Posted on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 16:24 — by Clayton
Less anyone forgets the threat to Liberty and freedom that Obama represents, I want to start a list of articles and videos covering all of the twists and turns of Obama's bizarre campaign.
Obama’s Pastor Celebrates 9/11 (explicit) Only 5 Days After 3,000 Americans Killed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzhl-endvco
Jeremiah Wright Says America Deserved 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8
Obama: Bitter Americans Cling to Guns and Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNJAl8a3d9Q
Meet Barack Hussein Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onOYL2ZG7fk
Gaza Strip Palestinians Campaigning for Obama
http://youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g
Obama’s Racially-Divisive Pastor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA
Obama Disrespecting U.S. Flag and Anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo
Summing up Barack Obama
http://www.primetimepolitics.com/primetime/site/video/summing_up_obama/
The Audacity of Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwjnT4eJJvs
The Audacity of Barack Obama 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeC8BE-2T_k
Is Obama Wright? - Pastor Wright & Senator Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4
Obama’s Pastor - 9/11 Fault of Israel Association
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnI431s1r6s
Obama - Cult of Personality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP7lUGn7HWk
Name Obama’s Accomplishments if you can #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
Name Obama’s Accomplishments if you can #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFOOcEQtP0
Barack Obama: There Will Be Bamboozling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU
The Two Things Senator Obama Accomplished
http://www.flop[bleep]ces.net/2008/02/27/obamas-empty-change-message/
The Jeremiah Wright Lifetime Achievement Award
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prhnc2fxAzg
Barack Obama Doesn’t Want His Daughters ‘Punished’ With a Baby
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg
If you have anything to add to this list feel free.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 321
Its interesting to note that since the Obamessiah failed to deal effectively with the Jerry Wrong question, then can we agree that he commited Obamicide?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
I am not sure that he has expired yet, but I am willing to keep driving nails into his coffin/corpse.
By the way, one more reason not to support Obama--Rosie O'Donnel understands him. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/05/05/rosie-odonnell-rev-...
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 141
That sweathog Rosie is so typical of those who see Obama as the light of the world and the solutions to all problems. I suppose that kind of day dreaming is an ok hobby for socialists as long as no one gets hurt.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
the Trinity United Church of Christ’s publication of an opinion piece by a Hamas terrorist named Marzook, another opinion piece with a blood libel that accuses Israel of developing an “ethnic bomb” to kill Negroes and Arabs, and of course the United Church of Christ’s solidarity with an organization like Sabeel that calls the foundation of Israel a “catastrophe.” http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=943
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
OK, here's a scenario for conservatives... Say for a moment Obama wins. What can we expect?
Taxes on Americans are raised
Socialized medicine is rammed through congress as the government takes over one seventh of the country's economy. Massive layoffs occur in the insurance industry, causing a recession in New York, Illinois, Florida, and California.
National gun control laws are erected prohibiting ownership.
A full scale pull-out from Afghanistan and Iran.
Homeland Security is reduced or eliminated/
Gitmo is closed.
Terrorists are emboldened world wide.
Jews are threatened with their physical safety in the United States as a green light is given to Jew Haters to verbally and then physically attack. Incidents of violence against Jews massively increase.
A full scale riot (pogrom) occurs in one Jewish area in Brooklyn, Chicago, or Los Angeles.
America arms the Arabs of Gaza and Judea and Samaria with new tanks, rockets and state of the art offensive weapons.
The barrier walls between the Jews and Arabs is forced down, terror attacks appear instantly and hundreds of Jews die in bombings.
America stands down as Israel's protector.
Israel is pressured to give back all of the Golan..., all of Judea and Samaria.
Hundreds of thousands of Jews are displaced at the point of a gun.
The Arab nations mass for war with Israel.
Seeing America's weakness, Moslems in Europe riot for Sharia Law in France.
Riots occur in England.
Russia decides it is too dangerous to leave their neighbors alone and return in military force to smaller former soviet controlled areas of eastern Europe. The cold war begins again in earnest...
The United States suffers a large scale bombing on the scale of the Oklahoma bombing.
Interest rates are raised and inflation reminiscent of the Carter years returns.
Want to see Obama as president now?
And to keep shays qhappy, this is all my opinion.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
You poor sick suckers ... you can't contain your glee when christofascists declare a New American Century and begin bumping off the leaders of some of the foreign countries where we want to control resource management and distribution PLUS establish permanent bases from which to extend our control even further (read their plan), then attempt to play Man Behind the Curtain by playing Democratic Charades and seating a man and a government in the place of the recently deposed dictator (previous great friend and ally against Iran) that mimics the very theocracy of Iran that they tell us out of the other side of their mouth is our next worst nightmare. You fall hook line and sinker for the ruse (most call it bait and switch) of going after the guys who stole and then flew airplanes into our buildings (though at least one was a laughable charade) by detouring through Iraq to facilitate the above pre-planned act of imperial expansion, letting the bad guys off the hook and then giving them all the time and space they needed to regroup and once again rise to a level where their "new" and "more dangerous" threats have actual potential. And ... as if screwing up foreign policy wasn't bad enough ... they trashed the American economy (mostly by running up bills and turning the treasury over to the corporate masters who will employ them once they slink out of office and head home) and have driven us to the edge of financial collapse. Oh wait ... no, it's only the middle and lower classes that are about to collapse, because they were too stupid to avoid falling for the bait and switch the Fed (an institution I hear all of your sicko conservatives "love" an awful lot) dropped on them, because the Fed bailed all the gamblers and swindlers who were going to lose their shirts out of the jam they created for themselves (and everyone else). In the good old days, we called that "socialism for the rich". Meanwhile, no one can afford to drive to the store to pay for bread, milk and eggs that they can't afford, either. But life is rosy when you live in the upper 5-10% of the crust, isn't it?
Here you are, bad-mouthing me because I dare to bad-mouth the near traitor who stole the first election (and probably the second) and sold most of us down the drain so he could claim a legacy as a War President while fulfilling the wet dream of Ronald Reagan and his good friend Grover Norquist (class-mates and buddy buddy from Young Republican Days with such other stalwart luminaries and models of ethical behavior Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff and Gary Bauer) in rolling back the New Deal. And, on top of that, you must be in hog heaven because you are setting yourself up to just roll right on through to Baltimore (Little Feat, 1975) when Barack Obama wins the next election in a landslide.
John McCain cannot even get 25% of his own Party's votes in primary after primary ... elections where people have to actually go OUT OF THEIR WAY to vote against him to show their displeasure. He used to be a nice man. I suspect he suspects he will be able to cancel out the deals he has made to win the nomination, but it won't matter as he won't even come close to getting the chance.
Your policies and your fears and your hatred of others has caught up to you ... people are tired of the bankrupt mess the Republicans have created. They may be just as tired of the Dems if nothing changes after they get their shot at leadership, but you are going to have to face the very real probability that for the first time in a very long time it will the Dems who control almost all branches of government. Must be a nightmare, now that I think about it.
I came home after a great walk along one of America's little know treasures today with my wife and her daughter and two granddaughters (Mother's Day is a great day, especially when the spring Oregon weather holds back the rain) ... only to browse this website to see what frightened conservatives say to each other. I know darned well what they say to me, and that's bad enough. But THIS thread is pitiful.
Tomorrow, if I bother to come back, I will refute the points that you raise about what Mr. Obama will do. Good Night, Chet.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
I don't pretend to be a Barack Obama expert/specialist, and I haven't totally bought into his campaign. But like it or not, you better get used to it, because not only is he going to be the Democratic candidate, but he is going to win the General Election because maybe as much as 60% of the electorate is tired of of having to prices for things we shouldn't have to be paying, paying for things that have ingredients manufactured in China (because the global corporations shipped the jobs overseas) that we can never be sure to trust (because the global corporations "promise" to inspect their safety and health for the US government, that itself is too busy figuring out how it can sell the farm to its best friends), being told we have to wait for (pick from a wide variety of issues of concern to a majority of Americans, including but not limited to ... alternative sources of energy, real choice in the broadband/cable/television/radio/media world, affordable health care, a pay raise, efforts to reduce pollution and clean up air/water/soil/food, an end to phony-baloney wars from which small segments of the population are reaping HUGE profits, etc. etc. etc.) AND there will be a clear majority for Dems in both the House and Senate. And unlike the Republican majority that whiled away their time in power, this majority will get stuff done. Much of it is on the list of things you fear ... oh well.
Taxes on Americans are raised Technically, Mr. Obama has called for rolling back the tax breaks provided only for the wealthiest 2% of the population and to eliminate tax breaks to corporations who continue to make excessive profit during a time of loss to everyone else (both in the context of personal sacrifice and in terms of a recession), and possibly to enact two other bits of related legislation: an end to war profiteering, and an end to usury from the lending industry. In addition, he has proposed tax cuts and tax incentives for middle class families, users of alternative energy, potential homeowners (particularly those screwed by the underground and unregulated financial criminals) and others. He has also proposed, or at least put out for consideration, a surtax on all Americans to pay the costs of fighting the war on terror. No more putting the tab on the grandkids' credit card.
Socialized medicine is rammed through congress as the government takes over one seventh of the country's economy. Massive layoffs occur in the insurance industry, causing a recession in New York, Illinois, Florida, and California.
Every country in the world provides some form of socialized medicine for most if not all of its citizens, and this country already does so for its most elite members. We currently rank 39th in the world in terms of overall health care that is provided, and have surprisingly poor infant mortality rates and life expectancy rates. It is time to strip the insurance companies of their stranglehold on health and make health care accessible to everyone. There will be no layoffs, Obama is not going to nationalize the health care system (though I wish he would), and the only "recession" will be amongst those insurance company CEOs who suddenly find multi-million dollar annual compensation a bit too costly for their cut back industry.
National gun control laws are erected prohibiting ownership.
This is not going to happen. Efforts might be made, and certain classes of gun-ownership might be more tightly regulated.
A full scale pull-out from Afghanistan and Iran.
We are not in Iran. Yet. But you probably meant Iraq (with just a Freudian slip of the finger ... since it takes left pinky to strike the "q" and right forefinger to strike the "n", I can see how you might have become confused).
But the answer is "yes". We will certainly reduce our presence in Iraq, as that is an illegal war that is taking us no where. I suspect our presence in Afghanistan will remain strong ... as it, alas, probably should. The Congress (and the majority of American people) authorized and supported the invasion of Afghanistan because this is where the terrorists are focused ... not in Iraq where Shi'a militias are duking it out for political control.
Homeland Security is reduced or eliminated
Seig Heil! Let's here it for the Homeland! But this one is not going anywhere. Like it or not, the goal of consolidating our intelligence capabilities and placing them under a single agency was a darned good idea. Some of the scope of HS might, indeed, be reduced. But it ain't going anywhere.
Gitmo is closed.
Gitmo should have been closed decades ago. Secret prisons have no place in our society, and military bases on the soil of sworn enemies asks for nothing but trouble. It is no longer needed.
Terrorists are emboldened world wide.
According to you ("new" and "more dangerous") they already are. I see nothing in Obama's presentations to suggest a lessening of security measures or efforts to combat terrorism.
Jews are threatened with their physical safety in the United States as a green light is given to Jew Haters to verbally and then physically attack. Incidents of violence against Jews massively increase.
Paranoia, plain and simple. But I promise you this ... if it happens, I am on your side.
A full scale riot (pogrom) occurs in one Jewish area in Brooklyn, Chicago, or Los Angeles.
See above
America arms the Arabs of Gaza and Judea and Samaria with new tanks, rockets and state of the art offensive weapons.
We already do (or do so through proxy). I do not see such blatant escalation of the conflict by providing arms to both sides. This is something that Republican administrations support and condone.
The barrier walls between the Jews and Arabs is forced down, terror attacks appear instantly and hundreds of Jews die in bombings.
The barrier walls coming down will not be the result of Barack Obama becoming President of the United States. I do not suspect anyone is going to make them come down, unless the Israeli government decides they no longer serve their purpose. Terror attacks are not going to go away.
America stands down as Israel's protector.
Never going to happen.
Israel is pressured to give back all of the Golan..., all of Judea and Samaria.
The pressure to do so already exists ... but (1) point to something in Obama's campaign that suggests this is the course of action he will pursue, and (2) explain to me how his becoming President makes this happen.
Hundreds of thousands of Jews are displaced at the point of a gun.
See above. In addition, if you are suggesting this is a domestic threat, you are wrong. If this is a foreign threat, then I am sure you will see Barack Obama doing what can be done to reduce the tension and end the threat.
The Arab nations mass for war with Israel.
Because of Barack Obama? Sorry
Seeing America's weakness, Moslems in Europe riot for Sharia Law in France.
America's strength or weakness has absolutely nothing to do with Sharia Law in France. They already have gone through a couple of periods of civil turmoil (mostly because of segregation and prejudice existing against Muslims within France) that the US did not lift a finger to prevent under the Bush Administration, nor did we do a darned thing to threaten French Muslims to be good little swarthy workers or we would put a stop to their nonsense. In fact, I had the distinct feeling that quite a few folks in the current administration danced little jigs of pleasure at the fact that France had to squirm a little bit with some racial and ethnic tension.
Riots occur in England.
What have riots in England got to do with the election of Barack Obama? If riots occur in England, in large part they will be brought about because of stupid compliance with our silly adventure in the Middle East, because England has much closer connections to events and people there, and much more to lose when the true repercussions of our adventure start to sink in (financial collapse and military capabilities amongst the first). In a worst case scenario, Barack Obama could inherit a deeply wounded and weakened U.S economy and military from the abuses of the current administration that would serve to hamstring what he could do if situations in other parts of the world go south. He will be too busy dealing with food riots (and worse) in this country.
Russia decides it is too dangerous to leave their neighbors alone and return in military force to smaller former soviet controlled areas of eastern Europe. The cold war begins again in earnest...
This is a distinct possibility. Please note the truly outstanding job this administration has done to set the table for this eventuality. Ringing Russia with nuclear missiles has not exactly demonstrated that we are offering an olive branch, and this President's unwillingness to sit down and talk to his opponents is a sign of weakness, not strength.
The United States suffers a large scale bombing on the scale of the Oklahoma bombing.
Cannot rule out this possibility. There are terrorists out there, after all. But please note that the Oklahoma City bombing was done by American terrorists, who still run largely undetected in our midst.
Interest rates are raised and inflation reminiscent of the Carter years returns.
That's already happening, as well. Get used to the roller coaster that the current administration put into motion ... it will be a while before "normalcy" is restored. However, in terms of balancing budgets, reducing debt, and creating jobs that produce income that can address inflation, no one does it better than the Democratic Party.
Want to see Obama as president now? And to keep shays qhappy, this is all my opinion.
Yes ... he will enact some type of health care reform that will serve to make health care accessible and affordable to many more Americans than it now is (he won't go far enough, but he will start us down a path that eventually will lead to universal health care with a single provider). He will remove the special privileges provided to corporations, and actively use federal agencies to regulate them as federal agencies are set up to do (again, he won't go far enough -- either break up all monopolies or nationalize key industries ... but he will reign in their power). He will strengthen the elements of federal education policy that serve to guarantee that all children receive an inexpensive and high quality education (continue provisions of NCLB that highlight inequities in provided services, eliminate the profiteering emboldened by having the federal government specify which companies and which programs state and local providers have to use, develop a set of national standards and criteria for measuring them and then leaving it up to the states to figure out how to best meet them ... the exact opposite of what NCLB does, and so on). He will ensure that people pay their fair share of taxes, and yes, he will increase taxes for the wealthy to make sure that federal programs are adequately funded. He will end our occupation of Iraq and instead find alternative means to support development and growth in that part of the world (which ain't developing and growing under the current system). He will launch an "Apollo-type" mission to (1) find, develop and implement alternative energy sources; (2) repair, restore and expand our nation's critical infrastructure of roads, bridges, railroads, airports, communications, sewage and waste disposal, and the like; possibly by (3) putting hundreds of thousands of Americans to work in a government/private industry partnership to rebuild America.
And so on. All in an atmosphere modeled as being more fair, more open, more accessible, and more honest. Hooha.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
Shays, nice post...You allow me and others to not have to waste our time refuting the paranoid, delusional ramblings of someone who clearly doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
I don't pretend to be a Barack Obama expert/specialist, and I haven't totally bought into his campaign. But like it or not, you better get used to it, because not only is he going to be the Democratic candidate, but he is going to win the General Election because maybe as much as 60% of the electorate is tired of of having to prices for things we shouldn't have to be paying, I think you are trying to say that people are tired of the high prices. Given that Obama has promised to effectively raise taxes and that he is looking for a payback for the racial injustice of the Black community, I would guess that White Americans will have to pay more for reparations to Blacks. It does not sound like Obama will offer a solution to the economic woes of your 60%.
AND there will be a clear majority for Dems in both the House and Senate. And unlike the Republican majority that whiled away their time in power, this majority will get stuff done. If the racial divide between Obama and Billery is resolved. I think a more likely scenario is that this tension will shave off a good portion of the Democrats who will either not vote or will vote for MCCain. If Obama is elected, I think most of Hillery’s supports will vote for McCain, she may even encourage the to do so.
Technically, Mr. Obama has called for rolling back the tax breaks provided only for the wealthiest 2% of the population and to eliminate tax breaks to corporations who continue to make excessive profit during a time of loss to everyone else Which is effectively raising taxes. Did Obama, while in the senate ever vote for a tax decrease, or he consumed by tax increases? The answer is that like any good Democrat he is a Tax and Spend Liberal More to the point he is aracist socialist who will pursue policies of wealth distribution.
So, with issue or question Obama is threatening socialiszed medicine for all paid by those who work. If Obama is ewlected, what would be the point of working, just send you money to offshore accounts for safety and live on welfare..
National gun control laws are erected prohibiting ownership.This is not going to happen. Efforts might be made, and certain classes of gun-ownership might be more tightly regulated. The why is he promising a prohibition of guns to inner city audiences? Is Obama lying? But the answer is "yes". We will certainly reduce our presence in Iraq, So Obama will commit Defeat by retreat which is a guarrenty that the US will be struck by more 9-11 events. Given that he has atended a Madrassa in his youth, what is the likelyhood that his loyalties are with the terrorists rather then Americans. You forget that his pastor preached that America deserved the 9-11 attacks and Obama has never clearly stated that the terrorists were wrong.
Like it or not, the goal of consolidating our intelligence capabilities and placing them under a single agency was a darned good idea. Some of the scope of HS might, indeed, be reduced. But it ain't going anywhere. Unless a traitor elected as President wants to reduce America’s ability to defend itself, and that is a likely scenario with Obama. Gitmo should have been closed decades ago. Secret prisons have no place in our society, and military bases on the soil of sworn enemies asks for nothing but trouble. It is no longer needed. Enough said. I do not agree with this postion, I do not think most people do, and it should be clearly stated that Obama with release enemies of our nation to close Gitmo..
According to you ("new" and "more dangerous") they already are. I see nothing in Obama's presentations to suggest a lessening of security measures or efforts to combat terrorism. You honestly see nothing in disengaging the enemy abroad as creating an enemy domestically? You really can not see that closing Gitmo and releasing enemies, will threaten the US? I really do not think you are being honest on this point. Thus I do suspect that you, and liberals like you want to see Americans harmed as a point of justice for the Islamo-fascists.
Paranoia, plain and simple. But I promise you this ... if it happens, I am on your side. How, exactly are you on my side? How are you stopping Iran from carrying forth there repeated threats to wipe Isreali and the Jews out of the Middle East.. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2015255/posts and where are you when Synagogues are vandalized http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2013521/posts Or when Black Nationalist fraternity leader launched into a anti semitic tirade against an Isreali-American philantrophist? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2015002/posts Or when Jews were shot in a Jewish Federation building in Seattle in 06 by an Arab American http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1674001/posts The answer is that you are now where to be found. Anti-semitism is not your problem so the bottom line is that you choose to ignore it when you see it, even on this discussion board. With Obama the question has yet to be answered Is He anti-Semetic? He belonged for twenty years to what is clearly an anti-semeitc church and his mentor for those years is an anti-semetic paster. The church has a new, equally anti-semetic pastor. He surronds himself with Jew haters and Isreal haters http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999768/posts
In actions, not words, has Obama even proven that he is not anti-semetic? His advisors are clearly anti semetic, his pastor is anti-semetic; do you really believe it is believe-able the he is not?
The barrier walls coming down will not be the result of Barack Obama becoming President of the United States. I do not suspect anyone is going to make them come down, unless the Israeli government decides they no longer serve their purpose. Terror attacks are not going to go away. Obama is suggesting that the walls be breached and that Palestinians be allowed to enter Isreal in greater numbers. His advisors are meeting with Hamas, not Isreal.
In addition, if you are suggesting this is a domestic threat, you are wrong. If this is a foreign threat, then I am sure you will see Barack Obama doing what can be done to reduce the tension and end the threat. Oback is siding with the Palestinians, and as mentioned he is anti-semetic. As President all he has to do is assure the rabid arabs that the US will not defend Isreal and that will be the green light. Personally I do not think Isreal will go down with out a fight, and I think the entire Middle East will burn before Isreal is destroyed. I also believe that Arabs will suffer world wide should that occur, and that no nation will be safe.
America's strength or weakness has absolutely nothing to do with Sharia Law in France. They already have gone through a couple of periods of civil turmoil (mostly because of segregation and prejudice existing against Muslims within France) that the US did not lift a finger to prevent under the Bush Administration, nor did we do a darned thing to threaten French Muslims to be good little swarthy workers or we would put a stop to their nonsense. In fact, I had the distinct feeling that quite a few folks in the current administration danced little jigs of pleasure at the fact that France had to squirm a little bit with some racial and ethnic tension. And yet a very pro-American Jew was elected Presdient of France, and the rioting stopped. Do you really think that the US had nothing to do with that? Riots occur in England.
What have riots in England got to do with the election of Barack Obama? What did terrorist plots in England and train bombings in Spain have to do with the US? As our ally, England becomes a soft target till they find the bullocks(to borrow a phrase) to remove the radical islamic elements from their society.
This is a distinct possibility. Please note the truly outstanding job this administration has done to set the table for this eventuality And you really believe that an appeaser like Chamberlin has a better chance of negotiang with Putin? . The United States suffers a large scale bombing on the scale of the Oklahoma bombing. Cannot rule out this possibility. There are terrorists out there, after all. But please note that the Oklahoma City bombing was done by American terrorists, who still run largely undetected in our midst. But Obama’s election will invite the terrorists to try, just like Clinton’s waffling did. My point is that if you elect Obama America will be attacked and given that nuclear weapons from Iran are a possibility, the results will be much worse then 9-11. Elect Obama and America will suffer.
That's already happening, as well. Get used to the roller coaster that the current administration put into motion ... it will be a while before "normalcy" is restored. However, in terms of balancing budgets, reducing debt, and creating jobs that produce income that can address inflation, no one does it better than the Democratic Party. Name on Democratic administration that has balanced the budget, reduced debt, and created jobs. You can’t because it has never happened. .And so on. All in an atmosphere modeled as being more fair, more open, more accessible, and more honest. Hooha. Sorry but it will not be fair to me. IF you believe it is your right to deny fairness to one to insure it to others, then you are violating your own principles.
But that is the hallmark of all democrats and socialists isn’t it, oppress a minority to make the majority slightly happier.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Reply #1 ... I am currently very busy in a writing project that has a deadline, so will only reply to a couple of your thoughtful "responses". I'll pick up the others at a later date.
Given that Obama has promised to effectively raise taxes and that he is looking for a payback for the racial injustice of the Black community, I would guess that White Americans will have to pay more for reparations to Blacks. It does not sound like Obama will offer a solution to the economic woes of your 60%.
Obama has NOT "promised to raise taxes". He has promised to roll back the generous tax cuts on the top 2% of income earners in the country so they pay a share equivalent to the riches this country (and its citizens) bestow upon them AND he has promised to cut the tax breaks given to major corporations who have no need for them (based upon the record profits that they have managed to earn for the past seven years without reinvesting any of those profits in any meaningful way that has served to provide more jobs, better jobs, and better benefits for Americans ... as the current administration promised would be a natural fallout from its voodoo economics (and which presumptive Republican candidate for President says he will make permanent ... in addition to the HUGE tax break he promised to the energy companies today).
You seem to forget that Barack Obama is also a white man. I guess you did not watch, listen to, read or otherwise attempt to inform yourself about what he has said regarding race and racism in this country ... apparently continuing to rely upon objective and unbiased news sources like NewsMax and FoxNews for your facts. He the first candidate for President who sincerely bridges the two worlds and is in a position to speak to both with definitive clarity.
If the racial divide between Obama and Billery is resolved. I think a more likely scenario is that this tension will shave off a good portion of the Democrats who will either not vote or will vote for MCCain. If Obama is elected, I think most of Hillery’s supports will vote for McCain, she may even encourage the to do so.
In your dreams. FoxNews (William Kristol, to be precise ... not exactly a liberal stooge) today reported that in the last truly close primary (2000, McCain ... "swiftboated" by Karl Rove and accused of being a traitor for giving information to his torturers in North Vietnam ... vs. George W. Bush), 41% of all McCain supporters swore after the Virginia primary that they would never vote for George W. Well, I am not sure how many of them kept their word (McCain says HE did!), but George W. won Virginia pretty handily over Al B. Gore.
Can you imagine what kind of a person it is that is supporting Hillary? Is this a person who, after a little careful consideration, is going to vote for BushLite? Would you want a Hillary supporter in your camp ... demanding that the guy they helped elect honor their help and enact some of the policies that Hillary advocates? And just what kind of person can go from Hillary to McCain? Talk about loose canons! McCain, who can't even get at least 25% of Republicans to vote for him, suddenly has Bob "I Never Met a Woman Out of Wedlock That I Wouldn't Boink, But Don't Tell That to the Clinton Impeachment Committee" Barr running against him on the right. Whoopee!
I'll pick up the other stuff later. Hope it presents more of a challenge.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Reply # Last ...
I said I would reply to the others later, but I scanned the other items in your rebuttal (child's play!) and came across your very last brilliant comment. I could not resist, because I had already provided the answer to your question over on a thread that you apparently chose not to read and/or conveniently forgot about. I will copy and paste it below your question, but just to whet your appetite, the sources for the data I present are the Department of Labor (Bush Administration) and Office of Management and Budget (Bush Whitehouse). Enjoy ...
Name on [I think that was supposed to "one"]Democratic administration that has balanced the budget, reduced debt, and created jobs. You can’t because it has never happened. .And so on.
Numbers tell a story. Especially over time. They compel us to focus on results -- success and failure. Over the short term, maybe a few years, numbers can be manipulated or give false signals. But not over decades, and not over a generation. The numbers over the past 30 years are not refutable. When it comes to creating jobs and managing the nation's finances, Democratic presidents demonstrate success while Republican presidents show failure.
Job Creation
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 10.5 million new jobs Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 11.6 million new jobs Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 12.4 million new jobs
Total: 33.6 million jobs created over 12 years, or 2.8 million jobs per year
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 5.2 million new jobs Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 10.8 million new jobs George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 2.6 million new jobs George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.2 million fewer jobs George W. Bush 2005-2007: 5.5 million new jobs
Total: 24 million jobs created over 19 years, or 1.3 million jobs per year
Government Spending
How much did the government spend for every dollar of revenue? Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: $ 1.16 Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: $1.25 Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: $1.01
Total: Democratic Average: $1.16
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: $1.31 Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: $1.38 George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: $1.34 George W. Bush 2001-2004: $1.27 George W. Bush 2005-2007: $1.24
Total: Republican Average: $1.29
The difference between $1.16 and $1.29 may not seem like a lot, but the impact on the national debt is huge, especially when you consider that $1.29 applies to 19 years, and the budgets under this president are so much larger.
Increases in Government Debt
Growth In Debt Held By the Public [$US trillions]: Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.2 Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.7 Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: -0.3 Total: Democratic Total: 0.6
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.6 Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.7 George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.9 George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.9 George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.1 Total: Republican Total: 4.3
The financial markets only pay attention to the amount of debt held by the public. This is the number that helps drive down the value of the dollar and makes bankers nervous about inflation down the road.
Growth of Debt Held By "Government Accounts" [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.00 Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.4 Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 0.8 Total: Democratic Total: 1.3
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.1 Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.3 George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.5 George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.8 George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.4 Total: Republican Total: 3.0
Debt held in government accounts is very much a misnomer. Debt, in the real world, is a fixed obligation to make a payment on a specific date. Not so for debt held in government accounts, according to this White House.
The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes." .... -- USA Today, August 3, 2006
This subject warrants a separate article, but, there, in a nutshell, is the basis for the Republicans' "Social Security Reform."
In very simple terms, what happens is that the money contributed by everyone into Social Security, intended to build up a surplus to fund the baby boomers' nest egg for their retirement years, is actually used to reduce the government's reported deficit. Is it a huge scam? You bet. President Clinton, anticipating the problem, proposed some kind of undefined "lockbox" to prevent the pillaging of the Social Security surplus that's taken place under the current White House. Of course, the Republicans shot that down.
Sources: Job Creation: Bureau of Labor Statistics
(http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm) Seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls, calculated on calendar years
Government Spending: OMB (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf) On-Budget Outlays divided by On-Budget
Revenues Increases in Government Debt: OMB
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Reply #2 ...
Now we get to your comments on the comments I made to the scary scenario you posted. I will bold-face your scary scenario, italicize your comments on my comments, and then post in normal font my comments on your comments. Whew!
Taxes on Americans are raised
Which is effectively raising taxes.
By this, you suggest that restoring tax levels on some of the population to pre-Bush levels is a tax increase. As I said, this is technically correct, because the fed will have greater income than it now has. However, I know I am not among the top 2% income earners in this country, so my taxes will not be raised. Will yours? As a matter of fact, he has not proposed raising taxes on the wealthy ... he will just roll back the tax cuts given to the most wealthy people in this country and put us back where we were before President Bush rolled over the rest of us. It is a tax restoration, not a tax increase. And, just so you truly understand Mr. Obama's proposed platform, he has in fact promised that my taxes will be reduced, which is something that a reasonably structured and representative government can afford to do when it takes in more money than it spends. So, will you be getting this tax break?
Did Obama, while in the senate ever vote for a tax decrease, or he consumed by tax increases?
Couldn't tell you. There have been very few opportunities while he has been in the Senate to vote for a tax decrease (or increase). But you seem quite familiar with his record, so why don't you document the tax increases he has voted for.
The answer is that like any good Democrat he is a Tax and Spend Liberal
Which is much more fiscally responsible than being a Borrow and Spend "Conservative". To spend, you need to have something to spend. That hasn't stopped the current administration though, has it? Most Democrats, contrary to the outright lies of the Republican Party, support Pay as you Go. Even hard core "liberal" Nancy Pelosi has tried to honor that promise ... but this President keeps insisting that he will pay for the war with tokens (if necessary), than refuses to negotiate any of the spending dictates he imposes. This is why THIS PRESIDENT is determined to turn his back on returning Veterans of the "war" he initiated. Barack Obama, contrary to Senator McCain, supports the New GI Bill.
More to the point he is aracist socialist who will pursue policies of wealth distribution.
Now there's a mouthful. This guy must be the worst thing since Eugene Debs and George Wallace, all rolled into one. I realize that Barack Obama is slick and smooth (mainly because he is honest and transparent ... but I am anticipating the spin you will put on his style), but somehow racist/socialist just doesn't rise to the level of real racists and socialists. On the contrary, there are a large number of people in this country who will not vote for Barack Obama because of the color of his skin. This is the campaign that Hillary Clinton is running, at any rate. They will attempt to cover their own racism (and fear) by claiming, as you do, that he is a black racist seeking to put the white man down ... but I DARE you to point to one thing he has said or written that shows what he's going to do to you.
Socialized medicine
So, with issue or question Obama is threatening socialiszed medicine for all paid by those who work. If Obama is ewlected, what would be the point of working, just send you money to offshore accounts for safety and live on welfare..
As a rule, I try to read through gibberish and attempt to figure out what an impaired writer was trying to say ... and I have 25 years experience reading essays written by kids in grades 4-8, so am pretty good at it. But so help me, your response makes hardly any sense. It certainly does not address any of the points I raised. You seem to be saying that people who work should not have any responsibility or reason to support the health of those around them who don't (an enlightened attitude, of course ... which perhaps is the basis of your opposition to it), but if that were the case, everyone would have no reason to work anymore because they could receive welfare and send all their money to (non-taxed) offshore accounts. I think I am going to ask you to rephrase your comment so that it addresses universal health care, rather than a hodge-podge of welfare queens & a country suddenly filled with offshore account holders. Incidentally, since you seem so opposed to offshore accounts ... why don't you turn your wrath to the wealthy who dodge their tax responsibilities here by investing their money offshore?
Gun control
The why is he promising a prohibition of guns to inner city audiences? Is Obama lying?
Haven't seen or heard that one. I know he is opposed to automatic gun ownership and favors registration of semi-automatic guns, but didn't know he wants to ban guns in the inner city. I'd be interested in you pointing me to a site where he says that, and not someone from the NRA or the Washington Times say that's what he said (or what he meant). But even if he favors a complete ban on all guns (or registration of same), my point is that he won't be able to get it passed. As I said, "This is not going to happen."
A full scale pull-out from Afghanistan and Iran
So Obama will commit Defeat by retreat which is a guarrenty that the US will be struck by more 9-11 events.
(1) "Defeat" is not possible. Remember ... the mission is accomplished. Now, we are occupying a country because they don't have their act together in order to implement the democratic system of government we imposed upon them. Who defeats us if we leave? This is the question Mr. Bush (let alone you) still cannot answer. There is no al-Qaeda in Iraq that will defeat us. Even the Pentagon admits this is the case. There are warring Shi'a factions that we are keeping at arm's length. Both are aligned to Iran ... none to al-Qaeda. Even the guy we are giving all the help to is closer to Iran than he is to the U.S? Leaving Iraq merely means we get to refocus our attention on the real enemies of this country, and stop wasting resources on people who are light years away from launching any kind of attack against us, even if they wanted to.
(2) Leaving Iraq will not open the door to more 9/11 attacks. No one from Iraq was involved in 9/11, and Iraq does not possess the means to launch a 9/11 attack. Leaving Iraq actually gives us a boost to the resources we need focused on stopping another 9/11. Staying in Iraq, on the other hand ... a handy recruitment tool for would-be terrorists ... increases the odds of another attack.
Given that he has atended a Madrassa in his youth, what is the likelyhood that his loyalties are with the terrorists rather then Americans.
Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim, and he did not attend a radical madrassa. You are allowing yourself to be fooled by calculated fabrications. It is bad enough (and stupid enough) to make a leap of fantasy and claim that because I think all people have equal rights means that I support terrorists, but it is quite another to show your ignorance by implying that Barack Obama's LOYALTIES lie with terrorists. And yet this is precisely the type of unfounded hysteria that the current President's policies have brought us to.
You forget that his pastor preached that America deserved the 9-11 attacks and Obama has never clearly stated that the terrorists were wrong.
Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that the terrorists were "wrong". In a different context, the Reverend Wright DID say that America deserved 9/11 ... he said we "deserved it" because we failed to pay attention to the threats Osama bin Laden made about getting even with America for defacing Arabic holy places. But even if he danced a jig and was HAPPY that 9/11 occurred (which is not the case), to make such associations the basis of your conclusions is yet further evidence of how wildly uninformed your opinions are. This is quite different than saying, for example, that the people of New Orleans deserved Katrina because of tolerance for gay lifestyles.
Homeland Security reduced or eliminated
Unless a traitor elected as President wants to reduce America’s ability to defend itself, and that is a likely scenario with Obama.
Granted, I have called George Bush a "traitor", so probably have no basis for complaining about your use of the term here. George Bush, however, has managed to sell out America's treasury to his good buddies at the cost of at least 4,000 American servicemen's lives ... though probably a stretch, I used the term in conscious counterpoint to the fervent and fevered patriotism that he tries to beat up to support his foolish and disastrous policy decisions. To reduce the scope and power of the Dept of Homeland Security would not be a traitorous act, assuming this is something Obama wants to. I have not heard him say one thing about it. I guess you are speculating.
Gitmo is Closed
Enough said. I do not agree with this postion, I do not think most people do, and it should be clearly stated that Obama with release enemies of our nation to close Gitmo.
Somehow, I am not surprised that you are opposed to shutting down Gitmo. I suspect you would love to have a large American military base in Beijing and Moscow, as well (both of which would make much more sense than having one in Cuba). But turn it around. How would you feel if Mexico had a large military base in Half Moon Bay? Or Russia reclaimed and built a military base at Fort Ross? Closing Guantanamo does not mean that prisoners are released. Maybe a lot who claim they do not deserve to be there might finally get a trial (or at least a hearing) to determine whether they do or not; but there are lots of places where suspected criminals and enemies of our country can be imprisoned. There are even MORE places where they could be put on trial ... but this President (and people like you) do not believe that they warrant a fair hearing. Seig heil (some more)!
Terrorists are emboldened world wide
You honestly see nothing in disengaging the enemy abroad as creating an enemy domestically? You really can not see that closing Gitmo and releasing enemies, will threaten the US? I really do not think you are being honest on this point. Thus I do suspect that you, and liberals like you want to see Americans harmed as a point of justice for the Islamo-fascists.
More misdirected pap. The current President has emboldened terrorists everywhere because he has given them all a get out of jail free card while he expends all of our resources in a place where the threat of world terrorism did no exist. Barack Obama has said nothing about "disengaging the enemy abroad". He has said he will disengage the US from Iraq ... but in almost the same breath he has committed a stronger presence in Afghanistan and a more focused approach to the problem of radical Islam. Domestic enemies are a relative term, and you know it. Agents of Osama bin Laden operating within the US would fall into that category ... but I haven't seen too much success by the current admin to reveal or prosecute such enemies, so you have to wonder how strong or viable they are. I have addressed your frenetic (and unfounded fear) of closing Gitmo, so will let that insanity drop. The other insanity, however, has gone on for too long. It is bad enough to make unfounded claims and draw idiotic conclusions because it is your "right" to defame and slander people, but I have reached the end of my patience and rope with your childish name-calling.
And on that note, I go back to writing about the ancient kingdom of Kush. I will return to this myopic piece of blather when (and if) I get a chance.
And on
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
All this and no opinion about the comments of your pal and cohort, Media white. Your backbencher Chewy is attempting to support Media white—lets us see if I can pin him down to admit his own racist perspective. Now on the the predicted disaster if Obama is elected. I am cutting through the chase by bolding the topics and assuming that you can remember the prior discussionmine. It seems the Times is slimming our conversation so I will try to be succinct, but I have a lot of BS to respond to.
Taxes on Americans are raised If taxes are returned to the Clinton levels, I think you understand that it will raise taxes on the most productive members in society. Time has proven that increasing taxes on those who invests results in less investment. Raising taxes on corporations results in higher prices, not decreased profits. The rich will not suffer if they pay more taxes, the poor will. This lesson has been repeated often, but Democrats never seem to learn. One detail of your comments makes your position clear. You are not suggesting that your taxes be raised, just someone elses. Sounds a lot like envy and greed. Did Obama, while in the senate ever vote for a tax decrease, or he consumed by tax increases? I will document his record on voting for taxes as an elected official at all levels. How much do you want to bet that he has never reduced taxes in his life. How much you also want to be that he has taken every loophole in the IRS to not pay taxes; rather then volunteering to pay more.
Tax and Spend LiberalTo spend, you need to have something to spend. And if you do not have it to spend, cut back on expenses. Of course then it might be hard for a Democrat to elected if he could not promise more welfare and more waste, Obama is a racist There are a large number of people in this country who will not vote for Barack Obama because of the color of his skin, and an equally large nuber who will vote for him only because of the color of his skin. You have said that there are no races, and yet your candidate is exploiting a race he only partial is to gain votes. More the point his actions and his words have expressed racists positions. You want to forget that he refers to his grandmother as a typical white woman, (which you have to admit is a racist portrayal). He belonged to a clearly racist church for twenty years, and choose a mentor that is a racist. You dared me to point out one thing that indicates what he will do, and his past actions and association are that.
Socialized medicine To clarify what I am saying is that health care should and has been a motivator to work. For those who do work, it appears completely unfair for those who could work and choose not to to receive any subsidy from the working. More importantly to receive the same benefits as those who do work, as would occur under socialized medicine seems completely unreasonable. If working results in no improvement in one’s condition, why should one work? And when did I say that I opposed off shore accounts? I do not think they are healthy for the our economy, but for many people they are a useful tool. Because I own property in another nation, I have “off shore accounts”. And before I can answer your questions, you have to define who is wealthy? Do only the wealthy dodge taxes?
Gun control My analysis is based on data from the NRA, who is more interested then most on the candidates different positions on guns. Whether or not he is likely to get policy passed Congress is not the issue, the issue is what his policy is likely to be. Given that he is, as you would say a smooth talker,( I might define him as a well educated huckster) why do you think he could not sell ice to eskimos, as they say.
A full scale pull-out from Afghanistan and Iran Defeat" is possible if the Islamo-Facists t are lead to believe that we are weak and will not stop their cultural invasion. You ask “Who defeats us if we leave?” the answer is the terrorists who follow up by more terrorist attacks in America. Consider for a moment, what has bee the Islamo-facists response to every retreat, culturally and militarily, in Europe. Europe pulls back and the extremists advance further. There are al-Queda in Iraq and in the rest of the Middle East, they are funded by Islamic governments, of whom Iran is on the forefront. When they are not occupied fighting us in the Middle East, why do you think they will not attack us here? The point is that they are not “light years” from attacking us. They have missles that will reach Europe, and it is not unforsee-able that they will have missles that will reach us. They have the material to make a nuclear bomb, and they hate us for upholding the values they seek to destroy. Their fanatism is religious, not political so they will die to kill us. Obama is encouraging and embolding the terrorists BECAUSE he legitimizes them. He legitimizes them by talking to them, by suggesting that they may have valid positions. Combined with his APPARENT anti-semitism; I think it is a certainty that he will abandon Isreal.
OBAMA’s Sympathies and Involvement with Islam Barack Obama may not NOT a Muslim now, but he was a Muslim as a child. The only father he knew as a young child was a Muslim, and his actual father was a socialist radical. Is this enough to question his loyalty, I and many others think it is. Barack Obama may repeatedly stated that the terrorists were "wrong", but he is a smooth talking politician and he will say anything to get elected now. At the time Wright made his very disloyal statements about America, Obama was not seperating himself from the “pastor of Hate”. Just in case you forgot, taking a contribution, is far different then belonging and supporting a Church for 20 years.
Homeland Security reduced or eliminated For many, the equation is very simple. There is a current, even growing threat of attack by Islamo-facists. DHS is the defensive line against this threat, so if the DHS is reduced/eliminated Americans are being put at risk of attack. To put Americans at risk by reducing their security is a traitorous act.
Gitmo is Closed The point of being the most powerful is that we have the option of having a base in Cuba and Cuba does not have the option of having a base in, say, New York. Where, would you put the prisoners if not Gitmo? I would not support trials, especially at taxpayer expense for terrorists; because they are not Americans. They are non-Americans who have waged war against Americans. IF they are released, I assume they will wage war against us again. Other nations would have executed these people by now; in the good old days of empire, England would have shot them with a bullet drenched in pig blood just to insure they did not believe that they would go to heaven. Terrorists are emboldened world wide A more focused approach to the problem of radical Islam is your code for discussions with Islamo-facists. I have explained that Obama’s approach will embolden the terrorists. Clinton’s approach resulted in the bombing of a ship and in the attacks of 9-11; and Obama is proposing more of the same. Combined with his anti-semitism He will be the worst mistake we could ever elect as presindent, ( and I r thought we could not do worse then Carter). You do not like name calling, but you encourage Warhater/media white and Chewy to employ that approach with everyone else. With them you are clearly the puppet master and they the mindless drones. The three of you in this mimic the Democratic party, which is a very interesting side note. But to the point, politics today is labeling and branding. If you do not want to play, then don’t—but if you do play do not cry foul when the name-calling hurts.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
1) I see no evidence of the CCT whacking or cutting any of my posts. Don't know what you are talking about.
2) I am not interested in your argument with MediaWhite/WarHater over race. I made a comment where it seemed appropriate (above this one), but otherwise have enough on my plate to not get dragged into another issue.
3) I disagree that the wealthiest Americans are the most productive. They just have more money (and other things of value), a lot of which they did not earn. They put their pants on in the morning like everyone else, and some of them make some contribution to the larger society while earning their $2,000 - $7,000 an hour salary. And here, I'm just talking about CEOs (who farm out most of the work to their subordinates), not the really rich Americans who don't do a damned thing to earn their money. But even assuming that what they do is really really worth all that cash and booty and benefit ... then what have they got against helping all those folks who make it possible for them to earn all that money and pay their fair share (which, given the truly fair nature of a progressive taxing scheme, is more than the boxboy at Safeway) in taxes? They could give up half their $30 million income and still live a better life than I (and maybe you, too).
Your claim about investment is flat out wrong. Maybe in some distant and glorious capitalist past, but that investment just isn't happening. If it were, there would be well-paying jobs for everyone in this country since those guys have had seven years to put their money where their mouths are.
I have not said a word about my taxes. As a matter of fact, I have never once complained about the taxes that I have to pay. If my taxes go up because of a general tax increase under the next President, then I will look at how the money is being spent before I applaud or protest. But once again, Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton, for that matter) has NOT advocated a tax increase. Instead, he (and she) have merely asked that the richest 2% of the people in this country get off their free ride bus and start paying their fair share, which is what they payed before a friendly President shifted the burden to the other 98%.
4) There are "tax and spend" liberals ... but they are dinosaurs. Again, at least they only spend the money they have (even if they raise taxes to get it) and don't borrow it or put off payment of the debt to the next President (or the next generation). As to "welfare" ... there will always be people who abuse a system (including people who abuse the notion of an unregulated marketplace) ... but the majority of people in this country who have found support and help through tough times by a society that decided it wanted to protect and help its weakest and poorest members (that is, before Ronald Reagan's puppeteers took over) have found the welfare system one of the more humane and decent things the people of America chose to do. Every system needs tweaking and revisiting every once in a while. To take us back to the Gilded Age when it was every man for himself (women didn't count for much back then) is NOT a good thing to do.
5) Barack Obama is NOT a racist, and the examples you provided in no way establish racism as a character trait, let alone as a policy goal. Guilt by association seems to be the best you can come up with in almost any discussion. I am quite proud of my Cherokee grandmother ... does that make me a racist? Sorry ... but your right wing think tank puppet masters are going to have to come up with a better argument than this one. Although, my guess is that there are an awful lot of closeted (and not so closeted) racists, white or black, who will focus on the race issue and think that it matters. It doesn't.
6) So, if socialized medicine encourages people to just stay home and not work (what's the point, you argue), how do you explain the vibrant economies of every other advanced industrial country on the planet, all of whom have at least some form of socialized medicine, if not state run "socialized" medicine? How do you explain the success of the VA system in this country (although it is totally unfair to factor in the strangled VA of the George Bush Administration, that goes out of its way to make sure that American vets are ignored, shunted aside, not covered by "pre-existing conditions" and other lovely methods of "supporting our troops")? If every single person simply paid to a single source the premiums that they are now paying to a private company for health insurance, there would be an awful large pool of money that everyone can use. If employers ... who in the days of the GREAT POSTWAR ECONOMIC BOOM were more than willing to contribute health care benefits to their employees ... paid into a national system, and if the profit margin of the middlemen was totally removed by making it illegal for private companies to gamble on people's health (and use profit as the criteria for whether or not a person receives health care), we could do a pretty good job of offering basic and decent health care to every single American.
You see, I am proud of the fact that I care about my fellow Americans (even you), and if someone cannot pay for essential health, I don't mind chipping in to make sure that they get the care they need. In exactly the same way, even though I do not have children in any of America's public schools, I am more than willing to pay taxes to make sure that every kid gets an education. Well educated and healthy people make a better country (as do well-fed and housed people).
As to your silly questions about wealth ... my criteria are probably a little different than yours. Anyone who makes $200,000 a year, however, is pretty wealthy. But, just to show you that I recognize 200K might still be in the upper ranges of "middle class", I would definitely say anyone who earns $500K (or more) a year is wealthy. As far as I can tell, a large percentage of Americans make a habit of cutting corners on their tax obligations.
7) Gun control: Since you offer nothing new on this topic, I skip it.
8) Your analysis of world affairs is severely limited. But I shall attempt, once again, to enlighten you. First, there are no Islamofascists. Not yet, anyway. Second, terrorists do what terrorists do. Fighting standing military forces in Iraq is not fighting "terrorists" ... and if you think we (or the Iraqi government, whatever that turns out to be) is going to successfully round up and/or kill every "terrorist" in Iraq, you really do not have a firm grasp of reality. Fighting anyone in Iraq does absolutely nothing to deter members of al-Qaeda in other places. Sounds like if you had your choice, we would simply declare war against Islam and send military forces anywhere there are Muslims and kill them or detain them in some dark prison with loud music, lots of flowing water, maybe some chains and ropes, and lots of electrodes to attach to various parts of their body in an effort to get them to tell us where more of their friends are hiding.
Do you know which governments are funding al-Qaeda? How about Saudi Arabia. Almost all of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudis. Osama is a Saudi. George HW Bush was having breakfast with Osama's brother when the planes flew into WTC. George W is Bandajar Bush! He arranged for, and received, a $20 billion military aid package to the Saudis ... the country that is pocketing most of the money we are spending on oil; the country that supports a boycott of Israel; a country that does most of the things you think are bad. Pakistan is funding al-Qaeda. Pakistan provided a lot of the money that the 9/11 highjackers used (along with the UAE, whom the President STILL wants to turn over various US Security concerns to). It is run by a brutal military dictator. One whom this President told (after regime-changing one) to "take off his uniform" as a way to end the problems with military dictatorship.
Do you realize how many countries have succeeded in defeating the United States? The most powerful empire in the world tried to do it. Twice. They didn't even seem too bothered by the Great Ocean. We couldn't defeat ourselves over the issue of slavery. The Japanese didn't beat us after destroying our Navy. And a few thousand (maybe) terrorists didn't bring us to our knees when a few of their number committed a most heinous crime against innocent people. No ... you terribly misunderstate the ability of this country to defend itself, while greatly overstate the ability of guerillas and terrorists to wage a war of aggression.
And now I gotta go ... the remaining part of your post I will reluctantly address in the next couple of days (I looked ahead, and it seems to go downhill once you start challenging Barack Obama's "loyalty"). Goodnight Chet
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
No sense numbering or attempting to keep any logic in this "discussion". George W. Bush is a lousy President, and fully 81% of the American people have figured it out. If by some incredible change in fortune (or blatant election fraud) John McCain gets elected, I will start a pool to see just how long it takes for current Bush supporters to have an epiphany regarding just how bad the current President really is. Though offering Bush Lite as his platform, McCain has one or two redeeming features as a manager and as a human being. But I stoop to your level with what I just said (and I have said it before), and obviously that does not get us anywhere.
I see that you are setting yourself up for another 8 years of frustrated hate. You guys just couldn't contain yourselves over anything Clinton, and at this stage of his first campaign, most Republicans were still saying "who?" I have yet to hear one substantive thing that Barack Obama has said or done that causes you to hate him so much. He hasn't promised to close Guantanamo ... you said that (because you have no problem making stuff up) and I thought it was a great idea, so now you're arguing with me about our right to keep an unnecessary military base in a country with whom we do not have diplomatic relations (sort of like the British not leaving DC at the close of the war). Bigger is better seems to be your slogan ... tough pitutey if you can't kick us out; too bad if you can't get a job (what's wrong with you?); we don't like your ruler, so we're just going to facilitate a governmental change in your country because you can't stop us.
Ever hear of bullies? This seems to be the style you equate with America's position in the world. Pretty enlightened. So I want to hear your description of your "rights" when a truly militant black or Asian or Native American man gets elected President. Especially with special powers he will have as President thanks to the current office holder, you might actually have something to really be afraid of rather than the imaginary enemies you invent all the time.
But I cannot let the lies about Obama's anti-semitism go unchallenged. I know the right-wing fear mongers have already cranked up their propaganda machines to start inventing and lying and exaggerating and anything else they can get away with; I know that you read them uncritically and pass them along, half-baked, to all of us ... but this time I'm calling you on it. Barack Obama has unconditionally pledged his support to the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. He supported Israel against Hezbollah. He wrote a letter to the Secretary General of the UN asking for the UN to declare its support for Israel. Visit his website. He very clearly states his position. Do you despise Robert Wexlar? If you do, you are a bigger fool than I imagined ... yes, he is a bleeding liberal, but he is also about the most pro-Israeli member of Congress you will find. Call him (or his office) and ask him about Barack Obama's anti-semitism.
And, while on the subject of guilt by association (and the only "association" you've been able to dredge up are 3.5 seconds of the Reverend Wright commenting favorably about a truly hateful person, Lewis Farakhan) ... answer a couple of these questions:
1. How does providing $20 billion of sophisticated military equipment to Saudi Arabia make Israel more secure? What exactly is the Saudi's position in regard to the existence of an Israeli state? Who provided almost all of the financial support for the 9/11 highjackers? Who is fondly known as Bandajar Bush? Who was George HW Bush having breakfast with as the planes flew into the Twin Towers?
2. What military dictator currently allows al-Qaeda to operate freely within his country? What role did key members of that country's secret police play in helping all of the al-Qaeda leadership and most of the Taliban fighting force slip across the border from Afghanistan? What role did the secret police of that country play in laundering money that ended up in bank accounts of 9/11 highjackers? What does the President suggest this military dictator should do about his uniform? How did the President respond when Barack Obama suggested that this particular military dictator should not be able to dictate our military or security actions when we knew exactly where al-Qaeda operatives were hiding in his country?
3. What did the current Secretary of Defense say yesterday about what we needed to do with Iran? What did the Secretary of State say about Iran just last week? To whom did this government turn when we needed a cease fire between feuding Shi'a militias a couple of weeks ago? With whom are we working to quell the growing Sunni power base in Afghanistan? And what did the President say today in the Knesset ... on the occasion of celebrating sixty years of nationhood for a country near and dear to your heart ... about Barack Obama and his suggestion that we open talks with Iran?
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 119
81% of Americans might have figured out that they do not care for George Bush, but 87% have figured out the Congress, all 535 of those Morons are equally as bad. Lowest ratings ever for Congress.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 155
According to the Rasmussen Reports for the week ending May 16, 2008, 66% disapprove of the President’s Job Performance. (par. 2). Here’s a link to the actual report.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_update...
So, it seems that the 81% disapproval figure might be slightly inflated, or another poll. It would be nice to know which poll that was.
I knew the 110th Congress has a high disapproval rating but I didn’t realize it was that high. WOW! Do you have a link to the poll? I would love to read it.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Jews are threatened with their physical safety in the United States as a green light is given to Jew Haters to verbally and then physically attack. Incidents of violence against Jews massively increase.
Paranoia, plain and simple. But I promise you this ... if it happens, I am on your side.,/b>
I know this is repeating an old point with a new incident but where were you when 2 Molotov Cocktails where thrown in the window of a Jewish student at Brown University? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1989112/posts
or a synagogue in the same area http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2008/0...
My purpose here is to point out that anti-semeitism is rising and that Obama is not discouraging it. By associating with and being advised by anti-semites he is, in fact encouraging it.
Do I need to recount the increasing number of events to convince you? Even Mediawhite is getting closer to crossing the line,( and you know I could push him over easily).
It is happening, so where are you?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
... Doing the same thing I do when black churches are burnt to the ground, or swastikas are painted on the side of a synagogue in Portland ... I instantly rush to the spot of the crime, set up my chair and cardboard table, and start signing people up to join a variety of liberal groups that spend money to defend people against such attacks. I then get in my "spottheracistmobile" and drive up and down the nearby neighborhoods in order to find suspects and report them to the police. Lastly, I hire a guard to stand on the spot for the next two weeks to prevent repetition.
What is it that you do?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
That Warhater is a anti-semite? In his most recent thread Isreal going the distance, he argues that Jews are not a race, therefore should not be entitiled to a home land. To quote him There is no such race of people as Jews.
Or are you prepared to defend this as something other then anti-semitism?
By the way, this time I am taking the precaution of copying his whole post, so if the Times tries to protect him again it will not work.