Obama '08?

@okie,

okie, You sure know how to contradict yourself!

You wrote:

Quote:

, that there are feelings such as apathy, ambivalence, or simply more passionate feelings toward something else, and in Obama's case I think it is more of a case of love for his own power and messianic image than it is love or hatred toward his own country.

Why didn't you use those adjectives such as "his own power and messianic image" rather than "Obama does not love his country."

Please provide for us the evidence of "his own power" that irregular or not implied against all other presidents? Also, how did you arrive at "messianic image?" Please provide the evidence for this. Have you ever used this term for any other president? If not, why not?

What exactly are those "passionate feelings toward something else?" You must certainly have some evidence for this statement. Or is this just another one of your imaginary boogeyman statement about our president.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

There is nothing in what I wrote that is contradictory, that is unless you are trying to create or manufacture something as you seem to be trying to do.

1 Reply

@okie,

I don't "manufacture" anything. You must prove I "manufactured" something that isn't true. You are the king of imagination when it comes to "manufacture" of opinions. The proof is in the pudding; many question where and how you arrived at your opinion. You have NEVER provided credible evidence.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, I don't "manufacture" anything. Your denial that parados called you a liar for no reason is not true; it's not about disagreements, but he has posted what you wrote and explained why they are lies. You still refuse to acknowledge them as lies;

Cice, PROVE ALL THIS IS TRUE!

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Not my problem you don't understand English. If you bother to go back and read all the posts, you'll see many posts by parados to prove what my claim about evidence/proof are there. You're probably more stupid than okie for your need to question what has obviously been shown by parados often on this thread.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I have posted this many many times before, but will try to explain it again for parados.

None of that is a strong emotion okie.
You still have not explained anything. You are avoiding the issue which leaves me with only one conclusion. You think Obama hates the country.

Quote:

I do not think it would destroy the country

If you actually feel this then why are you spending so much time trying to scare us about Obama being a marxist?
Are you admitting that you are demagoguing the issue? Because if you don't feel it is a danger, you sure spend a lot of time telling us we should impeach Obama, vote him out, or just eliminate him in some way or another.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

They can't, ican, because they are not lies to begin with. It seems like anytime you express an opinion with which they disagree, they call it a lie.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
I do not think it would destroy the country

If you actually feel this then why are you spending so much time trying to scare us about Obama being a marxist?
Are you admitting that you are demagoguing the issue? Because if you don't feel it is a danger, you sure spend a lot of time telling us we should impeach Obama, vote him out, or just eliminate him in some way or another.

How dense can you be? You can damage something slightly and even severely without actually destroying it. Destruction implies to me a pretty total job of doing something negative. Obviously I feel that Obama is a very real danger, because of his wrong headed policies. And I think Marxism is dangerous. Do you?

If something really definitive is dug up or surfaces to warrant impeachment, I think he should be impeached. At the present time, I do not believe there is enough to do that, at least not enough public support for it. My best hope as a conservative that opposes Obama's policies is to see Republicans win big in November, which would pretty much take Obama's power away to legislate more of his policies that are bad, then hope that Americans will vote in a better president in 2 years. Thats politics as it should be conducted. Where have you been, parados?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

So maybe they are more informed than you are on the subject? Maybe you need to read their opinions more seriously to see if their points are valid? You seem to be so interested in our politics here, so maybe you need to be more balance in your information?

Well, I mean, since you have superior knowledge about DAP, NSDAP and the German party history compared to my little kindergarten studies, I just thought I might pose some of my thoughts here as well.
Especially, since I've read that quoted comment in original ..

(It was in the print edition of July 23 [page B1] by the way.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Thats fine, Walter, no problem. I feel that I can also have opinions about Hitler, as do most Americans. After all, I have a close relative that survived the invasion of Normandy as an American soldier, but might not have, because of Hitler, and my Dad was involved in the Pacific theater of the war. Its not as if we don't have a vested interest just because we did not or do not live in Germany. Also, I have relatives in Denmark, which was conguered in a matter of days by Hitler, was it not?

2 Replies

@okie,

I've no problems with opinions. Many are different to mine.

But I didn't get that you were talking here about your opinion. My bad, sorry.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

After all, I have a close relative that survived the invasion of Normandy as an American soldier, but might not have, because of Hitler, and my Dad was involved in the Pacific theater of the war. Its not as if we don't have a vested interest just because we did not or do not live in Germany. Also, I have relatives in Denmark, which was conguered in a matter of days by Hitler, was it not?

Well, all my relatives lived here or in the Netherlands during the Nazi time.
Have of my father's family was killed by bombs, my father was shot at three times before being captured (NB: as a non-combatant army doctor] and later mock-killed.
But that's what we deserved, I think. We should have elected those right-wing extremists in the first case - how understandable it might have been for some in those days.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, This is just another example of your inability at rational thinking. 1. Obama won the election in 2008. 2. He completed most of what he promised during his campaign. and 3. On the GOP universal health plan;

Quote:

Analysis
The future of the House- and Senate-passed Democratic health care bills remains uncertain, and in recent weeks, President Barack Obama has reached out to Republicans for their input — while still not backing away from those Democratic bills. In fact, Obama released his own plan on Feb. 22, a proposal that favors the Senate bill but melds it with some House provisions and a few elements from the White House. Will GOP-backed ideas get a hearing at Obama's health care summit later this week?

During the State of the Union address, Obama said he wanted "everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed," adding: "But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

What ended up from the GOP would not really be a universal health care, and the costs for the poor would increase.

To be fair, Obamacare didn't include the necessary efficiencies and cost cutting to make universal health care work at less cost. There will be rationing by adding 32 million more patients to a health care system already overburdened with not enough doctors and hospitals.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

How dense can you be? You can damage something slightly and even severely without actually destroying it.

Weasel words okie. Nothing but dishonesty from you it seems. You won't admit your beliefs. You hide behind semantics. Obama isn't destroying the country, he's only damaging it. What a bunch of nonsense from you.

It is increasingly clear you have no principles okie. You have no honesty. You have no decency. Your rhetoric is clearly being used to show Obama hates the country and is destroying it. But when challenged you deny what your intentions are. You d0n't have actual beliefs okie. You are full of BS and nothing else.

When you argue you don't think it will destroy the US but then only a post later post how we have to impeach Obama to save the country it shows how little you are willing to be honest with yourself let alone the rest of us.

If you don't feel that way then you are demagoging. If you do feel that way then you are lying to us. There is no other choice okie. You don't get to pretend you aren't saying something when you clearly are.

Quote:

Destruction implies to me a pretty total job of doing something negative.

That's interesting okie that you think a dictatorship that stops all elections isn't really a total negative. Tell us what is positive about it.

2 Replies

It appears Republicans have no Ethics as they will not own up to primary role in this deep recession but cast blame on Democrats who are only trying to repair the damage. They have fears for their elected jobs and desperately pointing at the slightest errors at Democrats.

0 Replies

@parados,

okie fails to see his own contradictions. I think he has a screw loose someplace he calls his brain or the electronics have gone haywire.

0 Replies

It is obvious from the following that the depression got far worse under Obama in 1 year and 9 months than it did under Bush in 1 year and 9 months.

It is obvious that the depression got far worse under Obama, because Obama not only continued Bush's errors, Obama expanded and added his own errors to Bush's errors.

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2001-2010]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......FEDERAL RECEIPTS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980......$0.517 trillion [CARTER]
1988….…$0.909 trillion [REAGAN]
1992.......$1.091 trillion [BUSH41]
2000......$2.025 trillion [CLINTON]
2008......$2.521 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$2,931[OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year.......FEDERAL OUTLAYS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980.......$0.591 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$1.064 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$1,.382 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$1.789 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$2,931 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$3,399 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………FEDERAL DEFICITS
1980.......$0.074 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$0.155 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$0.291 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......SURPLUS $0.236 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$0.410 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$0.160 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………GROSS FEDERAL DEBT
1980.......$0.909 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$2.601 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$4.002 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$5.629 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$9.654 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$10.954 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

When you don't understand the origin of the Great Recession, whatever you post has no consequence or meaning.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

WEFT is the thread burden crossing WARP, not to be mistaken for the speed of the Starship Enterprise.

0 Replies

@okie,

Police and fire protection is not a federal function.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know