"If I wanted America to fail"

[ctrlraven]

Truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc
CZ-4gnNz0vc

[jflave]

I hear you, good post thanks. :)

[ImpalaSlayer]

stealing this

[Bluerauder]

He missed one ..... "If I wanted America to fail, I'd vote for Obama in November 2012." About 50% of the US public will cast just such a vote for failure, against prosperity, against cheap energy, and against free market forces.

[jerrym3]

He missed one ..... "If I wanted America to fail, I'd vote for Obama in November 2012." About 50% of the US public will cast just such a vote for failure, against prosperity, against cheap energy, and against free market forces.

You should watch the special this week (and next week) on the financial meltdown.

The free market forces got a little bit too free, and BOTH parties got caught with their knickers down.

[Vortex]

Rush Limbaugh-ish radical right wing propaganda. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[guspech750]

Nice........


Sent from my iPhone
Eaton Swap + 4.10's = Wreeeeeeeeeedom!!

[HD4]

He missed one ..... "If I wanted America to fail, I'd vote for Obama in November 2012." About 50% of the US public will cast just such a vote for failure, against prosperity, against cheap energy, and against free market forces.

Im with you my friend!

[CWright]

Great video! :flag:

[Vostok]

I think we are at a point now where it does not really matter who we vote for. Only those with closed eyes and deaf ears think any sort of presidential choice is going to change the direction this country is going. The president is just a face that we all like to blame for all our problems. The upper 1% with all the money are the ones who are really in control. They own us and will remain faceless and nameless to most people, just the way they like it.

[Vostok]

Democracy is at it's end.

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[2] Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.

Sound familiar?

[kernie]

I think we are at a point now where it does not really matter who we vote for. Only those with closed eyes and deaf ears think any sort of presidential choice is going to change the direction this country is going. The president is just a face that we all like to blame for all our problems. The upper 1% with all the money are the ones who are really in control. They own us and will remain faceless and nameless to most people, just the way they like it.


It wasn't the 99% who made that video.

[Vostok]

It wasn't the 99% who made that video.

You know it ;)

[not5-0]

Opinion.... nothing more

[jerrym3]

Lost my job thanks to the "free market". But, the remaining corporate execs did OK, thank goodness.

They were getting million dollar bonuses while the economy was getting ready for the tubes. Meanwhile, I collected unemployment. (Guess who paid for those bonuses? You did.)

But, it's all good, free market and such.

Does anyone really believe there is such a thing as a free market today? Unions, lobbyists, environmental groups, NRA???

And, yes sir, if I'm running for re-election, the first thing I'm going to tell my reelection committee is to emphasize how I personally caused the increase in gasoline prices.

Sure vote getter...........

I'm an Independent, but some of these posts are really, really funny.......

[PonyUP]

If I wanted America to fail.... I'd leave it up to all wannabe douchebags to make the decisions


Pony seal of Approval

[MyBlackBeasts]

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government
where the least capable to lead are elected by the least
capable of producing; and, where the members of society
least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth
of a diminishing number of producers.

[kernie]

The ole 'we are taking from the rich and giving to the poor'.

That must mean the poor and lower-mid class are improving economically and the rich are suffering... ya right.

New word,

Fallacy,

In logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) and rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric), a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation) in reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning) often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#cite_note-0) By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.



This equalization argument does not come from the 99% either.

:beer:

[Bluerauder]

The ole 'we are taking from the rich and giving to the poor'.

That must mean the poor and lower-mid class are improving economically and the rich are suffering... ya right.

New word,

Fallacy

956 of 957 ...... and the streak continues !!!! :rolleyes:

[kernie]

956 of 957 ...... and the streak continues !!!! :rolleyes:


You can't shush me, try as you may.

[Haggis]

You can't shush me, try as you may.

Yea, 1st Admendment and all that bull crap.

[SC Cheesehead]

Yea, 1st Admendment and all that bull crap.

He's Canadian, enjoying the fruits of our labors without paying any of the dues... ;)


eh

[kernie]

The ole 'we are taking from the rich and giving to the poor'.

That must mean the poor and lower-mid class are improving economically and the rich are suffering... ya right.

New word,

Fallacy,

In logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) and rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric), a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation) in reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning) often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#cite_note-0) By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.



This equalization argument does not come from the 99% either.

:beer:

What is it about the above that threatens you guys so much?

[SC Cheesehead]

What is it about the above that threatens you guys so much?

The whole damn "them vs us" mentality, kernie.

It gets really old, especially from one who looks at the situation through your Socialist lenses, okay?

[Haggis]

He's Canadian, enjoying the fruits of our labors without paying any of the dues... ;)


eh

Well why not so does the Obama generation.

[kernie]

OK, i get it, only your way of thinking is allowed here.

That, is what gets old here.

[Paul T. Casey]

What is it about the above that threatens you guys so much?

Gotta love when someones quotes himself. How's your hockey brackey look. I was good until yesterday, I was rooting for both the Sens and Kevin Deneen. :depress:

[kernie]

Here, below i will quote myself again. This is what got everyone in a tizzy last thread. It's just an opinion, and around here it's a fresh opinion.

I truly don't get it, can't anyone handle a different opinion around here?

Bar all politics or all views must be allowed, you know that freedom thing.



"One, the economy didn't go over the cliff despite how it looked when Obama took office and is improving now.

Two, republicans are split and many won't vote for Romney cause he is too liberal, too mormon, too establishment and who knows what else. If Santorum or Newt were the nominee the sensible republicans and certainly the swing voters would shun them.

Can you imagine the treatment Romney would be getting from faux news if he were the democrat come november?

Four more years, IMO."

[Haggis]

Here, below i will quote myself again. This is what got everyone in a tizzy last thread. It's just an opinion, and around here it's a fresh opinion.

I truly don't get it, can't anyone handle a different opinion around here?

Bar all politics or all views must be allowed, you know that freedom thing.



"One, the economy didn't go over the cliff despite how it looked when Obama took office and is improving now.

Two, republicans are split and many won't vote for Romney cause he is too liberal, too mormon, too establishment and who knows what else. If Santorum or Newt were the nominee the sensible republicans and certainly the swing voters would shun them.

Can you imagine the treatment Romney would be getting from faux news if he were the democrat come november?

Four more years, IMO."

I hope not or I might be moving to north of the border.

[Fourth Horseman]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22600

[kernie]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22600


If the owners of this site want to ban politics, great, i'm all for it. They own the site and have the freedom to determine policy.

Not a few overbearing intolerant individual members.

There, i've had my say, have a good day.

[CBT]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22600

That's so 2005. :D

[Chevyguy]

Or...

n9_Axnr0Kqs

[Green96]

OK, i get it, only your way of thinking is allowed here.

That, is what gets old here.

You are allowed your opinion just like every one else is allowed his or hers. What you are seeing is that the majority of the members of the site are from the US, the majority of the US identifies more with conservative ideals, especially those in the age groups most represented on this site. So, you are going get a mostly conservative viewpoint on things political. That is why I generally try to limit my posts to car related topics.

I happen to agree with the video, but I try not to alienate people by discussing my political views. I am breaking my own rule here, and I am not trying to bash you or anyone else so please do not take offense.

[rayjay]

The mess this country has become makes me want to vomit. The more I look, the more I see this country headed toward a failed socio-politico experiment that ran from 1933-1945 and ultimately took the lives of 50 million people.

The "news" here is nothing more than propoganda to keep the sheeple moving in the assigned direction.

Vote in November, its not only your right, its your obligation as a citizen. Those who fail to do so have no right to complain afterward.

-and- if the voter ID laws are struck down, vote early, vote often. :mad2:

[ctrlraven]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22600
Do you see a big debate going on here that is out of control?

If the owners of this site want to ban politics, great, i'm all for it. They own the site and have the freedom to determine policy.

Not a few overbearing intolerant individual members.

There, i've had my say, have a good day.
If the owners want to take the thread down then so be it. I look at it as long as things don't get out of hand then a topic should be allowed to some point.

There are real issues going on in this world and I enjoy talking about that stuff with people I respect.

[Fourth Horseman]

Do you see a big debate going on here that is out of control?

Are you one of the site owners/operators that are not enforcing their own rules?

[sailsmen]

300,000+ Federal Laws
4,600 Federal Criminal Laws
Federal Spending ~23% of our Economy

Total Gov't Spending per Private Sector Worker $58,100
Total Gov't Spending ~44% of our Economy
1 out of 7 workers work for the Gov't

I just activated my 7th company. I had to hire a Business Attorney, a Tax CPA, an Accountant, An Insurance Broker, an Employment Attorney, a Safety Consultant, an HR Consultant and join an Industry Trade Group to stay in Gov't compliance.

I would be far better off working for the Federal Gov't, virtual immunity from having to comply with most laws, guarranteed salary, guaranteed generous pension, guarranteed vacation and great working hours.;)

[jerrym3]

All I can say is that under OB, it didn't get worse.

I lost my job under GWB, that exteemed expert on international warfare.......

Under OB, my overall net worth is higher than it's ever been.

Let me think who I should vote for.....

Hmm.............

[sailsmen]

Anomaly? For the tens of millions who are on Food Stamps for the first time it did get worse.

8 Year Annual Average Clinton vs Bush
Measurement 60 Year Post WW II Annual Average President Clinton President Bush
8 Years Annual Average Unemployment 5.60% 5.21% 5.26%
8 Years Annual Average Annual Deficit as a Percent of our Economy -1.70% -0.08% -2.00%
8 Years Annual Average Public Debt as a Percent of our Economy 40.80% 44.90% 36.10%
8 Years Annual Average Annual Tax Collections N/A $1.55 Trillion $2.14 Trillion
8 Years Annual Average Spending as a Percent of our economy 19.90% 19.80% 19.60%

3 Year Annual Average Clinton vs Bush vs Obama
Measurement 60 Year Post WW II Annual Average President Clinton President Bush President Obama
3 Years Annual Average Unemployment 5.60% 6.20% 5.50% 9.30%
3 Years Annual Average Annual Deficit as a Percent of our Economy -1.70% -3.00% -1.20% -9.90%
3 Years Annual Average Public Debt as a Percent of our Economy 40.80% 49.20% 33.90% 62.60%
3 Years Annual Average Annual Tax Collections N/A $1.25 Trillion $1.88 Trillion $2.15 Trillion
3 Years Annual Average Spending as a Percent of our economy 19.90% 21.00% 19.00% 24.70%

Note: All Data is from the Government BLS and OMB

[jerrym3]

Everybody's a political pundit thanks to the internet and the 24/7 news cycle..

We're not Americans, we're right/left, conservative/liberal, pro/anti OBama/Romney, on and on and on.....

And we wonder why this country is being split apart at the seams.

If we don't get our act together, as Americans, we're screwed.

You think this crap goes on in China?

Nope.

They build government owned oil companies which then become #1 worldwide with regards to productivity, and support construction companies that win construction projects in California because USA owned company costs are too high.

I don't want us to become China, but we need to smarten up before it's too freakin' late.

[rayjay]

All I can say is that under OB, it didn't get worse.

I lost my job under GWB, that exteemed expert on international warfare.......

Under OB, my overall net worth is higher than it's ever been.

Let me think who I should vote for.....

Hmm.............

I can't say I'm worse off under B HO, but I see what the freebie society is producing on a daily basis. :puke:

[sailsmen]

Everybody's a political pundit thanks to the internet and the 24/7 news cycle..

We're not Americans, we're right/left, conservative/liberal, pro/anti OBama/Romney, on and on and on.....

And we wonder why this country is being split apart at the seams.

If we don't get our act together, as Americans, we're screwed.

You think this crap goes on in China?

Nope.

They build government owned oil companies which then become #1 worldwide with regards to productivity, and support construction companies that win construction projects in California because USA owned company costs are too high.

I don't want us to become China, but we need to smarten up before it's too freakin' late.

This "crap" you refer to is FREEDOM! Many an American has died for it for you, me and millions of others around the World.

No Gov't owned oil company can drill or produce a significant amount with out the Private Sectors Companies providing most of the services.

China is number ~13 behind Nigeria. Gov't owns ~85% of the World's Oil. A Gov't owned oil co is going to get to drill for Gov't owned oil. DUUUUHHHHH!

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/09/worlds-biggest-oil-companies-business-energy-big-oil.html

The most violent projects in the History of New Orleans are being rebulit by the Gov't at a cost of $230,000 to $330,000 per unit, excluding Land. Do you really believe Gov't is more "productive" than the private sector?

This is the "crap" that goes on in China - "... Mr. Chen now believed to be on the grounds of the American Embassy in Beijing, administration officials are likely to be far more cautious in handling his case. His advocacy for the handicapped and for families subject to forced abortions and other coercive population control methods is widely known in the West. He also became a symbol of the deficiencies of China’s legal system after he was convicted of criminal charges in 2006 in a prosecution that Chinese lawyers — and even some officials in Beijing — felt made a mockery of China’s claims to be developing better legal norms."

[sailsmen]

From Bureau of Land Management

Oil Shale and Tar Sands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salazar Reforms Oil Shale Program--Department of Interior News Release, October 20, 2009

Federal Register Notice
New Oil Shale RD&D Lease Form
Fact Sheet on Oil Shale Program
Secretary Salazar's Letter to the Interior Inspector General
The United States holds the world’s largest known concentration of oil shale. Nearly five times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia underlies a surface area of 16,000 square miles. The enormous potential of this domestic resource is a key to the Nation’s energy security and economic strength, and to the quality of life Americans enjoy today and hope to ensure for future generations.

More than 70 percent of American oil shale — including the thickest and richest deposits — lies on federal land, primarily in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. These federal lands contain an estimated 1.23 trillion barrels of oil — more than 50 times the nation's proven conventional oil reserves.

More than 50 tar sands deposits are found in eastern Utah, containing an estimated 12 to 19 billion barrels of oil. As oil prices rise, there is new interest in developing both of these domestic resources.

The BLM is working to ensure that development of federal oil shale and tar sands resources will be economically sustainable and environmentally responsible.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oilshale_2.html

Using Secretary Salazar's figure of 1.23 Trillion Barrels of just Shale Oil at $70 per barrell and a low 14% Federal Royalty rate equals $12+ Trillion in Royalty payments to the Federal Gov't. In addition you have the lease sales plus the tax at the pump.In addition there is also Natural Gas and Oil.

[rayjay]

All the nuts are going kookoo here over fracking for natural gas. Best part is 99% of them would not be affected by it. Where do they think energy is going to come from? Its a proven fact that the wind turbines dotting our landscape here in this county are nothing more than a expensive feel good measure. They put this hudge wind farm up north of here, only to find out later that their wind studies were faulty. Millions and millions of $$$ wasted.

I'm the government and I'm here to help, please bend over....

[sailsmen]

"Nevermind that he couldn’t prove jack against Range. For a year and a half EPA bickered over the issue, both with Range and with the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas drilling and did its own scientific study of Range’s wells and found no evidence that they polluted anything. In recent months a federal judge slapped the EPA, decreeing that the agency was required to actually do some scientific investigation of wells before penalizing the companies that drilled them. Finally in March the EPA withdrew its emergency order and a federal court dismissed the EPA’s case."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/26/epa-official-not-only-touted-crucifying-oil-companies-he-tried-it/

"BY DANIEL GILBERT AND RUSSELL GOLD

The Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its claim that an energy company contaminated drinking water in Texas, the third time in recent months that the agency has backtracked on high-profile local allegations linking natural-gas drilling and water pollution.

On Friday, the agency told a federal judge it withdrew an administrative order that alleged Range Resources Corp. had polluted water wells in a rural Texas county west of Fort Worth. Under an agreement filed in U.S. court in Dallas, the EPA will also drop the lawsuit it filed in January 2011 against Range, and Range will end its appeal of the ..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230340470457731 3741463447670.html

They hate fossil fuel more than they love their fellow man.

[sailsmen]

It all goes back to what the guy in the video in post #1 says;
"The EPA pulls back on fracking, but the Vice President thinks it causes earthquakes
by John Hayward (more by this author)
Posted 04/04/2012 ET
Updated 04/04/2012 ET






On CNBC Monday morning, Mad Money host Jim Cramer appeared on Larry Kudlow’s show to wonder if recent retreats on some of its more extreme actions mean we could be seeing the beginning of a “less adversarial, more thoughtful EPA.”









Cramer salutes the EPA for taking a few baby steps away from letting “ideology interfere with rational thinking” in the matter of fracking. The Wall Street Journal offers some more details on the situation:



The Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its claim that an energy company contaminated drinking water in Texas, the third time in recent months that the agency has backtracked on high-profile local allegations linking natural-gas drilling and water pollution.



On Friday, the agency told a federal judge it withdrew an administrative order that alleged Range Resources Corp. had polluted water wells in a rural Texas county west of Fort Worth. Under an agreement filed in U.S. court in Dallas, the EPA will also drop the lawsuit it filed in January 2011 against Range, and Range will end its appeal of the administrative order.



In addition to dropping the case in Texas, the EPA has agreed to substantial retesting of water in Wyoming after its methods were questioned. And in Pennsylvania, it has angered state officials by conducting its own analysis of well water—only to confirm the state's finding that water once tainted by gas was safe.



Taken together, some experts say, these misfires could hurt the agency's credibility at a time when federal and state regulators seek ways to ensure that natural-gas drilling is done safely.



Part of the extremist ideology Cramer spoke of is the core assumption of radical environmentalism: all industry is guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof rests heavily upon industry. Only the most aloof, unaccountable, heavily concentrated federal power is suited for conducting these prosecutions.



This subverts both the American understanding of limited government and the scientific method, but it’s justified by the argument that no margin of error can be permitted, because the fate of the Earth is at stake. In the Range case, the EPA arrogantly bypassed the relevant state agency, the Texas Railroad Commission, because it had “failed to address an ‘imminent and substantial endangerment’ to public health,” according to the Journal. The agency in question had determined that gas was seeping into the aquifer from a natural pocket nearby, which had apparently contaminated local wells long before the fracking operation began.



The Texas Railroad Commission ended up accusing the EPA of “fear mongering, gross negligence, and severe mishandling” of the situation, and demanded the sacking of the regional administrator for the Texas area. They haven’t gotten their scalp yet, but the EPA fallback vindicates both their original work and their complaint against the Obama Administration.



You can see this “guilty until proven innocent, and maybe not even then” ideology expressed in its most concentrated form by looking at the “global warming” scam, which for decades was based on the notion that an entirely hypothetical (and, as it turns out non-existent) problem was so incredibly severe that the most draconian “solutions” had to be imposed immediately, at a staggering cost in money and liberty. No debate could be permitted – not even the most basic application of the scientific method, which involves testing hypotheses against verifiable data – because the slightest delay could spell doom.



The EPA’s fracking fallback is widely seen as a political “defeat,” but it’s a victory for science, reason, and sound economics. The agency stated that its settlement with Range Resources would allow it to shift “focus in this particular case away from litigation and toward a joint effort on the science and safety of energy extraction.” Sounds great! Isn’t that what they should have been doing all along?



Jim Cramer might have been a bit premature in hailing this as the beginning of a new age of reason in the Obama Administration. The day after Cramer appeared on Kudlow, Vice President Joe Biden rolled into a campaign stop in Virginia to explain that fracking causes earthquakes. The Washington Times reports on this latest regression to primitive superstition by the most anti-business Administration in living memory:



“We know we can get [natural gas and oil], but we have to do it environmentally soundly. There’s a thing called fracking. They’ve got to go crack the rock in order to get it out. You can environmentally do that well or you can environmentally do that poorly,” the vice president said.



“If you do it poorly, you use up the water aquifer. You can create, in some cases the argument is, earthquakes,” he concluded.



Mr. Biden was referring to a string of minor tremors over the past year in the Youngstown, Ohio, area, including a 4.0 quake that shook the city on New Year's Eve.



But state officials have confirmed that the temblors were the result of a wastewater-disposal well, not fracking itself. Some drilling firms dispose of the millions of gallons of water needed to frack a well by simply pumping it back into the earth. Others opt for the more expensive method of treating the water and reusing it.



Doubtless the media will invoke The Biden Exemption, and tastefully avoid mentioning this latest outburst by the Vice President, or wave it off as a harmlessly amusing example of comical stupidity. “That’s just Joe being Joe!” they’ll say.



Well, this man is the Vice President of the United States, and he made these remarks while campaigning for the re-election of the man who placed him in the office. His Administration already has a track record of imposing immense costs and economic damage upon American citizens, in the name of junk science, as part of the quest to accumulate centralized power. There is no reason voters should be willing to dismiss him as a highly-paid court jester, a luxurious indulgence by the diamond-studded royal court of the most bankrupt government in history. The Obama EPA has a long way to go before it proves Biden is more of a jester than a mascot."

[BUCKWHEAT]

All I can say is that under OB, it didn't get worse.

I lost my job under GWB, that exteemed expert on international warfare.......

Under OB, my overall net worth is higher than it's ever been.

Let me think who I should vote for.....

Hmm............. In the middle 1930's Germans were recovering from the devastation of the first world war and were happy that their new leader gave them jobs and a reason to be proud once again. Yea, those were happy days & people were glad to follow the guy who made thme feel better off with a higher net worth. He also made them feel good because they were a better class of people, not like those other ones.

[PonyUP]

In the middle 1930's Germans were recovering from the devastation of the first world war and were happy that their new leader gave them jobs and a reason to be proud once again. Yea, those were happy days & people were glad to follow the guy who made thme feel better off with a higher net worth. He also made them feel good because they were a better class of people, not like those other ones.

Really????? We are comparing Obama to Hitler???

I've been largely absent to these political threads because we can't have an honest discussion on this forum because of crap like this.

As long as you are a die hard conservative on this board, then everything is great, the minute you chime in with a Democrat point of view, you get called an idiot, a socialist, and many other things. Or you get copy and pasted with stats for pages trying to change your point of view.

A poster said that they feel there life has gotten better under Obama and that's who he was voting for, and it gets followed by a comparison to Hitler.

All of you need to open your minds that your point of view is just that, yours. You want it to be respected? Start by respecting other points of view.

Last post ever in any kind of political thread. Rant over, soapbox done




Pony seal of Approval

[rayjay]

Really????? We are comparing Obama to Hitler???

I've been largely absent to these political threads because we can't have an honest discussion on this forum because of crap like this.

As long as you are a die hard conservative on this board, then everything is great, the minute you chime in with a Democrat point of view, you get called an idiot, a socialist, and many other things. Or you get copy and pasted with stats for pages trying to change your point of view.

A poster said that they feel there life has gotten better under Obama and that's who he was voting for, and it gets followed by a comparison to Hitler.

All of you need to open your minds that your point of view is just that, yours. You want it to be respected? Start by respecting other points of view.

Last post ever in any kind of political thread. Rant over, soapbox done




Pony seal of Approval

If you look at things as a whole, yes, from my point of view we are heading towards National Socialism. Call it what you want.

No, you are not an idiot for being a democrat or am I a right wing knut job for being a Republican. I just do not feel that our current Prez should be in there. I don't necessarily like Romney either, but I feel he is more qualified for the job. B HO recently stepped in it again with this thing in Sanford, FL. Once again he spoke out, without knowing the actual facts and what he was talking about, ala the beer summit.

Back to Siberia.

[sailsmen]

President Obama believes in Social Justice via income redistribution until complete financial collapse results in every one starting at zero.

MEYERS: The anthem of the civil rights movement has always been which side are you on? You choose sides. You either choose for racial reconciliation. Or you choose racial polarization. You choose racial harmony or you choose racial lunacy, and deification of skin color. The friends and allies and the mentors of Barack Obama chose racial idiocy. They chose the deification of skin color. They chose Farrakhan to emulate, to advocate for -- to say that Farrakhan, the apostle of anti-Semitism and black racism is supposedly and somehow the spokesperson of African-Americans. He’s not. So any time you have the empowerment of black ideology, you have -- you have, I think, the endorsement of racism.

Now, one more -- one more -- one more point. And that is that Obama's sin is the sin of not just hugging, it's the sin of omission because he’s the intellectual and the intellectual must -- the scholarship of the intellectual must refute -- refute racial idiocy. You cannot be silent!


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannit...#ixzz1q5zyBkHI

Michael Meyers is President and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition (NYCRC), which he co-founded in 1986.
Meyers assumed the post of NYCRC Executive Director in 1991 from his senior staff position in the New Jersey Department of Higher Education, where he had served as Special Assistant to the Chancellor of Higher Education, T. Edward Hollander. Meyers took his B.A. from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH and his J.D. from Rutgers University School of Law. He has spent his entire professional career working in the fields of civil rights, civil liberties, law and education, and urban affairs, and, as such, is regarded as an expert on civil rights matters and race relations. Born in Harlem, Michael Meyers knows first-hand the ghetto experience which, as he puts it, “contributes to the defeat of the human spirit; the only way to end the ghetto is to get out of it".

http://nycivilrights.org/executive-director


July 28, 2010
.
Our Divisive President

Barack Obama promised a new era of post-partisanship. In office, he's played racial politics and further split the country along class and party lines.y PATRICK H. CADDELL AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN

During the election campaign, Barack Obama sought to appeal to the best instincts of the electorate, to a post-partisan sentiment that he said would reinvigorate our democracy. He ran on a platform of reconciliation—of getting beyond "old labels" of right and left, red and blue states, and forging compromises based on shared values.

President Obama's Inaugural was a hopeful day, with an estimated 1.8 million people on the National Mall celebrating the election of America's first African-American president. The level of enthusiasm, the anticipation and the promise of something better could not have been more palpable.

And yet, it has not been realized. Not at all.

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.
Associated Press
The 'Beer Summit': President Barack Obama, right, and Vice President Joe Biden, left, have a beer with Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., second from left, and Cambridge, Mass. police Sgt. James Crowley in the Rose Garden of the White House, July 30, 2009.
.
We have seen the divisive approach under Republican presidents as well—particularly the administrations of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues.


We say this with a heavy heart. Both of us share the president's stated vision of what America can and should be. The struggle for equal rights has animated both of our lives. Both of us were forged politically during the crucible of the civil rights movement. Having worked in the South during the civil rights movement, and on behalf of the ground-breaking elections of African-American mayors such as David Dinkins, Harold Washington and Emanuel Cleaver, we were deeply moved by Mr. Obama's election.

The first hint that as president Mr. Obama would be willing to interject race into the political dialogue came last July, when he jumped to conclusions about the confrontation between Harvard Prof. Henry Louis "Skip" Gates and the Cambridge police.

During a press conference, the president said that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly," and he went on to link the arrest with the "long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

In truth, the Gates incident appears to have had nothing to do with race—a Cambridge review committee that investigated the incident ruled on June 30 that there was fault on both sides.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) has said the president told him in a closed-door meeting that he would not move to secure the border with Mexico unless and until Congress reached a breakthrough on comprehensive immigration reform. That's another indication Mr. Obama is willing to continue to play politics with hot-button issues.

Add in the lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law and it's clear the Obama administration is willing to run the risk of dividing the American people along racial and ethnic lines to mobilize its supporters—particularly Hispanic voters, whose backing it needs in the fall midterm elections and beyond.

As the Washington Post reported last week, two top White House strategists, speaking on condition of anonymity, have indicated that "the White House plans to use the immigration debate to punish the GOP and aggressively seek the Latino vote in 2012."

On an issue that has gotten much less attention, but is potentially just as divisive, the Justice Department has pointedly refused to prosecute three members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at the polls on Election Day 2008.

It is the job of the Department of Justice to protect all American voters from voter discrimination and voter intimidation—whether committed by the far right, the far left, or the New Black Panthers. It is unacceptable for the Department of Justice to continue to stonewall on this issue.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Obama's campaign emphasized repeatedly that his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was being unfairly stereotyped because of racially incendiary sound bites that allegedly did not reflect the totality of his views. In the Gates incident and others, Mr. Obama has resorted to similar forms of stereotyping.

Even the former head of the Civil Rights Commission, Mary Frances Berry, acknowledged that the Obama administration has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention away from other issues, saying: "the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. . . . Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness."

The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn't done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.

Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.

Finally, President Obama also exacerbated partisan division, and he has made it clear that he intends to demonize the Republicans and former President George W. Bush in the fall campaign. In April, the Democratic National Committee released a video in which the president directly addressed his divide-and-conquer campaign strategy, with an appeal to: "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."


President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership has failed to put forth an agenda that is more positive, unifying or inclusive. We are stronger when we debate issues and purpose, and we are all weaker when we divide by race and class. We will pay a price for this type of politics.
Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "The Political Fix" (Henry Holt, 2010).

[sailsmen]

Senator Obama radio Interview "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK .

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM

[sailsmen]

FYI - Meyers, Schoen and Caddell are Liberal Democrats. I would not hesitate to vote for anyone of them. Why?

All three have the same vision and embrace the same values that made the USA the Greatest Nation in the history of man. No other Nation has created more wealth for more people while freeing more people from tyranny.

President Obama is a divider and a destroyer who believes the foundations of this Nation are WRONG.

[kernie]

Really????? We are comparing Obama to Hitler???

I've been largely absent to these political threads because we can't have an honest discussion on this forum because of crap like this.

As long as you are a die hard conservative on this board, then everything is great, the minute you chime in with a Democrat point of view, you get called an idiot, a socialist, and many other things. Or you get copy and pasted with stats for pages trying to change your point of view.

A poster said that they feel there life has gotten better under Obama and that's who he was voting for, and it gets followed by a comparison to Hitler.

All of you need to open your minds that your point of view is just that, yours. You want it to be respected? Start by respecting other points of view.

Last post ever in any kind of political thread. Rant over, soapbox done




Pony seal of Approval


There is a reason why half are so loud and the other half mostly quiet, who wants to bang their head against the wall?

:beer:

[jerrym3]

Who's been banging their head against the wall since the last election?

Here's what I meant by an earlier post where I said "crap".

We aren't great Americans anymore. We're Right or Left. Our primary goals are to get the Independents to view things (and vote) our way, and either keep our party in power or get our party back in power. We only come together when the military is involved, or we are attacked on home soil.

I do not believe that Romney doesn't care for the poor or the middle class.

I also do not believe that OB wants to turn us into a country where the government controls absolutely everything.

I am not advocating that we become like China; far from it.

But, the Chinese have only one goal, world domination by China, both economically, technologically, and militarily. This unites them.

We keep squabbling within our own borders, like little kids, pushing various talking points.

We cannot agree on what time the sun comes up, and we are a mirror image of our Congress and Senate.

Whoever the President is after the next election, I'll back him. He's OUR president. If he or his party does a bad job over the next four years, I'll vote against him/her.

Oh, well, let me get my flack jacket and steel helmet on.

[rayjay]

Oh, well, let me get my flack jacket and steel helmet on.

Why? You pretty much nailed it.

[eric jones]

divide and conquer

[sailsmen]

Who's been banging their head against the wall since the last election?

Here's what I meant by an earlier post where I said "crap".

We aren't great Americans anymore. We're Right or Left. Our primary goals are to get the Independents to view things (and vote) our way, and either keep our party in power or get our party back in power. We only come together when the military is involved, or we are attacked on home soil.

I do not believe that Romney doesn't care for the poor or the middle class.

I also do not believe that OB wants to turn us into a country where the government controls absolutely everything.

I am not advocating that we become like China; far from it.

But, the Chinese have only one goal, world domination by China, both economically, technologically, and militarily. This unites them.

We keep squabbling within our own borders, like little kids, pushing various talking points.

We cannot agree on what time the sun comes up, and we are a mirror image of our Congress and Senate.

Whoever the President is after the next election, I'll back him. He's OUR president. If he or his party does a bad job over the next four years, I'll vote against him/her.

Oh, well, let me get my flack jacket and steel helmet on.

One man's crap is another man's freedom.

I will never ever back Obama or those who espouse Income Redistribution as a means to Social Justice or those who espouse the expansion of Gov't.

Income Tax Payers are Indentured Servants having been shackled by a Gov't Debt that can not be paid back.

With over 300,000 Federal Laws it is now more efficient for the Federal Gov't to tell us what to do instead of what not to do. Get out of my toilet, get out of my shower head and get out of my light bulb!

The Bigger the Gov't the smaller the Individual.