Star Trek

I'll say this. as a star trek fan we are family. I don't like Obama. i think he's a dictator. i'll leave it as that.

What liberal propaganda?

I noticed you put "progressive" in quotes. It belongs there. When it comes to the federal government, just about everything refered to as "progressive," well, isn't.

And no, he's not pushing for socialism. Socialism is a system in which the people control the means of production. What Obama has done is to further the agenda of every president in (at least) the past thirty years, the result in which is increased corporate control. That's not socialist at all. That's not even capitalist. That's the exact form of tyranny that our Founding Fathers protested and fought against.

It is a travesty the we, as a nation, are allowing history to repeat itself.

Um, just curious:  the dude who started this thread is no longer even on here anymore AND what does his appreciation of Obama have to do with Star Trek?

2) If you've ever watched Star Trek, politics and current events were heavily seeded throughout the episodes.

3)  This is Ten Forward, which is specifically for non-Star Trek discussions.

I was reading the latest Barron's yesterday and saw that AG Holder was being questioned about prosecuting people associated with the banks that led to some of the problems a few years ago.  Holder said that they're not prosecuting the criminals because they're afraid of the effect on the markets....  So their mentality says that Obama's administration won't prosecute corruptocrats who are "too big to jail."  (And remember... the government helped those companies get even bigger.)

Liberal propoganda:

1. Its all Bushes (and now the Republicans fault)

2. Pro-choice (I believe a liberal linch pin)

3. Pro-homosexual marriage (another linch pin)

4. Pro gun control

5. Higher taxes equal greater job growth

6. More government equals more prosperity

Socialism is not just the means of production owned by the people, but that production is centralized and controlled  , either by the people as a whole or the government. State control is just as socialist as people control: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html

Obama has insisted upon taking control of the automotive industry through use of public monies to "bail" them out rather than allowing the free market to work. He insists upon imposing more and more regulations and redistributing wealth from wealthy to poor in the name of "fairness" which is another socialist ideal.

It is a travesty that the failures of socialism are being visited upon American society with no learning from the past.

This about sums it up:

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's?   Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's?   It seems personal, not policy related.   You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.   I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas.   As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America.  They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.   I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same.   President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.  The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish.   His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable.   Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths.   They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America.   I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.  Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide."   No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies.   He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family.   He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea.   He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.   He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman.   He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.   He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support.   He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.   His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world).   I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies.   We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies.   And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

I could go on, but let me conclude with this.  I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are.   There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.  

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.  He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed.   Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled.  Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood...   Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders.   He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."

So.... why has DHS purchased ~ 2 BILLION bullets?  Let's compare .... it's estimated that at the peak of the Iraq war, American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.

And we also find out that DHS has purchased 2700 mine resistant Armor Protected Vehicles (MRAP.)

What is DHS preparing for?

The scoops are coming! - Soylent Green

HAHAHA....

Obama was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos who asked Obama about the debt crisis....  Obama said that "...we don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt..."

So, Mr. President.... if almost $17 TRILLION (with over $100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities) isn't a crisis, what is????

More proposed spying on the US citizens by our own government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/usa-banks-spying-idINDEE92C0EH20130313

1. The "blame game." Hardly liberal propaganda. Or any kind of propaganda, for that matter. Just more of the same old same old.

2 and 3. Funny, how those issues became important to Obama when the votes mattered... Propaganda? Or pandering?

4. "Control." Not liberal.

5. Taxes are another form of control. See 4.

6. More government. Again, see 4.

"Socialism is not just the means of production owned by the people, but that production is centralized and controlled  , either by the people as a whole or the government.

Consider that statment for a moment... If means of production are owned by the people, how can it be controlled by that government? Ownership does, after all, imply control.

And please tell me that that link was a joke. I see no other way to take it.

"Obama has insisted upon taking control of the automotive industry through use of public monies to "bail" them out rather than allowing the free market to work."

That's called "capitalism." In other words, he invested money into an industry in the hopes of a return.

"He insists upon imposing more and more regulations and redistributing wealth from wealthy to poor in the name of "fairness" which is another socialist ideal."

More and more regulations is neither liberal nor socialist, unless the people directly affected had a direct say in it.

When the Federal government imposes regulations, in takes the freedom of choice away from the people. Without that freedom, social is little more than a catch phrase.

"It is a travesty that the failures of socialism are being visited upon American society with no learning from the past."

The failures of scoialism would require the institution of socialism. That has yet to happen.

That is incorrect. Socialism has been tried throughout history, in many different parts of the world, all with the same success-none. That is a common argument for socialism is that it hasn't really been tried. Yes it has and it has failed.

Since this is a nation with a government "by the people" and Obama used public money to purchase the auto industry. That is socialist because it brings control of production either under state control or public control-not an oxymoron.

No, that link was not a joke. The site is designed to promote freedom of individuals and personal responsibility, something severely lacking in the USA currently.

Please do me a favor, for the sake of discussion, and define liberal. Clearly they are separate from the modern Democrats, yet they unfortunately are all lumped together. Keep in mind that the definition of liberal has changed over the centuries and even modern American liberals, who hold to a more Keynsian economic model, encourage more government regulation, not less. So, Obama is an American liberal, not a classic liberal. Classic liberals are closer to libertarians, politically, than Democrats. Given the disconnect between the American Liberal definition and the European liberal definition, I can understand the confusion in using that term.

If you are for liberty and limited government, would that make you more libertarian?

Also, to Bam_Bam and Lone_Palm: responses to both of you are forth coming. Lots of info to digest