Obama is not a communist. He is weak and not a good leader.
The President wants what is good for the country, but he lacks the necessary skills to get people to follow him. One flaw in is character is to let misinformation fester. "no drama Obama" does not make an effective commander in chief. I believe the Pres. had lofty ideals, but in his naivety he mis- judged how different the political climate would be with a black man as president. He believed that bipartisan would be a cake walk. With this flawed thinking, he felt that he could treat our legislative body as adults. When this proved impossible, Obama thought by capitulating he could turn the tide. All this did was to make himself look weak!
Obama wants what's good for this country?
I don't know how you can make that assumption. First you have to presume Obama knows what is good for this country, and quite frankly his vision of what is good and mine, and yours are probably all very different. I do believe he wants the country to be prosperous, educated, energy independent, environmentally clean and safe, and he's willing to trade individual liberty to accomplish this. I also believe that he believes that all of this is only possible through greater government intervention and control.
I also don't believe he ever intended to work in a bipartisan fashion, and his actions up to now are evidence of that. To put it simply, he has a vision, he knows what's best, and it's his way or the highway. That attitude shows strength but it's hardly the pragmatic approach he talked about on his campaign. It also comes across as arrogant. Imagine passing health care in spite of overwhelming polls against it?
Obama has also shown weakness in foreign affairs. This has led to a lack of confidence in his leadership domestically as well as around the globe and is seemingly at odds with his domestic agenda. In short his inconsistency in words and deeds has revealed him to be just another politician only lacking in experience and wisdom.Obama's foreign policy is an escalation of Bush. His military budget is greater than Bush. He has increased troop levels in Afghanistan. He's bombed Pakistan with drone attacks. Where are you getting this stuff?
Good question! Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Tea Party Express?
... mainstream news....?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=13 … =351020403
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar … KAHMgJ3O1w
... just cuz you wish it weren't happening doesn't men it isn't so.
The Republicans have rejected just about every Obama initiative toward bipartisan cooperation in the public interest. Please try to back up your assertion that Obama is "weak in foreign affairs."
Weak, compared to whom? Not Bush II that's for sure. I don't agree with all of Obama's foreign affairs decisions, but he's sure a great improvement. And it's beyond dispute that he has improved our country's relationships with the rest of the world after Bush's bullheaded destructive unilateralism and his off-the-cuff "preemptive war" policy.
Ever hear of an old saying, "You're known by the company you keep?" President Obama has surrounded himself with socialists such as Van Jones, Bill Ayers, Anita Dunn, Jeff Jones (co-author of the stimulus bill), Saul Mendelson, Joel Rogers and on and on. Eventually, if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck....I think you get the picture. I agree he wants what HE thinks is best for the country. His ideas simply are not working.
Oh those terrible socialists, just look what they did to New Zealand, where people pay less tax, live longer and get free healthcare.
Nothing is free! Besides the monies you pay in taxes there are other consequences and costs of central control and regulation. You may decide the benefits outweigh these costs and consequences, but others may think differently, the problem here is that even if you disagree, you have no choice, and that is the ultimate price to be paid.
wurd-
Not only is nothing free, but in general Government knows not how to spend your money
think about it: Why would you pay some bozo who lives 300 miles away from you to tell you how to spend 30% of your income? it makes NO sense.
Socialism is only good in theory. It will not work in America because there are too many of us who do not want the government to make every decision for us.
New Zealand is not America. We don't uphold the current immigration laws that would help stop states from going bankrupt. We have so many privledges here in America and so many opportunities to prosper yet so many want to be given everything instead of earning their way....We have several generations of people who believe that profits are bad and should be dispersed to people who didn't earn it.
I am in the medical field and can tell you that every socialized medicine model from Canada to the EU all regulate who gets cared for. We don't need rationed care here and it will be Washington lawyers who decides on who lives and who dies.
Oh....and Obama is in way over his head. It has nothing to do with race as some have tried to push...He was a community organizer. He has never had a real job and never made any decisions during his unattended stint as a Senator."We have several generations of people who believe that profits are bad and should be dispersed to people who didn't earn it."
Some of you still think your slick enough to throw comments like that around.
Your not a Square, you're a ra@#$t piece of c#@p.
OHH NOOO! THEY GONNA TAKE MA MONEY!
Who are the SEVERAL GENERATIONS OF PEOPLE you are referring to?
Recognize Dude! Men dont beat around the bush like a little girl.
Take some lessons and Try again!Beyond your extreme attack of this hubber......what's your point?
I couldn't really find any actual rebuttal in your comments to what you have quoted this fellow as saying in regard to profits being dispersed to folks who didn't earn those dollars, and their expectation of that very thing.
To add my thoughts to that, I'm reminded of young unmarried 'ladies' in the late 70's, early 80's, who were quite open about having as many babies as the guv'ment would pay for, and were counseled to do that by their own mothers. Would that be a quite factual and actual supporting reality to the notion that many think they should just get paid from the guv'ment with the tax dollars collected from those who actually work? By now those same 'ladies' would be great grandmothers -- how many generations is that? And did they teach those same values to successive generations? Perhaps so, and now we have a society that demands even more.
It's a conundrum of sorts, the population is growing faster than we can possibly accomodate 20 plus years from now, yet we pay and pay and pay for folks to have babies they cannot afford, and they have them because they get paid.
Ok...I choose to ignore you up to this point. I think you and white(whatever) are being distracted from the real enemy that is "STEALIN ALL MA MONEY FROM THE GOVMENT!"
It's not the poor, uneducated women in the projects or in the mountains that are stealing our money and ruining this country. It's educated people in corporate offices on Wall Street. They not only stole your Grandmas' retirement, they robbed the United States Treasury practically at gun point. So you are mistaken. Or, you are being a sucker. Or, you are complicent in hoodwinking the people of this country?I was banned for some of the statements I made in this forum. I hope I cleaned it up enough to get a response from the two people I may have offended. I apoligize for the offense. But we should address the basic premise of your statements.
Ok...I choose to ignore you up to this point. I think you and white(whatever) are being distracted from the real enemy that is "STEALIN ALL MA MONEY FROM THE GOVMENT!"
It's not the poor, uneducated women in the projects or in the mountains that are stealing our money and ruining this country. It's educated people in corporate offices on Wall Street. They not only stole your Grandmas' retirement, they robbed the United States Treasury practically at gun point. So you are mistaken. Or, you are being a unwittingly suckered by the corporate heads that are really draining this government of our money. Or, you are complicit in hoodwinking the people of this country? You pay your taxes. You dont support anybody but yourself. Pay attention to the people that are actually robbing us. If that is what you really care about.
this direct assault on an ideology different than your own was brought to you, ironically, by: FRIENDLYWORD!!!
lol, you can't write this stuff!I love this guy Friendlyword!
"Ok...I choose to ignore you up to this point. I think you and white(whatever) are being distracted from the real enemy that is "STEALIN ALL MA MONEY FROM THE GOVMENT!"
It's not the poor, uneducated women in the projects or in the mountains that are stealing our money and ruining this country. It's educated people in corporate offices on Wall Street. They not only stole your Grandmas' retirement, they robbed the United States Treasury practically at gun point. So you are mistaken. Or, you are being a sucker. Or, you are complicent in hoodwinking the people of this country?"
Great name, and a great way with words. (Your hubs are amazing!)
It isn't socialism, David. As Ron Paul says, it is corporatism, rule by corporation. That was true under Bush and is what President Eisenhower warned the American people about.
Deregulation led to ponzi housing loans. Deregulation can be bad. We have two choices, reregulate, or let the TBTF banks fail. However, I believe that the current bill to regulate banks is way too weak. They can still play the casino of derivative betting with our deposits.BTW, I believe Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, in his defense of BP, is not at all like his dad. He is a corporatist facilitator. The Tea Party people want drill baby drill, and they want to blame the credit crisis on poor people. I corresponded with the founder of the Tea Party and he is a flake. The blame for the credit crisis, as I have written on my hubs, rests with Wall Street and the central banks.
Ron Paul isn't the brightest bulb on the tree.
Well, Ralph, on some issues he is. He correctly identified the Fed as being the factor that allowed off balance sheet banking and lax underwriting to come to US shores.
His son, by defending BP, is just a brazen corporatist, or that which his dad spoke against.I agree. I meant to say Rand Paul, not Ron Paul. I agree on a fair number of issues with Ron Paul, especially our military adventures around the world. Perhaps also with Rand Paul. I watched him on the interview with Rachel Maddow which is where he struck me as being not very bright or not having thought through the issue she questioned him about, i.e., the obligations of employers and public accommodations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Rand and Ron have almost identical views of how government should be run. I'm shocked anyone can agree with Ron but disagree with Rand.
Rand was accurate (NO I'M NOT A RACIST) when he was talking about the Civil Rights Act of (NO I'M NOT A RACIST) 1964: government can't be allowed to tell you how to use your private property, otherwise (NO I'M NOT A RACIST) it is only a matter of time until they do it in a way that people don't like.
Ron Paul is the man, actually.
He has a doctorate, and he understands civil liberties, and he understands economics flawlessly.
He's way up there!
You mentioned his race. I think the political climate has little or nothing to do with his race! Except where HE has himself manipulated it and made it an issue when convenient for himself.
The issue is his policies and his personal agenda that he's perpetuated upon us. And no I don't think he has good intentions for America at all. He has referred to it as an "experiment" and time after time has made statements and taken actions that are detrimental to my country's morale and morality and security.
And no he hasn't tried to treat our legislature as adults! (sadly, some of them don't behave like adults anyway! lol) but he has bullied them and treated not only them but all concerned citizens as a whole as peons not worthy of his attention.
Maybe "bipartisan" WOULD've been a cakewalk if his agenda was actually a legitimately-focused-and-activated one. The man has done so much crap all the way from dissing American patriotism to instigating racial and other conflict within the whole country on so many levels it ain't even funny.Probably on the same planet, just listening to different news streams.
30 years ago, when I didn't have a TV, I could always tell when I got to work who listened to which news channels by the positions they took on current events.
The main reason Obama hasn't delivered on his promises as much as many hoped is that the Republicans have decided to act in what they believe to be the interest of their party rather than their country. In the process they have alienated the Hispanics, the gays and have given blacks no reason to change parties. The GOP tent has become much smaller.
The Republicans haven't had any real power since 2006....Who are you trying to kid? Us or yourself?
There was never any intent on listening to the Republicans from the very begining. Every one of the so-called leaders in the Dem Party said that this was the time to take advantage of a bad situation. They have placed the groundwork for bankrupting our country in order to install socialism and a total welfare state.
They do not want the economy to flourish or for the inner-city kids to have an education...if this happens their dream of total economic freedom and social control will be gone. The majority of people who voted for Obama choose not to inform themselves of the economic slavery the Democrats have held them under through social and racial programs. Why go milk a cow when someone else is doing the hard work so you get it for free? That is Socialism 101.
There was nothing naive about Obama. And I don't know why you thing he thought bipartisanship would be "a cake walk." He concluded wisely that having bipartisan support for a major piece of social legislation (health care reform) was worth a try. Unfortunately the GOP decided to try to sink his ship rather than cooperate. It's not fair to blame that on Obama.
Bingo! He's smart as a whip. That first televised meeting he had with the Republicans, he ate their lunch...and showed us all just what they are all about: Obstruction, Insurrection, Un-American behavior. We elected him and they think they have the right to denounce our actions.
It's just like Peabrain Palin says...they think they are the Real Americans, and the rest of us don't deserve to have a say.
Big babies, no good rotten selfish bums. IMOEverybody deserves a say. The elections aren’t about who rules for the next four years, they are about who represents for the next four years. No matter what party, what you say seems to dominate the way it plays out. When Republicans win, the want to rule. When Democrats win, they want to rule. We all lose, because neither party seems to remember they are there to represent the people, not the party, not the lobbyists, and not the deal-makers.
This win/lose nonsense has to go. It’s a job, not a game.Yeah, but democrats won, and republicans still want to rule..that's the problem!
Close, the problem is the perception that it is partisanship that rules the day, and that the individual representatives choose party over constituency. That’s not representative government, that’s more like winning a football game and doing an offensive end-zone dance in front of the crowd (or a march in the streets with a hammer).
Don't be so obtuse to the truth. I understand being politically blind, but politically stupid is where I have to draw the line on listening to all of you?
Obama may be smart enough to run the political gauntlet, but as far as running the country he is not. He has surrounded himself with social-political activists who believe in the hippie-dream of, "Can't we all just get along?" In reality this world will not get along and social-programs do not work...they bankrupt...that is what social programs do. They funnel money to the wrong people and those who actually do need the program either suffer greatly or rob the system blind.
To all of you who feel the need to berate our president, do your homework , Obama was voted into office by the majority of America, get over it.
You do not know what weak is!!!!!Let me guess, PJ Jones has a Bush/Cheney shrine in her home.
PJ, I totally agree. He couldn't pass the test to be a communist. I don't think he's truly a socialist either, he just acts like one. The sad thing is, he sincerely believes he's doing the right thing. He's just not qualified for the job and he wasn't from the beginning.
Tobey, why don't you try doing a bit of reading on what's happening in Washington before making ridiculous partisan comments?
Yeah, things work differntly in Washington, don't they?
Again when discussing the Pres., we divert to his integrity, what we believe to be his heart, which none of us know. I talk about his being weak because that can be proven. It can be proven that he allowed the republicans to make him look stupid. He let his own party show him to be weak. But this does not mean he's a socialist, communist or any "ist".
I saw his vision. He wants to bring up the lost middle class. The people who work 2 or 3 jobs, obey the law raise thier children right. These people hold the country together, but thier group will never produce lawyers, doctors, scientist..why because they can't go any higher. They will never be able to send thier kids to college. They will die sooner because thay don't have health care. Obama wants to change that. He wants to reach down and lift up. He wants to give this group the opportunity that's been denied so long. With the student loan and health care proposals this will be a start.We don't know his heart, you say?
Out of the heart the mouth speaks.Time to hear from the "good book" again, straight from the farytale itself.
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20
See where all the "love" comes from?
- Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago
0What good is it to live longer and pay less tax if your freedom of speech is cut off and your country's more at risk both from the outside and the inside?
Whose freedom of speech has been cut off, besides on HubPages, that is? :-)
All over. That's what's attempted by the "Fairness Doctrine" and the law he put in place about "hate crimes"; it's why Arizona's right to defend its own people against illegal invasion, because they're being boycotted by other states and other citizens who're at the helm of Obama's liberal "civil rights" boat he's pushing; it's why Christians are accused of being full of hatred when they oppose the Muslim invasion into our society; many things that people can see if they'll open their eyes instead of blindly following a man simply because his skin looks black.
What's wrong with the fairness doctrine?
According to Steve Rendall of the liberal media criticism group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, which supports reinstating the Fairness Doctrine,
“ The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[4] ”
The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949.[5] The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[6]
In 1974 the Federal Communications Commission asserted that the United States Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of "access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue..." but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had "voluntarily" complied with the "spirit" of the doctrine. It warned that:
“ Should future experience indicate that the doctrine [of 'voluntary compliance'] is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunity—and the responsibility—for such further reassessment and action as would be mandated.[7]
Wrt, hate crimes, do you think its okay to attack, shoot, torture, kill gays just because you don't approve of homosexuality?No, I think it's a silly law.
It should be a crime (and IS already a crime) to attack anyone physically, no matter who they are or what they do, unless it's self-defense.
I suppose some decent-minded person is gonna have to propose a specific law that it's a crime to attack a heterosexual or a Christian or a redhead or a child molester or an athiest or...just anything, before the homosexual activists will admit they're trying to get special attention for no good reason.People aren't attacking people because they are heterosexual. Plenty of gay haters do attack and even murder gays for no reason other than they are gay.
Pshaw.
There are indeed instances where people were attacked because they were heterosexual! Those instances just aren't pushed day after day into the media because conservatives and most heterosexuals aren't whiners and bent on making an example of a whole GROUP of people for every crime that's committed by a few individuals within that group.
Brenda, Here's an example of a hate crime. The victim was my wife's cousin's 23-year-old gay son. He was stabbed 140 times because he was gay, according to testimony at the trial of three individuals involved in his killing.
June 4, 2010
Sacramento judge resets sentencing for anti-gay killer
By Andy Furillo
afurillo@sacbee.com
The sentencing of a man convicted of murder in the vicious stabbing death of Jim Arthur last year in Boulevard Park was delayed today until next month because the defendant's probation report wasn't finished.
Johnathan Allan Baker asked Sacramento Superior Court Judge Steve White to go ahead and sentence him anyway. White rescheduled the sentencing to July 1.
Baker, 22, stabbed Arthur, 23, an estimated 140 times during the course of the June 3, 2009, killing, "because he was gay," one of his co-defendants in the case told police.
Baker and co-defendants Jeremy Dale Ackerman and Nadine Klein, both 21, were accused of killing Baker during the course of robbing him. Ackerman also has been convicted in the case and is slated for a July 1 sentencing.
Klein's jury could not reach a verdict and White set her retrial for Sept. 16.
Police and prosecutors said Baker, Ackerman and Klein were heavy methamphetamine users who met Arthur through their mutual use of the drug.
Call The Bee's Andy Furillo, (916) 321-1141.
Previous coverage:
Testimony points to meth obsession in grisly Sacramento stabbing death - May 9, 2010
Categories: Homicide, Sacramento City News
Posted by Bill Enfield
10:14 AM | Comments (9) | Share
Buzz up!vote now
Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/ … z0qaFKbJaH
http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/ … dg-11.htmlCome on, Ralph.
That was a heinous crime/s.
But...meth use? Don't you think that could've been a factor, maybe even the main factor? Your post actually SAYS that!
And if you'd look for them, that crime, bad as it was, isn't any worse than the statistics on gay-on-gay crimes! Matter of fact, I read a report that said homosexuals who kill other homosexuals usually commit the crime with even more brutality than an average crime.
And the one you've described is no more of a hate crime than MOST crimes!
Do you suppose Charles Manson and his gang killed Sharon Tate just because she was an actress? and/or a pregnant one at that?
There are many Hollywood people who've gotten killed.
There are many people from different "groups" who've been killed.
To try to pinpoint and finger-point any specific crimes toward any specific group as a "hate" crime while ignoring all the other crimes that are committed (or making specifically "gay" crimes the focus of "hate" crimes) because of hatred is ridiculous and is simply a load of liberal crap from the gay agenda.Have you heard of the southern, good ole boy custom of lynching blacks? A cross was burned recently in the front yard of a black family who moved into a white neighborhood in Detroit. In your mind why wouldn't that qualify as a hate crime? Sure it was also trespassing which is a crime. But it was much worse than simple trespassing. The same with a gay young man was severely injured and hung up on a fence to die--Whitman?
There you go, falling into the current fad of comparing skin color to the act of engaging in sodomy.
It just doesn't wash, Ralph.
And if I were a black-skinned person, I'd be totally personally teed-off at the comparison.So, you're saying lynching a black is not okay (a hate crime) but not a gay person (not a hate crime)? You're saying that the hate crime concept is okay for crimes against blacks or Christians but not against gays. Why not let's see whether PJ Jones is offended?
I'm saying that the "hate crimes" law is illegitimate; it's a law that formerly wasn't too bad because it did uphold the relevancy of proving motive for some crimes; it upheld the ability of law enforcement to categorize crimes the best way it could to protect groups of people who might be subject to assault by INDIVIDUAL criminals or a criminal mind-set AND the ability to perhaps REHABILITATE some criminals.
Not so the "new improved" bill. The addition of "sexual orientation" to it only served the homosexual agenda's false call for "civil rights".
What crimes do you suppose are committed with LOVE, Ralph?
NONE. Are there "love crimes", Ralph? NO.
A crime is a crime, period.
Whoever attacks a homosexual is committing a crime against a human being, just like any other crime against any other person.
But to call it a special "hate crime" just because the victim is "gay" is only a strawman for the homosexual advocates, and is an attempt to condone what is not condoneable either by nature or by God.
Your strawman is in the White House, Ralph; and some of them in our Congress, and sprinkled all over America under the names of liberal political activists.
There they are, dividing and conquering the minds of sane people like you, for their own agendas, for their own greed for power and money and fame, taking advantage of the legitimate sorrow and love that you feel for someone close to you or your family who's been attacked or killed. I have compassion and sorrow for ANYONE who's been unnecessarily attacked or killed; but I have no tolerance for the labeling of that crime as a "hate crime" when it seeks to legitimatize the immoral sexual actions of the victim.My understanding of the law as it applies to blacks, the handicapped, Christians and gays is different from yours. Just because a gay is attacked, robbed or killed doesn't make it a hate crime UNLESS there is evidence that the fact was that the MOTIVE of the attacker was because the individual was gay or black or Muslim or Christian. The law doesn't make every crime against a gay or any other protected group that is subject to hate crimes a hate crime. More is required. Gays are robbed and murdered just like other people by criminals who are simply motivated by robbery without even knowing that the victim is gay. Your analysis and reasoning on this doesn't, as you said, "wash."
Who CARES what the motive was?
Unless, like I said, the criminal can be given help to be rehabilitated. And honestly, there's no reason for anyone to try to rehabilitate someone else's dislike for the act of sodomy and other immoralities, because they have a RIGHT to dislike immorality. Hate the sin, Love the sinner.
There ARE homosexuals who've committed crimes against heterosexuals. That's probably considered a reverse form of "hate crime" too, via this new bill. And so the madness continues! Do you not get it??-----the homosexual agenda vies for attention in ALL legitimate circles, pointing toward ITSELF always, irregardless of true human rights.
I'll never forget the incident where a reporter interrupted George Bush when he was giving a News conference about IMPORTANT military matters of National security; the reporter tried to insert the gay agenda into THAT legitimate topic by asking him to take a look at the gay agenda. Bush made a simple statement----"I've always believed marriage is between one man and one woman". and he left it at that. Common sense. Uncommon strength of character and Faith.
Not so your Mr. Obama. He, in order to please "everyone" for his own Campaign and his own power-grab, catered to the homosexual agenda right off the bat. He got what he wanted----the Presidency. And in so doing, has divided this nation in such a nasty way that it ain't even funny. He cares nothing about our military either; if he did, he would've shown some common sense like Bush did. Even a LITTLE common sense coming from him would be a good change. It wouldn't be sufficient, because he has already furthered his agenda too far to stop it all; some things, once done, are almost impossible to rectify; but it would be a good reversal of the rotten "change" he's instigated and upheld.
P.S.
You wondered whether P.J. Jones would be offended at your comparison of skin color to sodomy.
Well, from her previous posts, she's mightily offended at .....Republicans in general, and pointedly ME, and yelled at me just because I used my freedom of speech, so....
hmmm.....reckon I should lobby Congress to put a "Republican" tag into that "hate crimes" bill??? LOLOL. Why not??? These days, many mean people have decided it's A-okay to cut Republicans down just 'cause the Platform is based on decent moral standards.
Oh goodie. I think I have a legitimate case right thar!
Only speech that's cut off is liberal speech.
As proof...look what happened to Helen Thomas.
NO free speech there.....her job is gone.
Total right wing domination on the radio talk waves.
Fox/righty-radio lie constantly....and no one is ever silenced like Thomas was.Same difference! She was really demonized for saying what she did...and like I said before...Rush can say Barrack the magic negro, Beck can say Obama hates white people, North can say he's anti-American....and nobody hounds them.
Why?
Why did she get such a backlash, when they are given free-reign?
You lost your freedom of speech? Why are you able to talk about losing your freedom of speech?
Yes, I did lose my freedom of speech in some places.
For a while, on here. And my rightful protests fazed no one.
And there are numerous accounts in the U.S. where conservative and/or Christian speech has been denied or muted at the threat of either mockery or violence.
Sometime back (not on here), a very liberal person gloated about how, now that Obama's in Office, she now could get by with saying whatever she wanted to, whereas previously she felt she had to stifle her opinions. She went on to say some really rotten blatantly hate-filled things about Bush and other conservatives, but cried foul and harrassed anyone who spoke their mind about Obama's policies, all the way up to accusing THEM of being racist bigots, nonChristian, hate-filled, etc.
Groups of those type people formed quickly, bullying anyone who didn't change their morals and minds at the drop of the political hat. Immediately, anyone who opposed Obama was labeled a racist hypocrite.
Sound familiar?
It's now the habit of leftists to place themselves on both defensive and offensive status and remain there, knowing they have the backing of Obama's stances. Presidents have that power over some people, and they use it to overpower others they disagree with. The long-tested rules of normal behavior got shoved under the carpet, while out came all the nasty talk and insinuations and reverse-discrimination that had long festered in the hearts of those who rebel against God and against common morals.
They had "come out of the closet"! Ya know, that repressive oppressive closet of moral rules that actually called for them to be accountable for what they said and how they treated people? Hurray! The freedom to break all taboos, openly! No rules! No fear of repurcussions! Down with the people who still retained integrity and morals! Shame on them!
Those bullies have succeeded quite effectively in shutting up many people, or at the very least instilling fear in them, fear of even speaking their own minds in America's public arenas, as well as, of course, many places in the internet arena.
That kind of thing has been happening all over America, during the Presidential Campaign and more feverishly after Obama's election.
The seat of U.S. President carries much weight. Obama is not capable of handling that position in a responsible manner. If he were, he would not have instigated most of the division that now runs rampant in MY country. I emphasize MY because it is really not HIS country since he stated his direct intent of CHANGING American's fundamental basis!
Of course he's not a communist. Communism means socializing the means of production. Besides nationalizing bank here and there (that were already so embedded in the state as to not qualify as private to begin with), Obama hasn't proposed anything close to that.
The point is really (and people often overlook this) is that he's not upholding AMERICAN values and policies. Just because he doesn't come right out and say he's a communist really doesn't matter. A U.S. President should never have to come under question about his patriotism; that should be made obvious before he is even nominated for the highest Office in the land. Heck, it should've been obvious before he ever took a Senate seat. Yet he's kept people asking one question after another, "is he socialist?", "is he a communist?", "is he Christian?", "is he Muslim?", or is he "this" or is he "that"? Sheesh! I don't think he even knows what he is himself! America should be able to be CLEAR about the eligibility of anyone who sits in that seat.
Let me be clear!----Obama is unclear about 'most everything!Obama is upholding the finest American values in terms of extending health care to the poor and uninsured and doing his best to stop the mortgage companies and banksters from screwing the public and ruining the economy.
Brenda, what is the basis for your questioning Obama's patriotism. That's a ridiculous charge. Why don't you stick to talking about specific policies or actions that you disagree with. That might improve your credibility.Actually, polls indicate that the majority of Americans are not in favor of socialized health care, and if there were a poll regarding mortgage issues, I daresay they would object to the continued 'special' and lesser requirements for lesser income folks, that are even in the proposed financial reform. That premise is essentially what lead to the meltdown of our economy and the loss of a material part of retirement accounts of middle class Americans all across the country.
I'm not at all clear how your rebuttal to Brenda is on track with her comments, neither of the two issues above have any bearing on patriotism.The poll results depend heavily on how the questions are worded. Nearly everybody who is covered by Medicare likes Medicare. And nearly everyone doesn't like the health insurance practices that are being banned by the health care reform bill--refusing insurance to people with pre-existing health conditions, canceling people who come down with expensive illnesses because they neglected to mention on their application that they were treated for acne as a teenager, etc. There's a big difference between the results when someone is asked whether they are in favor of "socialized medicine" or whether they are in favor of Medicare. Support will grow when people learn that the propaganda and outright lies about the health reform bill are not true and that it contains many improvements.
Nothing that Brenda said reflects on Obama's patriotism.
So.....hmmm....okay, thanks for sharing.
And would only add, in reference to your just prior post, that most Americans would like to see health care reform, it is sucking down retirement funds much like the federal largesse does to our tax dollars these days -- but they actually want to see it, see the bill in clear terms, not have something concocted in the shadows that leaves them clueless as to the real cost and control and consequences; not have something passed via bribery, blackmail, and muscle. Kind of sends one's antennae up on high alert.Got it!
And I've been wanting to say your avatar rocks!Thanks, I adored Wonder Woman, and refuse to be anything but complimented by references to me as 'Captain America'.
He/they have made their point with that moniker for me. . . quite pointlessly . . .kind of to quote Pelosi from today. Any day now I expect Pelosi to have an 'equilibrium' problem kind of like my 9th grade teacher in my small town who freaked out if the two rebels, Derick and Barry, slammed their books on the floor to watch how she would react to that bit of chaos -- generally it gave us a few days off and we later learned that it "unbalanced her equilibrium" and were counseled as a class, of a mere 38 pupils, of her weakness, and the goading ceased -- but then she wasn't Pelosi, one for whom the boos and jeers should never cease, particularly given her recent attempted use of the pulpit to further her political goals."unbalanced her equilibrium" ...
LOL
Yeah, Pelosi is already so ...unbalanced.
Did you hear her speech about the "word"? No one could tell what she was talking about; she referred to "the word" time after time but never explained what was goin' on in her head with that. I..don't think I really want to know!
I'm not interested in defending Obama, but I believe he's made it quite clear that he's Christian. It's Fox News and the like that are obscurantist on these matters.
Wasn't he elected by a democracy? Ergo, isn't it true almost by definition that he is exemplifying the majorities values? (Right or wrong)No he hasn't made it clear he's a Christian.
He's made it clear that he really holds to no specific standard of values; and in several instances, clear that he's actually anti-Christian.
That's not just from Fox News; that's from live interviews and speeches from different places.I'm willing to believe you, but could you give me an example?
Who the hell cares if Obama is a Christian, or what church he attends? Going to church and paying "lip service" to being a "christian" (l/c intentional) do not make you an exemplar of Christ's teachings. Which, as it happens, Obama IS. His presidency is the epitome of REAL Christian values. If you don't believe that statement, I strongly suggest you open and reread (or read for the first time!) your Bible.
He inherited a cesspool of a mess domestically and abroad from the Bush administration. He is systematically addressing the key issues that affect Americans' quality of life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness). All while dealing with an obstructionist Congress who try to block every forward motion he tries to propose.
For every action he takes there is an equal and opposite outcry from his detractors. This includes men and women who were elected to public office and are acting like toddlers having tantrums. I am impressed by Obama's straightforward, no-nonsense "Let me be clear..." approach to dealing with any/all who put up roadblocks or smokescreens to progress.Are you talking to me? I'm an atheist. I've read the bible several times and I'm fairly familiar with Christian values.
A world where there is no war, the poor have been taken care of, and the rich have given away all their worldly possessions, is a Christian world. There is a sense that this is the opposite of the world Republicans promote. You're right about that.
Though there remains the question of using the state to achieve equality, one could make the case that Jesus would prefer charity to be voluntary."Let me be clear..." activates the trigger on my remote control channel changer.
Brenda is long on opinions, short on specifics, as usual.
I gave specifics above. If it's not in link form, etc., yet, it's 'cause I'm fairly computer-illiterate. I've never really even figured out how to do the Hub capsules correctly; I just write articles and mostly poetry (which is my one and only real literary gift that comes automatically) and post 'em in hubs!
Shoot, I'm feeling really....dumb right now....
But hey I do have ears and eyes and can understand what I see, and I've seen a huge amount of proof of Obama's anti-Christian mindset and actions.
I'll try. I'm, so far, not good at posting links and such.
There was the speech where he mocked the Bible; the speech where he mocked Evangelical Christians; the speech where he directly SAID his faith was Muslim, then back-tracked at the unintentional prompting of the reporter; many other times....
And first and foremost are his Campaign speeches where he advocated abortion, saying he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a ((an unwanted)) baby",
plus his numerous speeches advocating for gay rights (one of those speeches even from a church pulpit).
Sorry, but none of those indications are Christian. No matter how many luke-warm "Christians" claim otherwise.Plenty of Christians support a woman's right to choose abortion.
Second, Obama actually doesn't advocate abortion. Rather, he advocates decreasing the number of abortions by comprehensive sex education including information on birth control, STDs etc. Most of the anti-abortionists are advocates of "abstinence only" training in public schools, which isn't very effective in preventing teen pregnancies, many of which are aborted.Brenda, whats wrong in advocating for gay rights? You really confuse me on this "christian" thing. Do christians like anyone? Do christians deciede whats right or wrong for everyone? This responsibility must keep you in a foul mood, anointing this person a christian...that one not..whew how tiring!
No one is questioning his patriotism but you.
Are you a christian? If so you shouldn't lie about what Pres. Obama said in his speeches. Iam not sure what a christian is suppose to be, but i do believe lieing is a no no.
- Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago0
Even if that were true, which I don't believe it is, those are only crumbs thrown to the masses. Something anyone could do by lifting their left hand and signing bills into law that they agree with.
Like all politicians from both parties... Obama said what the people wanted to hear to get elected. Once elected he is now doing what he wants not what the people want. The truly sad part of his election is the clown that ran against him made it pretty easy for Obama to walk into office. McCain had no idea what the people wanted so he couldn't even make pretend promises.
Seems like we are continually voting for the lesser of two evils, and duped over and over by promises none of use really believe will be kept.Obama said health care reform would be a priority, and lo and behold he passed a historic health care reform bill, not perfect but a big improvement. As he promised, he is pulling troops out of Iraq. And, although I don't agree, he's putting more troops into Afghanistan,AS PROMISED. Now he's working on financial reform and environment issues, AS PROMISED. The people who are criticizing him from the right for not keeping his promises are the ones who are trying to shoot down his every initiative. He's being criticized also from the left for being too ready to compromise with the Republicans and Blue Dogs in order to get bill passed. Now he's being criticized unfairly over the oil spill which resulted from Bush's laissez faire failure to enforce the oil drilling regulations. Obama was dealt miserable cards by Bush--two wars, a deep recession and regulatory failures in every department in the executive branch of the government. Since he took office more than half of his appointments have had holds put on them by Republicans which has prevented him from filling many key positions. Another example of putting partisan politics ahead of the public interest. If you disagree with any of my facts please free to explain!
Thank you, Ralph for writing the rebuttal I would liked to. The only item missing is the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't tell". That's a strong step to legitimize the equal status of gays in the USA by removing one of the last federally legitimized stigmas against gays.
What Obama and Secretary Clinton have done for the USA internationally can't be overstated. 'Obamacare' (though imperfect) is the health care bill presidents of both parties have tried and failed to pass for decades. The 'weak' tag just doesn't stick.Ralph you are right! Pres. Obama has had more problems fall on him than any other President. When Joe Biden said he would be tested, we didn't know the half of it. However, Obama's deeds were not appreciated. Hiliary said it best, "if he walked on water, you'd say he couldn't swim".
I say he's weak because, when Obama was explaining in a speech, after his election how much trouble the country was in, the " main stream media"
(ran by the republicans) accused him of scaring the american public, he stoped talking about the deep dodo we were in.
When the republicans said he shouldn't blame Bush, he stoped, and the public started blaming him.
He was deingrated for using the teleprompter, he stoped using it.
When there was opposition about him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, he acted embrassed and gave the money to charity.
He did not use the "bully pulpit" to strengthen the democratic party.
Obama also allowed the "Blue Dog" democrates to run amok.
He threw Nancy Pelosi , Howard Dean and others who fought beside him for the "public option" under the bus.
When the Republican Senate did not sign the stimulus bill after he did everything but kiss thier rear ends..he should have put items back in the stimulus that they insisted he take out!
He should have named every republican who wanted "ear marks" (pork) He let the public believe it was only democrates. He should have been able to stop the shit in august when the town hall meetings erupted against the health care bill (he was silent).
Just one small thing, when the right wagged thier finger at after he took his wife on a trip to New York,,,he should have taken her on two more trips.
Obama by his actions or inaction did not let america know that he was the President! Obama should have had a little Bush and Chenney in him. Obama should have realized that the "haters" would not like anything he did, so he could have shown a more positive character. He has said "I won"....Iam the President...well he should have acted like it! Now that has come back to haunt him, the public feels like they don't have a leader.
If it wasn't for President Obama half this country would be living in tent city right now.Lat go of your HATE and stop being fooled you republicans are like children,Obama is repairing the damage thats been done to this country,the republicans are the reason we are going through all this crap, the republican leadership "misinforms" on a regular basis and deflect blame,make a lot of noise,spread hate to divide up this country by trying to start a civil war,thats the tea baggers mission your republican party is nothing more than puppets for big business and the ku klux klan and the neo-nazis "Let's take our country back" repbulicans are nothing more than liars and hate-mongering cowards.
Who pulls the strings for the Democrats?
WASHINGTON -- A 73-year-old northern Michigan man known and respected in his community and described as "a pretty decent guy" by one of his acquaintances is accused of writing a letter threatening to paint the Mackinac Bridge red with a congressman and his family's blood because of his vote for health care reform.
Russell Hesch of West Branch, who identified himself as a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was arrested along with his son, a Colorado resident. The two were charged last week in a federal criminal complaint with sending a threatening letter to U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Menominee Democrat. Stupak was widely vilified by abortion opponents after he agreed to support health care reform in March.
"Actions and decisions carry consequences," said the letter signed, "The Devil Within Us." FBI agents traced the letter to Hesch with the congressman's help.
U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade in Detroit announced the charges Monday. They carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Hesch's lawyer, Robert Dunn of Bay City, said he hasn't seen what the FBI says is Hesch's written admission that he wrote the letter.
Community surprised by threats to Stupak
In Ogemaw County, Russell Hesch is known and respected.
He has worked on the historical society board. He belongs to the Right to Life chapter. The county clerk, Gary Klacking, said Hesch could be a "little hardheaded sometimes," but generally, he's regarded as "a pretty decent guy."
Federal authorities, however, are looking at him in a different light.
On Monday, U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade in Detroit announced a criminal complaint against Hesch, 73, of West Branch, and his son, David Hesch, 50, of Loveland, Colo., on charges of conspiring to send a gruesome, violent letter to U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, threatening to murder the Menominee Democrat and his family for Stupak's vote for health care reform.
Signed "The Devil Within Us," the letter mentioned the congressman's family by first names and went on to threaten that he would "paint the Mackinaw (sic) Bridge with the blood of you and your family members."
It said the only way Stupak could stop the threat was to resign with an admission that his decision on the health care legislation was wrong or, "if that seems to (sic) unimaginable," to follow in the "footsteps" of Stupak's son who committed suicide years ago.
The letter writer concluded: "I have the knowledge, the means, the resources and the commitment, that you have propagated, to fully execute this plan. I am also willing to sacrifice my liberties and freedoms to this end."
Both men were charged with conspiring to threaten to assault, kidnap or murder a U.S. official in connection with his duties. According to Russell Hesch's lawyer, Robert Dunn of Bay City, his client is being held in jail there. A detention hearing is set for Wednesday.
He denied the charges.
But in court documents, FBI Agent Travis Lloyd said Russell Hesch admitted in a written statement that he wrote the letter and e-mailed it to his son with instructions to mail it from Denver so it couldn't be traced back to either of them.
Dunn, who met with Hesch only briefly last week, said he has not seen any such signed statement.
Stupak, 58, decided in early April not to seek a 10th term, though he said it had nothing to do with his health care vote. Stupak, an abortion foe, said he would vote against the bill until President Barack Obama promised an executive order that no federal funds would be spent on abortions. Stupak was vilified by abortion opponents who considered the executive order too weak a guarantee.
Authorities said the threatening letter was written before Stupak's decision but it did not reach his office until late May.
Other than to thank law enforcement, Stupak had no comment Monday.
The congressman told investigators he had met Hesch several times and that he was one of the congressman's "historically most vocal and critical constituents," sending him at least 55 e-mails. In 2007, a letter from Hesch was published in the Ogemaw County Herald in which he criticized Stupak for his support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"In light of America's enemies joyfully embracing and encouraging you and Pelosi along with the entire Democrat Party ... do you intend to continue to support position that can only be regarded as seditious at best?" it read. The letter was signed, Russell J. Hesch, LTC USA (Ret).
Local residents and officials who know Hesch said they were stunned by the charges.
In the rural area southwest of West Branch where Hesch has lived for more than a decade, neighbors, all of whom asked not to be identified, described him as "a nice gentleman" and "very respectable man."
At VFW Post 3775 in West Branch, where Hesch was a member, former Post Commander Ray Adams said, "I'm a little bit flabbergasted."
Hesch was widely known to have strong political views.
"He's very opinionated. But we all have opinions," Adams said. But a threat of physical violence "doesn't sound like Mr. Hesch to me."
State Rep. Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch, said Hesch is "about as hard-core right as you could get." But Sheltrown said he had always been civil.
"I'm just very surprised," he said.
Pamela Sherstad, a spokeswoman for Michigan Right to Life, said Hesch was a member of the Right to Life group in Ogemaw County. But she condemned threats on Stupak.
"That kind of communication is never appropriate," Sherstad said. "Right to Life is a peaceful organization that respects all human life. We are strictly nonviolent."
http://www.freep.com/article/20100608/N … tories_5amWhat does this article have to do with the subject of Obama's ineptitude?
Just an extreme example of the people who are opposing Obama and circulating lies about him. And an example of an effect of religious fanaticism about "murdering babies," and the like.
Looks more like an example of how the fallacy that murdering babies can get to a person who's not in good control of his responses.
That man who made the death threat was wrong, and radical, yes indeed. But there should be that much outrage against the abortion agenda! It just should be contained and focused onto correcting the liberal mess that are becoming our laws.
The man should be prosecuted or put in a hospital to get some help.
And so should those people who advocate for baby-killing.There is no "abortion agenda". It is a medical procedure for women in need.
You want to take it away from them....as you want to take away any freedom that you don't approve of.
"You will have that baby by order of the church/state": back to the stone ages.
Just an example of one of the people who oppose Obama and are inflamed by the lies and half-truths that are being circulated by you and others about him.
- Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago0
We can go on and on and re-hash the Fairness Doctrine and all that.
But the point is that Obama is not a patriotic unifier, he's a divider. And he appears to even do it intentionally or else ignorantly cannot find the way to retract the damage he does.
America is divided really badly.
State against State is starting to be the average; neighbor against neighbor because the basic fundamentals of this nation are being stricken from our laws by Obama.
Obama has instigated most of that mess! And the parts that he hasn't instigated, he has only made worse by his fence-straddling.perhaps it would help if you gave some kind of definition of what a patriotic unifier is so that way people will know for future reference
Wow! Obama did all that in less than 18 months? How could such a weak no-good leader accomplish so much so fast?
Or are his detractors just a bunch of numbskulls?Seems to me Obama is trying to do things that I have always heard is truly American and to be respected for such as helping the "poor, the tired, the hungry."
President Obama is not the divider it is you and your tea-bagging buddies your weak republican leadership that has embraced the klan and the nazi's!You are blind! The republican party is dividing this country by using race in their townhall meetings and staight out lies that they sell to the gullible people like you who can't even look past their own hate to see the truth.
Before it's over the Tea Baggers will be the ruination of the GOP if not of the country.
A crime is called a "hate crime" in very extreme cases, like the Matthew Shephard example. Hardly whining. If someone was killed specifically because they were heterosexual, it would still be a hate crime. If graffiti was sprayed on a Christian church instead of a synagogue, it would be treated the same way.
Brenda, you didn't give any specifics of what you were talking about. Just because you say he gave some speech where he said "blah, blah, blah" is not proof. Led has given me grief often enough for not backing up stuff with sources...- Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago0
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904
There ya go. Maybe that link will work... I really despair of Americans. You have no idea about politics, socialism or communism.
Don't you realise you are one of the very few industrialised countries not to have a free national health service?Obama is a Muslim who knows that Socailism is the way to destroy America. We would never accept Islamization... but we seem very willing to jump into Socailism.
He'll use what he knows will work...Question
Do you have anything nice to say about anyoneIt's like with illegal immigrants, many people are now blaming them for everything that is wrong about America. All of a sudden, there are no American mobsters, drug dealers, murderers...they are all illegal immigrants if you listen to some people. It's that way with Obama, everything they don't like is his fault.
Not everything... and he is just continuing the sell out of America.
Why doesn't Canada fix mexico?...
And why is everyone from other countries so obsessed with America?
As if they have no bad history.
It is just so funny to watch Europe on it's way down the drain and they are bitchin at us. The rest of the world really ought to fix its own issues and piss off about ours. Europe... what was thier history?... 60 years of the Marshall Plan... then utter economic failure in a decade and a half... LOL
Ohh thats rich... Yeah you guys know what your doing.
Glennrushity said so on the radio. Case closed.
Arthur Fontes
1900 posts
Joined: 6 months ago
Hubs: 52
Followers: 111
"bill yon wrote:
republican party is nothing more than puppets for big business and the ku klux klan and the neo-nazis"
Who pulls the strings for the Democrats?
me: AIPAC!
Arthur's post is hidden!!!
I guess Brenda should be president...
He did not instigate the division...those who he defeated did...
He was elected by the majority of his fellow Americans...
PS. People disagreeing with you and standing up to you is not denying you freedom of speech.People calling me racist and hateful just because I openly oppose Obama's sub-standard policies and spoken advocacy for immorality is an attempt at intimidation. Which did lead to my freedom of speech being taken away.
I don't want to be President. I consider that role should be filled by a man, a decent man.
But darn skippy I could do a better job than Obama any day of the week. Any patriotic common sense person could.And Brenda - Are you a brain surgeon on Tuesdays and Thursdays and a pilot for the Space Shuttle - any American with common sense can do those jobs if they pick up a ".... for Idiots" at Wal-Mart.
The Presidency isn't brain surgery or astronomy. At the President's disposal are all the leads to all the people with all the knowledge needed to run a nation. It would of course be better if a President had lots of knowledge and experience, but I'd rather see a plain honest man there than an educated fool any day.
A belief in the sky fairy causes some strange behaviour, like thinking it is a fairy-given right to abuse the rest of humanity.
Brenda doesn't understand that you can be a good moral person and not be Christian.
Just because people don't subscribe to your morality does not mean they are not moral people.Really?
So....you believe there are good morals and bad morals?
I'm not sure, but I think the definition of morals is a standard of right behavior, not wrong behavior, which is immoral or amoral.Brenda says -
" I think the definition of morals is a standard of right behavior..."
But who decides what constitutes 'right behavior'????Haven't you been paying attention? Brenda does.
Certainly not you Doug.
People who use their conscience as a moral compass would.Okay, then using that definition, I get to decide. I have a well-developed conscience that I can't get to shut up. lol
haha
What does that conscience tell you to do or not do?We actually come to the crux of so many disagreements. Brenda's answer to my question - "Who decides?" is "Certainly not you Doug".
I have absolute faith in Brenda's ability and right to decide for HERSELF what's right. Brenda has absolute certainty in her ability and right to decide what's right for ME. And on that point we will NEVER agree.My "certainly not you Doug" was based on facts...the facts that I've seen you gloat over being instrumental in at least 2 conservative minds around here get banned or quit; the fact that you're quite often mean and harrassing toward people who speak their minds; the fact that there IS not two different definitions of "right"; being right is not open to liberal interpretation. Some things just ARE right and some things just ARE wrong.
- askpowersposted 12 years ago0
I agree with you P J Jones, but leaders are to help nation by improving their standards, providing best solution to their lives and giving them best facilities.
Moreover a leader is person, nation follows without asking where he is leading. because this is the trust of leader by his character.
So you can see whats the difference and similarities.Obama beat John McCain by 8 million total votes
That lots of Americans wish they could take back!
It will never happen, God Bless Obama and God Bless America
God doesn't bless what's not honoring Him.
And what "America" would that be? America? or the nation that Obama wants America to be changed into?'God Bless America' -- what makes you think that this antiquated and historical phrase will have any place in an Obama world in the future, it doesn't even have respect now. More likely, Rev. Wright's God-damning of America will be what resonates from here forward if we as a country remain on this .....indescribable path backward to a monarchy.
What makes you think that you can throw your anti-president remarks at me, give it a rest and go preach to someone else about the “God Bless America” phrase. You seem to be very angry at the fact that someone is trying to make this country better and it is not up to your standards, you need to be a little more open minded and less anti-president/America.
What "anti-president remarks" are you referring to? I don't feel any anger, and can only presume you do. I do feel an empathetic let down for those who continued to believe in Obama's 'hope and change'.
And I would add that I in no way believe Obama has any desire to make America "better" in a mainstream way -- all I see are machinations geared toward redistribution and retribution, which is in no way surprising to anyone who listened closely to most all his speeches running up to his election.
The man, our President, has no, none, zero concern about the the level of the deficit. Ask yourself why. Be a little open-minded about where this increasing, and unnecessary, deficit is leading this country ecomomically.
Monarchy...?
Did those 120 million people who voted just imagine the whole thing?
Sorry, Woolman, I must be getting tired, because I don't know what you're saying here.
sorry right back to you, thought you were talking to me, thanks
No problem. I'm still wondering how KFlippin thinks our country is on an "indescribable path backward to a monarchy."
But then, she did say it is "indescribable." lol
Quote from the Originating Topic:
"He believed that bipartisan would be a cake walk. With this flawed thinking, he felt that he could treat our legislative body as adults. When this proved impossible, Obama thought by capitulating he could turn the tide. All this did was to make himself look weak!"
That just leaves me shaking my head, no. Bipartisanship was even achieved by Bush in the climate of rabid and hateful leftist derogations among the 'masses' of the time. That is greatly attributable to Bush, the man, not just the Democrats who crossed party lines to support some of his policies.
Obama has treated his own party legislators as less than men,no adult adjective even necessary, that is clear from the rampant bribes and gives to even elected Democratic officials necessary for him to actually pass this health care bill that daily shows itself to be crippling to this country, and which the clear majority of this country object to.
As for capitulation, just what has Obama capitulated on? I missed that. His weakness, which is showing itself quite clearly every day, is just his own nature, perhaps the product of his lack of experience. In time, he will no doubt be stronger. But strength requires more than intellect and Presidents of consequence have always been men of passion and men of great love of this country and the principles upon which it was founded -- not backbiters and apologists.
Obama was elected as POTUS by people from all walks of life who were captivated by his message, with no regard for his color excepting to note it, that is the American way, that is the progress of this country, the greatest amongst the world. But, he has now disappointed.
And his attempt at a show of 'strength' by his kick ass comment, is surely the beginning of the end. The world wanted Obama elected, not just the citizens of the USA. The bloom is off the rose, the shielding cloak is flapping in the wind, and the whole world is gradually seeing more clearly. And now much of the world is diappointed in Obama, and certainly losing even more respect for the USA, and we are now seen as weak -- and that is dangerous."And his attempt at a show of 'strength' by his kick ass comment, is surely the beginning of the end."
No...it's actually the beginning. Unlike our last President; this man is smart and humble enough to learn from his mistakes. I think the people of this Country recognized that when they put him in office. I think the People of the World agreed with us when they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. Most of us know this man will be one of our Greatest Presidents. And you know it too...That's the reason for the hysteria from the right wing.
Reiteration -- Sometimes Necessary.................
Quote from the Originating Topic:
"He believed that bipartisan would be a cake walk. With this flawed thinking, he felt that he could treat our legislative body as adults. When this proved impossible, Obama thought by capitulating he could turn the tide. All this did was to make himself look weak!"
That just leaves me shaking my head, no. Bipartisanship was even achieved by Bush in the climate of rabid and hateful leftist derogations among the 'masses' of the time. That is greatly attributable to Bush, the man, not just the Democrats who crossed party lines to support some of his policies.
Obama has treated his own party legislators as less than men,no adult adjective even necessary, that is clear from the rampant bribes and gives to even elected Democratic officials necessary for him to actually pass this health care bill that daily shows itself to be crippling to this country, and which the clear majority of this country object to.
As for capitulation, just what has Obama capitulated on? I missed that. His weakness, which is showing itself quite clearly every day, is just his own nature, perhaps the product of his lack of experience. In time, he will no doubt be stronger. But strength requires more than intellect and Presidents of consequence have always been men of passion and men of great love of this country and the principles upon which it was founded -- not backbiters and apologists.
Obama was elected as POTUS by people from all walks of life who were captivated by his message, with no regard for his color excepting to note it, that is the American way, that is the progress of this country, the greatest amongst the world. But, he has now disappointed.
And his attempt at a show of 'strength' by his kick ass comment, is surely the beginning of the end. The world wanted Obama elected, not just the citizens of the USA. The bloom is off the rose, the shielding cloak is flapping in the wind, and the whole world is gradually seeing more clearly. And now much of the world is diappointed in Obama, and certainly losing even more respect for the USA, and we are now seen as weak -- and that is dangerous.Thank you KFlippin,you just articulated what I was trying to express when I spoke of Obama being weak..
By showing weakness, Obama is weakening our standing as a super power. Obama's trip abroad to ask for help with our two unnecessary wars, was un sucessful. By Obama being weak, the haters could hold him responsible and not put the blame where it belonged..the Bush/Cheney Administration.
But, ignorant people like you called it an apology tour. You haters have forgotten the 8 years of an arrogant Bush rein that had already created hatred and hostility toward the US. The world as you put it, KFlippin, did not care who became president of the US as long as it wasn't a Bushy type. By showing weakness, Obama gave haters like you the ammunition to divide this country, ignore facts, to promote an agenda that would benefit an unholy few and squash any and all truth.
Pres Obama capitulated when deflected the public's tirade from prosecuting Bush and Cheny for war crimes..remember water boarding? Pres. Obama would not prosecute the CIA, because they only took orders from the tyrant Cheny. There is much President Obama has capitulated to try and hold his country unified!
It's you and your ilk that presents a danger to the United States of America.Wow.
A hater accusing a conservative citizen of hatred.
Where have I seen this type stuff before?
Oh yeah....right here on the forums time after time, and even been personally subjected to accusations like you just made toward someone else.
This thread is useless. You made it in order to gain support for Obama to prosecute Bush and the CIA! You're saying Obama is "weak" because he's not tough enough on prosecuting the Bush/Cheney Administration! You'd rather protect the terrorists from ..(gulp...waterboarding!!! OH THE HORROR!!) before you'd say one good thing about Bush and remember the people who died on 911.
You might as well go make a thread praising and encouraging your king Obama because that was your intent in the first place really.mmm.....did you miss me BD? I believe I have the right of "free speech", you wined had been denied you by Pres. Obama. Luckly, I still have mine. However, I didn't know that threads had to be approved by you. I have no idea of what or whom you identify yourself with...but you sound confused, irrational and hysterical...could you be a republican? That being the case, I will speak s l o w l y. (sorry...I don't have any pictures) The name in my reply was K F l i p p i n.
However if the shoe fits....do y o u know what that means?
Well we can't forget the children in Africa, Bush did give aid to them, for many years....Go Bushy!
How dare you call me ignorant, a hater, and a danger to anyone or anything? And presume to put your own hate speech in my words?
PJ got it about right from what I can see.
Obama is a centrist Democrat in the pragmatic Clinton/Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) mold. Didn't anyone notice that he supported Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas primary against a strong opponent supported by the labor unions and the liberal wing of the Arkansas Democratic Party? Blanche Lincoln's campaign was supported and aided both by Obama and Clinton. It's hard for me to see where Obama's critics in this forum come up with their dire predictions wrt Obama's diabolical motives and plans to turn our country into a socialist/fascist/totalitarian dystopia.
Of all the ridiculous assertions the FoxNews zombies toss at Obama, perhaps the funniest are the Socialist/Leftist labels. The far left is as pissed off at him as the far right - which is why he is an effective leader.
By any measure, President Obama is clearly left of center.
Most likely the support for Blanche Lincoln was about hanging on to a legislator this administration has already bought and paid to vote the way they wish. A newbie has to be bribed, blackmailed, or brainwashed -- lots of effort, even Pelosi is surely getting the big nasty taste in her mouth.
And it's good to know you agree with Ms. Jones in regard to her gross misrepresentations and personal attack of me.You hit the nail right on the head there Flippin!
Mr Deeds, You are a very intelligent man, but it does not take intelligence to notice that what our current President has done so far for our Country is not working, and his future agenda is more radical than ever.
He was elected because the previous adminstration did not make the right choices either and people wanted change, however, Obama's change has turned out to be the wrong change.
I am not sure there is a single person that can lead this Country and fix the wrongs that are hapenning.
This says it all!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 … hp?ref=fpaOh of course!!!
Hey tina--is Boner one of em that you want out?? I'm in!
- philip carey 61posted 12 years ago0
I like Obama. I actually like him a lot (I voted for him). And yet, there is just something missing from his essential constitution. He's a sort of intellectual manager (too much theory and not enough conviction?), but without that ineffable quality that distinguishes the great men from the ordinary. For life and decisions are not purely mathematical in nature, despite the temptation to reduce them to that. There are rare men, and women, who are somehow in touch with something deep and true, and who are able to articulate it to the masses in a way that energizes them. Such a personage is what this country desperately needs now. Ronald Reagan is the classic example. He was a man who had that particular quality--one that is, apparently, independent of intellect. (Mr. Reagan had little of that in my view.) I miss him. When I was in the Marine Corps, I was selected as an honor guard, and I stood behind him at a service for those Marines and Sailors who died in the bombing of the Beirut barracks in 1983. The man just emanated decency, goodness and leadership. It made no sense whatsoever to me--but there it was.
I have to concede to every negative comment made in this forum about President Obama. He has shown himself to be a Over thinking leader; as compared to a decisive one.
I think those days are over. After his handlers allowed him to go out and make that totally embarrassing statement about BP; I think you're going to see heads roll, and a President that will not let his wife and kids and the people of this Country see him look that foolish again. He's a good man. He's learning, and I think this was a hard lesson for him. I think we are going to have a very good President after this horrible mistake of a comment.What's the acronym for one shaking their head sadly?
The President of the United States of America should not need such elementary lessons -- and certainly if he actually does, he should have more astute 'handlers'.I'll take a man that learns from his mistakes over a persons that feels they make no mistakes to learn from. This Country already has more than its' share of arrogant fools.
philip carey 61
All sounds terrific,check this out .
The news media did not report about Obama’s relations with the Joyce
foundation and other radical groups supported by the Joyce foundation.
For an in-depth review of Obama’s connection to the Joyce foundation,
Tides, Acorn and other radical groups, Google ‘’ The Joyce Foundation’’.
KF, you honestly believe that most americans do not want health care! you think people want to see thier children suffer because they can't afford to see a doctor or buy medication?? You actualy can fix your mouth (fingers) to utter most americans don't care to be well or healthy? You dream that when people are suffering with pain or dying that the one thing that bothers them most is the deficit? Most americans in your imagination worry about retirement funds while watching a loved one die? Callling you ignorant is a compliment..fortunatly for you, ignorance is curable, without health care...it only takes facts and the truth.
You have really put a lot of lies in my mouth, can't say I'm surprised. But the angst and effort reflected in your vitriolic words -- makes me sad, very sad, for you, for me, for our country. And, oddly enough, makes me think of my father, and all the values he taught me, and how shocked he would be that anyone would attack me in such a manner as you have now twice felt some need to do.
Digging up your father? Maybe he's rolling over in his grave. Sad.
HUBBERS
The debate goes on Liberals and Conservatives.
Check this out about President Obama's choices surrounding him and his administration.
Take note America that the Obama administration is loaded with at least 30 LOBBYIST some of which have questionable backgrounds. These high ranking officials have Communists, Marxist, Socialist and Progressive backgrounds.
The people must wonder if the FBI performed background checks that is required of federal employees. If the checks were not performed, whoever ordered not to check should be exposed and made to answer for their decision.
Our government is being attacked from within before our very eyes and our elected officials are silent and non responsive to the threats. We must wonder why? Does the progressive caucuses in congress have anything to do with it? Who are these members of the caucuses? Should they not be exposed to the public? Will they succeed in changing our country as president Obama pledged? Why is important legislation passed on week ends in the middle of the night?
Why aren’t our elected officials reading and debating the Bills before voting on them? Why does passing the bills need to be passed speedily?
Many questions that the people should be asking their Congressional members. Everything but providing **jobs in the public sector needs to be speedy in the public sector.
Unemployment in the PUBLIC sector is 3% and in the PRIVATE sector ( middle class and the poor ) it is close to 10%.
Instead of the government cutting, the government is ADDING jobs and spending more increasing the nation's deficit.
The average pay in the PUBLIC sector is $70,000 plus $40,000 in fringed benefits, a total of $110,000. In comparison the average pay in the PRIVATE sector is $40,000 plus $9,000 in fringe benefits, a total of $49,000.
SOMETHING is very wrong, why does public employees receive $31,000 more in fringe benefits than the private sector?
Maybe that's the answer to why states, cities and towns are going broke by having the taxpayers shouldering the burden of out of control government spending.
MOVE ON and other political organizations supported by George Soros have provided campaign funding for many members of the existing congress.
When will the taxpayers step up and demand answers from our public servants? They need to be put on notice!
** Excerpts from an article by Christopher S. Rugaher of Associated Press titled Jobless Claims Fall in Sluggish Recovery dated 6/11/10
'' first-time jobless claims hovered near 450,000 since the beginning of the year.
claims peaked at 651,000 in march 2009
the downward trend in layoffs, which began in the spring of last year, is clearly over FOR NOW
last week, the labor department said the economy generated ONLY 41,000 PRIVATE-SECTOR jobs in may..... temporary census hiring added another 410,0000 jobs (government )
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 26 weeks state
extended federal benefits up to 73 weeks
nearly 5.4 million Americans are receiving extended benefits
all told, about 9.8 million people drew unemployment in the week ending may 22th ''
President Barak Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress idea of ''jobs '' is providing billions of borrowed money to support people who want jobs first. NOTE, The minority republicans complain that they have been locked out of all negotiations on new legislation. OBAMA'S and the Dems open, TRANSPARENT and bipartisan government.
The President's idea of producing JOBS was to shut down oil drilling in the gulf, which will put 45,000 more workers out of work. Is this the leadership that the nation needs in these troubled times?Jon Ewall wrote:(again and again)
"NOTE, The minority republicans complain that they have been locked out of all negotiations on new legislation. OBAMA'S and the Dems open, TRANSPARENT and bipartisan government."
Why is this lie in all of your posts? You know the republicans in the Senate said straight out they would oppose everything the Democratic Senate would try to pass. Just whos' waterloo is it gonna be? The public knows the republicans are blocking legislation and they are not contributing anything of substance in alternative suggestions. They made themselves useless and claim they are being locked out. I know you own the media, but do you really think this old lie still plays to the public?Friendlyword
''Why is this lie in all of your posts ''
MY FRIEND, I do not lie. It is apparent that the information that you are getting may be part of the Obama '' smoke and mirrors''. Every time Obama appears he complains that the Republicans are holding up legislation. The free press reports biased and half truth information.
Understand that in order to pass legislation the Senate needs a majority vote. The Democrats hold 59 seats and Republicans hold 41 seats. Under certain situations 60 votes are needed to pass legislation or call for closure ( ending of debate leading to a vote on a bill )
Big joke, the republicans are the bad guys.
Remember when Obama proclaimed that there would be NO MORE spending that would increase the deficit ? Well congress did pass PAY-GO LEGISLATION months ago. Pay go meant that if congress wanted to spend money on an issue, Congress would have to cut spending somewhere,
Since PAY-GO the Democrats have pushed thru spending bills in the $billions without offsetting the cost in reduction somewhere.
On at least 3 occasions the Republicans held up the spending bills, they were passed by intimidating some Republicans. Try to understand as to what the Republicans are fighting for, you don't realize that the present congress and president Obama are not following the laws that they ( Democrats and President ) have approved and completely ignore in governing the country.
I challenge you to clarify any erroneous statements that I have written. be specific and complete in an honest response
With due respect of your writings.Jon Ewall wrote:(again and again)
"NOTE, The minority republicans complain that they have been locked out of all negotiations on new legislation. OBAMA'S and the Dems open, TRANSPARENT and bipartisan government."
THIS STATEMENT IS A LIE. MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE WROTE IT UNDER YOUR NAME AND YOU ARE REPEATING IT. I DONT KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO PLAY IT.
I WATCH C-SPAN SIR; I LOOK RIGHT AT THE SENATORS ARGUMENTS IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE AND I LOOK AT THE VOTES. SO WHEN I SAY THAT THE REPUBLICAN COMPLAINT ABOUT BEING LOCKED OUT IS A LIE; I KNOW IT FIRST HAND. I'VE SEEN THEM HOLD UP LEGISLATION WITH MY OWN EYES. I'VE SEEN THE REST OF THE SENATE PUT IN EVERY REVISION THE REPUBLICANS ASK FOR AND THE REPUBLICANS STILL VOTE AGAINST THE BILL. IF YOU FEEL THIS IS NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH FOR YOU; READ IT AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL YOU GET IT MY FRIEND.
The country if they get the chance....but they're going to need a new marketing scheme, as the Fox Baggers have pretty much turned everyone but the nuttiest nuts off.
(and I can say that, because Kucinich is MY MAN! and he's called a nut all the time!)
Anyway, phychic Chris predicts a "new direction" for the Tea Party Express....away from blatant bigotry and racism, and towards a "Kinder Gentler" lynching.
Fool me once, shame on you.....
Or, you REAL Baggers could start protesting Faux like the rest of us with any decency....and take your party back!- Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago0
Yeah,
give it up Ralph, 'cause I DO understand why people mimic Obama's stances. It's because they're easily swayed and he is sooooooo charismatic; he could probably talk the birds outta the trees! At least the vultures.... I'm going to start a new weekly publication called "The Homosexual Agenda"
Brenda, I invite you to be a regular contributor.I assume you mean I'd be contributing to the rebuttal and exposing of that Agenda.
How much does the position pay, Ron?
So far, I've been giving the facts away for free.
But the money you'd have to pay me to hire people to screen my contact information from heterophobics would be astronomical.
So I feel I must decline, for the sake of your economic situation.
hahaaaWell....
Mostly you'd be on board to explain what the hell "The Homosexual Agenda" actually is. Of all the gays and lesbians I've ever met, not one has ever mentioned an "agenda" to me. I mean... Is it one of those secrets that only a very select group of enlightened people understand? Like those alien abduction stories in the National Enquirer?
- Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago0
Oh dear.
Ron, please don't tell me you're really that naive.
Hey, like I said, shell out the money and I'll contribute to your magggizeeen.....
((I have no qualms about that at all, since I know you'd never do it anyway). The agenda doesn't want to actually be so openly revealed; it hides behind such things as, ya know, real civil rights and the greed of mega-churches like The Saddleback Church of Rick Warren's, etc.Ahhhhhhh...
They're playing the old secret agenda trick huh? They're trying to drum up political support for their "special" rights by not telling anyone about their goals.
Brenda, you make my head hurt.
Am I reading this correctly?
There is now a heterophobic agenda?
Should I be afraid for my life?
Ron --Not for anything, hon, but I wonder if after so many months of wearing that Colts helmet the switch to the rasta beret might be the real cause of your head hurting:-).
Obama's policies of universal healthcare are similar to socialism and McCain's strong support for the suspension of habeas corpus with military prisons and his support for the Patriot Act mirror aspects of Nazi/Mussolini fascism.
Force FactorRalph Deeds & open minded hubbers
Hate to break your bubble regarding Fox News and Glen Beck .If you really want to know what the oil moratorium is all about check out Beck's 6/21/10 program on Fox News.
The mainstream media won't report many news stories that will expose President Obama. NBC is owned by General Electric, the CEO of GE sits on a presidential panel for Obama.
Beck's show exposes many related doings of the Obama group that won't find the local news media.
Check it out, would appreciate your input of the programAre you going to blame Obama for everything? Do you remember when Bush #1 was in office and he said,"New World Order"? Well that is what is going down right now,"New World Order". Obama is there to help implement the,"New World Order".
A good society will elect a good person as leader. A good and strong country will elect a good and strong leader. May be the US was very weak when Obama came.
But Obama is not a communist. He is a very good person, if not strong enough.I agree with all you have to say but I think he doesn't take matters in his hands and use logic. He surrounds himself with so many experts and questions none of them. Too many experts make for bad decisions. I cannot remember the name of this movie but the President was shot and killed, his vice also and the third in command also. The fourth guy was a black man who became president and all that surrounded him was telling him how to act and what to say. One day the black man had had enough and said, "I am the President" and did things his way and only his way. Obama needs to push all that surrounds him out of the way and lead his way.
When I started this hub, my concern was that President Obama's timid an weak personality would be his downfall. I also suggested that he needed to stop trying to apease the haters. Pres Obama's need to bury his head in the sand while his minions act for him is dividing the country. I'm sure you all know by now the sad story about Shirly Sherrod! The haters were waiting for a chance to have the Pres make a rash and stupid move to prevent any racial biased overtones from the white house.
Now he needs to come out and address the masses on this issue. Good people are going to be hurt, good people are going to be misguided. It is now time for Obama to stand up and be the Presedent we thought he was going to be. It is time for him to be a leader! Is it to late? Will people trust him?
By the way JONEWALL, the word is CLOTURE...which the republican prevent any chance they get.Hopefully, after this KEYSTONE COP moment, the President will finally stop this rush to kiss republican ass. You can not win Sir. I hope he can finally see that the republicans and right wing media is not the people you need to reach right now. This time, you rushed to kiss republican ass and threw one of your own under the bus way too fast. Democrats, Black and white are here standing behind you all this time, and will continue to. But, please stop this madness of kiss ass!
Keith Olbermanns' apology to Shirley Sherrod on behalf of the American People.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/45190?p … ost1118075
Related Discussions
- 160
What is YOUR analysis, opinion, and synopsis of President Barack Obama
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
- 82
I sat with a group of Democrats last night...
by Holle Abee 12 years ago
when I went to a private club/restaurant that we belong to. All of them voted for Obama, but none are happy with him. One wants Hillary to challenge him in 2012, two said they'd vote dem in 2012 if someone other than BO is running, one is definitely voting Republican in 2012, and two have...
- 30
Who Fits Where? Obama or Romney
by Bill 11 years ago
My Dad used to tell me when I was growing up that people fit into 4 categories. 1. Leaders2. Followers (And are content to do so.)3. Those that don’t know how to lead and won’t follow. (Misfits)4. Those that know how to lead but know when to...
- 129
Is President Trump Turning Out to an Existential Threat to America?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
This is really two part question. The first part is the above question. The other is a slight twist, to wit: "Is President Trump Turning Out to an Existential Threat to Ideals Which America Represents?"The reason I ask is because consequences are becoming evident from his nine...
- 346
How Can Your Kids Help President Obama?
by girly_girl09 13 years ago
Back in the 60's:"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -President John F. KennedyToday:"What is the President trying to tell me?""What is the President asking me to do?""Why is it important...
- 79
How the foreign press views the Obama Presidency
by Harvey Stelman 13 years ago
Ever wonder why we have to depend on the foreign press to find out what's "really" going on in our own country. It's a good thing that Obama and the democrats don't own the Canadian press.. Here is what Howard Galganov predicts for Barack Hussein Obama - PLEASE READ:...