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.
Obama wouldn't like you referring to him like that.
The cult of personality was born in leftist, socialist, nationalist and communist regimes. I see it's still alive a kicking and has moved across the big pond that used to separate that ridiculous ideological nonsense. After a demagogue gets power the only obvious next course of action is a cult of personality that denigrates dissent and actively pursues silencing it. Something like having children sing how great Obama is in school...
Obama inauguration:
Who knew he was referring to his own regime or can he not control his presidency.
Geez, isn't that the truth?
I think it's because of the economy. The current recession/depression, whatever you want to call it is pushing people toward collectivist ideologies.
Wouldn't be so bad if people really could think of mankind or even their own country as a group. But they really can't. Not as long as there are class divides and thus at least two groups, "haves" and "have nots" and of course that people internally, generally put their own survival interests first, no matter what they say.
So seems there's an inherent comflict. Equalitarian ideas sound nice on paper, but they don't take into account the true nature of people.
So strangely enough, some of the worst genocides (Ukraines under Stalin, Asians under Mao) were done in the name of collectivist "everyone is an equal comrade" theories. And just as oddly, a constitutional gov't in this country, and our freedoms are linked to an inherently greed provoking, individual gain based system called capitalism.
Seems to me that hypocrisy is the natural state of human affairs because of that two way pull. That being the pull between our ideals, often stated as group ideals, and our reality, which is that survival is often personal and individual.
So until a race of saints arises, collectivist ideals won't work. And systems that take the nature of the beast into account will lead to almost the same inequities, which are essentially all of the same nature.
What is interesting about all this "Rage from the Right" nonsense, assuming that is even the case, is that for eight years we had to listen to the most hateful, foaming at the mouth diatribes about George Bush. So it's ok for the left to make the most vile comments about a republican president, yet now it's suddenly bad.
Those that are pointing fingers seem to be pointing back at themselves.
Not so much whether McCain is conservative or not... but the very definition of the various political labels. It seems to get harder every day to know what the definitions are, and they seem to change and morph over time.
Then the attendent disconnect in understanding between debators causes communication problems.
No, sanrene. First, the resistance to Bush was legitimate, given 8 years of evidence. The resistance to Obama began before he even became President. No comparison possible.
Palin's speeches and rallies propagated hate and division. She, more than anyone, started the Republican party and their base on the road to ruin with her vile accusations and lies. So no, I'm really not too concerned about such a clear hater of all things democracy. And, I'm sorry, but being prayed over by a witch doctor, and encouraging Alaska's secession from the Union--in addition to all her fear-baiting and race-baiting? She pretty much asked for the "bashing" she got. She can dish it out, but she can't take it. Obama was a perfect gentleman towards her throughout the campaign, even to the present day. And she still can't stop spewing venom in his direction.
Get a clue.
Wow, who pee'd on your cornflakes?
The resistance to Bush was legitimate because....his policies were somehow different than the polices BO is following?
Fact is Obama is only president BECAUSE he's a Halfrican-American running around with his race on his sleeve (when it suits his purpose).
And that nondescript hopey-changey nonsense didn't move anyone I know.
The resistance to Obama started before he became president because the adults in the room saw him for what he was, a liar.
BO came into office with the good will of white America and has lost support faster than any president in the history of the republic because people are able to discern that he is a liar.
The "stimulus" that written by the Apollo Alliance was a giant payoff to supporters that created few jobs and will harm the economy in the years to come. The whole thing was a scam and everyone with the IQ of an ice cube knows that. He told us it was going to create jobs. That makes him a liar.
He blamed Bush and McCain for the deregulation that caused the subprime melt-down while he was still on the payroll of Fannie and Freddie (behind only Chris Dodd). He did this knowing that Bush formally requested GSE oversight reform in 2003 and McCain co-sponsored S.190 which was passed out of committee on a party line vote only to meet with a threatened Democrat filibuster. Even with those facts firmly implanted in his memory, he looked into the cameras and blamed others for the crisis he and other Democrats created. He is either an Alzheimer patient or he is a liar.
The resistance to Bush was legitimate because....his policies were somehow different than the polices BO is following?
Fact is Obama is only president BECAUSE he's a Halfrican-American running around with his race on his sleeve (when it suits his purpose).
And that nondescript hopey-changey nonsense didn't move anyone I know.
The resistance to Obama started before he became president because the adults in the room saw him for what he was, a liar.
BO came into office with the good will of white America and has lost support faster than any president in the history of the republic because people are able to discern that he is a liar.
The "stimulus" that written by the Apollo Alliance was a giant payoff to supporters that created few jobs and will harm the economy in the years to come. The whole thing was a scam and everyone with the IQ of an ice cube knows that. He told us it was going to create jobs. That makes him a liar.
He blamed Bush and McCain for the deregulation that caused the subprime melt-down while he was still on the payroll of Fannie and Freddie (behind only Chris Dodd). He did this knowing that Bush formally requested GSE oversight reform in 2003 and McCain co-sponsored S.190 which was passed out of committee on a party line vote only to meet with a threatened Democrat filibuster. Even with those facts firmly implanted in his memory, he looked into the cameras and blamed others for the crisis he and other Democrats created. He is either an Alzheimer patient or he is a liar.
If you could not figure it out yourself then I a feel for you.
Yeah, right. You type "not" and expect me to understand that you really meant to type "know". You make two mistakes -- mistyping "not" for "no" which was the wrong word to begin with but you put me down for not understanding. You made the mistake, not me. I read what you typed and it made no sense but you blame me. You are pitiful in your inability to take personal responsibility.
And after all that, you are simply wrong. You either didn't read or didn't comprehend what I posted. Once again, as clear as I can state it: True liberals do not support any of the bills now being discussed in either the House or the Senate because they are mandatory insurance bills, not health care bills. True liberals want one payer health care. You are totally delusional if you think liberals support these bills.....or Obama. He's turned out to be Republican Light.
Thank you for continuing to prove my point. Crying icons, attacks--no real substantive response at all. As one now expects from the far right-wing. Just like the Republican politicians, who scream about the public option, but have no alternatives to offer, no reasoned responses, no interest in adult debate. Just head-in-the-sand fear-baiting and trolling through the halls of Congress and in front of television screens. Nothing to offer as an alternative. Nada. Except hate and ridicule.
If you posted a substantive thread instead of another mindless hatefilled and angry post that seeks to draw ire from many other people, you would get nice responses filled with good debate
However since you did post another mindless drivel full of assumptions, guesses, bias and hate and you get some call outs in return
No. Clinton decided to do some "nation building". Not only that, he denied our soldiers the armament they needed to defend themselves. Couldn't be too provocative, could we?
Feel free to google the Conference on National Reconciliation in Somalia. Feel free to recall as well that those were not exactly happy times for US/UN relations due in part to repeated incidents of verbal and financial hostility on the part of the Reagan/Bush-41 team. And Somalia was a UN operation from top to bottom. While American troops remained under American command, it was the UN calling the shots and setting the agenda. Remember when Boutros-Ghali said that US troops would leave Somalia only when he said they could? Probably not...it was a long time ago now, and people forget. Some even prefer to. In any case, while a request for more armor had been placed just before the ill-fated mission in Mogadishu, it had been turned down (at the Pentagon, not the White House) because the mission in Somalia was supposed to be winding down, not growing. Very well-armed troops were meanwhile available (including the ones who eventually effected the rescue), but the brass had made a decision to send a lightly-equipped rapid-insertion team in to do a search-and-destroy mission. The tactic had worked before, but not in broad daylight in a situation of a wall-to-wall urban-guerilla conflict. The mission as designed was highly susceptible to anything at all going wrong, and unfortunately, two things did. Result = fiasco. In any case, the whole affair was Bush-41's doing as he hoped to go out of office on a legacy-securing high note of humanitarian achievement. Clinton then inherited a quagmire of acrimony and poor coordination and planning and did the best he could to make some sense of it for as long as he had to. To his credit, he did not repeat Reagan's Beirut blunder of ten years earlier when things went awry, remaining in Somalia for six addditional months to engineer a calculated withdrawl and turnover to the UN. That's a Cliff Notes version of events, of course. But still a much better one than what you have tried to pass off.
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.
