Obama '08?

@okie,

Most Christians sound like madmen to me. I wouldn't call them Marxists however. Are you a Christian okie?

@okie,

Quote:

When the mainstream media refuses to do any investigative reporting, this is what we are left with, blogs and other researchers.

Don't you mean when the mainstream media investigates and finds there is nothing to support your allegations you then are left with using people that make up stuff.

1 Reply

@parados,

If you really want to find out about making stuff up, you might want to start with Dan Rather, the author of a knowingly fraudulant story, in an effort to alter a federal election, which is a felony. To this day, the guilty has not been hunted down and prosecuted for that crime. And the mainstream media has no interest in investigating it any further. This is where we are at with the pathetic media in this country.

If Obama knows the New Party story was a fraud, I would love to see him sue the reporter of it, have at it, I would love that, let us have discovery by the courts by calling in people to testify and to provide their evidence. When do we get started?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

When the mainstream media refuses to do any investigative reporting, this is what we are left with, blogs and other researchers.

The mainstream media doesn't refuse to do reporting, you just don't like what they report.

Quote:

The New Party thing is very consistent with who Obama is and what he believes, and so I think the story is very credible.

You think it's credible because it supports what YOU believe. The fact that there's no evidence is immaterial to you.

Quote:

Unfortunately, the New Party has removed all evidence, but it has been recorded from retrieved web pages and so forth.

Yeah ******* right! You are so full of ****. If you have this evidence, provide it. Go ahead, I dare ya.

Quote:

If all of this had been claimed about somebody that is pro capitalist, then we would not believe it, but it is entirely consistent with who Obama is, what he says, and who he has hung around with and admired most of his entire life.

If Obama wants to prove himself to be a believer in capitalism and free markets, he is welcome to start now by saying so and governing as if he believes it. So far, he has bombed out in that regard, and that is why all of these dots mean what they mean. People were criticized for not connecting the dots ahead of all kinds of negative happenings in history. We have the dots on Obama. I would suggest it would be wise to use them, he is not a personality or a president to be trusted with our freedom and liberty, no way.

You don't have 'dots' on ****. You have a bunch of stuff done by people who are not Obama. You don't care about evidence and you are willing to accept anyone's assertions as long as they support your narrative.

I proclaim you to be toasted on this issue. Completely and totally. If you can't provide evidence to back up your position - evidence based on ACTIONS that Obama has taken - there's nothing more to discuss. You have proven that you aren't interested in intellectual honesty, but instead emulate your right-wing heroes and rely on smears and ugly accusations with no proof. When challenged on this you have no valid response.

There is no longer any reason to remain in this conversation with you; I believe it has been amply proven, through a combination of your own posts and those of others here, that you are either incompetent or unwilling to be a rational actor in this discussion. I lump you in with Ican for now and all time - unless you can come up with a better argument, one with actual, non-circumstantial evidence?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

, but instead emulate your right-wing heroes and rely on smears and ugly accusations with no proof. Cycloptichorn

If you are proudly Marxist, cyclops, why are these bits of evidence smears? If Obama is offended about talking about all of his Marxist friends and mentors, let him say so, and let us all lay out our evidence, cyclops. We conservatives have nothing to hide, we are proudly pro-freedom and consitution, and very anti Marxist, so much so that I am going to continue to talk about Obama's Marxist connections in his past. Get over it. If you don't like it, tough, and if Obama does not like it, he should renounce all those thugs and leftists. He won't.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Most Christians sound like madmen to me. I wouldn't call them Marxists however. Are you a Christian okie?

Well, it might be of minor interest, but both Christian "Folk churches" here in the Germany, the Evangelical Church of Germany and the catholic Church (representing roughly 70% of Germany's population) are against (present) capitalism - at least in their sermons and public appearance.

The 'New Party' looks like a mild version of a Social-Democratic party, as far as I interpret what is on the web. Nothing 'socialist' in it.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
, but instead emulate your right-wing heroes and rely on smears and ugly accusations with no proof. Cycloptichorn

If you are proudly Marxist, cyclops, why are these bits of evidence smears?

I am a proud hybrid Capitalist/Socialist. I am not a 'marxist' in any way and you would be well served to stop referring to me that way, unless you yourself would like to be called names in return.

They are smears because they are lies which have no evidence to back them up. They are character assassinations, because you can't attack Obama's actions himself; you rely on this weak **** because it's all you've got.

Quote:

If Obama is offended about talking about all of his Marxist friends and mentors, let him say so, and let us all lay out our evidence, cyclops. We conservatives have nothing to hide, we are proudly pro-freedom and consitution, and very anti Marxist, so much so that I am going to continue to talk about Obama's Marxist connections in his past. Get over it.

Nope, not going to get over it. There's nothing wrong with being friends with people who have different opinions then you about how things should be done, Okie.

But, this is immaterial, as I said; you're toasted and done on this issue. You can rant about Obama's 'marxist connections' all you want but nobody here or anywhere is going to give a ****, because your argument is fundamentally flawed and unconvincing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

On a weakly related point, any bets out their on the likelihood that Nancy Pelosi will be the Speaker of the House in the next Congress, and that Harry Reid will remain Majority Leader in the Senate?

My bet is that both will be gone: Nancy will remain in the Congress, but will lose her post; Reid won't even run for reelection in the Senate.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

On a weakly related point, any bets out their on the likelihood that Nancy Pelosi will be the Speaker of the House in the next Congress, and that Harry Reid will remain Majority Leader in the Senate?

My bet is that both will be gone: Nancy will remain in the Congress, but will lose her post; Reid won't even run for reelection in the Senate.

Nancy will retain her post, she's done a good job and certainly she has no strong challenger who is going to step up. You're right about Reid though...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

My view is that both Pelosi and Rham Emmanuel have become political liabilities to the President. History suggests their futures willl be brief. Certainly the Democrats will suffer some setbacks in the coming Congressional elections - a normal midterm event, one that now appears likely to be a bit larger than normal. Dumping the Speaker would be a natural follow on. Anyway that is my prediction.

We'll see how it stacks up in terms of acuracy relative to yours for passage of health care legislation.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

My view is that both Pelosi and Rham Emmanuel have become political liabilities to the President. History suggests their futures willl be brief.

i propose public executions

nothing stirs up the populace like a good hanging or beheading

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Unfortunately, the New Party has removed all evidence,

okie wrote:

let us all lay out our evidence, cyclops

Of course, if you don't have evidence, just use the lack of evidence as evidence.

Obviously you have removed the evidence of your being a Nazi racist okie which proves you must be one.

0 Replies

Well, as Voltaire wrote about the Board of Admiralty of England, "Occasionally they shoot one admiral, .. for the good of the others." True story - the fate of Admiral Byng for losing (actually getting a draw) in a Naval battle with the French.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

My view is that both Pelosi and Rham Emmanuel have become political liabilities to the President. History suggests their futures willl be brief. Certainly the Democrats will suffer some setbacks in the coming Congressional elections - a normal midterm event, one that now appears likely to be a bit larger than normal. Dumping the Speaker would be a natural follow on. Anyway that is my prediction.

We'll see how it stacks up in terms of acuracy relative to yours for passage of health care legislation.

I don't understand why she's a liability. The House has delivered on every piece of legislation the Prez asked for - every single one. It's the Senate that has bolloxed things up so badly for the Dems. Or perhaps you can point out something that Pelosi has done wrong?

Re: the healthcare legislation, you have to admit that both houses did pass a version of the bill; I came closer to being right in that prediction then you let on. Minus the timing of course.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Well, the English got Menorca (partly) back by now ...

(Byng's trial was on board the of the 'St George' - what a coincidence Wink

)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Re: the healthcare legislation, you have to admit that both houses did pass a version of the bill; I came closer to being right in that prediction then you let on. Minus the timing of course.

Cycloptichorn

In my experience failure is always a long way from success.

I agree the House did pass a version of the bill very early in the game. However it was excessively influenced by the progressive zealots in the House. Though it has become fashionable to blame the Republicans for its ultimate defeat, the fact is that the initial scoring of the cost of the House bill thoroughly spooked many Democrat Senators who went on to draft a very different (and rather grotesquely complex) version that eventually sank of its own weight & complexity.

However, I'm willing to stand by my forecast in the case of Pelosi. While she may not be a liability in the eyes of enthusiastic House progressives, I believe that their collective stature will be reduced in the new Congress; and that wiser heads in the Democrat Party will calculate their political prospects then differently from the way you are doing so now.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However it was excessively influenced by the progressive zealots in the House.

The elements that you chalk up to 'progressive zealots' are all supported by majorities of Americans when polled on them, George. Remember that fact? I know it's inconvenient for your argument, but hey.

The CBO also found that over both the 10- and 20-year period the House bill saved the government far more money then the Senate bill did. These so called 'zealots' crafted a much more fiscally responsible bill then the Senate did.

Quote:

Though it has become fashionable to blame the Republicans for its ultimate defeat, the fact is that the initial scoring of the cost of the House bill thoroughly spooked many Democrat Senators who went on to draft a very different (and rather grotesquely complex) version that eventually sank of its own weight & complexity.

This is a wholly inaccurate description of what went on, and I'm surprised to see you write something so completely wrong. The Dem senators who voted against this did so in large part because of the money they receive from the health insurance industry.

The Republicans share some of the blame, of course, in that they were never good-faith negotiators to begin with. They simply stalled for time and the tactic worked. Hardly honorable on their part, to lie in that fashion. But not unexpected.

Quote:

However, I'm willing to stand by my forecast in the case of Pelosi.

We shall see! But I wonder if you could actually outline anywhere where she has been deficient, as a leader?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Obama is in the process of converting the USA's constitutional system into a demagogic aristocracy, and concurrently converting the USA's capitalist economy into a redistributionist economy. Because of this, Obama is in the process of concurrently making more of us poor, including those with brown, black, white, red, and yellow skin.

That's why a rapidly increasing majority of Americans are determined to remove Obama from office as soon as lawfully possible.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The elements that you chalk up to 'progressive zealots' are all supported by majorities of Americans when polled on them, George. Remember that fact? I know it's inconvenient for your argument, but hey.

They were all clearly supported by the majorities in their districts when they were elected. However, I am less willing than you to speak for the majority of Americans - even with a carefully selected poll in my hands there's always another one telling a different story).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The CBO also found that over both the 10- and 20-year period the House bill saved the government far more money then the Senate bill did. These so called 'zealots' crafted a much more fiscally responsible bill then the Senate did.

I believe these are conclusions based on highly unrealistic assumptions - in short a fantasy. However, there is little point in arguing about it, since the House Bill is dead.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a wholly inaccurate description of what went on, and I'm surprised to see you write something so completely wrong. The Dem senators who voted against this did so in large part because of the money they receive from the health insurance industry

The Republicans share some of the blame, of course, in that they were never good-faith negotiators to begin with. They simply stalled for time and the tactic worked. Hardly honorable on their part, to lie in that fashion. But not unexpected.

More fantasy. The Democrats had solid majorities in every Committeee that reviewed the Senate Bill - they didn't need any Republican votes in any stage of the development of the legislation. Instead they needed only one Republican vote to achieve cloture in the final vote - and they got it. I'm not suggesting the Republicans were eager to negotiate, however, there were, in fact, no negotiations at all.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
However, I'm willing to stand by my forecast in the case of Pelosi.

We shall see! But I wonder if you could actually outline anywhere where she has been deficient, as a leader?

Cycloptichorn

I suppose that in your eyes and those of many progressives she has been a great success. However, considering the recent reversals the Democrats have seen and what I estimate will occur in the Novermber elections, I suspect she will be judged by a different standard then. She and Reid have certainly become polarizing figures in the public mind.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I would believe Kurtz before I would believe 10 Obamas, Joe.

I have no doubt.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know