The open political discussion thread. Read the first post!

[SailDesign]

<huge snip>
As to the NRA, they are basically a tool of the weapons industry and I want nothing to do with them.

+1
I enjoy target shooting (little paper tagets, 25 or 50 yard range, .22 LR) and the only way, apparently, to shoot competitively in this country (US) is to belong to the NRA. So I don't shoot competitively. Having grown up in England, my view of firearms ownership and "rights" is a little different from theirs.
I also want nothing to do with them.

[TLyttle]

+2

In my (much) younger days, I was 2 points away from going to a national shoot, and that was BEFORE I got the glasses I needed. I have never seen a need to own or fire a gun since then, and most of my contemporaries have seen a need either; maybe it's a Canadian thing...

I am totally puzzled by the American attitude towards firearms, and I will likely never understand.

[2+2]

+2
I am totally puzzled by the American attitude towards firearms, and I will likely never understand.

It's a national fascination/idolatry with The Duke. 20 or 30% percent of the population wakes up each morning imagining that they walk and talk like him. As long as they're not pointing a gun at you at the moment it's really kind of cute.

[Altitude]

:biggrin:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/618fb6cbf2/gus-porter-american-legend-with-thomas-haden-church

[Bob Dog]

sure got that right

[Slick]

HEY! Dont dog The DUKE lol.

[Altitude]

I never did understand the fascination with John Wayne. He was an actor, but the people that love him would have you believe what they saw of him on screen was his real life. Anyhow, I'd take the bad ass roles that Clint Eastwood played over Wayne any day. :cool:

[TLyttle]

Wait a sec... John Wayne appeared in many movies, but calling him an actor is pushing it. He changed nothing, regardless of the role, he was just John Wayne in just another movie. Eastwood is slightly better, still a distance away from acting.

Now, Tom Hanks, actor: go down the list, and there are few duplications in his approach, from Forrest Gump to CastAway. Truly a professional actor, one of the greats in his own time.

[RedRide]

Wait a sec... John Wayne appeared in many movies, but calling him an actor is pushing it. He changed nothing, regardless of the role, he was just John Wayne in just another movie. Eastwood is slightly better, still a distance away from acting.

Now, Tom Hanks, actor: go down the list, and there are few duplications in his approach, from Forrest Gump to CastAway. Truly a professional actor, one of the greats in his own time.

I could not agree more.
Both Wayne and Eastwood simply Played/play the same character over and over simply because that is all they can do.

In fact, Estwood once got fired from an acting gig due to the fact that he couldn't act. Dirty Harry made him a star and he has been playing the same deadpan, monotone charactor ever since.

It was much the same with Wayne.

Tom Hanks on the other hand, is a true character actor, one of the best of our times.

[Altitude]

Wait a sec... John Wayne appeared in many movies, but calling him an actor is pushing it. He changed nothing, regardless of the role, he was just John Wayne in just another movie. Eastwood is slightly better, still a distance away from acting.

Now, Tom Hanks, actor: go down the list, and there are few duplications in his approach, from Forrest Gump to CastAway. Truly a professional actor, one of the greats in his own time.

I agree on all points. As for Eastwood, I was referring more to the genre of a rough and tough bad ass (specifically the spaghetti westerns) not his acting ability. Though I believe Eastwood is more convincing than Wayne even with the limited role.

We probably shouldn't go too far off topic - this is supposed to be a political thread! :smile:

[Bob Dog]

John Wayne was a political icon as much as actor. He presented a simplified and idealised potrait of American frontier values in both his acting and and his public image; He portrayed an image of an alpha male in a land of unlimited resources, and celibrated American manifest destiny, be it on the forest or planes of the continent of North America, or the rivers, mountains and islands of the far east and south America. His films were made by euroamerican males and stated quite clearly a superiority and a sense of entitlement for that ethnic group. They are virtually all racist, particularly in their treatment persons of Oriental, Hispanic and native American descent. It is widely rumoured, contrary tothe public machismo that behind closed doors Wayne and Gary Cooper were boyfriends. Give me the moral uncertainty of most of Bogart anytime.

[Altitude]

Thanks for finding the political angle on Wayne. You're right on all counts, though I'd never heard the gay angle. He certainly personified an attitude that remains today in the minds of many conservative men. It's a shame that attitude didn't die along with him as it has no place in this day and age.

[RedRide]

Yes, Wayne personified an image that was carefullly cultivated and was very apealing to certain political views and attitudes.
This shoot first from the hip and ask questions later false, misgided, macho attitude which became universally known as the "John Wayne mentality".

His personal life did have some have mysteries of sorts and it is dificult to determine exactly what is true.
BTW, his real name was "Marion Robert Morrison"

[mo_feezy]

Charles Bronson was way more bad ass anyways.

[2+2]

Seeing as how this is the political thread...

Today Google news is showing a Washington Post article entitled "President Is Expected to Take Firmer Positions". You mean to say that the president is growing some nads? That would be a nice change for any democrat, let alone the president.

I can't imagine a worse president than W but at least he had/has nads. Reagan, omg if I could change a single thing in history it would be to eliminate Reagan from the presidency, but at least Reagan had nads.

Our current president (and the House and the Senate) needs to grow some nads. Same old, same old ain't going to cut it. Big business and their lobbyists are calling the shots and everyone knows it. The way they're controlling the public discourse on health care is a fine example. Getting the average working joe to declare that securing health care for working families is socialism is so manipulative it's amazing. I'd sit back and enjoy watching the testosterone filled dumb fecks being manipulated that way but I'm afraid it will be another 20 years before health care stands a chance again.

[Bob Dog]

The scam works this way: for years and years the person purchasing health insurance pays into a pool. All goes well for them until they need to draw out of that pool. At this time the insurance will go up, or sometimes be cancelled.

This (how fortunate for the insurance company) happens at the same time because the mark (yes mark) has become sick and is in a bind. He (or she)probably can not work or at least is unable to generate as much income as he did before to pay for the insurance. What you get is a poor sucker who has paid into a medical insurance pool for years, perhaps decades, who is no longer able to pay for it.

The result: years of payments in, few payments out. If you think that they are not aware of this you are not thinking. However, understanding this requires a several step reasoning process, which can easily be blotted out to the simple and not so simple minded with a well placed knee jerk sound bite. Socialist, Communist. No truth to it but for those who do not want to think, it is much easier to believe this horse shit than to modify their beliefs in a way that would be in their ultimate self interest. Silly rabbit tricks are for kids. So it goes on and the ignorant are played for fools

There is also another gambit involved here preexistiing conditions..Once your initial insurance policy has expired due to being cancelled,or being too costly to afford, all illnesses that you already have become preexisting condtions. The insurance companies need no longer pay for medical expense where they can be shown to have anything to due with any sickness you need them to pay for. As I said before this requires a little reasoning, which is easily blotted out by a couple sound bites. And thats the way it works, your health and wealth, stolen by investor class swine. One must remember that all your property is on the block for medical expenses as soon as these snakes slip out the back door.

Fully half of all foreclosures are for medical expenses and fully 40% of all people have no health insurance 6 months after the start of a truly serious illness. Gee where did that "medical insurance" go?

[TLyttle]

Holy smokes, an American that gets it, and has the guts to tell it like it is!! I'm impressed, Bob, good on ya.

However, you just know that the next barrage from the Neo-Cons will just recycle all the BS about communism, free choice, the market and all that balderdash. And that is the sick part that no health care can cure.

[Kal-El]

Holy smokes, an American that gets it, and has the guts to tell it like it is!! I'm impressed, Bob, good on ya.


How's that health care and tax rates working out for you in BC? :rolleyes:

[Darb]

In regards to Joe "You Lie" Wilson...

Wilson is the liar here.

H.R. 3200 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

[Kal-El]

In regards to Joe "You Lie" Wilson...

Wilson is the liar here.

H.R. 3200 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Read it again. Wilson is correct.

http://www.ridersusa.net/Content/Documents/Document.ashx?DocId=65521

Section 246 of H.R. 3200 does allow illegal aliens to receive
taxpayer-funded health care

The President is not being totally honest in his remarks. While the bill doesn't invite all the illegals to sign up, the bill does nothing to prevent them from signing up for the plan. They just won't be eligible for the affordability credits. :wink:



Critics of America’s Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (AAHCA), the health care reform bill currently working
its way through the House of Representatives, have suggested the bill will provide taxpayer-funded health care to
illegal aliens. Supporters of the bill maintain that Section 246 will prevent illegal aliens from receiving benefits
under the bill. Section 246 states that “nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability
credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”1 As discussed in this
memorandum, Section 246 will not prevent illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded health care benefits
under the bill.
(1) Illegal Aliens Eligible for Public Plan. Section 246 applies only to “affordability credit” access, but does not
apply to anyone attempting to enroll in the public health insurance plan created by Section 221. Affordability
credits can be used to offset the cost of health care coverage for individuals who enroll in private insurance plans,
but there is currently no provision barring illegal aliens from enrolling in the taxpayer-funded public plan. An
amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) at the Ways & Means Committee markup would have required
that enrollees in the public plan, or those seeking affordability credits, must verify eligibility with the Income
Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
That amendment was rejected by the committee on a party-line vote. As currently written, the bill would allow
illegal aliens to freely enroll in the public plan.
(2) Section 246 Lacks Verification Requirements. Over the years, Congress has required various methods to
ensure that only eligible individuals receive federal public benefits. The most effective of these methods involves
the requirement that an agency or employer confirm eligibility with a verification database. Examples of effective
databases to verify eligibility include the SAVE system, which confirms an individual is a citizen or qualified
alien (as defined by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, more
commonly known as the “Welfare Reform Act of 1996”)2 and is therefore eligible for certain benefits; the IEVS,
which confirms income eligibility for purposes of certain means-tested benefits like Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF); or the E-Verify system, which confirms an individual is work-authorized in the United
States. A lesser method to screen for benefit eligibility would be to require applicants to self-attest eligibility,
subject to penalties of perjury, on a benefit enrollment form. This method is unreliable because it depends solely
on the honesty of applicants and also fails to actually determine an applicant’s eligibility. The health care reform
bill does not require the use of any verification database to determine eligibility for affordability credits.
Likewise, this bill does not require any screening or self-attestation by applicants to determine eligibility for
affordability credits. Instead, Section 246 bars illegal aliens from receiving affordability credits but contains no
enforcement method to ensure compliance so as to preclude ineligible individuals from receiving that benefit.
Where enforcement is lacking, we can expect compliance to be similarly lacking. Accordingly, Section 246 will
do nothing to actually preclude benefits from being improperly provided to illegal aliens.
(3) Government Studies Confirm: Bar on Benefits without Verification is Ineffective. Government research
confirms that a statute that limits the availability of government benefits is meaningless unless it is also coupled
with a vigorous method of ensuring eligibility in order to eliminate fraud and abuse. For example, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other independent research have concluded that illegal aliens have
been a significant factor in the rise of Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) disbursements despite the fact that illegal
1 Section 246 (starting on page 143, line 3) available here.
2 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Pub. L.. No. 104-193 (1996).
2
aliens are technically ineligible for the tax benefits.3 Likewise, the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
reported in May 2008 that illegal aliens receive significant federal benefits, notwithstanding numerous federal
laws designed to prevent this form of fraud.4 CRS cited studies from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Labor,
Health and Human Services, and a private organization to support the contention that a statutory bar alone will not
prevent illegal aliens from accessing government benefits.5 Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that Section 246
will operate to effectively prevent illegal aliens from receiving affordability credits provided for in the bill.
(4) Does Loophole Extend Health Coverage to Illegal Aliens Via Dependents? Section 246 may also berendered ineffective by virtue of Section 242(a)(2). 242(a)(2) states “members of the same family… shall be
treated as a single affordable credit individual eligible.”6 This raises the question of whether a family of illegal
aliens can qualify for the affordability credit because they have a single family member who is eligible. For
example, could an illegal alien woman receive the credit for herself simply by giving birth to a child in the United
States? If so, this exception would negate the general rule barring illegal aliens from receiving the credit and
would impose a significant cost burden on the American taxpayers.
(5) Recent Congressional Enactment to Limit Benefits for Illegal Aliens. In recent years, Congress has
enacted various provisions to effectively preclude illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits. For
example, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 contained a number of reforms to ensure that only “qualified aliens”
(which excludes illegal aliens) would be eligible to receive “federal public benefits.” More recently, as part of the
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Congress precluded the issuance of stimulus rebate checks to illegal aliens by
limiting rebates only to persons with valid Social Security numbers (SSNs) while prohibiting checks for
individuals using individual tax identification numbers (ITINs) which can be used by illegal aliens.7 This
provision was effective in preventing the issuance of stimulus checks to illegal aliens. Likewise, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included language to preclude illegal aliens from receiving the bill’s
“Making Work Pay” tax credit.8
Conclusion. The health care reform bill lacks adequate safeguards to ensure that illegal aliens will not qualify for
the taxpayer-subsidized public health plan or affordability credits. The best way to protect the American taxpayers
is to require that each individual who enrolls in the public plan or who applies for an affordability credit to first
verify their eligibility using the IEVS and SAVE databases. Government studies confirm that statutory bars, like
Section 246, are ineffective by themselves to protect taxpayers. Congress has enacted effective language to
preclude illegal aliens from receiving benefits in recent years. The same willingness to adopt verification
requirements in the past is again necessary with respect to AAHCA in order to protect the interests of the
American taxpayers.

[mo_feezy]

you can't cite something as biased as that and act like it backs your claims.

[PaidTimeOff]

From factcheck.org:

Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs. (my emphasis btw)

link: http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

[Malaya1221]

You CANNOT cure stupidity and stubborness!

[Kal-El]

Part of the problem is that they wrote the bill in such vagueness that people can't figure out what's what.

You could say that the claim that illegals won't be covered is a "half truth".

Fact is, the bill says that only the AFFORDABILITY CREDITS will not be available to illegal immigrants. However, the bill also makes no provision that prevents illegal aliens to be part of the government plan.

[mo_feezy]

Every bill is written that way. This bill reads like every piece of proposed legislation ever. The problem is that some talking heads started claiming it said certain things and then a population of people thought they ought to see what it says while being completely incapable of understanding it. 50% (i.e. 1/2 or one out of every two) of American adults cannot comprehend a newspaper article (or even simple charts, graphs, or figures). There is absolutely no way they are going to be able to understand a bill.
Virtually all of the criticisms of this bill come from Glenn Beck-esque logic of "the bill doesn't say it ISN'T going to do so and so" rather than just looking at what it actually says.

[mo_feezy]

also, Glenn Beck is a murderer and rapist.

[RedRide]

Glen Beck has now surpassed Rush Limbaugh as the number one psycho of the right wing wackos.

His whole act consists of feeding outragous and rediculous lies to anyone who is anti Obama and he has no semblance to reality!

His limited audience really hangs on every word he says and view it as the absolute truth
As Ron White says: "You can't fix stupid"!

[Altitude]

also, Glenn Beck is a murderer and rapist.

Well, actually we're not sure if he is, but he hasn't denied it!

See for yourself! (http://unreasonablysafe.com/2009/09/01/beckrape/)

[mo_feezy]

Well, actually we're not sure if he is, but he hasn't denied it!

See for yourself! (http://unreasonablysafe.com/2009/09/01/beckrape/)

:wink:
if he hasn't raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, why hasn't he denied it?

Obviously that means he is guilty.

[Bob Dog]

Some say it might have been his rumoured transsexual lover. He won't comment on those rumours either.

[Kal-El]

Glen Beck has now surpassed Rush Limbaugh as the number one psycho of the right wing wackos.

His whole act consists of feeding outragous and rediculous lies to anyone who is anti Obama and he has no semblance to reality!

His limited audience really hangs on every word he says and view it as the absolute truth
As Ron White says: "You can't fix stupid"!

You mean all the proof Glenn provides with video is just made up? He is notorious for backing all of his findings with hard evidence, maybe you should watch.

His "limited" audience nearly equals all the other networks combined and he is on in the afternoon when everyone is at work or on the road.

Never mind that 15,000,000 people listen to his radio show everyday.

Here's yesterday's news ratings.....

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURSDAY NITE, SEPT 10

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,609,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,340,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,986,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,522,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,362,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,040,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,573,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,164,000
CNN KING 965,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 882,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 734,000
CNN COOPER 691,000

Surprised at how pathetic the Obama networks do?

[Bob Dog]

Half of the audience are psychos and the other half of them just turn it on to point and laugh with in incredulity. He is a sick, irrational and dangerous man.

[RedRide]

You mean all the proof Glenn provides with video is just made up? He is notorious for backing all of his findings with hard evidence, maybe you should watch.

His "limited" audience nearly equals all the other networks combined and he is on in the afternoon when everyone is at work or on the road.

Never mind that 15,000,000 people listen to his radio show everyday.

Here's yesterday's news ratings.....

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURSDAY NITE, SEPT 10

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,609,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,340,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,986,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,522,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,362,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,040,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,573,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,164,000
CNN KING 965,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 882,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 734,000
CNN COOPER 691,000

Surprised at how pathetic the Obama networks do?

All the hard evidence proves beyond all doubt that Beck is a common, blatant pathological lier.

Beck is a complete buffoon who has become a pathetic caricature of himself.

He is just a "shock jock" and not a jurnalist by any stretch of an intellegent person's imagination.
He has a "news" program? :rolleyes:

"Liers often use statistics and statictics often lie" certainly applies here.

[Kal-El]

All the hard evidence proves beyond all doubt that Beck is a common, blatant pathological lier.

Beck is a complete buffoon who has become a pathetic caricature of himself.

He is just a "shock jock" and not a jurnalist by any stretch of an intellegent person's imagination.
He has a "news" program? :rolleyes:

"Liers often use statistics and statictics often lie" certainly applies here.

He never claims to be a "journalist" although he has more credibility over the mainstream media journalists who will never bring the truth out against this extremist administration.

He's officially a commentator but he digs up what is really going on.

One example is Van Jones. No one reported on him except Beck, and after Beck brought this nut case to the public eye, Jones was forced to resign.

You see, the liberal media is doing everything it can to protect Obama because they elected him. Journalism is therefore dead. It's up to the alternative media to cover the truth. Think about it, have you heard any criticism of Obama on NBC, CBS, ect...??? Exactly.

[Bob Dog]

Counterpoint, as Wiliam F. Buckley used to say: Did you hear any criticism of Mr.Bush In the early days when he was president? No, it was a "rousing" mix of knee jerk pseudo patriotism, illuminated by the still burning fires of 9/11. MSNBC is biased liberal media (and I must confess that I savor Oberman and Maddow in in much the same manner that you seem to like Beck and O'Reilly). NBC, CBS, and ABC are mainstream middle of the road media. It is just that you and your boorish friend Beck are so far to the right that they appear to the left (or liberal if you choose) to you.

[RedRide]

Beck is a constant, doumentented lier........ end of discussion! :bs:
You just like him because he simply tells you what you want to hear.

His messaage is "I hate obama" without a single, constructive idea of his own .

[2+2]

Counterpoint, as Wiliam F. Buckley used to say: Did you hear any criticism of Mr.Bush In the early days when he was president? No, it was a "rousing" mix of knee jerk pseudo patriotism, illuminated by the still burning fires of 9/11. MSNBC is biased liberal media (and I must confess that I savor Oberman and Maddow in in much the same manner that you seem to like Beck and O'Reilly). NBC, CBS, and ABC are mainstream middle of the road media. It is just that you and your boorish friend Beck are so far to the right that they appear to the left (or liberal if you choose) to you.

Yeah Bush got a free ride for quite a few years. Remember this? Colbert at the White House Correspondent's Dinner (2006) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A). I remember at the time being completely shocked at Colbert having the nads to actually say what everyone was thinking, and to Bush's face no less. We had been fed such a constant stream of pretty darn effective rah rah patriotic flagwaving that speaking out against Bush was unthinkable. Given the political climate at the time I can't imagine myself having the nerve, not in a million years.

After that the walls caved in as everyone realized that we'd invaded the wrong country. Can you say oops?

[Bob Dog]

Agreed: there was a time that things got so oppresive, that i wondered about saying anything critical about the government. I had vague images of homeland security wiretaps and closely watched web posts. Not my America at all.

[SailDesign]

His messaage is "I hate obama" without a single, constructive idea of his own .

Something like this? :smile:

[2+2]

Agreed: there was a time that things got so oppresive, that i wondered about saying anything critical about the government. I had vague images of homeland security wiretaps and closely watched web posts. Not my America at all.

Yup, I know that feeling. I almost hate to admit this but there was a brief moment when I pondered Cheney/Bush not relinquishing power. After the 2008 election, even though it was probably their worst nightmare come true (a black Democrat), I wasn't too worried. But a year or two before that, late 2006 and 2007, about the time everyone was talking about the possibility of our invading Iran, I had some evil thoughts about the likes of Cheney not being willing to hand the reins of power over to someone else.

I'd still put the odds at 10 to 1 against that some high ranked military official comes forward in a book and says that Cheney approached him about the idea. I'm saying just 10 to 1 against - just 10% more or less.

[Kal-El]

Beck is a constant, doumentented lier........ end of discussion! :bs:
You just like him because he simply tells you what you want to hear.

His message is "I hate obama" without a single, constructive idea of his own .

How about supporting your opinion with some examples of the "lies" that Glenn reports?

Your view of Beck is probably shaped by what MSNBC and Comedy Central commentators say about him.

How does all the supporting video and audio that Glenn plays become a "lie".

It's right there for us to see with our own eyes!!!

And as for "hating Obama"? No, he hates the policies of this whole administration for very good reason. He criticized Bush all the time too. Perhaps you missed that. He constantly reminds us that it isn't about party lines, but a whole government filled with corruption.

[RedRide]

..............After the 2008 election, even though it was probably their worst nightmare come true (a black Democrat)...........

You hit upon a very key point here: we now have a black president.

There are those who can not accept and own the fact that their party screwwd up this country and its taking a black man (actually bi racial) to fix it and put the country back on track.

The horror of all horrors to the Republican party is that we now have a very intelligent, honest black man who is actually acting presidential in sharp contrast to the dim witted dictator Bush Jr who routienely disreguarded the consitution and the American people.

So, they are pulling out all stops trying to bring his presidency down,
When hearing some of the absolutely rediculous things they are accusing Obama of, I have to wonder just what universe they reside in.
To them it dosen't matter in the least if the accusations are not true as their only mission is to distort reality and bring him down.

The fact they they make heros out of dishonest, complete buffoons like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh speaks volumes

[Kal-El]

Still waiting for examples of Beck's "lies"....


:iono:

[Bob Dog]

Recontextualizing video clips and taking quotes out of context demonstrates nothing greater than skills in video editing. This is in truth the provence of pulp newspapers and entertainment television shows, not news. People of our grandparents genertions knew the old adage "Even the devil can quote scripture to prove his purposes."

[Kal-El]

You hit upon a very key point here: we now have a black president.

There are those who can not accept and own the fact that their party screwwd up this country and its taking a black man (actually bi racial) to fix it and put the country back on track.

The horror of all horrors to the Republican party is that we now have a very intelligent, honest black man who is actually acting presidential in sharp contrast to the dim witted dictator Bush Jr who routienely disreguarded the consitution and the American people.

So, they are pulling out all stops trying to bring his presidency down,
When hearing some of the absolutely rediculous things they are accusing Obama of, I have to wonder just what universe they reside in.
To them it dosen't matter in the least if the accusations are not true as their only mission is to distort reality and bring him down.

The fact they they make heros out of dishonest, complete buffoons like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh speaks volumes

Again, the race issue comes out. That's all liberals care about. Dividing us into dozens of groups.

Why can't we just be Americans?

Conservatives don't care that our President is [half] black. Liberals though, talk about it all day long.

It's disgraceful how liberals yell "racist!" whenever we speak out against a ridiculous liberal POLICY. Suddenly, because we have a black president, conservatives are suppose to become liberal. Yeah, OK. :rolleyes:

[Kal-El]

Recontextualizing video clips and taking quotes out of context demonstrates nothing greater than skills in video editing. This is in truth the provence of pulp newspapers and entertainment television shows, not news. People of our grandparents genertions knew the old adage "Even the devil can quote scripture to prove his purposes."

You and others here clearly haven't seen the show. Otherwise, you'd see that things aren't taken out of context.

But even when just clips are shown, powerfully radical statements made by Obama and all of his appointees and friends can't be justified in a larger "context" anyway.

Liberals just don't want to see and believe it so they keep their eyes shut.

[RedRide]

Again, the race issue comes out. That's all liberals care about. Dividing us into dozens of groups.

Why can't we just be Americans?

Conservatives don't care that our President is [half] black. Liberals though, talk about it all day long.

It's disgraceful how liberals yell "racist!" whenever we speak out against a ridiculous liberal POLICY. Suddenly, because we have a black president, conservatives are suppose to become liberal. Yeah, OK. :rolleyes:

It is the radical consevatives who think that they are a superior spicies and more american than the rest of us. Their constant rhetoric to this effect betrays your words.

[Kal-El]

It is the radical consevatives who think that they are a superior spicies and more american than the rest of us. Their constant rhetoric to this effect betrays your words.

How can a conservative be a radical? We believe in the things that Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson believed and in preserving the unique foundation they laid that made America the envy of the world. If that's radicalism, then I just don't know what to say.

And if you feel that Conservatives have a superiority complex, you're mistaken.

It just seems that liberals have longed to transform America into something more reminiscent of other countries. They are not satisfied with the fundamental principals that America stands upon and I find that difficult to understand.

I don't see Americans sneaking in to live in other counties in droves but rather people from all over that strive to make it to America to fulfill that "dream". Why is it that the left wants to tear that down?

If you want fascism, socialism, communism, or whatever, why do you choose to live here? Seems strange. That last statement isn't meant to be offensive, just an obvious question as to why people that don't like the way America is stay here.

It doesn't need "fundamental change" as Obama promised.

[Darb]

If you want fascism, socialism, communism, or whatever, why do you choose to live here? Seems strange. That last statement isn't meant to be offensive, just an obvious question as to why people that don't like the way America is stay here.

Because it's nearly impossible to get a decent job in western Europe if you are not a citizen.

[Bob Dog]

I am tired of narrow minded people such as you trying to hanging your foolish little categories on me. Somehow you must have a little box to put things in so that you do not have to give them thought or consideration: I am not a liberal. I vote with the liberals most all of the time, because of the Republicans wanton disregard for the constitution and their obvious favoritism of the interests of wealth over those of the individual, but I am only a little more fond of the imposition of the burdensome strictures of political correctness than I am of the primitive idiocy of right wing fundamentalism. I tried to have watch Beck, as I seek honest right of center opinions as an antidote to the excesses of the far left (I do hate the childish reductionism of these terms), but frankly his dogmatic ideology and utter disregard for all that is truly American make me actually and literally sick to my stomach. You may chose to put your self in the box labeled conservative, as many narrow minded persons who prefer categorization to analysis do, but my varied and free ranging opinions are too complex to put in the confining categories you would chose for them. If you would learn how to think for yourself I doubt you would have any more use for knee jerk ideologues such as Beck and their self serving manipulations than I do.

[Malaya1221]

"circular reasoning works because" saildesign, you are my hero! :biggrin:

[2+2]

Again, the race issue comes out. That's all liberals care about. Dividing us into dozens of groups.

Why can't we just be Americans?

Conservatives don't care that our President is [half] black. Liberals though, talk about it all day long.

It's disgraceful how liberals yell "racist!" whenever we speak out against a ridiculous liberal POLICY. Suddenly, because we have a black president, conservatives are suppose to become liberal. Yeah, OK. :rolleyes:

I'm the one that referred to the pres being black and I probably shouldn't have. Race is the elephant in the room in any political discussion and probably best not referred to by either side (especially in an online forum imo). If you're interested in some good reading though I found this by googling "republican southern strategy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Now if you'd like to talk about W and the Constitution I could have some fun with that. :w00t:

[SailDesign]

And if you feel that Conservatives have a superiority complex, you're mistaken.



Bwahahahahahahahahaha - Thanks! I needed a laugh this morning. :biggrin:

[RedRide]

I'm the one that referred to the pres being black and I probably shouldn't have. Race is the elephant in the room in any political discussion and probably best not referred to by either side (especially in an online forum imo). If you're interested in some good reading though I found this by googling "republican southern strategy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Now if you'd like to talk about W and the Constitution I could have some fun with that. :w00t:

Any political dicussion in a public fourm such as this is going to be contoversial at best.
When discssiong Obama, race has to enter the conversation simply because it is a integeral part of the issue.

Personally, I have had quite a few co-workers, who I thought were not at all pregidious, slowly begin to relate to me that they absolutly did not like a black man as president and they would not support him no mater what.

Never in my 62 years have I seen an outpouring of such extreme hate for a president to the point of calling for a violent revoution because "it is no longer America as we knew it". In other words it is no longer the domain of white men. They are seriously outraged becase there is a black man in charge.

They are simply making things up about Obama becases they absolutly hate him. All this talk about spending etc and refusing to see the truth about anything is just a smoke screen for the real underlying issue: race!

The fact is, Bush Jr disreguarded the constitution, spent mony like a drunken sailor, didn't give crap about the middle class and constantly lied. Where were the protests then? I repete, where were the protests?!?!?

They continue to try to bring obama down becase of his race and when someone points out the obvious, they call them a racist? This is like calling someone a thief because they caught someone else stealing.

I fully expect to get flamed for this but It does not alter the truth.

[Kal-El]

Any political dicussion in a public fourm such as this is going to be contoversial at best.
When discssiong Obama, race has to enter the conversation simply because it is a integeral part of the issue.

Personally, I have had quite a few co-workers, who I thought were not at all pregidious, slowly begin to relate to me that they absolutly did not like a black man as president and they would not support him no mater what.

Never in my 62 years have I seen an outpouring of such extreme hate for a president to the point of calling for a violent revoution because "it is no longer America as we knew it". In other words it is no longer the domain of white men. They are seriously outraged becase there is a black man in charge.

They are simply making things up about Obama becases they absolutly hate him. All this talk about spending etc and refusing to see the truth about anything is just a smoke screen for the real underlying issue: race!

The fact is, Bush Jr disreguarded the constitution, spent mony like a drunken sailor, didn't give crap about the middle class and constantly lied. Where were the protests then? I repete, where were the protests?!?!?

They continue to try to bring obama down becase of his race and when someone points out the obvious, they call them a racist? This is like calling someone a thief because they caught someone else stealing.

I fully expect to get flamed for this but It does not alter the truth.

You're kidding right?

Why do you and others like you expect the right to just except uber-liberalism? We are expected to shut up, sit back, and see America transformed into a fascist state completely controlled by government.

Race has nothing to do with it. But that's all you guys talk about. That's racism.

Liberals can't look beyond the color of his skin to see what his ideologies are.
Shall I begin quoting Obama's own words as well as his endless list of radical associations own words?? Have you guys not listened?

As for Bush? Conservatives didn't like him either because he didn't share their conservative values either. Yet liberals hang on Bush as a defense argument.

Obama's half black! Woooohooooo!!!!!!!! Get over it people. He's our President.

[mo_feezy]

Still waiting for examples of Beck's "lies"....


:iono:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-osborne/glenn-becks-2-week-video_b_277028.html

I do watch his show. Pretty much any time I am home when it is on. I don't watch it because it's good/intelligent/honest/informative. I watch it because it's very interesting to watch a delusional mad man slowly losing his sanity. Psychologists have a perfectly documented case study for years to come. This dude is losing it. If you have never seen his show, he cries on the air regularly. Dude is fucking nuts.

[mo_feezy]

it looks like the website that the first video links from might be down tight now. but it should be up soon.

[mo_feezy]

here are some pictures of Beck's 9/12 gathering. Check out his fans: http://www.flickr.com/photos/42448313@N03/sets/72157622224474669/

[2+2]

Why do you and others like you expect the right to just except uber-liberalism? We are expected to shut up, sit back, and see America transformed into a fascist state completely controlled by government.


Er you might try looking up the definition of fascism. It's at the other end of the spectrum. Think of it as capitalism on steroids (with nasty people in charge). The word you were probably looking for is communism (socialism on steroids with nasty people in charge).

[Kal-El]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-osborne/glenn-becks-2-week-video_b_277028.html

I do watch his show. Pretty much any time I am home when it is on. I don't watch it because it's good/intelligent/honest/informative. I watch it because it's very interesting to watch a delusional mad man slowly losing his sanity. Psychologists have a perfectly documented case study for years to come. This dude is losing it. If you have never seen his show, he cries on the air regularly. Dude is fucking nuts.

LOL, your using the Huffington Post as a source? :laughabove:

It's pretty funny that they're are comparing the video shown by Beck as "step dancers". :tongue: The video is clearly not showing dancers (unless dancers usually wear army clothing and make pledges to Obama in a military marching form).

And what do you think of Louis Farrakhan's sermon telling his audience that "they are the instruments that God will use to bring about universal change. That's why Barrack has captured the youth, when the Messiah speaks the youth will hear".

And how about when Obama, in a speech to a large crowd declared, that we need a "civilian security force that's just as strong, just as well funded" as the US military.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Beck is simply pointing out this movement that is indeed taking place.

Still, no lies here.

Try again.

[Kal-El]

here are some pictures of Beck's 9/12 gathering. Check out his fans: http://www.flickr.com/photos/42448313@N03/sets/72157622224474669/

Beck's "gathering" was only 2,000,000 people (actual estimate). But that doesn't mean anything.

And is there something wrong with the pics you linked to?

I see people standing up against...

Big government,
outrageous spending,
socialist movements,
government health care,
ect.

..and FOR the opposite. For individual freedom, liberty, free markets, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, ect.

Something wrong with that?

[mo_feezy]

lol. you are a lost cause. beck specifically showed a video of a dancing troupe from kansas city. claimed they were a part of obamas secret negro army. Using HP as a source is ok, because they link to videos from outside sources. All I wanted people to look at was the videos.

as for the size of becks gathering. it's been called out already as a blatant lie. michelle malkin got busted for showing photoshopped pictures that "enhanced" the size. they were even using pictures from Obama's inauguration as pictures of becks gathering. which is completely ridiculous to compare the two in size.

secondly, you left out the parts about what his supporters in those photos support: racism, being completely misinformed/stupid (especially the "birthers").

[supmet]

And how about when Obama, in a speech to a large crowd declared, that we need a "civilian security force that's just as strong, just as well funded" as the US military.

Ummm, by my count somewhere around 3000 americans have died on american soil from terrorism or foreign military in the last 30 years. Meanwhile in the homeland there are 10s of thousands of murders each year, and millions of robberies. I'm not backing Obama, but I'm pretty sure I'd feel safer if we spent 3 trillion dollars fighting crime than 3 trillion on a pointless war.

As for Beck, if you believe anything the mainstream media puts out, I pity you. Every last anchor/newsman on fox, cnn, or any major news station is a bought out shill. What they say is based on what they think will draw more ratings and the paychecks from people who pay big to sway american opinion. I know crackheads and tweakers who won't touch oxycontin, but people still hang on Rush Limbaugh's every word, this frightens me to no end.

As for Obama, I'm holding back judgment. He was handed a shitstorm and a half and I think its hilarious, that after 8 years of bush wiping his ass with the constitution, the geneva convention, and personal liberties, that everyone has such negative things to say about Obama.

The whole system is corrupt. There are no true checks and balances anymore. Your government has been sold to the highest bidder. We have to rebuild from the ground up - government, education, health care, everything. We're the world's leading superpower but we have some of the dumbest, unhealthiest people in the world. Let the banks and housing markets fail and work themselves out. Stop giving money to stupid people who have already proved they can't handle money. Honestly if there wasn't so much corruption and greed from the tops of the food chains in housing, banking, medicine, and government, none of us would be here arguing.

Food for thought: the average 18 year old american could read at a more proficient level at the turn of the 19th century, just before the public school system was introduced, than the average 18 year old american living today.

[Bob Dog]

You sure got that right!

[2+2]

lol. you are a lost cause. beck specifically showed a video of a dancing troupe from kansas city. claimed they were a part of obamas secret negro army. Using HP as a source is ok, because they link to videos from outside sources. All I wanted people to look at was the videos.

as for the size of becks gathering. it's been called out already as a blatant lie. michelle malkin got busted for showing photoshopped pictures that "enhanced" the size. they were even using pictures from Obama's inauguration as pictures of becks gathering. which is completely ridiculous to compare the two in size.

secondly, you left out the parts about what his supporters in those photos support: racism, being completely misinformed/stupid (especially the "birthers").

Agreed.

Kal-El - I don't mean to sound disrespectful but you sound young. You don't know what a fascist is and yet you rail against them and socialists and liberals and, and, and. Why regurgitate what you've heard on the radio? It isn't really that much harder to think for yourself.

To start with, how many countries around the world are 100% socialist or 100% capitalist? You know life isn't that black and white, don't you? It's just never that simple. Most countries have elements of each system, even China.

In the health care debate, I've heard there are 1300 different insurance companies with 1300 different forms for doctors to have to figure out. You think that's efficient? I think we should go all the way <gasp> to a single payer government run system that streamlines all that paperwork. What do YOU think? No, I'm not asking you what Rush or Sean or Glenn thinks. What do you think? What's the capitalist answer to that little problem?

[Kal-El]

Agreed.

Kal-El - I don't mean to sound disrespectful but you sound young. You don't know what a fascist is and yet you rail against them and socialists and liberals and, and, and. Why regurgitate what you've heard on the radio? It isn't really that much harder to think for yourself.

To start with, how many countries around the world are 100% socialist or 100% capitalist? You know life isn't that black and white, don't you? It's just never that simple. Most countries have elements of each system, even China.

In the health care debate, I've heard there are 1300 different insurance companies with 1300 different forms for doctors to have to figure out. You think that's efficient? I think we should go all the way <gasp> to a single payer government run system that streamlines all that paperwork. What do YOU think? No, I'm not asking you what Rush or Sean or Glenn thinks. What do you think? What's the capitalist answer to that little problem?

For the record, I'm 30. I was a liberal up until last year then I woke up.

When was the last time government streamlined something, reduced costs, and reduced paperwork??? LOL!! :tongue: Government does the exact opposite in every chance they've gotten. They are notorious for complicating everything into 1000+ page bills and spent us into $100 trillion in obligations. And you think they are going to fix health care??? That's freakin' hilarious.

And I only think for myself, thank you.

[Kal-El]

as for the size of becks gathering. it's been called out already as a blatant lie. michelle malkin got busted for showing photoshopped pictures that "enhanced" the size. they were even using pictures from Obama's inauguration as pictures of becks gathering. which is completely ridiculous to compare the two in size.

secondly, you left out the parts about what his supporters in those photos support: racism, being completely misinformed/stupid (especially the "birthers").

:confused:

Here you go since you're so in denial....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VMXz6xGeqc

Yup, a blatant lie. It was all made up.

[2+2]

For the record, I'm 30. I was a liberal up until last year then I woke up.

When was the last time government streamlined something, reduced costs, and reduced paperwork??? LOL!! :tongue: Government does the exact opposite in every chance they've gotten. They are notorious for complicating everything into 1000+ page bills and spent us into $100 trillion in obligations. And you think they are going to fix health care??? That's freakin' hilarious.

And I only think for myself, thank you.

Good answer and I find it interesting that you were a liberal until last year.

I hear ya on your skepticism about the government's ability to do anything right. What's the alternative? Is there a non-socialist way to reduce the number of insurance companies or at least force them to all use the same paperwork etc? Even Obama's plan to force insurance companies to not drop people for serious or preexisting illnesses has some problems I think. The "experts" are all saying health care is going to bankrupt the country if we don't fix it. So what's the answer?


Edit: lol cross post. There's too many people ganging up on you Kal-El! lol I'm backing off. You're fighting a good fight though!

[Kal-El]

BTW, only 20% of Americans claim to be liberals. I think they are all on here! :tongue:

So I don't expect to get anywhere with my posts. Nevertheless, I'll try to open some eyes.

I do realize I'm on a fuel efficient car forum = liberals galore. But I thought that there were more of a variety of people that bought the Yaris for economical reasons or just because they liked the car. Seems like we have a lot of people here that apparently believe global warming is real (even though it's been cooling for the last 10 years) and feel that they needed to do their part with a gas sipper. Just an observation because all of the other forums I'm on are more split politically.

Flame on... :smile:

[Kal-El]

Good answer and I find it interesting that you were a liberal until last year.

I hear ya on your skepticism about the government's ability to do anything right. What's the alternative? Is there a non-socialist way to reduce the number of insurance companies or at least force them to all use the same paperwork etc? Even Obama's plan to force insurance companies to not drop people for serious or preexisting illnesses has some problems I think. The "experts" are all saying health care is going to bankrupt the country if we don't fix it. So what's the answer?


Edit: lol cross post. There's too many people ganging up on you Kal-El! lol I'm backing off. You're fighting a good fight though!

Good questions.

As everyone reinforces, health care is pretty much the most complicated thing out there. Reform of any kind will not be easy.

Conservatives call for...

-Tort reform - stop or cap the frivolous law suits that skyrocket doctor costs.

-having existing insurance companies compete and operate in most states rather than just one or a few. That way customers really have many choices among the 1300 existing companies. Most states are dominated by only a couple of companies.

-regulations that make it illegal for companies to refuse people because of pre-existing conditions (both sides agree here).

-illegal to drop customers of refuse coverage for needed procedures

Just these things alone would make a HUGE difference.
No need to overhaul the whole system and introduce a government plan that will kill off the private sector.

[Bob Dog]

I must take issue with what is a misuse of the term conservative. A true conservative is one who holds closely to traditional held values. A true conservative is slow to change, and questions the new in the light of how it would alter that which has long served our nation and protected our values. In doing so, this protects us from the usurpation of the very bedrock of tradition on which our country is founded. There is much to be said in favor of this. Many times things of great value can be lost in passing fads of political opinion. Conservatism is the political opinion those who have great entitlements, as with person of great wealth, and sometimes those who have little and are afraid of losing what little they have. This can, however, lead to a resistance to change, when change is truly necessary. Dwight Eisenhauer could be considered a true conservative. From Richard Nixon on the Republican presidents have not been truly conservative, but men with self serving agendas primarily directed at keeping the wealthy wealthy and also enhancing the degree of their wealth.

Liberalism is traditionally an openness to change. True liberals wish to alter things that exist, to right inequities and wrongs in the existing system. A true liberal’s goal is not to change the system for the sake of change, but to change the system to that degree which corrects the aforementioned wrongs. I consider Kennedy, and Carter to be true liberals. They wished to change our system mostly to correct grave injustices. Change is often a good and necessary thing, but if used carelessly much can be lost to change. Barak Obama, whom I voted for president, is not a liberal in the traditional sense. He seems to think that change for its own sake is a good thing. I withhold my very humble judgement of him, for after the radical modifications of the Bush administration, a great deal of change is in order.

A radical is a person whose opinions deviates greatly from mainstream opinion and they often are based on a personal agenda.

A reactionary is a political person whose opinions are basically a response to someone else's political opinions. They are not founded in deep thought, or consideration of the long term good of our nation. They are most often emotional in nature and self serving

An extremist is one who takes the point of view as far as possible in the direction of their particular predilection with little regard for the ultimate results that an execution of their point of view into reality.

Radical Reactionary Extremist, not conservative, is the proper category into which to place Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity.

[Kal-El]

I must take issue with what is a misuse of the term conservative. A true conservative is one who holds closely to traditional held values. A true conservative is slow to change, and questions the new in the light of how it would alter that which has long served our nation and protected our values. In doing so, this protects us from the usurpation of the very bedrock of tradition on which our country is founded. There is much to be said in favor of this. Many times things of great value can be lost in passing fads of political opinion. Conservatism is the political opinion those who have great entitlements, as with person of great wealth, and sometimes those who have little and are afraid of losing what little they have. This can, however, lead to a resistance to change, when change is truly necessary. Dwight Eisenhauer could be considered a true conservative. From Richard Nixon on the Republican presidents have not been truly conservative, but men with self serving agendas primarily directed at keeping the wealthy wealthy and also enhancing the degree of their wealth.

Liberalism is traditionally an openness to change. True liberals wish to alter things that exist, to right inequities and wrongs in the existing system. A true liberal’s goal is not to change the system for the sake of change, but to change the system to that degree which corrects the aforementioned wrongs. I consider Kennedy, and Carter to be true liberals. They wished to change our system mostly to correct grave injustices. Change is often a good and necessary thing, but if used carelessly much can be lost to change. Barak Obama, whom I voted for president, is not a liberal in the traditional sense. He seems to think that change for its own sake is a good thing. I withhold my very humble judgement of him, for after the radical modifications of the Bush administration, a great deal of change is in order.

A radical is a person whose opinions deviates greatly from mainstream opinion and they often are based on a personal agenda.

A reactionary is a political person whose opinions are basically a response to someone else's political opinions. They are not founded in deep thought, or consideration of the long term good of our nation. They are most often emotional in nature and self serving

An extremist is one who takes the point of view as far as possible in the direction of their particular predilection with little regard for the ultimate results that an execution of their point of view into reality.

Radical Reactionary Extremist, not conservative, is the proper category into which to place Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity.

I agree with a lot of your assessment except for the last line.

I'm not a big fan of O'Really but these guys aren't radical reactionary extremist.

A liberal may see it that way, but really they are simply reassuring what conservatives and liberatarians already believe by reporting and commenting on political news from a conservative perspective. They aren't pushing a "personal agenda" but rather standing up for conservatism because no one else in media will. So their passion comes off as extreme to the other side.

People make fun of Beck when he gets emotional, but those are his true feelings coming out because of his love for the foundation and Constitution of America. He doesn't want to see it thrown away in favor of another system. So he gets passionate about it. America is lucky to have someone so brave.

[Kal-El]

You guys are OK with these people running the show?

Cass Sunstein, President Obama's friend and nominee for "regulatory czar" is a "raving animal rights nut". Calls for the banning of hunting. Believes animals should have the right to sue in the court of law.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104820

Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply. Believes in forced abortions.
John P. Holdren
http://www.infowars.com/obama-scienc...ady-happening/

Obama Appoints self proclaimed Communist To White House for "Green Jobs"
Van Jones
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/04/...ts-former.html

Obama climate czar has socialist ties. Calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Carol M. Browner
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ocialist-ties/

FCC 'Diversity' Czar Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation. Will basically end free speech as we know it.
Mark Lloyd
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-m...mocratic-revol

Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU


NONE OF THIS STUFF BOTHERS YOU GUYS? And it's just the tip of the iceberg and doesn't count all of his friends and associations.

This is all from the mouths of the listed people. Not some right wing political propaganda as you guys will claim.

[Bob Dog]

Your point of view is dyadic , dividing the world into conservative and liberal as absolute things and not as adjectives. A dyadic perception of the world is inherently unreasoning. This is not a football game or some silly good guy/bad guy shoot em’ up. Political thinking is a spectrum , (actually much more multidimensional than that.) There are a few whose opinions are based on reaction, emotion and lack any regard for others who have different wants and needs in a pluralistic society. These individuals are so narcissistic and self centered that they think their singular point of view should be imposed on all of society. They may quite rightly called Radical Extremist, be they mad bombers or far to the right talk show hosts. Those who respond to political situations emotionally as children would, rather than in a reasoned adult manner are Reactionaries. Hence the title Radical Reactionary Extremist is completely accurate and for these few persons fits exactly.

[2006fronty]

You guys are OK with these people running the show?

Cass Sunstein, President Obama's friend and nominee for "regulatory czar" is a "raving animal rights nut". Calls for the banning of hunting. Believes animals should have the right to sue in the court of law.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104820

Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply. Believes in forced abortions.
John P. Holdren
http://www.infowars.com/obama-scienc...ady-happening/

Obama Appoints self proclaimed Communist To White House for "Green Jobs"
Van Jones
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/04/...ts-former.html

Obama climate czar has socialist ties. Calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Carol M. Browner
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ocialist-ties/

FCC 'Diversity' Czar Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation. Will basically end free speech as we know it.
Mark Lloyd
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-m...mocratic-revol

Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU


NONE OF THIS STUFF BOTHERS YOU GUYS? And it's just the tip of the iceberg and doesn't count all of his friends and associations.

This is all from the mouths of the listed people. Not some right wing political propaganda as you guys will claim.

Seriously?????? You forgot to reference the National Enquirer lol. OH NO, don't drink the water, our black president is trying to make me shoot blanks!!! :rolleyes:

[Kal-El]

Seriously?????? You forgot to reference the National Enquirer lol. OH NO, don't drink the water, our black president is trying to make me shoot blanks!!! :rolleyes:

The sources don't really matter in this case. The quotes are well documented.
Search yourself. Are you doubting what these people have said? It's on video or in their writings.
See, this is the problem, you guys count on the liberal media for your news and are completely uninformed
of these idiots being appointed.

It's John Holdren who suggests water sterilization as population control - it's outrageous sounding but he said it! Nobody said it was Obama.

Prove me wrong.

From his own publications...

In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls,including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.

BTW, Holdren is white since you guys are keeping track. :rolleyes:
I must be racist against white people too.

[2006fronty]

The sources don't really matter in this case. The quotes are well documented.
Search yourself. Are you doubting what these people have said? It's on video or in their writings.
See, this is the problem, you guys count on the liberal media for your news and are completely uninformed
of these idiots being appointed.

It's John Holdren who suggests water sterilization as population control - it's outrageous sounding but he said it! Nobody said it was Obama.

Prove me wrong.

From his own publications...



BTW, Holdren is white since you guys are keeping track. :rolleyes:
I must be racist against white people too.

You conveniently forgot the references that are in the exact same wikipedia page lol.

Regardless, we're all in this together and ridiculous arguments from BOTH sides unfortunately don't help matters.:respekt:

[Kal-El]

Seriously?????? You forgot to reference the National Enquirer lol. OH NO, don't drink the water, our black president is trying to make me shoot blanks!!! :rolleyes:

If you're going to call me out like this, at least support it with proof that he didn't say and write these things.

It's to bad you can't unless you go erase those published writings.

This is the stuff you guys are supporting, so why do you deny it?

[Kal-El]

You conveniently forgot the references that are in the exact same wikipedia page lol.

Regardless, we're all in this together and ridiculous arguments from BOTH sides unfortunately don't help matters.:respekt:

The references are from his published works, lol.

You want me to add it in? :confused:

You still think it's made up?

[Kal-El]

Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[17] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."[18] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls,including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.[19][7]

References

1. ^ a b Profile: John Holdren "Why He Matters","WhoRunsGov.com", A Washington Post Co Pub. accessed July 24, 2009.
2. ^ a b c News release. "Obama to Name John P. Holdren as Science Adviser"AAAS, December 18, 2008.
3. ^ Staff and news service reports. "Obama's science adviser starts job", "msnbc.com", March 20, 2009.
4. ^ Press Release.holdren_confirmation_release_3-20-09.pdf "Holdren confirmed as Director of OSTP"Office of Science and Technology Policy, March 20, 2009.
5. ^ Koenig, Robert. "President Barack Obama's Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Faces Limited Criticism at Confirmation Hearings",Seed Magazine, February 13, 2009.
6. ^ Video.[1]Senate Confirmation Hearing, February 12,2009.
7. ^ a b c Mooney, Chris."Hold off on Holdren (again)", "Science Progress", July 2009.
8. ^ Pratt, Andrew Plemmons "Right-wing Attacks on Science Adviser Continue", Science Progress, July 21, 2009
9. ^ Goldberg, Michelle (2009-07-21). "Holdren's Controversial Population Control Past". The American Prospect. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=holdrens_controversial_population _control_past. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
10. ^ a b "John P. Holdren's CV", The Woods Hole Research Center
11. ^ Holdren, John P. "Science in the White House",Science Magazine", Abstract, May 2009.
12. ^ Holdren, John P."The Future of Climate Change Policy: The U.S.'s Last Chance to Lead""The Scientific American"
13. ^ Holdren, John P. "Convincing the Climate Change Skeptics", the Boston Globe, August 4, 2008.
14. ^ Holdren, John P. "Meeting the Climate-Change Challenge."The John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C., January 17, 2008.
15. ^ Holdren, John P."Global Climatic Disruption: Risks and Opportunities",Presentation at Investor Summit on Climate Risk, New York, February 14, 2008.
16. ^ "Faculty page-Harvard University". http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/john-holdren.
17. ^ Ehrlich, Paul R.; Holdren, John P. (1969), "Population and Panaceas A Technological Perspective", Bioscience 19: 1065–1071, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1294858
18. ^ Holdren, John P. (1973), "Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency", Daedalus, The No-Growth Society: 31–44, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7jjp9bv0qNYC&dq=no+growth+society&printsec=frontcover#PPA31,M1
19. ^ Ehrlich, Paul R.; Anne H. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren (1977). Ecoscience: population, resources, environment. San Francisco: Freeman. ISBN 0716705672.

[2006fronty]

The references are from his published works, lol.

You want me to add it in? :confused:

You still think it's made up?

Click the links in #'s 7,8, and 9 and read.

[Kal-El]

Click the links in #'s 7,8, and 9 and read.

They support my posts. He did indeed co-author those books. And a co-author is completely responsible for the contents.

Of course he will now say his views are changed, but it doesn't change what he once proposed.

[RedRide]

BTW, only 20% of Americans claim to be liberals. I think they are all on here! :tongue:

So I don't expect to get anywhere with my posts. Nevertheless, I'll try to open some eyes.

I do realize I'm on a fuel efficient car forum = liberals galore. But I thought that there were more of a variety of people that bought the Yaris for economical reasons or just because they liked the car. Seems like we have a lot of people here that apparently believe global warming is real (even though it's been cooling for the last 10 years) and feel that they needed to do their part with a gas sipper. Just an observation because all of the other forums I'm on are more split politically.

Flame on... :smile:

Just for the record, I am not a "liberal"

Perhaps you can tell us exactly why you call people who wish to seek the tuth "liberal"?

[Kal-El]

Just for the record, I am not a "liberal"

Perhaps you can tell us exactly why you call people who wish to seek the tuth "liberal"?

There's generally 3 categories in America. Liberal, conservative, moderate (independent perhaps).

I guess it means you're an independent?

Doesn't matter really but one can easily guess based on the ideals of a persons posts.

And it seems clear that the left on here does everything to avoid the truth by denying video proof and published works of the things that are said by these people in Washington.

[2006fronty]

They support my posts. He did indeed co-author those books. And a co-author is completely responsible for the contents.
Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of that book. They DESCRIBED not ADVOCATED these measures.

Of course he will now say his views are changed, but it doesn't change what he once proposed.
For the record, I'm 30. I was a liberal up until last year then I woke up.

Since apparently peoples views never change ^^^. You were a "liberal" until a year ago lol. Holdren was the 3rd author of a book over 30 years ago. He couldn't change his views over 32 years, how did you in 1 year?????

[2+2]

Pew poll says the media sucks (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8yHd2WPkK2MQuqOX93ExkU_86zwD9AMS8RG0)

What can people believe these days? hehe Not much.

But taking a step back I think it's interesting that right wing groups form militias, left wing groups form, er I dunno er golf leagues? Right wing groups show up at town hall meetings to hear the President speak and bring their firearms with them. I'm sure they're just expressing their appreciation for their 2nd amendment rights. lol Left wing groups sit on the couch and hit the clicker when they don't like what's on tv at the moment - like when Bush took away their right to habeas corpus.

Right wingers seem to want to hate. Photoshopping pics of the President - adding a Hitler moustache just shows ignorance and an eagerness to hate. Hitler was a fascist! You can't call someone a socialist in an effort to get people all worked up and in the same breath paint him as a fascist. A socialist is a leftist. A fascist is at the far right of the spectrum. You can't be both, at least not at the same time. Anyone that wants to be a hater should at least try to be good at it.

Anyone that can't size up an idiot like Glenn Beck and see him for what he is quite frankly, worries me a little.

Glenn Beck on health care (http://vodpod.com/watch/2053228-jon-stewart-on-glenn-becks-run-in-with-the-american-health-care-system)

Rush, Sean, Glenn and the rest of the people that seem to be trying to incite people to hate are unbelievably irresponsible. I predict that soon we'll start seeing the rise of right wing extremist militias, and they're going to create quite a bit of mischief.

[Kal-El]

Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of that book. They DESCRIBED not ADVOCATED these measures.



Since apparently peoples views never change ^^^. You were a "liberal" until a year ago lol. Holdren was the 3rd author of a book over 30 years ago. He couldn't change his views over 32 years, how did you in 1 year?????

Fear point. Some people change. Maybe his most extreme views have changed but his recent works still paint him as way to the left. And as one of the most powerful advisers to the president, it's not good.

[Kal-El]

But taking a step back I think it's interesting that right wing groups form militias, left wing groups form, er I dunno er golf leagues? Right wing groups show up at town hall meetings to hear the President speak and bring their firearms with them. I'm sure they're just expressing their appreciation for their 2nd amendment rights. lol Left wing groups sit on the couch and hit the clicker when they don't like what's on tv at the moment - like when Bush took away their right to habeas corpus.

Right wingers seem to want to hate. Photoshopping pics of the President - adding a Hitler moustache just shows ignorance and an eagerness to hate. Hitler was a fascist! You can't call someone a socialist in an effort to get people all worked up and in the same breath paint him as a fascist. A socialist is a leftist. A fascist is at the far right of the spectrum. You can't be both, at least not at the same time. Anyone that wants to be a hater should at least try to be good at it.
.

Do a google search for Bush/Hitler and you'll find way more photoshops of Bush as hitler than there is of Obama as him. Was that OK?

For much of Bush's presidency, there were heavy, violent protesting. Have we forgotten that soon?

It goes both ways.

We have a country sharply divided in two that just can't agree on politics. It's always been like that and probably won't change.

[Bob Dog]

Again the dyadic, divisive nonsense. We are not a country divided in two, we are a pluralistic society with many religions, ethnicities, and genetic heritages. We are a multitude of political opinions, united to form a nation, not a simplistic demarcation of liberal and conservative. You are choosing to define us so that you can define yourself. This is intolerable, and we will not allow you do it.

[supmet]

Do a google search for Bush/Hitler and you'll find way more photoshops of Bush as hitler than there is of Obama as him. Was that OK?

For much of Bush's presidency, there were heavy, violent protesting. Have we forgotten that soon?

Hmm, I suggest you read up on the reichstag fire and its striking similarities to 9/11 and the events following. You could do a find and replace of hitler with bush, reichstag with 9/11, and communist with al qaeda, and the plot line would still make perfecct sense.

Also, as someone pointed out, people are calling obama a socialist, not a fascist/dictator, so the whole obama/hitler thing doesn't even make sense.

[Bob Dog]

"Hmm, I suggest you read up on the reichstag fire and its striking similarities to 9/11 and the events following. You could do a find and replace of hitler with bush, reichstag with 9/11, and communist with al qaeda, and the plot line would still make perfecct sense.
Also, as someone pointed out, people are calling obama a socialist, not a fascist/dictator, so the whole obama/hitler thing doesn't even make sense. "

I figured I wasn't alone in seeing that the similarity between9/11 and the Reichstag fire. I don't believe it 100%, but the similarity of events is astounding. Its like some very clever men with evil intent tried to recreate a historical event. It also did away with a large number of the most important players in world trade and created an opportunity for a power grab by those who were already prepared to do so. It is important to remember also that Al Queda was at one time largely funded by the CIA, daddy Bush's old organisation. The Bushes and middle eastern oil have had their hands in each other's pants for at least 3 generations. Another important and closely related fact is the majority (14)of the 9/11 hijackerswere not Iraqi, but rather Saudi. If it was a conspiracy it accomplished in large part what it set out to do.

[tk-421]

This thread is in the process on being converted to a members-only social group. Please read the following announcement and PM the mods if you have any questions:

http://www.yarisworld.com/forums/announcement.php?f=&a=10

Thanks guys!

[tk-421]

I have just sent an invitation to everyone that participated in this thread that isn't banned and hasn't joined the group yet. Hope to see you there!