Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on September 17, 2009, 11:16:13 PM
-
The last week or so has seen some pretty amazing events, but the reaction to the events is almost as interesting as the events themselves.
We had two young people with a hidden camera film ACORN employees at multiple locations helping them set up a brothel, import young Salvadoran girls, and try to evade taxes. The indignation in the media has been aimed at the two young people who exposed ACORN.
When confronted with the ACORN story, ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson claimed to have not heard of it, despite the fact that it was everywhere on the internet.
President Obama appeared before a joint session of congress and before the American people, lied through his teeth, and claimed that anyone criticizing his health plan was lying. One congressman lost his cool and called the president a liar, which is exactly what Obama is. Rather than explain to the public what Congressman Wilson was referring to, the mainstream media has beat up the congressman and made the issue about "decorum," something that was notably absent in the halls of congress from 2001 through 2008.
Unable to effectively rebut the charge of Obama being a liar, the administration set about to call everyone who objected to his health care plan "racists," including people who voted for him.
Washington saw one of the largest public demonstrations in our history but, according to the media, it didn't happen.
We saw Obama appoint to a high position a man who was clearly a racist, and who believed that the US government conspired to cause the 9/11 attacks. Yet it was the president's critics who were covered with the media's mud when the truth about Jones came to light.
I think even Orwell would be shocked.
-
I think even Orwell would be shocked.
Indeed.
Don't forget the San Diego Sheriff's Department deploying the sonic crowd control weapons in preperation for use against town hall protesters. (the town hall protesters, while they can be loud, are generally otherwise well behaved. They don't riot, simply put. The hired union thugs, on the other hand, do). I see that as purely an intimidation maneuver...
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=21055.0
-
I was not prepared for the race-baiting.
I will admit, again, that I was wrong to doubt those who predicted that every criticism of the first black president would be met with cries of "Racism!!11" I figured they would call racism here and there, when there was the slightest suggestion of something that might possibly have to do with race. But I was proven wrong early in the campaign, when someone said that "Obama is skinny" was code-language for "He's black!" There were similar non sequitirs.
But I was simply not prepared for the Saturday Night Live sketch that is being performed in real life, by sitting politicians, media figures, and even a former president of the United States. And this in response to things that were entirely unrelated to race.
And yahoos on our side are actually trying to refute this nonsense. Why? How?
I don't know what to do with it, myself. It's just too comical, too surreal. I think the next time I go tea-partying, I might bring a sign that says, "Is this sign racist?" I'd also like a sign that says "Can we have another Black president? This one's defective." But that's too long for a sign.
-
What scares me is the way Obama is systematically taking over control of our financial lives. Think of the most important financial transactions you have made in your life, or expect to make in your lifetime, and see if Obama hasn't grabbed control of them. Go ahead, list 'em out.
Buying a house or some land...? Check. FedGov owns the mortgage business.
Saving for retire or building some personal wealth...? Check. Obama has all of the major Wall Street brokerages and investment houses by the short and curlies. FedGov has Social Security. Obama's union allies have their tentacles wrapped around most of the nations pension funds. Politcritters are muttering about taxing or even confiscating IRA accounts and 401(k) accounts.
Expensive medical treatments...? Check. Obamacare and government-run health insurance is there to take care of you.
Going to college or sending your kids to college...? Check. The House voted today to take over the student loan business. Student loans will now be issued by the Executive Branch, not your local bank branch.
New Car...? Check. Obamamotors will be happy to sell you one.
Have I missed anything?
Every Farking Major Financial Transaction In Your Lifetime!
I was scared by the prospect of an Obama presidency. I'm even more scared now that I see it playing out in excruciating detail. And I'm flabbergasted that so few other people see these problems, or seem to care about them.
-
And I'm flabbergasted that so few other people see these problems, or seem to care about them.
We only care about his race. That's why. Did you know I heard he is black? Black!!
-
I think the next time I go tea-partying, I might bring a sign that says, "Is this sign racist?" I'd also like a sign that says "Can we have another Black president? This one's defective." But that's too long for a sign.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F15.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_kpw0wzKjGb1qzs1ivo1_500.jpg&hash=33bcef0a817fdff7b8dacbb9ea17ab0cc900ca8e)
-
Oh, relax, everybody. Turning a capitalist hell hole into a workers' and peasants' heaven on earth can be a little disruptive at first.
-
He shouldn't have used White Paper.
-
There's always hope: maybe Obama's white half will rebel against him.
There's so much more to come in terms of control. Cap & Trade and the Great Greening will hamstring just about every aspect of our daily lives, and we will pay through the nose for our growing enslavement. But don't forget the amnesty Obama has planned: that will change the entire culture and make sure those hateful values that emanated from Northern Europe are expunged over time. The good news is we won't really be aware of a lot of this because the information sources that now upset us, including this one, won't be permitted to spew their rightist bilge any more.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: There is no future in co-existence with the American Left. If they want their own Communist/Green America, let them have it--but not on our dime or with our souls in thrall. Expect the talk of "divorce" to grow over the coming months, as "crazy" as some may think that is. I think it will be apparent after the 2010 elections and the enactment of more draconian Obama legislation that political business as usual will not stop what's in play.
-
What scares me is the way Obama is systematically taking over control of our financial lives. Think of the most important financial transactions you have made in your life, or expect to make in your lifetime, and see if Obama hasn't grabbed control of them. Go ahead, list 'em out.
Buying a house or some land...? Check. FedGov owns the mortgage business.
Saving for retire or building some personal wealth...? Check. Obama has all of the major Wall Street brokerages and investment houses by the short and curlies. FedGov has Social Security. Obama's union allies have their tentacles wrapped around most of the nations pension funds. Politcritters are muttering about taxing or even confiscating IRA accounts and 401(k) accounts.
Expensive medical treatments...? Check. Obamacare and government-run health insurance is there to take care of you.
Going to college or sending your kids to college...? Check. The House voted today to take over the student loan business. Student loans will now be issued by the Executive Branch, not your local bank branch.
New Car...? Check. Obamamotors will be happy to sell you one.
Have I missed anything?
Every Farking Major Financial Transaction In Your Lifetime!
I was scared by the prospect of an Obama presidency. I'm even more scared now that I see it playing out in excruciating detail. And I'm flabbergasted that so few other people see these problems, or seem to care about them.
I'm very glad my home loan is not FHA, and is conventional instead. Once my Dodge truck is paid off (financed through my local credit union, not a fedgov motor bank or fedgov bailout bank), any additional vehicles will be a cash prospect.
Retirement scares the bejeezus out of me, even being merely 31 today.
I am very anxious of putting money into a 401k after the rumblings last year of nationalizing those and "paying fairly" to those recipients. With my 1-time success playing stocks openly in order to obtain my house down payment, I'm tempted to forgo trendy retirement tools and take my retirement into my own hands. Gold, stocks, bonds.
-
Expect the talk of "divorce" to grow over the coming months, as "crazy" as some may think that is. I think it will be apparent after the 2010 elections and the enactment of more draconian Obama "bipartisan" legislation that political business as usual will not stop what's in play.
Fixed that for you.
The Stupid PartyTM will campaign for American Values and Capitalism and Sunshine and Apple Pie, and then sell us down the river when it comes to truly cutting behemoth spending. Or re-liberating our rights from the DHS/DEA/FBI/ATF/NHS ever-growing monstrosity.
I will say it plainly for all Stupid Party candidates: KEEPING SPENDING GROWTH SLIGHTLY BELOW INFLATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CUTTING SPENDING. We want real slashes across the government budget. Make the bureaucrats howl in pain. If you had friends in the bureaucratic machine prior to the 2011 budget, you won't when 2012 hits if you do it right.
-
The Stupid Party isn't the one taking over our lives.
-
The Stupid Party isn't the one taking over our lives.
They're just the ones pushing us over into "the position" and yanking down our pants. Bipartisanship!
-
No. What's going on now is orders of magnitude more severe and dangerous than anything the Republicans wanted to do. The Republicans may have dabbled around the edges a bit, but they never dreamed of doing anything quite like this. It's right to criticize The Reps for their dabbling, but it's a grave mistake to confuse what they did to the wholesale destruction of the American way that the liberal Dems are attempting today.
Things would be a dramatically different if McCain had been elected, or if there was still a R majority in Congress. Heck, even with a non-filibuster-proof majority for the Dems it would be a completely different game.
This sort of stuff only happens when the Dems have the Presidency and an unassailable majority in Congress. The last time the Dems had such strong control of government was in the '60s, and we got the Great Society garbage out of it. The last time before that was in the '30s, and we got the New Deal from that.
-
The GOP has become part of the Nice Bystander Class. They are going to need to become much more militant if they want to survive as a party. I'm not placing any bets on that. They are too comfortable and, secretly, too in love with Authority to buck the New System.
-
The GOP leadership, largely feckless, is still mumbling about decorum and civility. There is nothing civil or decorous about a jackboot, no matter how much high-flown rhetoric comes with it.
-
longeyes, have you ever passed up an opportunity to bash the Republican Party? You even throw that in when it has nothing to do with current discussions. Was one of them mean to you in a past life or something?
You also like to try to turn Dem-bashing into Repub-bashing. Are you really just a closet Democrat trying to deflect criticism?
-
Every Farking Major Financial Transaction In Your Lifetime!
I was scared by the prospect of an Obama presidency. I'm even more scared now that I see it playing out in excruciating detail. And I'm flabbergasted that so few other people see these problems, or seem to care about them.
What scares the snot outta me is the complete absence of protest from the organized opposition (aka "Republican Party"). Nothing, zero, zip, nadda. No legislation (that I'm aware of). No political huffing and puffing. A number of offshore websites watch the situation but by and large the opposition has just laid down. Scary.
-
I'll support the GOP when, again, I feel they support me--and, more importantly, this Republic. My position is simple enough: The nation is in a grave crisis, with disaster looming; either the GOP recognizes the gravity of this and acts accordingly--militantly--or they need to get out of the way.
Instead, we have the spectacle of various GOP "leaders" castigating Joe Wilson for his allegedly uncivil "outburst." What has this Administration been if not an eight-month outburst?
-
More. It took two "kids" to shake ACORN to its foundation. Why didn't the GOP do this, long ago? I'll tell you why: ACORN = black people, and the GOP isn't ready to face the charges of racism. Same reason they aren't doing enough to block amnesty. They are gutless, and I don't like gutless people, especially when they have my future in their hands.
-
I should know better than to open my mouth in the politics side of this forum, but I am stupid so what can you expect.
I know this is a conservative/libertarian forum but there are plenty of people in the country who still think Obama is doing a good job (myself among them).
1. All the mainstream coverage I saw (CNN, BBC, NPR) was about what the kids video taped. The only 'criticism' I saw about the kids was the local prosecutor thinking about doing his job and prosecuting because they broke local law. There may have been some 'liberal' media complaining about whether or not the videos showed the whole truth or not, but that is not the same as ignoring the content.
2. The guy was an ass to a sitting president on live TV, it was not appropriate, and even many conservatives thought so. Sure, the Democrats are picking it up and running with it but what do you expect them to do? Obama himself has been nothing but polite about an overblown accusation.
3. You can argue about it all you want, I think Carter has a point. I personally know people who don't like Obama because they don't trust 'that *let's not go there*'. I've been to the south and had plenty of conversations with people who are overtly racist. All he is saying is that racism still exists. So what? If Obama himself starts crying about how he is being picked on I'll be the first person to call him an ahole, but that is not happening.
4. You mean the tea party stuff? If that is what you mean, I have seen plenty of coverage...although calling them 'the largest demonstrations in history' seems silly.
5. Not sure what you mean by racist appointee.
All I see is a list of conservative talk radio lead-ins.
(God help me for opening my mouth)
-
you've been to the south? from where? funny thing i've lived both north and south and the worst racism i've experienced was north. then again i often hear haoles pontificate on racism . then they drive ack to their all white hood
-
you've been to the south? from where? funny thing i've lived both north and south and the worst racism i've experienced was north. then again i often hear haoles pontificate on racism . then they drive ack to their all white hood
Yes, it is in the north as well, that is what I meant in the first line. I have family in both places, and I have heard fairly severe racism from both sides of the Mason-Dixie line :)
-
Obama is in the best possible position.
Someone accuses Obama of lying.
On CNN that night, does the headline say "Obama responds to accusations of misrepresenting the healthcare plan"?
No, it doesnt. Instead it says:
"Obama spokesman claims President does not believe Wilson's comments to be racist"
WTF? Instead of responding to any criticisms, Obama has his lapdogs call the critics racist.
And then, Obama comes out and says "I do not believe ____ stems from racism"
So in the end, he ignores and deflects the criticism. Not only that, but he come out looking all nice and gracious, leaving the idiots murmuring to themselves about how all-loving and kind he is.
I wish my job was that easy.
-
2. The guy was an ass to a sitting president on live TV, it was not appropriate, and even many conservatives thought so. Sure, the Democrats are picking it up and running with it but what do you expect them to do? Obama himself has been nothing but polite about an overblown accusation.
That's very funny. Polite would be responding to Wilson's immediate apology with an apology for telling lies in the first place.
3. You can argue about it all you want, I think Carter has a point. I personally know people who don't like Obama because they don't trust 'that *let's not go there*'. I've been to the south and had plenty of conversations with people who are overtly racist. All he is saying is that racism still exists. So what? If Obama himself starts crying about how he is being picked on I'll be the first person to call him an ahole, but that is not happening.
a) If Carter's point was simply that some people are overtly racist, and are opposed to Obama on that basis, you would be right. That's not what Carter said. See footnote below for the Carter quotation from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html).*
b) Obama has already cryed about being picked on for everything from the size of his ears to the color of his skin.
5. Not sure what you mean by racist appointee.
Take your pick. Van Jones? Sotomayor?
*"When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds," the Democrat who served from 1977-1981 told students at Emory University.
"I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American.
"It's a racist attitude, and my hope is and my expectation is that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the president of the United States," Carter said.
I just now realized that he said "unprecedented attack." Wow, what a comedian.
-
That's very funny. Polite would be responding to Wilson's immediate apology with an apology for telling lies in the first place.
a) If Carter's point was simply that some people are overtly racist, and are opposed to Obama on that basis, you would be right. That's not what Carter said. See footnote below for the Carter quotation from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html).*
b) Obama has already cryed about being picked on for everything from the size of his ears to the color of his skin.
Take your pick. Van Jones? Sotomayor?
*
I just now realized that he said "unprecedented attack." Wow, what a comedian.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that Obama is lying about the issue of sponsoring healthcare for illegals, which I reject as false. The only way I see to interpret the health care bill currently being pushed as such is that it does not require proof of citizenship first. Which is great, because I don't want to need my birth certificate for emergency room care. I think claiming that they are being misleading about that issue is blatant partisanship.
I imagine you have a different opinion though :)
-
Actually, no. Most of my points had nothing to do with that.
-
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that Obama is lying about the issue of sponsoring healthcare for illegals, which I reject as false. The only way I see to interpret the health care bill currently being pushed as such is that it does not require proof of citizenship first. Which is great, because I don't want to need my birth certificate for emergency room care. I think claiming that they are being misleading about that issue is blatant partisanship.
I imagine you have a different opinion though :)
And this is why you can't talk with liberals.
They cannot seperate their INTENT from the actual result of their actions. You can point out that their plan will end up covering illegal immigrants and they come back with:
"You're just LYING! We don't want this to cover illegals! You're making stuff up!!!"
Because it's not their intent that it covers illegals. Real consequences have no meaning for them.
-
Truth to leftists is anathema. Of course illegals will be provided with health care. No one is turned away in the emergency ward. Who do you suppose pays for that? That care is built into health insurance premiums and auto insurance premiums. Nothing in Universal Health Care does anything about that. In Michigan, with No-Fault auto insurance, one of the jokes in the medical community is if you are falling down, touch a car on the way. We have unlimited medical and rehab coverage, as well as lost wages and home chore payments when injured in an auto accident, or injured when entering or exiting a car. The courts have upheld the hospital/doctor billings of up to 170% of the cost of injuries in auto accidents to cover indigent health care.
People in misery from illness or injury should be treated, legal or not. But address the illegality of residence afterwards. Not done now. Causes a problem to follow up on residency status? Too bad. When you sneak in somewhere, you are subject to ejection. But to continue to obfuscate and lie about it (healthcare for illegals) by democrats, leftists and statists is getting to be a joke at best, or an insult to one's intelligence at worst. I'd ask the leftists and statists on his forum to take their heads out of the sand with respect to the efficacy of anything the government does without it being or becoming a giant financial boondoggle. Name one large government program that is not in trouble financially. And maybe actually read and try to understand some of the legislation before giving knee jerk reactions to challenges.
-
Obama has stocked his admin with advocates for mass legalization. Check the pedigrees. See how often La Raza pops up. They want "free" health care, and we are supposed to believe that Obama plans to deny them that? Any more than he plans to deny them legal status as soon as he can find a way to sell that? Absurd. Wake up.
Let me be blunter: Just about everything Obama is trying to do is about transferring wealth to allegedly deprived minorities, probably by design. Is it racist? Maybe it's just that white folks have most of the money, but to some of us it appears to have more involved than just that, maybe "payback." The idea that what Obama's about is "the greater good" is to me naive. This President is all about GUILT and the expiation of guilt. Yesterday's U.N. speech, putting the blame for waterlogged Third World peasants on the evils of American industrialization, was only the latest corroborative evidence of something that would be called delusion if it were not plausibly more malevolent.
-
I should know better than to open my mouth in the politics side of this forum, but I am stupid so what can you expect.
I know this is a conservative/libertarian forum but there are plenty of people in the country who still think Obama is doing a good job (myself among them).
We have our few residents who throw different views out from time to time. They make us think and are part of the APS experience :)
1. All the mainstream coverage I saw (CNN, BBC, NPR) was about what the kids video taped. The only 'criticism' I saw about the kids was the local prosecutor thinking about doing his job and prosecuting because they broke local law. There may have been some 'liberal' media complaining about whether or not the videos showed the whole truth or not, but that is not the same as ignoring the content.
I do agree; I've been seeing more and more coverage of this. I think what most of the conservative outrage stems from is that nothing has been done sooner about a corrupt organization. ACORN is up to no good, and like an unfortunately great many organizations of its kind, is HUGELY abusive of government money and tax-exempt status. People should go to jail for what's going on, and nobody will.
It also doesn't help that what ACORN had to say for itself (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,550562,00.html) is, frankly, insulting.
2. The guy was an ass to a sitting president on live TV, it was not appropriate, and even many conservatives thought so. Sure, the Democrats are picking it up and running with it but what do you expect them to do? Obama himself has been nothing but polite about an overblown accusation.
It was inappropriate for the setting. Rep. Wilson has apologized, Pres. Obama has accepted his apology. Whee. If I may(and I try to avoid GWB comparisons, because I believe them generally irrelevant) - what would've happened if someone shouted that at George W. Bush in a speech on the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq? Would Barney Frank, for instance, have apologized? Maybe, but probably not. People are PASSIONATE about this healthcare thing, and there is going to be some noise. I do not agree with Rep. Wilson's act, although I agree with his sentiment.
Whether it's an overblown accusation - others have explained that better than I can. It's a HUGE omission and it's something that can, at this point, only be a deliberate omission. Pres. Obama is being VERY careful about his words, and dancing around having to come right out and say it. Illegals will be included in a plan into which they do not equally contribute, and that's the way "they" want it. "They" won't be changing that bill unless something REALLY big happens.
3. You can argue about it all you want, I think Carter has a point. I personally know people who don't like Obama because they don't trust 'that *let's not go there*'. I've been to the south and had plenty of conversations with people who are overtly racist. All he is saying is that racism still exists. So what? If Obama himself starts crying about how he is being picked on I'll be the first person to call him an ahole, but that is not happening.
Carter does not have a point. Carter needs to retire to hermitage and cause America no further harm. He is not *just* saying that racism still exists. He is saying (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html) that racism is, consciously or unconsciously, responsible for "an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama". He is saying that a majority of we who disagree with the President disagree with him because, as the President himself put it, "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills" (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=5495348&page=1). Do you truly believe that a majority, or even a fourth, or even a *tenth* of us who disapprove of Pres. Obama's policies and actions would approve of a white man with the same policies taking the same actions?
I, too, personally know people like you describe. If they were, again, even a tenth of the conservative voter base, do you think that wouldn't have swayed the election? A real racist would surely cast his vote to keep a black man out of office. No, the VAST majority of America is over that - after all, we elected him, first in the primary, then in the general election!
To be fair(and a little bit ornery), how about we talk about the disproportionate majority of black(and other minority) Americans who support Obama? Are they racist? Would they support a white President making the same choices?
Pres. Obama is making great use of being "the good guy", persecuted for the color of his skin, mocked for his middle name, fighting the good fight and being gracious and modest enough to brush off the evil racist naysayers. Why would he cry racist when A, we'd all see right through it, and B, he can come out so much better by acting as if he's turning the other cheek?
4. You mean the tea party stuff? If that is what you mean, I have seen plenty of coverage...although calling them 'the largest demonstrations in history' seems silly.
Plenty of coverage, sure. Positive or objective coverage? Not really. I have read lots of articles about the TWO guys who brought guns(which is, I understand, still a protected right) to political events, both of whose intended statements were misconstrued beyond recognition and twisted into threats. Did Chris Matthews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4) give this New Hampshire guy a fair shot?
I have seen lots of pictures (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/index.html) of signs with Obama's face done up like the Joker, or slogans/sayings that I would not want to stand under, but little about the rest of the people who conducted themselves with taste. I have heard lots of commentary about how racist the tea-party organizers are and how misled(implication being, stupid and gullible) the attendees are, and it seems that a great many news outlets consider the tea parties "anti-government protests" (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/cnn_reporter_at_chicago_tea_party_its_anticnn_since_this_is_highly_promoted_by_the_rightwing_conservative_network_fox_114141.asp)(if I may add, that crowd is *priceless*. "You're not a reporter!"). There have been quite a few calling the protests "Astroturf" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html) - fake, organized, paid gatherings! Find me an article, from a mainstream outlet(other than Fox, we know those guys lie because they're in the GOP's pocket), that discusses how peaceful and respectful the protesters were, or how big the groups were, or really anything positive.
5. Not sure what you mean by racist appointee.
Benefit of the doubt: Heard of Van Jones? The unqualified, unvetted, unconfirmed appointee to an un-Constitutional position of significant posture, if not necessarily significant power? Check on some of the things he's said about, essentially, whitey keeping everyone else down. "Give them the wealth. Give them the dignity... No more broken treaties!" (http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/steve_foley/2009/09/01/as_the_left_tries_to_scrub_van_jones_image_beck_keeps_up_the_heat) Really? How recently did we break a treaty with a Native tribe? When did we pass a law confining Native Americans to reservations?
Also find the one about Republicans being "aholes". I will say, if you watch the few minutes surrounding the "ahole" bit to understand context, you'll probably find that what he says makes sense, in that he's explaining that the Republicans got legislation passed by simply using their majority and pushing things through and that if Democrats want to get anything done they're going to have to do the same. However, if a Congressman can't call an untruth a lie, then a czar shouldn't really be calling every Congressional "R" a nasty name, should he? Just like Rep. Wilson, he may have a point, but he made it the wrong way.
So if not Jones, then how about Sonia Sotomayor? She coyly, but overtly supports un-Constitutional judicial activism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4zJ1vBpULs&feature=player_embedded). She says that she has better judgment than an equally experienced, equally educated white guy (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html)(racist, sexist, and a bit elitist... hat trick!). As if that wasn't enough, Obama and the media made a BIG deal out of the fact that she's not white (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1901249,00.html). All kinds of hype about Latinos being represented in the Supreme Court - does the SCOTUS really need to be ethnically diverse in order to pass sensible, Constitutional judgments? Need we find an Asian, a Native American, and a hermaphrodite to serve also, because they're not presently represented? Would that Obama had concentrated on Sotomayor's qualifications instead of her race. He did her a disservice.
All I see is a list of conservative talk radio lead-ins.
(God help me for opening my mouth)
Well then, welcome to our world. Radio/talk radio is where a lot of us get most of our news, and while most of us attempt to pick the actual information out of the bias(whichever way it may lean), most of us do have a conservative streak and honestly it's more pleasant to hear commentary from someone with beliefs similar to your own. Dennis Prager's show is my favorite, and I also enjoy Glenn Beck and Hugh Hewitt. I listened to Air America for a while - before its affiliate station in Phoenix went out of business - to try to see "the other side of the coin", but Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann just plain made me sick with their plainly biased election coverage(i.e. decrying "vitriol" from conservatives while using *nasty* nicknames for Republican candidates) and generally snarky attitudes. Note, please, that I don't like to listen to Rush Limbaugh either, and for the same reasons - he is pompous and arrogant.
I hope I haven't turned you off of APS or bored you to death. It's late at night here(AZ) and as you can see, I feel pretty strongly about what's going on in our country these days. PLEASE do respond with your thoughts, links to support your views, further explanations, etc. Tell us why you think Pres. Obama is doing a good job. Tell us what you think of Congress. It's important that we understand each other. As a certain favorite radio host says, I prefer clarity over agreement :)
- Ben
-
If I may(and I try to avoid GWB comparisons, because I believe them generally irrelevant) - what would've happened if someone shouted that at George W. Bush in a speech on the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq? Would Barney Frank, for instance, have apologized? Maybe, but probably not.
We don't have to wonder. Bush was heckled during a State of the Union address.
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275877.html
I don't know if there were any apologies or punishments, but that just illustrates that the press didn't make such a big deal of it.
-
...the assumption that Obama is lying about the issue of sponsoring healthcare for illegals, which I reject as false.
Well, when his boys reject amendments to the bill(s) requiring enforcement of the "no illegals" wording of the bills, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the "no illegals" portions of the bills are without a means of enforcement and folks who say that it won't cover illegals are lying.
L-y-i-n-g.
It is insulting to people who can read and have a clue.
-
Joe Wilson's remark was a perfect echo for what bajillions of us out here are thinking and saying about this health care debacle. It's a representative's job to represent his people, to be their voice in Washington. That's exactly what Joe Wilson did during Obama's speech, and yet we're told it was inappropriate and outrageous and whatever else.
No, the outrage is all of the instances where our representatives don't represent us. It's an insult to claim that those instances of non-representation amount to proper decorum and good behavior from a congressman, while speaking the will of the people is somehow outrageous.
The real issue here is that Wilson embarrassed Obama on national TV, and in some circles that cannot be tolerated. This sort of behavior from the audience of a Presidential speech to Congress is not unusual or unique, but somehow when it happens to The One it's a despicable act.
-
It's alive! They are going to animate this monster, cobbled together from the souls of the misbegotten, in the dead of night, with no oversight, against the public will--and they wonder why villagers are approaching the castle torches in hand???
Joe Wilson's "outburst" only echoed the pyroclastic outburst that has been, is, and will be the Obama administration's manifest contempt for the American people.
-
perhaps it really was a curse after all :angel:
May you live in interesting times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times)
-
...
1. I don't have any sympathy for ACORN, so I don't disagree. Nothing to fight over.
2. I don't like Democrats booing Bush any more than Republicans booing Obama. Nothing to fight over.
3. I don't see where Carter says all animosity against Obama is because of race, but I think he does overstate when he says most of the passionate animosity is because of race. I do think it is a real issue, but I don't think it is a majority of anything. Nothing to fight over.
4. No-one denies that news is sensational, especially not me. I was simply responding to the point that the protests were under-reported, and I did not agree with that. If you want to talk about how the news media spins protests to show them in a negative light, well, they always do that and I would not defend their behavior. Nothing to fight over.
5. *shrug*. Out of hundreds of appointees, some of them don't settle well with conservatives. I don't have any strong opinion about either of those people, so I can't really argue it either way. I don't think Obama is perfect, or the Messiah, and I don't agree with everything he says/does. There seems to be an attitude in every political thread I join in, where if I support a non-conservative idea I am somehow a psychotic liberal Obamanaught...obviously that reaction is not going away, when I get reactions like this from Fistful: "Stop crabbing. If you waltz in with declarations of your flaming authoritarian socialism, people will be suspicious of you. Your fault, mate."
It does discourage me that this forum seems to be so hostile to non-conservative political viewpoints. If I did not know better, I would think it was a Libertarian forum, not a gun forum. Honestly, it surprises me...I know lots of liberals and centrists who are gun owners (I own guns), but you sure don't see many here. I would have expected a more representative cross-section of political viewpoints. Maybe conservatives are the only people passionate enough about guns to justify going to a forum purely for discussion about weapons?
I don't listen to any talk-radio types. I find the liberals just as repulsive as the conservatives...the attitude is simply to entertain by inflammation, it is never to inform and it kills me. I just don't have the stomach for either sides hate.
I think Obama has a positive message. His platform is generally in line with what I would like to see, and I appreciate his effort to keep his personal politics clean. If he accomplishes nothing more than lowering international hostility, I think his presidency will be validated. I like his energy policy and his choice for its appointee if fantastic. You can read the health-care debate in the "A good Democrat" topic if you want, I won't drag this thread down into that same fiery oblivion. I think his response to the financial meltdown has been decent. In a bad situation full of bad choices, I think he helped bring stability that beat the alternative of doing nothing. He has been handling the military issues in a non-hippy way, and I appreciate that. I like the fact that he is not chasing ethics issues, and seems to be leaving gun control alone, which is great because I think he has more important issues. I am curious as to how his fiscal policy will work when the financial sector is settled down.
It will be interesting to see how he does over the next seven years. (haha)
Congress does not impress me on either side of the isle. I wish there was more moderation and more work toward consensus. Whichever party is in control just tries to steamroll the other, and the minority party spends all of its time crying about it instead of offering alternatives. That seems to be American politics though. I don't see any viable third parties, so the best I can do is strive for moderation on both sides.
Naturally, since I like Obama many here label me as a flaming authoritarian socialist. The thing is, I am a left leaning centrist...the only reason I look like I am so far to the left is this crowd is so far to the right. I'm not even a Democrat. I imagine even this post will get some nice and toasty responses from formers who will demand I justify "Socialist platform X, which is clearly advocating for the combustion of our constitution!" but there isn't anything I can do about that besides stop visiting the forum, and I think it is interesting to pop in from time to time. I like to keep my eyes open for that next religious topic that I can drag on into oblivion :)
I appreciate the time and consideration you put into your reply. If you have specific questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
-
I think Obama has a positive message. His platform is generally in line with what I would like to see, and I appreciate his effort to keep his personal politics clean. (1) If he accomplishes nothing more than lowering international hostility, I think his presidency will be validated. I like his energy policy and his choice for its appointee if fantastic. You can read the health-care debate in the "A good Democrat" topic if you want, I won't drag this thread down into that same fiery oblivion. (2) I think his response to the financial meltdown has been decent. In a bad situation full of bad choices, I think he helped bring stability that beat the alternative of doing nothing. He has been handling the military issues in a non-hippy way, and I appreciate that. I like the fact that he is not chasing ethics issues, and seems to be leaving gun control alone, which is great because I think he has more important issues. I am curious as to how his fiscal policy will work when the financial sector is settled down.
It will be interesting to see how he does over the next seven years. (haha)
Congress does not impress me on either side of the isle. I wish there was more moderation and more work toward consensus. (3) Whichever party is in control just tries to steamroll the other, and the minority party spends all of its time crying about it instead of offering alternatives. That seems to be American politics though. I don't see any viable third parties, so the best I can do is strive for moderation on both sides.
(4) Naturally, since I like Obama many here label me as a flaming authoritarian socialist. The thing is, I am a left leaning centrist...the only reason I look like I am so far to the left is this crowd is so far to the right. I'm not even a Democrat. (5) I imagine even this post will get some nice and toasty responses from formers who will demand I justify "Socialist platform X, which is clearly advocating for the combustion of our constitution!" but there isn't anything I can do about that besides stop visiting the forum, and I think it is interesting to pop in from time to time. I like to keep my eyes open for that next religious topic that I can drag on into oblivion :)
I appreciate the time and consideration you put into your reply. If you have specific questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
Obama is so far from the center, for you to say his platform is "what you'd like to see" places you FAR to the left of center.
(1) An absence of hostility does not equal peace. People don't hate those who are giving them everything they want. They also won't respect them. I'm sure there will be less hostility- when you surrender, the other side gets less hostile.
(2) His "response" to the financial meltdown has been foolish and arrogant. Specifically, very little of the so-called stimulus has even been spent. The vast majority of that will be wasted. Further, it WOULD have been better to do nothing as, so far, doing nothing has seen the economy improve. But, since they're going to spend all that money now that the economy is already recovering, they'll claim they caused it. It looks good in the short run, so liberals will applaud it. When our country is bankrupt in the (now) nearer future, I'm sure they'll blame it on military spending.
(3) Funny how you claim to want "more consensus" and "moderation". If that's what you wanted, George Bush or John McCain should be your perfect candidate. George Bush let Ted Kennedy write his education bill! George W. Bush did everything he could to reach across the aisle. Your side stabbed him in the back for it. Honestly, I want less of that crap. When the stupid party and the evil party work together, you get something stupid AND evil.
(4) Unfortunately, like most liberals, you think you are "mainstream." Your positions, however, paint you far to the left of center. Given that this country is Center-RIGHT, you are more than likely farther from the mainstream to the left than I am to the right. The fact that 56% of the country doesn't even want "Obamacare" let alone fully government controlled healthcare ought to tell you how far out of the mainstream you are.
(5) I'm happy to oblige.
-
(4) Unfortunately, like most liberals, you think you are "mainstream." Your positions, however, paint you far to the left of center. Given that this country is Center-RIGHT, you are more than likely farther from the mainstream to the left than I am to the right. The fact that 56% of the country doesn't even want "Obamacare" let alone fully government controlled healthcare ought to tell you how far out of the mainstream you are.
Out of curiosity, could you explain this? Are you saying my entire political compass is derived from how I feel about healthcare? Nothing else matters? And if someone disagrees with a particular healthcare bill, that makes them conservative? This is what I mean about how I don't like the current us-against-them mentality of politics in America.
Also, could you give me some links on how the country is 'center-right', or what that even means?
I'm not trying to start a fight, so don't get all jazzed up, I am just curious.
(Edit: No more time, might get back tomorrow or Wed. to read responses.)
-
Out of curiosity, could you explain this? Are you saying my entire political compass is derived from how I feel about healthcare? Nothing else matters? And if someone disagrees with a particular healthcare bill, that makes them conservative? This is what I mean about how I don't like the current us-against-them mentality of politics in America.
Also, could you give me some links on how the country is 'center-right', or what that even means?
I'm not trying to start a fight, so don't get all jazzed up, I am just curious.
(Edit: No more time, might get back tomorrow or Wed. to read responses.)
Not thought this was a fight. First, center-right. Even 2008 exit polling had respondents calling themselves conservatives 34% of the time, moderate 44% of the time and liberal 22% of the time. While people were abondoning the republican party, they were not abandoning conservatism. (Also note how much Obama did to claim he was actually a moderate and or moderate-right candidate). Source for polls: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704)
Secondly, your position on healthcare is but an indicator. Taken with your support of government spending ("Obama's handling of the financial crisis"), your support for gay marriage, your reflexive support for Professor Gates, and your position on abortion, you obviously lean farther to the left of the mainstream than you beleive.
-
Not thought this was a fight. First, center-right. Even 2008 exit polling had respondents calling themselves conservatives 34% of the time, moderate 44% of the time and liberal 22% of the time. While people were abondoning the republican party, they were not abandoning conservatism. (Also note how much Obama did to claim he was actually a moderate and or moderate-right candidate). Source for polls: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704)
Secondly, your position on healthcare is but an indicator. Taken with your support of government spending ("Obama's handling of the financial crisis"), your support for gay marriage, your reflexive support for Professor Gates, and your position on abortion, you obviously lean farther to the left of the mainstream than you beleive.
So you are defining left-right-center by how people self-identify in polls, but you don't think what I call myself is valid? Do you see the problem with that?
How did I reflexively support Professor Gates? My entire point was that I don't think people should be arrested for giving crap to cops, regardless of the situation. I reflexively support citizens over government employees and if anything, that is a libertarian ideal, not a liberal one. The rest of your points are valid, but for my age bracket I think I am justified in claiming status as left leaning centrist.
If something like this http://www.politicalcompass.org/ (http://www.politicalcompass.org/), which consistently shows me as a centrist is not valid though, I guess I don't know how to define left-right-center anymore.
I agree though, that compared to the standard of this board I am very liberal, although I have to point out that liberal/conservative to me is more about fiscal policy. I don't think you can shoe-horn 'moral' issues into left-right and have it match up with fiscal policy easily. That is why I do not consider myself either a Democrat or Republican...the party platforms are too broad, and there are issues about both I cannot support.
-
If something like this http://www.politicalcompass.org/ (http://www.politicalcompass.org/), which consistently shows me as a centrist is not valid though, I guess I don't know how to define left-right-center anymore.
No, political compass and similar web sites are not valid at all. At the very least, their questions are poor. Their main failing, if I recall correctly, is the illusion that they can clarify anything by separating "economic liberty" from "individual liberty" (or social liberty, etc). This accomplishes little, and involves not a little question-begging.
-
No, political compass and similar web sites are not valid at all. At the very least, their questions are poor. Their main failing, if I recall correctly, is the illusion that they can clarify anything by separating "economic liberty" from "individual liberty" (or social liberty, etc). This accomplishes little, and involves not a little question-begging.
Ah, I see. Laissez faire capitalism = Freedom and goodness, Controlled capitalism = Evil communist slavery
;/
-
Ah, I see. Laissez faire capitalism = Freedom and goodness, Controlled capitalism = Evil communist slavery
;/
All freedom begins with property.
Put another way, without economic freedom, there is no freedom.
Folks used to know the interdependence of such things as life, liberty, and property.
Sailor: Did I ever tell ya that this here jacket represents a symbol of my individuality, and my belief in personal freedom?
Lula: About fifty thousand times.
Even the dopey character played by Nick Cage understood, in his own goofy way.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F16.media.tumblr.com%2FzTKMyk88qejsfo47iqSYo0J4o1_400.png&hash=296a412e43d0a1643feaffac3cf328bb6f962e2e)
-
Ah, I see. Laissez faire capitalism = Freedom and goodness, Controlled capitalism = Evil communist slavery
;/
Please explain. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
-
No, controlled capitalism = fascism.
-
Please explain. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
Your claim is that individual liberty cannot be separated from economic liberty. I disagree. It is one thing if King George does it without representation, and it is another when the majority of a Democratic Republic chooses to impose taxes on itself.
We don't need to have this discussion again though, if we want to fight we can just read every single thread we interact in and hear the same points.
I'll say government is a social contract and taxation for services is not bad if supported by the people, you'll say the government does not have the authority to tax and the commerce clause is bad. We disagree.
-
Your claim is that individual liberty cannot be separated from economic liberty. I disagree. It is one thing if King George does it without representation, and it is another when the majority of a Democratic Republic chooses to impose taxes on itself.
We don't need to have this discussion again though, if we want to fight we can just read every single thread we interact in and hear the same points.
I'll say government is a social contract and taxation for services is not bad if supported by the people, you'll say the government does not have the authority to tax and the commerce clause is bad. We disagree.
Interesting point. What line do you draw after which %51 of people wanting something is still wrong? Or is the only morality what a majority want?
-
Interesting point. What line do you draw after which %51 of people wanting something is still wrong? Or is the only morality what a majority want?
I think your mistake is thinking that politics has, or has ever had, anything to do with 'morality'. Politics is simply about power and the distribution of resources.
-
I think your mistake is thinking that politics has, or has ever had, anything to do with 'morality'. Politics is simply about power and the distribution of resources.
False.
Apparently you aren't familiar with the founding of your country.
-
Politics implies citizenship. That's where the word comes from: politikos. The empowerment of human beings with social rights. We didn't have politics before we had men with rights; what we had was tyrannical and autocratic social orders built on "power and the distribution of resources."
-
Your claim is that individual liberty cannot be separated from economic liberty.
No, I did not make that claim. I was saying that these attempts to plot ideology in two-dimensions are not as helpful or as objective as their proponents seem to think. And the survey questions on such websites are often biased or just downright leading. Below are two similar attempts, also discussed here (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=18606.0).
http://www.politopia.com/interactive_map.htm
http://www.idealog.org/en/index
We don't need to have this discussion again though, if we want to fight we can just read every single thread we interact in and hear the same points. I'll say government is a social contract and taxation for services is not bad if supported by the people, you'll say the government does not have the authority to tax and the commerce clause is bad. We disagree.
You have me confused with someone else. I can't imagine saying any of those things.
-
Some ideologies claim that individual and economic liberty are fully separable. I have not yet heard anybody explain how they plan to make the distinction.