Obama '08?

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It is clearly an opinion, and a reasonable one at that

A reasonable opinion would have some facts to back it up. Your opinion is NOT reasonable since it isn't reasonable to expect Senators to vote differently on a bill without evidence that they have changed their mind.

0 Replies

SAUL ALINSKY trained three of Barack Obama's mentors in Chicago who trained Barach Obama. Barach Obama was hired in 1986 by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side. The proposed solution to every problem on the South Side was distribution of government funds.

Also, George Soros is a follower of Saul Alinsky and has adopted many of Alinsky's policies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAUL ALINSKY TALK

The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;

The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth;

The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the HAVES and giving it to the HAVENOTS and then see what happens;

The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;

"The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution."The stated cause is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is accumulation of power to make the revolution;

The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth—truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist;[/quote]

Radicals should be "political relativists."They should take an agnostic view of means and ends;

We should not forget to acknowledge the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer;

We are not virtuous by not wanting power. We are really cowards for not wanting power, because power is good and powerlessness is evil;

To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles.

Life is a corrupting process;

He who fears corruption fears life;

The standard of the revolution is democracy--a democracy which upends all social hierarchies, including those based on merit;

He builds his initial power base among the underclass and the urban poor by calling to make the last ones first and the first ones also last ones.

Source: BARACK OBAMA'S RULES FOR REVOLUTION, THE ALINSKY MODEL by David Horowitz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE SOROS in his 1995 book, page 145, Soros on Soros, I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.

Bruck, in The World According to Soros, page 58,Tividar [George Soros's father] saved his family by splitting them up, providing them with forged papers and false identities as Christians, and bribing Gentile families to take them in. George Soros took the name Sandor Kiss, and posed as the godson of a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary's fascist regime. Baumbach was assigned to deliver deportation notices to Jews and confiscate Jewish property. [Baumbach] brought young Soros with him on his rounds.

Michael Kaufman in his biography of George Soros, page 293, Soros , My goal is to become the conscience of the world.

GEORGE SOROS in his 2000 book, page 337, Open Society, Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction.

GEORGE SOROS in the Washington Post, page A03 of November 11, 2003, Ousting Bush from the White House is the central focus of my life. It's a matter of life and death.

GEORGE SOROS in the 2003 edition of his book, page 15, The Alchemy of Finance, My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.

What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.

GEORGE SOROS on June 10, 2004 to the Associated Press, These are not normal times.

GEORGE SOROS in his 2004 book, page 159, The Bubble of American Supremacy, The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.

In April 2005 the Soros funded Campus Progress web site posted this headline: "An Invitation to Help Design the Constitution in 2020" (This was an invitation to a Yale law School Conference on "The Constitution of 2020: a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.")

Sam Hananel in his associated Press article, December 10, 2004, On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed George Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."

Soros … pushed for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which was intended to ban "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has responded that his donations to unaffiliated organizations do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties.

Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, committed $5 million to MoveOn, while he and his friend Peter Lewis each gave America Coming Together $10 million. (All were groups that worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.) On September 28, 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush[19] delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sandrarose.com/2009/11/george-soros-plot-to-create-a-new-world-order-through-the-destruction-of-the-us-economy/
George Soros’ Plot To Create a New World Order Through the Destruction of the U.S. Economy

For those of you who don’t know this man, his name is George Soros and he is a multibillionaire Globalist whose millions in political contributions financed Barack Obama’s campaign for president.
He is Obama’s biggest benefactor.

In this video, Soros basically tells America to stop resisting a New World Order and he’s hoping that China will lead the New World Order once the American economy is destroyed.

In other words, he’s telling us we should not resist the destruction of our economy! Who needs Bin Laden when we have Soros?

I’m posting the highlights from his interview below in case you don’t have the time to watch the video. Did I mention that Soros’ millions helped put Obama in the White House?

“…an orderly decline of the dollar is desirable”

“It’s ill-considered on the part of the United States to resist…”
“It is not necessarily in our interests to have the dollar as the sole world currency.”

“A decline in the value of the dollar is necessary in order to compensate for the fact that the U.S. economy will remain rather weak…”

“China will emerge as the motor replacing the U.S. consumer..”

“China will be the engine driving (the New World Order) forward, and the U.S. will be actually a drag that’s being pulled along through a gradual decline in the value of the dollar.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BARACK OBAMA is one of the employees of George Soros.

The Tea Party Movement is our country’s primary hope of stopping Soros and his employees from destroying our Constitutional Republic and turning us into serfs of a lawless state.

0 Replies

@revelette,

Three Democrats in Congress against how many Democrats are registered nationally?

0 Replies

ican says:

Quote:

In this video, Soros basically tells America to stop resisting a New World Order and he’s hoping that China will lead the New World Order once the American economy is destroyed.

In other words, he’s telling us we should not resist the destruction of our economy! Who needs Bin Laden when we have Soros?

I’m posting the highlights from his interview below in case you don’t have the time to watch the video. Did I mention that Soros’ millions helped put Obama in the White House?

What unmitigated bullshit. Either ican never watched the videeo or else he completely misunderstood what Soros was saying, shich is basically what every economist and everybody who looks at international trade says: China ties the yuan to the dollar, very much to our disadvantage and their advantage, since then fluctuations in the dollar don't affect the balance of trade with us, since the value of the yuan is artificially low with respect to the dollar. Which means we keep importing huge quantities of Chinese goods and can export relatively little in return, which is why China has been slowly buying up the US since Reagan turned us from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation. And buying us up with our own money. Soros is saying it is to the U.S.'s advantage to change that relationship and some other currencies accepted as world standards would help that process. It's loons like ican's source for his material who are the real contributors for America's slowly worsening position w.r.t. international trade and the world economy.

Soros is not extolling that outcome. He's making a prediction. He's saying that if the system as it is presently set up continues, that is the inevitable outcome. If we don't want that to happen, there are hard changes we must make to maintain some semblance of American power and influence. Take a quick look at American balance of trade, why don't you, ican? The last thirty years have pretty much shown he's right

1 Reply

The ghost of Saul Alinsky is hiding under ican's bed. Wwwwhhhhhhoooooo.

0 Replies

How the GOP could force a repeal vote in the Senate

Quote:

There are two things McConnell could do that would all but ensure a vote tied to repealing the law.

First, McConnell could withhold any deals or agreements to proceed to any legislation without a guarantee of a repeal vote, effectively throwing sand in the Senate's procedural gears until the law is addressed.

Another way to force a vote is for McConnell or any Republican senator to offer a "motion to suspend the rules," essentially asking for a change in Senate rules to require a vote on a repeal amendment. If all members are present, it would take 67 votes to succeed.

This was the rule Republican Sen. Tom Coburn used recently to force a vote to ban earmarks after Reid refused to bring the measure to the floor. And there is nothing that prevents any senator from using this strategy.

Let em' do it. shrugs.

0 Replies

Obama's poll ratings have improved lately. I am interested in others opinions about the "why." Here are a few of my theories:

1. Since the election with Republicans having a majority in the House, Obama's attitude and presidential approach have been neutered to an extent, so that even his inner attitude might be more moderate, at least his outward persona appears to be more moderate or less combative or determined to push his own very liberal agenda.
2. There is less fear of what Obama might attempt to do, legislatively, now that the Republicans have a majority in the House.
3. There have not been any real major issues besides the ongoing ones that people have grown accustomed to. There is only so much emotional energy that citizens have, so that the wars, high unemployment, bailouts, budget deficits, immigration issues, and other issues tend to fade to back burner in peoples minds.
4. Temporarily, the shooting in Arizona probably bumped up Obama's numbers slightly, because this allowed him to appear to be more "presidential."

The fact remains however that Obama's approval ratings are not prospering, and his re-election chances in 2012 are still very much up in the air. What happens between now and then will largely determine how the elections go, and how Obama goes.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -6 (see trends).

Those numbers reflect the best ratings for the president in nearly a year (since February 1 2010)."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/january_2011/obama_approval_index_january_21_2011/444521-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_january_21_2011.jpg

1 Reply

@okie,

Hah!

Quote:

1. Since the election with Republicans having a majority in the House, Obama's attitude and presidential approach have been neutered to an extent, so that even his inner attitude might be more moderate, at least his outward persona appears to be more moderate or less combative or determined to push his own very liberal agenda.

What event can you point to, since the election, that you base this on? From what I can tell he's basically doing everything the same as before; and he aggressively pushed through a bunch of stuff during the lame duck section that Republicans hate, like DADT repeal.

Quote:

2. There is less fear of what Obama might attempt to do, legislatively, now that the Republicans have a majority in the House.

Possibly true, but that doesn't account for this approval ratings going UP, now does it?

Quote:

3. There have not been any real major issues besides the ongoing ones that people have grown accustomed to. There is only so much emotional energy that citizens have, so that the wars, high unemployment, bailouts, budget deficits, immigration issues, and other issues tend to fade to back burner in peoples minds.

This is likely true, but once again, why does it result in his approval ratings going up?

Quote:

4. Temporarily, the shooting in Arizona probably bumped up Obama's numbers slightly, because this allowed him to appear to be more "presidential."

Probably very true, but then again, it's an accurate belief.

I wonder how you would respond to the fact that the approval ratings for the REPUBLICANS have, at the same time, dropped significantly. They also have the lowest level in modern history of approval for their 'agenda,' and that level has fallen considerably since last November. What factors do you think account for that?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I think my perceptions are speaking mostly of myself. I have reached the point that I don't even follow the news all that closely anymore. And I do draw some comfort from the fact that maybe more Republicans in Congress can slow down the Democrats agenda a little. Basically, I feel pretty helpless to do anything out here but make a living and not let it bother me too much. Hopefully, Obama will not be allowed to do all that he would likely want to do, now that he does not have all of Congress.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I wonder how you would respond to the fact that the approval ratings for the REPUBLICANS have, at the same time, dropped significantly. They also have the lowest level in modern history of approval for their 'agenda,' and that level has fallen considerably since last November. What factors do you think account for that?

Cycloptichorn

There are more and more people, mostly of the younger generation, that want government to take care of them. We are becoming an entitlement driven culture. Statesmen in history have warned us of this. It is a slow encroachment, but it is insidiously growing. You wanted my opinion. There it is.

I've even heard some people make the silly and dangerous statement that a dictatorship would make it easier to get things done. When they say "get things done," they are talking about expanding the powers of government to take care of everybody. Single payer medical care is but one example. When you go down the road of radical liberalism, that is where it leads.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I wonder how you would respond to the fact that the approval ratings for the REPUBLICANS have, at the same time, dropped significantly. They also have the lowest level in modern history of approval for their 'agenda,' and that level has fallen considerably since last November. What factors do you think account for that?

Cycloptichorn

There are more and more people, mostly of the younger generation, that want government to take care of them. We are becoming an entitlement driven culture. Statesmen in history have warned us of this. It is a slow encroachment, but it is insidiously growing. You wanted my opinion. There it is.

This is what accounts for a drop in approval since November? There are that many more young people since then?

Quote:

I've even heard some people make the silly and dangerous statement that a dictatorship would make it easier to get things done.

Such as president Bush? You do remember that, right?

Other than that, who are you talking about? Specifically. Because I've never seen any Dem here or at any Dem website forward that argument.

Quote:

When they say "get things done," they are talking about expanding the powers of government to take care of everybody. Single payer medical care is but one example. When you go down the road of radical liberalism, that is where it leads.

That's what people want, according to what you say. Who are you to stand in their way?

I should point out that the countries which are more liberal tend to have longer lifespans and higher degrees of satisfaction than those which are more Conservative. You're blaming younger folks for wanting that for themselves?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I wonder how you would respond to the fact that the approval ratings for the REPUBLICANS have, at the same time, dropped significantly. They also have the lowest level in modern history of approval for their 'agenda,' and that level has fallen considerably since last November. What factors do you think account for that?Cycloptichorn
There are more and more people, mostly of the younger generation, that want government to take care of them. We are becoming an entitlement driven culture. Statesmen in history have warned us of this. It is a slow encroachment, but it is insidiously growing. You wanted my opinion. There it is.
This is what accounts for a drop in approval since November? There are that many more young people since then?

You are right, probably not, cyclops, as what I refer to in terms of an entitlement driven culture, that is a longterm thing. I don't think I answered your question correctly. Fact is, assuming your poll information is correct, I don't know what has driven Republicans poll numbers down. After all, Republicans had a fairly successful election, and I don't see how people could expect Republicans to turn the ship of State around in any significant way yet. The fact remains that Democrats still control the presidency and the Senate, so the bulk of the responsibility for the economy and a host of other issues still falls squarely in their court.
I don't know if your poll numbers would reflect the effects of the liberal and Democratic demagoguery of Republicans following the shooting in Arizona? That could be part of it, but the facts show the demagoguery was totally unjustified, so I doubt the Democrats will gain anything with that in the longterm.

Quote:

Quote:
I've even heard some people make the silly and dangerous statement that a dictatorship would make it easier to get things done.
Such as president Bush? You do remember that, right?
Other than that, who are you talking about? Specifically. Because I've never seen any Dem here or at any Dem website forward that argument.

Bush was joking, to make a point. Regarding dictatorships, I think the following Cohen article talks about it in a roundabout way, as a "one party Democracy." I think Cohen might not be far different from how many liberals think nowadays, and I get the impression that he expresses admiration for life in China and how things are run there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22iht-edcohen.html
"Of course, political upheaval could unhinge all the above. Given that China’s open-closed experiment is unique in history, nobody can say how this society will be governed in 2050. Immense tensions, not least between the rage that corruption inspires and the difficulty of tackling it without a free press, exist. Still, my fourth reason for running with the Chinese bulls is perhaps the most surprising: single-party democracy.
It doesn’t exist. It’s an oxymoron (although a U.S. primary is a vote within one party). It can easily be the semantic disguise for outrage and oppression. But it just may be the most important political idea of the 21st century."

Quote:

Quote:
When they say "get things done," they are talking about expanding the powers of government to take care of everybody. Single payer medical care is but one example. When you go down the road of radical liberalism, that is where it leads.

That's what people want, according to what you say. Who are you to stand in their way?

That is what you and other liberal Democrats want. What is to stand in their way? Little things like the Constitution and freedom and liberty, cyclops.

Quote:

I should point out that the countries which are more liberal tend to have longer lifespans and higher degrees of satisfaction than those which are more Conservative. You're blaming younger folks for wanting that for themselves?
Cycloptichorn

You compare apples and oranges, cyclops, and so the comparison is highly subject to who is asked, how the question is asked, etc. I would place very little stock in your data about degree of satisfaction. Also, we've had many discussions about lifespans, and that is another situation comparing apples and oranges. Different countries treat infant mortality for example in different ways, which skews the statistics greatly.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I think my perceptions are speaking mostly of myself.

This convoluted piece of doggrel is from a man who prides himself on writing well.

Quote:

I have reached the point that I don't even follow the news all that closely anymore.

It shows.

Quote:

And I do draw some comfort from the fact that maybe more Republicans in Congress can slow down the Democrats agenda a little

Obama has been kowtowing to the Republicans since he came into office. That ought to comfort you.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I've even heard some people make the silly and dangerous statement that a dictatorship would make it easier to get things done

Yep, they're called Republicans, specifically, Tea Totalitarian Republicans.

0 Replies

@okie,

You're always correct to question sources for accuracy, Okie.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/20/5883619-first-thoughts-are-the-political-winds-changing

Quote:

*** The GOP’s short honeymoon: But the bigger warning signs in the poll appear directed at the party that's been in control of the House for just two weeks. Only 25% say the Republicans in Congress will bring the right kind of change (versus 42% who said that about the Dems in Jan. 2007, and 37% who said that about the GOP in Jan. 1995). In addition, a majority (55%) believe congressional Republicans will be too inflexible in dealing with Obama, while an equal number (55%) say Obama will strike the right balance. And then there's this: The GOP's fav/unfav has gone from a net positive in December (38%-37%) to a net negative now (34%-40%). "I think this has been a pretty short Republican honeymoon," McInturff says. Hart adds, "I think the president has the benefit of the doubt, and the Republicans -- based on this data -- have the burden of proof."

Quote:

Fact is, assuming your poll information is correct, I don't know what has driven Republicans poll numbers down.

I think it's that they are too busy slapping each other on the back to actually address any of the issues of the day. The number one concern with the public right now is jobs jobs jobs, and they have no plan - and not even any announced plans - for doing anything about that at all. That's problematic, because Boehner and Cantor spent the last year yelling at the Obama admin and Dems in the House regarding jobs. Loudly and quite famously. Now that they are in office, however, they don't intend to do **** about it.

I think that everyone, Republican and Democrat, realizes that the HC reform isn't going to be stopped by the Republicans just holding the House. Obama would never sign a bill repealing it. De-funding is problematic, b/c the executive branch can shift funds around to cover the vast majority of the things that the House Republicans can even effect. So the whole thing seems like a waste of time, and like you said, people just are tired of the issue and want to move on.

That, combined with talk of slashing the entire budget deeply - except for defense, of course, which will not receive ONE PENNY of cuts under current Republican leadership plans - doesn't resonate well with the country.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
I think my perceptions are speaking mostly of myself.

This convoluted piece of doggrel is from a man who prides himself on writing well.

You might wish to check your spelling of the word "doggerel," pom? Interesting word though. I commend you on the use of innovative and unusual words!

Quote:

Quote:
I have reached the point that I don't even follow the news all that closely anymore.
It shows.

At least I am more up to speed than you, even without following it as closely, pom.

Quote:

Quote:
And I do draw some comfort from the fact that maybe more Republicans in Congress can slow down the Democrats agenda a little
Obama has been kowtowing to the Republicans since he came into office. That ought to comfort you.

I hope he kowtows more and more, pom. He might wish to do that, if he has any hope of getting the economy going again.

1 Reply

Good evening. The Obama poll numbers of approve-disapprove intrigue me. The RCP average of polls taken in the past 5 days now show Obama at +6.50, which is quite a turn-around. It has been noted here before that some of the polls call Adults while Fox (which has Obama at +3) uses Registered Voters while Rasmussen (49-49) focuses on Likely Voters. Perhaps the polls in the last few days include more Adults. That could skew the RCP average.
The Tuscon shooting and the aftermath of the finger pointing and Obama's speech is probably ancient history. The same goes for the lame duck session of Congress.
I am inclined to believe that some people feel that their economy has turned the corner. Things might actually be starting to look a bit brighter.
President Obama has been testing out that theme in some of his speeches ahead of his State of the Union address next Tuesday.
And wasn't there a bit of a reduction in the SSAE deduction in the 1st paychecks of the year? I can't recall the details.

0 Replies

@okie,

My spelling was approved by spell check, so I did not add the second L.

You are in no way ahead of me. Your posts illustrate that. I post many more things that are timely and actually about the topic than you.

Besides, my reading ability outstrips yours.

As for Obama, he was elected on a perception. Republicans are pretty much a social death march.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're always correct to question sources for accuracy, Okie.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/20/5883619-first-thoughts-are-the-political-winds-changingCycloptichorn

Good suggestion. That probably explains why the data in the poll is not all that believable as far as I am concerned, cyclops. It is an NBC poll or NBC WSJ poll. Unless you can show any credibility for them to actually predict accuracy, such as in past elections, I would not take them too seriously if I were you.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're always correct to question sources for accuracy, Okie.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/20/5883619-first-thoughts-are-the-political-winds-changingCycloptichorn

Good suggestion. That probably explains why the data in the poll is not all that believable as far as I am concerned, cyclops. It is an NBC poll or NBC WSJ poll. Unless you can show any credibility for them to actually predict accuracy, such as in past elections, I would not take them too seriously if I were you.

If you had clicked through, you would see that it was in fact an NBC/WSJ poll.

Now that the magic letters you trust are on it, do you take it more seriously?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know