ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The President Obama appreciation thread

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 201

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 11:40 am

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."


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 3:14 pm

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?

draeden06

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1217

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 5:18 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 11 2013, 3:14 pm

>

>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

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 5:40 pm

Quote: draeden06 @ Mar. 11 2013, 5:18 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 11 2013, 3:14 pm

>

>

>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

Since they're trying to turn the USA into Greece.....  maybe they're expecting rioting after our economic collapse.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 13 2013, 9:44 am

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????

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 13 2013, 3:48 pm

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


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

Son of Gorn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Mar. 14 2013, 7:33 pm

Obama is going to Israel March 20

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Mar. 15 2013, 3:55 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 10 2013, 7:47 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Mar. 10 2013, 4:28 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 09 2013, 8:55 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Mar. 09 2013, 3:34 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 08 2013, 9:25 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Mar. 08 2013, 2:28 am

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Obama passes legislation for drone strikes... and people still think he's liberal.

>

I have yet to see evidence to the contrary. So, yes, I still believe he is a liberal. A very extreme, power hungry liberal, but a liberal none the less.

The only way you could not have seen any evidence to the contrary is if you equal "liberal" with "Democrat."

I don't consider them to be one to one so no.

While I am sure that Obama has done some non-liberal thing. However, it is overwhelming shadowed by his constant liberal propaganda and
"progressive" agenda.

So, while he not always done liberal activities, he is still mostly liberal in his policies, and pushes towards more socialist society.

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.

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.


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.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 15 2013, 8:51 pm

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

HaventGotALife

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 760

Report this Mar. 18 2013, 12:26 am

I don't think President Obama is a socialist. I don't think he's out to ruin America. I think he's a President who has faced some extreme economic times and that was the result of his time in office working with Congress--saving the Auto Industry, 2 points shaved off the unemployment, nearly 4 trillion in spending reductions reccommended by the Simpson-Bowles commission, averting the next Great Depression, creating 2 million jobs with the stimulus, raised taxes on the top-income earners (450,000 dollars or more), and a STAGNANT DEFICIT. What do I mean? The deficit isn't 1.8 trillion right now. It has grown by 100 billion dollars per year. That's it. If you followed the Bush Administration, not only didn't he cut government spending, but he never had a reduction in the annual deficit and he kept the two wars off the books, going back to Congress with resolution after resolution for funding.


I like that he is for Gay Marriage. Equal protection is equal protection. I'm not expecting you to go to a Gay wedding, just allow them to be legal. Not prosecuting DOMA, ending DADT, lobbying the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA, extending benefits to government employeees, allowing same-sex visitiations in hospitals, etc.--no one has been kinder to the community in that office. 


Health Care costs have been curbed. Have they stopped growing? No. Do we have to work on Medicare? Yes. Social Security? Some time in the next 10 years. But those fights can come because of all that's been done already. 


As for Drones and civil liberties in this time of war, the Administration has NO DIFFERENCE in POLICIES between himself and PRESIDENT BUSH. If he's a tyrant, so was Bush. This is about the expanding power of the Executive Branch since the Reagan Administration. Unitary Theory. 


You don't have to like everything America has done. It's okay to poke at it to get a better union. I think this is a bit of hyperbole and I don't like what it's done to our elections--that he's the end of the Republic.  You only get to say that so many times and be wrong before people stop listening to you. 


Now feel free to chew on me for what I've said...


Its stories are about the depth and complexity of human interaction and relationships. It studies us and asks us to look within ourselves, to relate, to ask how would we respond to all that is in their world?

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 18 2013, 9:31 am

I won't chew on you-you're welcome to believe what you want. I just prefer to examine facts.


However, health care costs have not been curtailed-ask any doctor, ask any insurance agency. Ask the company I work for who used to fund 100% of employee premiums and now must have employees pay in because of rising costs.


Doctors are leaving the field because they will not be reimbursed-reimbursement for Medicaid and Medicare is down under the new law.


Obama did not save the Auto Industry-the Auto Industry would have survived through bankruptcy court as is the capitalist system. Obama saved the unions, which are his biggest supporters.


Unemployment is a false number because people are actually leaving the workforce and not trying anymore. The rate is actually higher than reported.


Drone strikes are a violation of habeus corpous and it took the goading of Congress to get AG Holder to admit there is no constitutional power allowing it.


Obama allows guns to go in to the hands of drug cartels and gets Americans killed. Obama wants the rich to pay more when they are already paying the majority of the tax burden in some cases.


Obama wants to redistribute wealth and increase the welfare state. He and Pelosi chalk food stamps increasing up to a victory.


He is a socialist, wanting government to regulate EVERY aspect of American life.

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Mar. 19 2013, 3:38 am

"That is incorrect. Socialism has been tried throughout history, in many different parts of the world, all with the same success-none."


None? 20th century American history disagrees.


"That is a common argument for socialism is that it hasn't really been tried. Yes it has and it has failed."


The "common argument" is actually against socialism. In fact, you just used it... "all with the same success-none." When it comes down to it, there has never been a truly socialist nation. Denying that fact with never prove otherwise.


Also, keep in mind that "socialist nation" and "nation with socialist programs" do not equal the same thing.


"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."


Of course, if that's the case, then the American federal government was socialist right from the begining. Are you suggesting such a thing?


"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."


Then explain to me how someone who supports and adheres to those concepts just took that site for a joke.


"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."


My own statements thus far should provide you with the answer you seek. Beyond that, well, I'm not very good at giving specific definitions. Ask me a question and I will answer, provided I have the time.


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


 No, not necessarily. The political spectrum has both an X and a Y axis. The X is the basic "left/liberal" and "right/conservative." The Y is (at top) authoritarian and (at bottom) libertarian.


In other words, both liberal and conservative governments can be authoritarian or libertarian, depending on their institutions.


Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between Libertarian (the politican party) and libertarian (the political philosophy).


 


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

Charmedh2ogirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Mar. 19 2013, 6:56 am

I would prefer Obama as Prime Minister than Cameron as Prime Minister. He is such a nice guy.  

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 19 2013, 9:28 am

I think this sums up the 20th century of socialsim in Europe:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html?_r=0


Rising costs, deficit sending and unfunded liabilities have started to destroy Europe's economy, Greece being only one of several to being to feel it.


So, there has never been a socialist nation, yet the 20th century proves that socialism works? Please explain because that sounds like a contradiction.


If there has never been a truly socialist nation, then what would it look like? Why do socialist programs fail, but an actual socialist nation would work? I am afraid that doesn't make much sense to me.


I have no response to your own response to the site. I found it interesting and a good read, but that is just me.


By the way, I will still be referring to Obama as a liberal and a socialist. His behavior indicates very much is desire for public ownership and control of private life. He does not trust Congress to do what he wants and would rather circumvent Congress through his own executive power. He should have let the automobile industry go through bankruptcy rather than try to "save it." Now they are in the same position as before. Bankruptcy would have forced them to renogotiate their contracts, not carry forward with the same practices that bankrupted them in the first place.


Your own statements thus far indicate more libertarian-conservative view but I am not sure as of yet.


 

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Mar. 19 2013, 11:34 am

Wow, did you guys hear about Elizabeth Warren's 22 dollar minimum wage? How did that women even get elected?? Does she not understand basic economics?


For those of you who don't understand: companies are trying to make money. If they have to pay their workers 22 dollars an hour, they'll move someplace else, where it's cheaper to hire workers. Either that, or they'll lay people off. I thought we wanted to create jobs? To think Romney was accused of sending jobs overseas!


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

Post Reply

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Commander_Zelkar, darmokattanagra, Commander_Zelkar

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum