Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh please. The main thrust of my criticism was directed at the severely tired "Marxist/socialist" comment, and I think you know that.
Why do you deny a fundamental truth about Obama and "Progressives?" Do you think by denying it, it changes the truth?
You should read, "The Road to Serfdom," by F. A. Hayek. He lays it out pretty well.
Also is the fact that Obama was raised by a communist mother and step-father, and mentored by communist, Frank Marshall Davis. Do you wish to deny those facts as well?
"Progressive" is just another word for "socialist" (or "Marxist/socialist"). If you deny that, it's only because you don't like what those terms connote. "Progressives" believe that government is the solution to all societal ills. They believe that "experts," working for the government, are better able to determine our needs than free market capitalism. What do you think all these so-called "czars" are all about that the Obama Administration has working for him? It is these "czars" that determine policy.
Government has grown the most under Democrat regimes. Woodrow Wilson, FDR (The New Deal), and later Lyndon Johnson (The Great Society).
Before you start mocking people like me about "Marxist/Socialist" comments, you should at least learn what "Progressivism" is. Or, do you know what it is, but are simply denying it for the purpose of deceiving others? "Progressives" are never going to be open and transparent about their evil schemes. Ever hear of Cloward and Piven? Saul Alinsky?
Obama was a member of a Marxist/socialist club while at Occidental in California. The purpose and focus of that group was how to overthrow the U.S. government. Read and learn: Articles: Meeting Young Obama
It's because he's Democrat. The Republican party has been hijacked with far right nut jobs who oppose any and all progressive ideas.
LOL!!!! Here we go folks! It's the 'Tea Party' that is the problem, which is keeping Republicans from behaving like Democrats! If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have all this "gridlock" and "government shut-downs" that are interfering with Obama's "transformation" of the U.S.
Why should we accept "Progressive" ideas? They are anti-Constitution, and anti-Liberty. They are socialists. We are capitalists. Capitalism, and rugged individualism is what made America great; not collectivism.
But thanks for confirming the truth of exactly what you people stand for: collectivism vs. freedom.
As collectivism expands, liberty and freedom contract. That's why we oppose you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Also (and this problem is not a partisan one), the politicians main concern is his own political career. If smearing Obama is what works, then that's what is done.
Of course you're going to say this, because you must hide the fact that Obama's (and the "Progressives") primary goal is the "transformation" of America to socialism. And that's a fact, Jack!
Judge Jeanine also says "America is on the brink of socialism."
We saw this in the last election. How many Democratic senators were voicing support for Obama? Certainly not many in a state that is traditionally not a blue state.
It's politics. Not race.
At least you got something right. It's Obama's and the Democrat's policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. So far, you're evidence is that Republican congress is obstructing Obama and that Obama is black. But he's also tall, half white, a Democrat, a father... the obstruction could be explained through an myriad of other ways; you arbitrarily picked one.
Now this is getting absurd!
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 04-27-2015 at 04:40 AM..
And while some wealthy corporate shareholders and businessmen are conservative, like the Koch brothers who are basically the embodiment of America's evil plutocracy, some are actually quite liberal. Both Bill Gates and Warren Bufett, two of the wealthiest people alive, are openly liberal.
Oh, please!!! This kind of statement is the height of absurdity! The Koch's donate far less to political campaigns than any of the Democrat Party donors, who dwarf the Koch brothers political contributions.
And what makes the Kohch's "evil?" Because they are conservative, not "liberal" (i.e., "socialists") like Bill Gets and Warren Buffet (throw in George Soros, who owns much of the Leftist media, and the Democrat Party)?
LOL!!!! Here we go folks! It's the 'Tea Party' that is the problem, which is keeping Republicans from behaving like Democrats! If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have all this "gridlock" and "government shut-downs" that are interfering with Obama's "transformation" of the U.S.
Why should we accept "Progressive" ideas? They are anti-Constitution, and anti-Liberty. They are socialists. We are capitalists. Capitalism, and rugged individualism is what made America great; not collectivism.
But thanks for confirming the truth of exactly what you people stand for: collectivism vs. freedom.
As collectivism expands, liberty and freedom contract. That's why we oppose you.
Laughable post. Since World War II, mainstream conservatives have opposed every expansion of personal liberty in the United States.
-Back in the 60's Barry Goldwater, and the leading conservative intellectual, William F. Buckley Jr., along with most of their followers opposed federal laws banning racial discrimination.
-They opposed the sexual revolution of the late 60's.
-They think Christian beliefs about sexual morality should be incorporated into law. Separation of church and state means nothing to your typical right-winger.
-They opposed (and still do) Roe v Wade. Personal freedoms do not apply to women and their own bodies.
-Their current campaign against gay rights is 100% at odds with America’s Founding philosophy of natural rights.
- The American right is opposed to anything — minimum wage laws, unions, workplace regulations — that would increase the bargaining power of workers relative to their bosses. The little people? Screw 'em.
Right-wing conservatism is as anti-freedom as it gets.
Laughable post. Since World War II, mainstream conservatives have opposed every expansion of personal liberty in the United States.
-Back in the 60's Barry Goldwater, and the leading conservative intellectual, William F. Buckley Jr., along with most of their followers opposed federal laws banning racial discrimination.
-They opposed the sexual revolution of the late 60's.
-They think Christian beliefs about sexual morality should be incorporated into law. Separation of church and state means nothing to your typical right-winger.
-They opposed (and still do) Roe v Wade. Personal freedoms do not apply to women and their own bodies.
-Their current campaign against gay rights is 100% at odds with America’s Founding philosophy of natural rights.
- The American right is opposed to anything — minimum wage laws, unions, workplace regulations — that would increase the bargaining power of workers relative to their bosses. The little people? Screw 'em.
Right-wing conservatism is as anti-freedom as it gets.
wow...talk about a brainwashed minion
its the liberals that are anti-freedom
lets look at your list
the liberal war on women...they lie and say glass ceiling, when it don't exist
the liberal war on everyone...cons don't opposed abortions..we opposed abortions being paid with tax dollars, when women HAD many choices....why the lie liberals want children to die and be murdered... you guys put someone else's body over the babies....
you push the gay rights, and dismiss human rights.....
marriage...I don't care who you fall in love with, or what gender you want to be...I am happy for you to be happy....but the GOVERNMENT has no business in that right...in fact it no longer is a right, if you need government permission and have to pay a government fee
unions...they helped 100 years ago...now all they are is a corporation of lobbyists, who do NO HELP to the common worker
min wage....there are 1500 different economies (cost of living areas) within the USA....why cant liberals figure out that one size does not fit all....fed min wage should be zero...min wage should be a state or even better local thing
who wants to change workplace regulations...not the cons...they only look to possible reduce some of the stupid ones..... ie when some new environmental law actually ruins live of humans (here is a great example...farmers screwed because of a finger size fish.... Devin Nunes: Endangered Species Act Causes California Drought - WSJ .. It's Fish Versus Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley
Crops rot and people stand in line for food while the EPA engineers a drought. )
yep liberals and their constant screwing of the poor and working class
This is a serious question. In 50 years, when thinking Americans, political scientists and historians look back on the two terms of President Barack Obama, will they conclude that racism was the primary motivating factor in the continued obstructionism of a Republican House and Senate?
I understand that the GOP wants this President (and by extension, much of America) to fail, I get that. I also understand that the GOP represents the richest 1% of America, as well as corporations and their shareholders, both of which contain the wealthiest white Americans.
I am not asking about those who vote Republican, whether or not they are racist is immaterial, I am talking about the Republican membership of the 111th, 112th, 113th and 114th United States Congress.
Considering they have put forth little reason to be overwhelmingly obstructionist during the Presidency of the United States first African-American President, someone who has bent over backwards to appease Republicans, will history view the overwhelmingly white, older, male membership of the GOP as racist? Will President Obama breaking the color barrier, and the irrational level of opposition faced in doing so, be attributed to a Jim Crow level of disdain for this nations first black President?
Or will this opposition to President Obama be rationalized as something else in 2066?
There is no doubt that much of the opposition to President Obama is racist in nature and will be viewed that way historically.
President Obama's presidency will be seen as the beginning of a demographically changing America and opposition to him will be tied up in opposition to that demographic change, which again is mostly racist in nature.
There are real policies in which President Obama could be criticized, but his political opponents haven't chosen to do that.
They have chosen to play up his radical upbringing, his hatred towards white people, his hatred of America, his otherness, he is a muslim, a radical, gay, blah, blah, blah.
This is why whatever he does is seen to these bigots as seeking to destroy America.
These kinds of views will be understood by future generations as being motivated by racist attitudes.
It probably was inevitable that the election of the first black man as president would bring so much racial hatred to the forefront, exacerbated by him not only winning in a landslide, but then definitively winning reelection, especially when their stated goal was to make him a one-term president.
No, it wasn't "inevitable", because racism is not the reason Obama is hated. It's his policies, and his own hatred of America.
Had the "first black president" been a man of character, a patriot who loved his country, someone like Allen West, for example, he would have been supported by all but the hard Left, who hate any conservative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
But we have a president who has handled being the first to cross the barrier with grace and intelligence, and like Jackie Robinson, he will be remembered as a class act in spite of it.
Grace and intelligence? What planet are you on? What do you call "grace?" Is it grace when he criticizes and insults America's Christians? Comparing Christians to Islamic extremists?
Is grace shown by turning the power of the IRS against conservative organizations, or people he views as unfavorable to his policies?
Is grace shown by going around Congress in blatant disregard for the Constitution in order to achieve his unpopular policies? Or claiming, "I won."
Is intelligence shown by claiming, "I've been to 57 states. Three more to go, I think." Or, pronouncing corpsman as "corpseman?" Is it shown by statements that prove he is clueless about the history of the Crusades?
Is intelligence shown by his mishandling of the "war on terror," his poor judgement in prosecuting that war, "leading from behind," allowing the terrorists to retake ground we had fought for with the blood of Americans?
Is intelligence shown by the release of 5 dangerous terrorists (enemy combatants) in exchange for one American deserter?
Is intelligence shown by abandoning our ally, Israel, and making deals with Israel's (and our) greatest enemy and threat to the entire region, and to the peace of the world?
You must have a strange definition of "grace" and "intelligence."
There is no doubt that much of the opposition to President Obama is racist in nature and will be viewed that way historically.
President Obama's presidency will be seen as the beginning of a demographically changing America and opposition to him will be tied up in opposition to that demographic change, which again is mostly racist in nature.
There are real policies in which President Obama could be criticized, but his political opponents haven't chosen to do that.
They have chosen to play up his radical upbringing, his hatred towards white people, his hatred of America, his otherness, he is a muslim, a radical, gay, blah, blah, blah.
This is why whatever he does is seen to these bigots as seeking to destroy America.
These kinds of views will be understood by future generations as being motivated by racist attitudes.
oh please...
no it hasn't
99% of the people could care less what color or gender the POTUS is
but about 50% of the people do care if he/she is doing the correct thing for this country, or transforming this country into a socialist/fascist liberal mess
99% of the people could care less what color or gender the POTUS is
but about 50% of the people do care if he/she is doing the correct thing for this country, or transforming this country into a socialist/fascist liberal mess
I disagree and I explained why I disagree.
The opposition to President Obama is mostly racially motivated.
This is why the opponents play up his radical upbringing, his lack of love for America, his otherness, his not being a US citizen, that he is a radical muslim, palling around with terrorists, who hates America, etc.
This is why his opponents view every action President Obama takes as seeking to destroy America.
Again, future generations will see these actions and words as being motivated by racial bigotry because they are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
