattern. Whether Obama will be able to accomplish all of that is doubtful, but that is his ultimate goal in my opinion.

And to clarify, a Marxist is the most extreme socialist that I know of. We know there are degrees of socialism, from very mild to very extreme. We already have mild to moderate forms of socialism here, but we still enjoy a great deal of freedom and liberty, but have no doubts, Obama wants to move us much further leftward on the socialism scale.

3 Replies

@okie,

After 8 years of Republican Government, a Democrat comes to power and wants to take America more towards the left !?!

No! Say it ain't so!

1 Reply

@Eorl,

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Obama wants to move us much further leftward on the socialism scale.

Would that it were only true.

1 Reply

Here is a very good essay with which most of you may agree.

Paul Craig Roberts
Is Anyone Telling Us The Truth?

Can you imagine a world where justice reigns, where are all people are treated equally?

Is it possible for you toimagine a world where people who protest, who call for justice, for a better world are honored and valued, even rewarded and given special recognition, rather than arrested and jailed?

Can you imagine a world where all people are treated with fairness, where the nation's resources are not exploited by two percent of the population, who get rich off the rest of the people. There's still room for great success, but not dynastic wealth that grows to anti-human, destructive levels.

Are you able to imagine a world where corporations no longer have rights to be treated as humans as they now are.

Can you imagine a world where elections are honest and really recountable, where funding is strictly controlled so the wealthy and powerful don't have an advantage and can't game the system.

Is it possible foryou imagine a world where the forests, oceans, rivers and skies are getting cleaner and purer each year, where the atmosphere is not being polluted and global warming has been faced and dealt with sternly and effectively.

Can you picture a congress where legislators represent their constituents' interests and are held accountable-- even senators?

Can you see a world where education and health are a right for all, not just the wealthy, and where no-one dies or loses their home because of lack of health insurance?

Is it possible for you to imagine a world where guns are effectively controlled so gun killings and shootings are drastically cut?

Can you imagine a world where women have the right to control their bodies and resources and support systems are available to care for unwanted babies?

Can you picture a mainstream media that does it's job, that asks the hard questions, that doesn't allow easy passes and covers the stories that should be told?

Can you imagine a world where top-down control is fading away and being replaced by bottom-up processes and systems where we all have the right to a role in deciding and getting things done?

Can you imagine a world where workers are valued and respected as much as managers, where bottom-up approaches treat workers with dignity and respect and pay them fair wages?

Can you see a world where energy usage is taken seriously, where sustainability and ecological impact are considered and where transportation and other energy uses are covered by energy processes that do not adversely affect the environment?

Can you imagine a world where food is safe, where it is responsibily produced so it is as healthy and nutritious as possible?

Can you imagine a world where people are not imprisoned for victimless crimes like smoking marijuana

[Based on my nonprofessional understanding of human nature, I have a hard time imagining such a world. Advocate]

2 Replies

@Advocate,

I agree with all of those except the one on guns.

Quote:

Is it possible for you to imagine a world where guns are effectively controlled so gun killings and shootings are drastically cut?

I would re-word it to something like....

Is it possible for you to imagine a world where people are taught effective ways to handle disagreements, and parents are able and willing to take in interest in their children's lives so they stay away from gangs, so that all types of murder and violent crimes are drastically cut? (it could probably use some work, and isn't as 'simply stated' as yours is, but I'd argue that it would be hugely more effective)

Guns are important for self-protection. I cannot imagine a world where I am denied the right to protect myself from someone willing to harm me.

1 Reply

@okie,

Ok Okie. You have convinced me. I now agree that Obama is an extreme socialist striving to make America extremely socialistic.

In my posts in the thread, "AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND,"on pages 903, 906, and 907, I showed the following to be true facts:
(1) The Civilian Non-institutional Population increased annually 1980 to 2010;
(2) The Civilian Labor Force Employed-- except for the years 1981, 1991, and 2002 that had decreases of less than one million each--increased annually from 1980 to 2007--the Democrats gained majorities in the Congress and Senate in 2007;
(3) The Civilian Labor Force Employed decreased in 2008 about 3 million, from about 146 million to about 143 million;
(4) The Civilian Labor Force Employed decreased in 2009 about 5 million, from about 143 million to about 138 million;
(5) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 1981 from 70% to 50%;
(6) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 1981 from 50% to 38.5%;
(7) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 1991 from 38.5% to 33%;
(8) The maximum income tax rate increased in 1993 from 33% to 39.6%;
(9) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 2001 from 39.6% to 39.1%;
(10) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 2002 from 39.1% to 38.6%;
(11) The maximum income tax rate decreased in 2003 from 38.6% to 35%;
(12) The minimum income tax rate decreased in 2003 from 15% to 10%.

Now that I think more about it, those facts imply Obama is an extreme socialist.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate, Paul Craig Robert's essay leads me to make comparisons among an Ideal World, Extreme Capitalism, and Extreme Socialism. While an Ideal World is probably not achievable, a better world probably is achievable.

America has had its negative as well as well as its positive attributes over the last 100 years.

How do you think Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao Zedong's China, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, and Pol Pot's Cambodia compare with America over this same time period?

How do you think contemporary America compares with contemporary Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Oh yes! I should have included Hirohito's Japan and contemporary Japan in my previous question.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

okie wrote:
Obama wants to move us much further leftward on the socialism scale.

Would that it were only true.

Apparently you do not view an attempt to usurp and regulate 1/6 of the economy, with the ultimate goal of instituting single payer health care managed by the federal government, you do not view that as another socialistic policy. I feel sorry for you, Joe, if you cannot grasp that simple fact.

We could also consider other industries such as energy, which I believe Obama has in his sights to nationalize as his ultimate goal.

Obama has to use incrementalism in his attempts to pull the country leftward, but it sounds like you are disappointed in that, so perhaps you would rather he just declare himself dictator now and institute the whole ball of wax immediately?

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know