Strange anger at Obama for Tuesday speech to schools

[Sean]

So I participated in a poll on facebook today that asked in regards to Obama's speech planned for next Tuesday: "Should President Obama be allowed to do a nationwide address to school children without parental consent?" I voted "yes". The speech is about staying in school, working hard, and exercising personal responsibility. Super! (Incidentally, vote here (http://apps.facebook.com/realpolls/vote/wj5wgz4j0). Amazingly, the "yes" column is losing badly to the "no" column) So once I voted, I added a comment to the thread attached to the poll. I wrote:

"Why in the world shouldn't the President of the United States be able to address schoolchildren about staying in school and working hard? Was there an outcry when Nancy Reagen spoke directly to American youth about her "just say no" policy? I don't remember one. There is definitely a portion of the country that seems to be going insane with blind, irrational vitriol at Obama, and it disgusts me. This isn't a political speech, it's not an indoctrination of anyone...it's not malicious in any way!

As for some of the comments here, I have to say that I'm floored. Here's one quote:

"when i hear about all the dumb shit that obama is doing like birth control and abortion without parental consent, im like 'this is sick!'"

First off, this person is clearly ignorant about things like "facts" and "reality". Secondly, what do either of these issues have to do with a speech about staying in school and getting a good education?

Idiots."

Moments later, I got a private message through facebook from a guy who opposes the speech, and we went back and forth a few times. I thought some of you might appreciate a glimpse into his mind. So here's the exchange:

Richard Austin McGrath September 4 at 11:33am
It's OUR job to teach OUR kids to be good citizens. Now be honest, if Bush did this you would have come unglued. This is not just a five minute "hey kids be good and stay in school" speech, It's upwards of an hour long, this is about image building in our children's young minds. Again just be honest and admit you don't mind because it's in you party's favor, I'd have more respect for you if you did, oh that's right, you don't want my respect! And before you go painting me as a neocon, I'm actually an independent.


Sean Mullen September 4 at 11:43am
I'm a registered independent, so I have no vested interest in the Democrats or Republicans. In fact, I voted for Bush over Gore, and over Kerry. In hindsight I would not have voted that way if I had it to do over again, but there it is. So if Bush was set to give a speech urging "students to take personal responsibility for their own education, to set goals, and to not only stay in school but make the most of it", then I'd be all for it. Incidentally, the quote about the speech's content I just provided was from the same website that will be hosting the text of the speech a full day before it happens so that parents CAN know what to expect, and CAN teach their kids to be good citizens. Here's the link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/My-Education-My-Future/

The rabid opposition to this speech has absolutely zero justification.


Richard Austin McGrath September 4 at 12:06pm
Maybe he should do this in the evening hours when parents can decide weather or not to have there kids watch, and if they do, address what he says right then? Again this enables him to get at the kids who's parents who would let them play video games all night instead of watching it, and for the purpose of image building, just like when your a kid and dad always cheers for the university of Michigan, when you grow up...you do too!


Sean Mullen September 4 at 12:19pm
Well, we have yet to see the text of the speech, but again, all reports are that the content is specifically geared towards telling "students to take personal responsibility for their own education, to set goals, and to not only stay in school but make the most of it". That's as non-partisan a message as I can imagine, so it leaves those of us who have no problem with it no other choice but to think that this vehement opposition must be based on something other than the speech itself. And based on your reply here, I can see that your concern seems to be built around some kind of indoctrination scenario. You make comments like that this "enables him to get at the kids", which implies a predatory angle to the speech, and you make the analogy about cheering the University of Michigan as if the speech will be trying to recruit future Democrats. What's most striking to me about both these examples is that neither has anything to do with what's actually set to happen. What exactly is wrong with the President of our country encouraging children to exercise personal responsibility, stay in school and get a good education?


Richard Austin McGrath September 4 at 12:24pm
My job.


Sean Mullen September 4 at 4:01pm
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean when you just say "my job". You chose to start this conversation, so it would be great if you could at least participate with complete thoughts and sentences. All I know is that you wrote to me with assumptive accusations that I was some liberal thoughtlessly towing the party line, and then immediately followed it up by telling me that it would be wrong for me to try painting you as something you're not. Hypocritical much? Then you listed a bunch of completely unrelated examples about how this speech will somehow undermine parent's ability to properly educate their children - as if any parent out there would be upset by their children hearing the message to stay in school, work hard, and take personal responsibility for their actions. Maybe that's not something you want your children to hear, but I find it to be a positive, constructive message.

If however, by "my job", you mean that it's your job to teach your children about working hard, staying in school and exercising personal responsibility, then let me ask - are you equally undermined by school guidance counsellors when they meet with your children in your absence, and encourage them to keep these same principles in mind? Are you upset when a speaker comes to your children's school in your absence - say perhaps a police officer - to talk to the kids about the importance of being a law abiding citizen? How about any of the other people who interact with your children throughout any given day away from you at school? I would assume you are, because this is really no different. Seems like that kind of anger would end up being all-consuming since it happens all the time.

Here's what I would do with my kids. When the text of the speech is released on Monday, I would read it, probably even with my children. Then I would talk with them about it - talk about what's going to be said, what I feel they need to keep in mind while they listen, and answer any questions they have. On Tuesday evening, after the speech, I'd talk with them again. Answer any new questions they might have. None of that would compromise my ability to fulfill my parental duties. And honestly, I would probably feel most compelled to talk about the obvious sociological ramifications of this unfounded, irrational opposition we're seeing to our President conveying such a universally positive message. Because even the mind of a child would immediately question vitriol that's so illogical in nature, and frankly, I think I would have a hard time explaining it. Me: "Well son, they don't want the President encouraging you to stay in school." My son: "But...shouldn't I stay in school?" Me: "Well yes, of course, but opponents don't want Obama saying that to you." My son: "Why not?" Me: "I have no clue."

Look Richard, I'm not one to go straight to accusing opponents of this speech of things like racism, because that's an incredibly serious charge. But it's hard not to entertain that and other unrelated motives as playing some part here in the absence of any reasonable, logical arguments as to why we should oppose this speech. Feel free to message me if you ever come up with a coherent, realistic reason as to why this speech is such an outrage, but if all you have to offer is more unfounded accusations against me, and conspiracy theories about indoctrination fears, then I'm really not interested.


No idea if he'll reply to that last one or not, but there's what's happened so far.

[Strangelet]

Well good showing as always, I don't think he realized what he was getting into. I've said this before but I envy your ability to stay reasonable and at least engage.

Cable news talked about Barney Frank's "outburst" as so sensational. For a statesman to say "Talking to you would be like arguing with a kitchen table" to a constituent?! Scandal!

I'm pretty sure we disagree on this, but I'm convinced America is fucked. I see no productive method of reasoning against the zeitgeist marketed by the handlers of America's kakistocracy. At this point its a foregone conclusion that Brussels, (and probably Brazil!) will be more politically powerful than us in 10 years and that our empire is coming to an end. Which is fine by me. America was never meant to be an empire. What I'm starting to worry about is whether or not any shred of the conceived republic will remain.

But this puts me in a position where I've nothing to offer dialog except raw emotion and the perennial desire to punch people in the face. Which is why I'm quiet and detaching until I can come to grips with the total loss of respect and patriotism for my country, its culture, and a large swath of its population.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

...I've nothing to offer dialog except raw emotion and the perennial desire to punch people in the face. . .


That's not very rico suave now, is it?

Have you bought any new leather items?



You're kinda a bitchy philosophy grad sometimes too. And oh so manly at the same time. I like the first sentence/third paragraph of your post, but it's always been bit fucked. I do absolutely(:D, I'm smart now too) love how the true wacks are coming out of the woodwork at the moment. Makes life fun, no?

[Strangelet]

well i see i've still got jr. playing tag along. you don't waste any time do you? Do you have a fucking bat signal to alert you to go down the pole and put on your troll costume? i have no idea what you just said but I have to tell you its not going work. I'm completely numb to being mocked for being sincere by people who are afraid of confronting their own inner dialog. I'm a philosophy grad.

[Sean]

I'm pretty sure we disagree on this, but I'm convinced America is fucked. I see no productive method of reasoning against the zeitgeist marketed by the handlers of America's kakistocracy. At this point its a foregone conclusion that Brussels, (and probably Brazil!) will be more politically powerful than us in 10 years and that our empire is coming to an end. Which is fine by me. America was never meant to be an empire. What I'm starting to worry about is whether or not any shred of the conceived republic will remain.Well, I don't know what's going to happen, but it feels like something is coming to a head with all this stuff. So many people are so into these outlandish theories, like that not only is Obama hiding his Kenyan citizenship, he was also selected at 18 years old to be groomed as a Puppet President who would impliment a New World Order! And he's creating death panels that will kill your grandmother so that we can provide all of Mexico with insurance instead! And now he wants to commandeer the airwaves and stream his communist agenda directly into our children's spongy minds! Just like Hitler did!

I mean, how can I seriously be open to their completely speculative point of view when I find it to be completely, 100% wrong based on facts? I just don't see where the middle ground is in this situation. Hell, they deal with the debate by bringing guns to townhalls, shouting down the opposition, and even jeering a woman confined to a wheelchair for talking about why healthcare reform would be good for people like her (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/02/wheelchair-bound-woman-sh_n_275472.html). How do you reason with that? So I have no clue where this country is headed.

[BeautifulBurnout]

I'm finding this all a tad scary. I don't know whether to put it down to the last throes of madness as the American Empire falls into decline, or whether it is just the continuation of the paranoia that has always haunted the fringes of American society. McCarthy didn't happen in a vacuum; you have to have the right soil there in the first place for the seeds of bonkers-ness to germinate.

There is a very interesting article on the website Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/4/republican_gomorrah_inside_the_movement_that) where Max Blumenthal talks about his book "Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party"

Fifty years ago, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower issued a warning against the rise of extremist movements within his own party. During his presidency, Eisenhower had endured attacks by Senator Joseph McCarthy, the radical right John Birch Society and others. In a 1959 letter to a World War II veteran, Eisenhower wrote, quote, “Many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resorting to statements more distinguished by stridency than by accuracy.”
Half a century later, in a summer of town hall disruptions and birth certificate controversies, what Eisenhower had warned against has come true: that the Republican Party has been captured by its extremist wing.

The problem with these people is they are clearly nuts, they are angry, they have guns, and they have the likes of Limbaugh lighting the blue touch-paper and stepping back.

I don't know whether to point and laugh, or to advise you all to build a shelter and start stock-piling canned goods and bottled water....:eek:

[King of Snake]

scare mongering the population to make them do your bidding is a tried and tested concept. It is what the reublicans/Fox do best and will continue to keep doing until one of those idiots who bring assault rifles to town hall meetings actually pulls the trigger.

[Deckard]

The number of times I read comments below articles and just get floored by the sheer amount of stupidity. And I don't just mean people being in the unfortunate position of being uneducated, or lacking time to get up to speed on the intricacies of healthcare systems or international development. For the most part that ignorance is entirely understandable. No, what I mean is that very unique mix of unforgivable stupidity, combined with selfishness and topped off with spite and occasional thuggishness.

Really, it depresses me nowadays. After all, we're not talking YouTube comments here. Reading comments on mainstream platforms, more and more, genuinely depresses me. I think to myself, are people actually getting dumber? Or has the internet - and the explosion of opinion platforms - merely drawn back the curtain on stupidity that was always lying there, unnoticed?

Sometimes I feel optimistic that the internet is making people more informed, dispersing information, supplying examples of reasoning all of which represents the most wonderful intellectual revolution in centuries, and that slowly, ignorance is being countered. I tell myself that what seems to be the moronic 60% of public opinion is probably only 10% or less, and I'm being fooled into registering those particular neanderthal views more strongly than they warrant, which is throwing my perception of how proportionate they are.

Other times, I think - no, it really is as bad as I fear. And I fear that the internet - and digital communication platforms generally - are increasing the tribal mindset, reducing the amount of open-mindedness so crucial to any kind of intellectual growth. That people have gotten much more ideologically divided since the communications revolution (for want of a better phrase), and not in a healthy way.

One thing I can say is that it's not just the US. Or at least, if the US is going down, then the UK is going down with it. I think what we're all hearing said about Obama is coming from the same 'place' as what I read on British mainstream opinion platforms like the BBC and Sky News and even supposedly liberal blogs. A kind of mean-spirited anti-intellectualism.

In America's case, this is possibly made worse by latent racism, and by a deep culture of machismo that, it strikes me, has long run through US political debate and was always going to pounce on the skinny, cerebral liberal who showed the remotest sign of asking people to think.

What do you think? Is there a 90% silent majority of people who have reasonable views and just choose not to comment? (Btw, 'reasonable' doesn't have to equate to the same political position as yours or mine - it just has to be of a fairly decent quality.)

God I hope so. I hope these dickwads aren't indicative of our populations as a whole.

If they are, where is it all going wrong? And why does there appear to be no reverse gear?

[Deckard]

you don't waste any time do you? Do you have a fucking bat signal to alert you to go down the pole and put on your troll costume?
Oh god this made me laugh so much!!

[Sean]

John Harwood says it best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_dIUZiOQBA&feature=player_embedded). Seriously, you'll appreciate this...

[Deckard]

Absolutely, and that's the thing isn't it - many of these are parents with kids. :eek:

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Here's some good turning-tables type stuff, @ about 4 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqwfAjrgcn4


Although, I prefer Cooper in soft porn mode(volume @ zero, no idea what this is really trying to say):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4WZlVbt_A&feature=related

[Deckard]

Although, I prefer Cooper in soft porn mode(volume @ zero, no idea what this is really trying to say)
I think translated she's singing, 'This guy's a narcissistic jerk-off'

Anyway...

</offtopic>


What Politico have gleaned from "top aides" - what Obama will say in his address (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26794.html).

A preview to the preview, if you will. (The anticipation on this one is white hot!)

He's still got time to slip in some subliminal socialist mantra calling for the destruction of all whites.

[Deckard]

(Good on CNN for digging out that Bush clip btw)

[the mongoose]

When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me at 4:30 in the morning.


Get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox. I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for turning around schools that aren’t working. None of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those adults; and put in the hard work it takes.

Every single one of you has something to offer and you have a responsibility to discover what that is. You could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country.
You’ll need science and math to cure AIDS. If you don’t do that – you’re quitting on your country like my father quit on my family when I was two years old. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have.
I got a lot of second chances.

That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.
Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English when she first started school. I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so we can keep people from getting the flu. I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

Sometimes, you get the sense from TV that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things. But the truth is, you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time.
Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country. The story of America is about people who loved their country too much to do anything less.

It’s the story of students who went on to wage a revolution. So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? You’ve got to do your part so I expect you to get serious this year. Don’t let us down – don’t let your country down. Make us all proud. God bless you, and God bless America.


:D

[Sean]

Just sent the link to the text of the speech to that dumb-ass who sent me the facebook message. Here's what I wrote to him:


Hey Richard. In case you haven't read it yet, here's the text of Obama's speech to schools tomorrow:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

In it, you'll find such controversial remarks as: ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' and ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.'' Oh wait - sorry - those are quotes from a speech George H.W. Bush made to school kids back in 1991. Although I'm sure you must have been outraged by that too.

Okay, HERE'S a controversial quote from Obama's speech: ''Presidents don't often get the chance to talk directly to students, so today, for each of you sitting in a classroom or assembly hall, this message goes straight to you. Most of you are doing the right thing. But for those of you who let drugs make their decisions for them, you can almost hear the doors slamming shut.'' Oops! Sorry! My bad again. That's from a different speech George H.W. Bush made directly to students back in 1989. Okay, here's one from Obama's speech: "Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world. But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade." Damn. That's actually from a speech Reagan made to school kids in November of 1988 where he was pushing his policy positions regarding taxes on them. Wow. All these Presidential speeches to school kids to choose from!

Okay, no kidding around this time. Here's an honest quote from the actual Obama speech. "...at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed." That is indeed from Obama's speech. I invite you to highlight any other quotes you find that are worthy of the alarm that you and others have worked so hard to spread across the country. Because I'm having a real hard time understanding what it is we're supposed to be so outraged about.


I'm hoping he'll write back

[Strangelet]

I'm hoping he'll write back

classic. please share if he does.

[Deckard]

''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,''

''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart''

''work harder, learn more.''

Oh wait - sorry - those are quotes from a speech George H.W. Bush made to school kids back in 1991.
But can you imagine his son saying any of those things? :D

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

But can you imagine his son saying any of those things? :D


I bet it'd be a blast to party with him though.

[cured]

This whole uproar screams racism to me. Are people afraid of having their kids talked down to by a black man?

[Sean]

This whole uproar screams racism to me. Are people afraid of having their kids talked down to by a black man?It's hard not to think that racism is a contributing factor with members of the general public who are so outspoken about all this. With Republican politicians, it seems primarily motivated by a desire to destroy Obama and the Democrats by any means necessary in an effort to regain some semblance of power, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them have a sprinkle of racism tossed in there too.

[mmm skyscraper]

New York City started school today.

http://schools.nyc.gov/Calendar/default.htm

Guess they didn't need the speech. Although I assume they could still watch it later.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Can anyone ever recall a time in American History in which children were told to NOT listen to the President of the United States?

[cured]

Can anyone ever recall a time in American History in which children were told to NOT listen to the President of the United States?

No, that's why I figure there's a lot of racist tinge in this mess.

[Camiel]

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs245.snc1/9232_1214447488333_1443193716_30616115_5899548_n.j pg

[Sean]

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs245.snc1/9232_1214447488333_1443193716_30616115_5899548_n.j pgLove that.

[the mongoose]

Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) has spent about ONE MILLION Dollars of TAXPAYER/Campaign Contribution funds so far to the CA Law Office working for him to hide and keep sealed BHO's; Birth Certificate, School, College and University and other records, and this man BHO who promised us "transparency" is obviously going to great lengths and expense to hide important facts about his past:

Original, vault copy birth certificate: Not released (attorney's fees are estimated to be up to about $2 MILLION now, instead of HI birth certificate fee of under $20 bucks)
Certification of Live Birth: Released: Document Experts state it is a FORGERY http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008...exposed!.thtml (http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/22/obamas_born_conspiracy_obamas_bogus_birth_certific ate_exposed%21.thtml)
Obama/Dunham marriage license: Not released (if one exists)
Obama/Dunham divorce: Not released (discovered by independent investigators)
Kindergarten records: Not released; School claims records are"LOST" Records lost (this is a big one -- see here -- read two frames)
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license: Not released
Soetoro adoption records: Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application: Not released (discovered by independent investigators) Click here for proof/details.
Punahou School records: Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce: Not released (discovered by independent investigators) http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitze...ORODIVORCE.pdf (http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitzesq/documentation/SOETORODIVORCE.pdf)
Selective Service Registration: Not released (Obtained via Freedom of information act request; received FORGERY?)
http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitze...ion/SSSGov.doc (http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitzesq/documentation/SSSGov.doc)
Occidental College records: Not released
Passport: Not released, records scrubbed by Obama's terrorism and intelligence adviser.
Possible to have U.S. Passport without providing birth certificate, click here for more details.
Columbia College records: Not released
Columbia thesis; "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"; Not released
But an anti-war plan to disarm America article written by Obama was found;
http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitze...timilitary.pdf (http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitzesq/documentation/obamaantimilitary.pdf)
Harvard College records: Not released
Harvard Law Review articles: None
Illinois Bar Records: Not released
Illinois Driver's License Record: Not released (discovered by independent investigators) Click here for details.
Baptism certificate: None
Medical records: Not released
Illinois State Senate records: None
Illinois State Senate schedule: UH..., "LOST"
Law practice client list -- Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles: None



Barack Obama’s anti-gun policy:

* 1994 to 2001 - Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.

* 1996 - Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

* 1999 - Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.

* 2003 - Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.

* 2004 - Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.


FACT: Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of 2 of the 5 Justices that affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.



>>>OOPS!<<< (http://www.youtube.com/v/H2o2fKbLJc8&hl)




= a lot of well founded scrutiny from concerned parents worried about his character, even though it was indeed a pretty "clean" speech.


Plus, you know that they probably changed any of the content they need to ahead of time once they knew it was getting so controversial. :p

[Deckard]

Barack Hussein Obama (BHO).......
All this stuff you've posted over the last week or so.... people here are doing a good job of dismantling your assertions, but I now realise, they're missing the point, aren't they? I just want you to know, mongoose, I get it.

A delightfully convincing satire on bunker-mentality paranoia in contemporary America with its first non-white for president.

Genius.

You had me going for a while there, but it just became too much of a parody towards the end, and impossible to take seriously.

Still, well done. You've made the point better than any of us could have. :)

[BeautifulBurnout]

a lot of well founded scrutiny from concerned parents worried about his character, even though it was indeed a pretty "clean" speech.

You mean concerned parents worried that the President might not have been born in the US because some internet nutter says he can identify the birth extract as being fake from a scanned image? Concerned parents who are worried that little Johnny can't have his Uzi 9mm when he is 16?

I would be more concerned about those concerned parents if it was me....

[the mongoose]

I'd actually be more concerned with the fact that he's used around 40 SSNs and hundreds of addresses in his political career.

List of properties and social security numbers associate with Barack Obama and family

The person who generated the list of names, addresses, and SSNs is Mr. Neil Sankey, a former British policeman who’s now a licensed private investigator in Los Angeles.



[Edited as we don't need a phone book-type list published to make a point.]

[BeautifulBurnout]

Mongoose

If you have a point, give us a link to a website that is making that point. Please don't print pages and pages with dozens of names and addresses of people who you allege are all Barrack Obama on it.

And I would genuinely like to see the link you took it from.

Has it occurred to you that there might be more than one person out of 300 million in the USA who is called Barrack Obama though?

Edit:

Looks like the "Birthers" are turning on their own now, though (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14978528/Taitz-Hale-Complaint-05-04-2009). Berg and various associates are suing Orly (such a good name in the circumstances) Taitz for disseminating addresses and social security numbers. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but this is what frequently happens when conspiracy theories start to crumble...

[Strangelet]

i had gay sex with obama in the back of a limo. (http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/)

[BeautifulBurnout]

LOL

Just following in the footsteps of half the Religious Right, then :D:D

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

THAT's who I'm gonna blame!

& the mongoose is kinda creeping me out.

[the mongoose]

Obama creeps me out...

part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM7L4SDGdqU

part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ztgZkwhbDk

[Sean]

All this stuff you've posted over the last week or so.... people here are doing a good job of dismantling your assertions, but I now realise, they're missing the point, aren't they? I just want you to know, mongoose, I get it.

A delightfully convincing satire on bunker-mentality paranoia in contemporary America with its first non-white for president.

Genius.

You had me going for a while there, but it just became too much of a parody towards the end, and impossible to take seriously.

Still, well done. You've made the point better than any of us could have. :)I've been wondering if this was the case myself. But even if it is, I'm totally over it. I get my fill of idiots like birthers, tea-party tools and such on the news every day. Don't need a satire of it here, too.

So which is it? Does Mongoose actually believe this stuff, or is it all in the name of satire?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Goddammit mongoose.

Pause at 28 seconds, O.K. Not so.

"Liberals", i.e. poor people & not poor people on the left, "Neo-Cons(I'm quite all right using 'con' in place of conservative BTW)", i.e. poor people & not poor people on the right, all do the same dirty sexual positions* in various forms, volume, & styles. Everyone likes sex, but Western culture has developed from "Puritan" values and we're supposed to be ashamed when we get horny. Or something. I'm not watching the rest, it's crazy-talk that draws attention from the real problems facing the country.

*eeek, and this right here, I'm not referring to sexual intercourse. Then I figured, f**k it, while we're at it, let us include that part too. So much been going on as of late to back up my arguement. If ya-know-what-I-mean-kinda-way-thing.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Goddammit mongoose.

Pause at 28 seconds, O.K. Not so.

"Liberals", i.e. poor people & not poor people on the left, "Neo-Cons(I'm quite all right using 'con' in place of conservative BTW)", i.e. poor people & not poor people on the right, all do the same dirty sexual positions* in various forms, volume, & styles. Everyone likes sex, but Western culture has developed from "Puritan" values and we're supposed to be ashamed when we get horny. Or something. I'm not watching the rest, it's crazy-talk that draws attention from the real problems facing the country.

*eeek, and this right here, I'm not referring to sexual intercourse. Then I figured, f**k it, while we're at it, let us include that part too. So much been going on as of late to back up my arguement. If ya-know-what-I-mean-kinda-way-thing.

Hmm... Sounds like those vids are NSFJ*


(*Not Safe for Janies)

;)

Seriously, though. As a result of Mongooses earlier posts, I decided to google a bit and came up with some truly crackpot stuff - claim and counter claim from Dr Orly Taitz Esquire (does the poor woman not realise that the soubriquet "Esquire" denotes a man in English? Bless her heart.)

She's bonkers.:eek: There is no other way to describe the woman. Her affidavits "proving" that Obama's birth certificate is a fake do nothing of the kind; her libellous attacks on Philip Berg's assistant are utterly hilarious.

Is this really what your great nation has been reduced to? Rush Limbaugh and Orly Taitz "Esq."?

Like the fall of Rome, all the loony-toons seem to be there front and centre...

The decline of the American Empire...:(

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Hmm... Sounds like those vids are NSFJ*


(*Not Safe for Janies)

;)


The decline of the American Empire...:(


Oh, Really?

[Sean]

Hmm... Sounds like those vids are NSFJ*


(*Not Safe for Janies)

;)

Seriously, though. As a result of Mongooses earlier posts, I decided to google a bit and came up with some truly crackpot stuff - claim and counter claim from Dr Orly Taitz Esquire (does the poor woman not realise that the soubriquet "Esquire" denotes a man in English? Bless her heart.)

She's bonkers.:eek: There is no other way to describe the woman. Her affidavits "proving" that Obama's birth certificate is a fake do nothing of the kind; her libellous attacks on Philip Berg's assistant are utterly hilarious.

Is this really what your great nation has been reduced to? Rush Limbaugh and Orly Taitz "Esq."?

Like the fall of Rome, all the loony-toons seem to be there front and centre...

The decline of the American Empire...:(Still yet to be determined just how big a percentage believes this rubbish. But I think it's safe to say that it's a small, VERY vocal percentage.

And incidentally, you KNOW you're pushing the boundaries of rationality when you inspire a focused, clear point out of jOHN! :eek: Well done! :D

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

And incidentally, you KNOW you're pushing the boundaries of rationality when you inspire a focused, clear point out of jOHN! :eek: Well done! :D

Careful Mr. sean, you'd be surprised how easy it would be for one to point out the areas where YOUR rational has been wrong.

Trust me, I never lie where it matters.

[Sean]

Careful Mr. sean, you'd be surprised how easy it would be for one to point out the areas where YOUR rational has been wrong.

Trust me, I never lie where it matters.Oooooooo.....I'll be very very careful. :rolleyes:

Have at it any time you'd like jOHN.

[Deckard]

Perhaps these couple of links from the Daily Dish should have gone in the healthcare thread, but it's more about the 'strange anger' I guess:

Not Racism; Projection (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/not-racism-projection.html)

Not Racism; Projection? Ctd. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/not-racism-projection-ctd.html#more)

They're only brief so I won't pull out quotes beyond the closing comment from Sullivan:

I should say I'm not endorsing this view by publishing it; I think the opposition to healthcare reform is perfectly legitimate and may well be an entirely logical position for many enraged at Obama. But the rage itself, the spluttering ire directed at this young president who inherited one of the worst legacies in modern times? I can't explain it myself.

[Sean]

Perhaps these couple of links from the Daily Dish should have gone in the healthcare thread, but it's more about the 'strange anger' I guess:

Not Racism; Projection (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/not-racism-projection.html)

Not Racism; Projection? Ctd. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/not-racism-projection-ctd.html#more)

They're only brief so I won't pull out quotes beyond the closing comment from Sullivan:Very interesting theories. They certainly sound realistically possible.

[Strangelet]

its a great explanation for why these knuckleheads toggle on the fly between Obama as Stalin and Obama as Hitler. It also explains the emotional satisfaction of using enemies of american culture from pop fiction like Obama as The Joker, It also pretty much explains Glenn Beck's blubbering white ass as a movement participant. If there's a segment of the american population who's got the furthest to fall when faced with the reality of American crimes, foreign and domestic, its mormon white suburbia.

But it doesn't lay enough blame on Glenn Beck as a movement demagogue. It would be interesting to research the attitudes of the great unwashed during the Carter administration. Because I know that Clinton was just as hated as Obama, and vilified in the same fashion by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, g gordon liddy, michael reagan, etc. A lot of factors muted the vitriol, but I remember plainly that corporate conservatives didn't just disagree with Clinton, they demonized him on similar emotional pleas and frothing abuse. To the point where I was happy Bush got elected so the lot of them might just STFU.

I guess I'm saying that what I personally see happening is pyschological, but of a definite religious bent. The same psychological factors that shape a new religiion and its members seem to be at play in the authority driven movements against Obama. They have a creed. They have charismatic hero personalities. They have an eschatology. They have a body of myths about themselves and the world. They definitely have what they consider to be a code of ethics, and I think they are/will be more and more willing to sacrifice humanist principles to follow their ethics.

In this sense they should be treated as a radical political cult, not unlike the nazis.

[cured]

BEHOLD! The tea party protesters take to DC!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

[Strangelet]

In this sense they should be treated as a radical political cult



BEHOLD! The tea party protesters take to DC!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

case rested. Interesting to see the mysticism of conspiracy theories, political allegiance, and christianity blending like stomach acid and street tacos to form an vomit of new religious matter

I would be more concerned if they didn't look like they were between visits to sizzler steakhouse.

[Deckard]

...blending like stomach acid and street tacos to form an vomit of new religious matter

I would be more concerned if they didn't look like they were between visits to sizzler steakhouse.
Haha genius!
(you should be on TV ;) )

Interesting that you say Clinton was just as hated. I didn't really pick up on it at the time. Small mercies that blogs and youtube weren't around back then.

[Strangelet]

Interesting that you say Clinton was just as hated. I didn't really pick up on it at the time.

it seeeeeemed that way. I don't know how you can objectively measure it. There are some differences of course. Clinton enjoyed a big economic boom and had a republican congress to mollify the butt hurt conservatives. So things were able to appear smoother.

However, Rush Limbaugh already had a rapt audience of gloomy nodders getting their marching orders daily, Ken Starr had the independent council seeking every angle from paula jones to vince foster as ways to bring down the clintons. And the neo con movement admit themselves that their new brand of conservatism was a response to the clinton era and what they deemed to be the straying of american foreign character.

But bottom line, yeah, my impression is that it isn't specifically obama. the religious right will never be willing to compromise no matter how solidly they are demoted to the kids table.

[dubman]

anyone in this thread mention yet how people hate being wrong and all the 'secret muslim' crap from before november has just found a new avenue along with giving regular cons an excuse to get pissy without it looking like racism?

people with batshit opinions form one or five or ten years ago dont go away, they just restructure the same thing.

[Sean]

anyone in this thread mention yet how people hate being wrong and all the 'secret muslim' crap from before november has just found a new avenue along with giving regular cons an excuse to get pissy without it looking like racism?

people with batshit opinions form one or five or ten years ago dont go away, they just restructure the same thing.The "secret Muslim" stuff hasn't gone away amazingly enough. You can still see it on display at the "tea party" gathering from last weekend (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y) that Cured linked, and you can see it from one of the "tea party" organizers himself on Anderson Cooper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fymdNxn82M). More specifically, he called Obama an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief", and then defended this statement by saying "...that's the way he's behaving!"

I've never seen anything like this in the U.S.A. on such proud display during my lifetime.

[the mongoose]

Is this interviewer being a racist for questioning why Obama is grinning like a fucking hyena:
http://www.youtube.com/v/jQK4sBVzg54


Another glaringly racist interview:
http://www.youtube.com/v/OmWYIxfZr_w&hl
http://www.youtube.com/v/a0b1LtsfKNU


Good God, the racists are coming out of the fucking woodwork...and Obama's not even an "official member", so fucking biased that CFR is. I mean even Angelina Jolie is an official member, how racist!:
http://www.youtube.com/v/D5fh-kl2nS4&hl=en

http://www.youtube.com/v/_Qy97pFDLig&hl=en


How dare this racist whitey clarify a freudian slip?!?:
http://www.youtube.com/v/bMUgNg7aD8M&hl=en





Bottom line, just remember that ONLY white people can be racists and liars!;)

http://www.youtube.com/v/DKpnCrHWU4c&hl=en

[dubman]

ho ho ho


ohhh, if anyone still gives a shit about this thread this is gonna be good.

[Strangelet]

ho ho ho
ohhh, if anyone still gives a shit about this thread this is gonna be good.

this thread? Its the entire fucking country that's turned into redneck theatre's presentation of "how far can I shove my head up my ass and not pass out."

My born again boss at lunch just explained to us that Barrack means "lightning" and bama means sky in aramaic, the language of jesus christ, and that in matthew it says that satan will come in the form of lightning from the sky. All I could choke out is well I guess that's worse than being born in Kenya.

Chances are things will end up more despotic at the end of this, and the dollar really does have the ability to utterly collapse to a point where it will have to just be replaced, and there is a chance that what replaces it will be multinational. But I don't blame anyone for this more than I do people like Mongoose. Its on their shoulders because they simply *refuse* to go off script and actually face reality. NO no, its too much fun looking for subliminimiminibabable messages. The only comfort is the loons end up turning on themselves, like this quality video giving air tight proof that Ron Paul is just a NWO patsy to give the illusion that people of mongoose's ilk has a political ally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x6inINzThw



Is this interviewer being a racist for questioning why Obama is grinning like a fucking hyena:
http://www.youtube.com/v/jQK4sBVzg54


its pretty obvious he's laughing at people like you

[BeautifulBurnout]

OK.

I realised a long time ago that there are some seriously Loony Tunes people in the States.

I just didn't realise quite how bad it was.

So Obama is the anti-Christ?

FFS.

Those guys are off their heads. Seriously. :eek:

[cacophony]

Is this interviewer being a racist for questioning why Obama is grinning like a fucking hyena:
http://www.youtube.com/v/jQK4sBVzg54
i'm not sure i understand why this video was selected to make your point.

[dubman]

OK.

I realised a long time ago that there are some seriously Loony Tunes people in the States.

I just didn't realise quite how bad it was.

So Obama is the anti-Christ?

FFS.

Those guys are off their heads. Seriously. :eek:

any form of degenerate dialogue with a shred of plausibility to anyone who cant/wont think critically and takes the "logical path" shown to them will make its way out there by people who can talk really fucking loud. this isnt special to the US, but news has been a business for a long time, and it's obvious that we've gotten very good at fine-tuning these things. "making stuff up" is too diabolical, i dont even think the networks have a political agenda for it. presenting the right balance of actual news with "commentators" to color it as breathlessly as possible tells people whats happening and narrows down the dialogue to keep people tuned in. even if people think theyre smarter and dont buy it, they're talking about it on the network's terms. if people actually go whole hog and believe it, that's even better because those people end up in the street shouting it all back at them.

people are terrible. they were terrible against bush, they are terrible now. you can tell the tea-baggers that Rick Santelli, who originally suggested the "symbolic act" on CNBC, was paid off to lay the astroturf and they'll still think that they didnt just get chumped and made into pawns.

since this is mostly 101 stuff, i'm just saying it so that me also saying that there's something more than just looney tunes at work isnt coming out of the blue. this still feels constructed, albeit differently. it's not the chaos of the news network's L.C.D., it feels more like the networks are the ones being marketed to based on their own formula. like a committee looked out to tap a natural resource of people too pissed off to think straight, sure, but also with a subfocus of exploiting the subtelties of racial relations that cant possibly be understood on a national level without inciting a reverse-victim complex. it works too well.

white guys cannot talk about race, guys cannot talk about women, able-bodied people cannot talk about the disabled. most cant even address the idea of a cultural minority without soon feeling like they're being attacked, and then arguing with others' own perspective so that theirs still works. lecturing, socratic elenchus, and condescending to give them any other list of reasons because someone obviously needs to be educated. this happens everywhere on the internet and several times here. so: you start talking racism on tv, and do it long enough, the news stories of "white conservatives say it's time for their own empowerment (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-white-victimhood17-2009sep17,0,2618101.story)" slime out and the topic will make people who'd rather not address anything substantial roll their eyes out of 'overexposure'. because it's easier to believe that you're just being put upon to feel guilty rather than face the interesting idea that your cultural approach to race, sex, and identity might completely play into a form of oppression. it's not hard to understand overexposure, you keep generating news stories about race, you let the smart and the dumb bat back and forth and make fun of each other, and eventually you kill the dialogue by making the topic fall out of favor.

the astroturf that created what's generously being called a new political party was born out of corporate interest. these interests went through PR firms that went through news channels that became best-sellers. this kind of machination isnt a stretch, but it's definitely "strange" (as the thread title has it) because it's a new level in a very eerie way.

[Strangelet]

the astroturf that created what's generously being called a new political party was born out of corporate interest. these interests went through PR firms that went through news channels that became best-sellers. this kind of machination isnt a stretch, but it's definitely "strange" (as the thread title has it) because it's a new level in a very eerie way.

No it absolutely isn't a stretch. But corporations, like banks, or journalists, or governments or all four in cahoots are always doing what is in their interest, what everyone else is simply doing around them, and whatever they can get away with. So you can pretty much chalk up corporate dickheadedness as a constant in this equation.

What's a variable is just how much they can get away with, and how little people resist. Things like regulator capturing, lobby pressured law making, monopolies, favoring subsidies, etc have rose and fell in magnitude since the beginning.

So the question has become what is it about now that has made this corporate take over so potent, and the resistance so withered, and the people who should be outraged at the particular, glaring corruption so devoid of common sense or reason. Not to pick on him, as he's clearly a drop in the bucket, but how does someone like mongoose, who obviously means well and wants to make things better, end up getting a hard on when obama says "muslim faith" but yawns at the all too real examples of corporate corruption that is literally beating him in the face on a daily basis.

I firmly believe that americans, to stereotype, want to do the right thing. which is why they end up doing such awful things because someone succeeded in convincing them it was right and good. And that's only compounded by the fact that the government has so perfectly grafted the american christian church onto it and corporations have so perfectly grafted the government onto it, so that now its really easy to make it an ethical argument to say, not does it make uncle sam happy when you shop at walmart, it makes jesus happy too. Not only are liberals against capitalism, they are against God. This is *precisely* the reason why dialog has been so degenerated, and why talking to mongoose is not unlike talking to a street preacher about evolution.

My interest is not to make fun or condescend or sneer at people like Mongoose. My interest is to shame them into dropping the bullshit. That convincing them of giving up the pretense they have it all figured out and it starts with the knights templar is what is really good and right and what will make jesus the happiest.

[Sean]

OK.

I realised a long time ago that there are some seriously Loony Tunes people in the States.

I just didn't realise quite how bad it was.

So Obama is the anti-Christ?

FFS.

Those guys are off their heads. Seriously. :eek:Why get concerned about facts now? This is a country where a full third of the population firmly rejects the idea of evolution - far more than in any other western nation. One study (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html) found that "the U.S. has a tradition of Protestant fundamentalism not found in Europe that takes the Bible literally and sees the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of the creation of human life." This is basically comparable to refusing to accept that the world is round (or slightly oblong if you want to get technical). So why should Obama get any more consideration than a proven, fundamental process like evolution?

As for Mongoose, I unfortunately hazarded a look at his last post, and I have to wonder who he's arguing against. Did someone here claim that any and all questioning of or opposition to Obama is motivated by racism? Most intelligent people raising racism have been clear that it's likely just one of many factors that influence opposition to Obama's policies. Not even Obama himself has claimed that racism is the overriding, motivating factor. Legitimate, thoughtful, constructive questions and criticisms are great. But the dumb-asses who attend rallies with signs depicting Obama as an African witch-doctor (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/art.obama.protest.sign.cnn.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/index.html&usg=__mxb3te9lWQfPG92mjIhzl9RPCj0=&h=219&w=292&sz=18&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=xF27FcvwN6uCEM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=115&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bafrican%2Bwitch%2Bdoctor%2Bsi gn%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN %26um%3D1) and the like should probably take a moment to look at themselves in the mirror while carrying said sign, and think long and hard about what's actually motivating them. I somehow doubt that in their case, it's a legitimate, thoughtful or constructive question or criticism.

[Rog]

Barack Obama’s anti-gun policy:

* 1994 to 2001 - Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.

* 1996 - Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

* 1999 - Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.

* 2003 - Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.

* 2004 - Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.


FACT: Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of 2 of the 5 Justices that affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.



and you think these are bad things?????????????:eek:

[Sean]

and you think these are bad things?????????????:eek:I'm just wondering what the hell any of that list about guns has to do with what this thread's actually about. Although I guess it ties together just as well as the thinking behind morons bringing AK-47s to health care reform townhalls. Maybe Mongoose should start up a new thread especially for anyone who wants to spout every ignorant conspiracy theory that's been floated about Obama, from the "birthers" to the "death panelers", to the people who still believe Obama is Muslim, to the people who claim he's a "racist", etc.

And by the way, since you've chosen to use it Mongoose, what exactly motivates you to refer to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama"? And keep in mind that we're not idiots, so just saying "well that's his name, isn't it?" is probably not going to be accepted as an honest answer. Obama himself doesn't generally go by that full name, and no one aside from his most fervent opponents refer to him by it, so realistically, it probably has nothing to do with just being thorough in identifying him. I know that in most cases, the name "Hussein" is raised in a blatantly transparent attempt to make him sound scary to people who are predisposed to being afraid of Muslims and various other middle-easterners (oddly enough, many of whom also do happen to have racist tendencies), but I really do want to know what your personal reasoning is behind using it.

[Strangelet]

another dynamic in the states that I find interesting is our battered housewife relationship to government.

In canada I noticed that newspapers scream bloody murder at the emergence of levels of corruption that would simply just be shrugged off in the states. We tend to be more cynical and just act like that's the way governments are supposed to act.

Part of the reason universal health care works in places like the UK and Canada at all is that the people take on a level of ownership of government and take responsibility for who they elect. It is understood that you must consider a candidate's ability to not turn a government program as their own personal gravy train.

That's part of my reservation about single payer, universal healthcare in America. It will mean we have to take responsibility in our government, and participate in the management of its handlers by the democratic process, as opposed to just expecting it to work like a mcdonald's drive thru. We'll have to bag language like "track record" and "typical government waste" when dismissing the problems of government.

And all of this is so far removed from the way americans relate to their government currently, that I wonder if it isn't best kept in the hands of corporations that are just better regulated and forced to provide unconditional healthcare.

You can't vote out corporations, like you can a government that squandered health care and reduced the quality of service. That being said you don't have to work or put any effort into them either. just money.

[Deckard]

And by the way, since you've chosen to use it Mongoose, what exactly motivates you to refer to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama"? And keep in mind that we're not idiots, so just saying "well that's his name, isn't it?" is probably not going to be accepted as an honest answer. Obama himself doesn't generally go by that full name, and no one aside from his most fervent opponents refer to him by it, so realistically, it probably has nothing to do with just being thorough in identifying him. I know that in most cases, the name "Hussein" is raised in a blatantly transparent attempt to make him sound scary to people who are predisposed to being afraid of Muslims and various other middle-easterners (oddly enough, many of whom also do happen to have racist tendencies), but I really do want to know what your personal reasoning is behind using it.
Let's be honest, there is no credible reason for using his middle name, other than the one you describe above.

Short of admitting this, there's very little that the name-caller can do, beside:

(a) disingenuously play dumb ("it's his name")
(b) disingenuously backtrack ("it's just a joke... i'm winding you guys up...")(c) do a disappearing act.

Let's see, shall we.....

[Deckard]

Part of the reason universal health care works in places like the UK and Canada at all is that the people take on a level of ownership of government and take responsibility for who they elect. It is understood that you must consider a candidate's ability to not turn a government program as their own personal gravy train.

That's part of my reservation about single payer, universal healthcare in America. It will mean we have to take responsibility in our government, and participate in the management of its handlers by the democratic process, as opposed to just expecting it to work like a mcdonald's drive thru. We'll have to bag language like "track record" and "typical government waste" when dismissing the problems of government.

And all of this is so far removed from the way americans relate to their government currently, that I wonder if it isn't best kept in the hands of corporations that are just better regulated and forced to provide unconditional healthcare.
That's an interesting way of looking at it.

[cacophony]

i keep laughing at the phrase "radical anti-gun group." they want to pry that gun from your cold dead hands RADICALLY. with crowbars and barcode tattoos and acid spitting vipers!


also, every time i look at the title of this thread i read "stranger danger at obama..."

[Deckard]

Bit disturbed to read (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6853965.ece) that there's been a 400 per cent surge in death threats against Obama since earlier this year.

Just bizarre. Seemingly one of the most intelligent, rational and calm presidents the US has had, still in the early stage of his time in the White House, yet for some, he's the most worthy of disdain.

Can't help but wonder if Bush had this many death threats given his contribution to America - and the world - while in office. Presumably, mongo will tell us we only hear about Obama's death threats because he's black?

Damn that PC commie liberal organization, the secret service.

[Sean]

Bit disturbed to read (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6853965.ece) that there's been a 400 per cent surge in death threats against Obama since earlier this year.

Just bizarre. Seemingly one of the most intelligent, rational and calm presidents the US has had, still in the early stage of his time in the White House, yet for some, he's the most worthy of disdain.

Can't help but wonder if Bush had this many death threats given his contribution to America - and the world - while in office. Presumably, mongo will tell us we only hear about Obama's death threats because he's black?

Damn that PC commie liberal organization, the secret service.Personally, I was always solidly opposed to the taunts against Bush along the lines of "not my President", or comparing him to Hitler and whoever else, or any of the other over-the-line crap that happened during the Bush administration. I opposed it because it doesn't take a genius to realize that it would all come back magnified once the tables turned. So in part, I think the amount of complaining is motivated by a sense of revenge on the part of Republicans. I've even heard some conservative pundits admit as much. They had to sit through years of MoveOn and such putting out anti-Bush propaganda that often strained the limits of truth (to put it mildly), and now is their chance to do the same thing back to Democrats.

That being said, one big difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are far more likely to be armed. Take for instance the morons who feel it's somehow appropriate to bring guns to townhall meetings about health care. Although an NPR article about it (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/obama_townhall_gun_toters_have.html) points out the upside of people showing up clearly armed:

"By openly carrying their weapons, the gun toters are at least easily identifiable to law enforcement, including Secret Service sharp shooters who, for all we know, are watching them intently through the cross hairs of their scopes."

Anyway, we saw tons of passionate anti-Bush protests, but no one ever showed up to them with a loaded gun that I recall. And I shudder to think what would have happened to them if they did.

Beyond that, no matter how dishonest much of the opposition to Bush ever was, I don't recall anything on the level of the "birther" movement and others like it confronting him. So I guess I attribute it to a variety of factors, from legitimate opposition to Obama's policies, to revenge, to racism. And I'm definitely uneasy about where it's all headed.

[Deckard]

Yeah, that's exactly it.

Liberals may have been sanctimonious and misguided at times during the Bush era, and I'll admit there was almost an enjoyment in presenting Bush as the neoconservative, Bible-bashing, fuckwit with evil Cheney pulling his strings - but (trying as hard as I can to be objective) I maintain we had rather a lot more to base that on than the right currently do with Obama!
( ^^sorry, too near bedtime for me to sort through the grammar)

What seems to characterize the current mood of the right is
(a) their sheer stupidity
(b) their strangely visceral reaction, and the very real sense that it could tip over into violence.

[Strangelet]

Yeah, that's exactly it.

Liberals may have been sanctimonious and misguided at times during the Bush era, and I'll admit there was almost an enjoyment in presenting Bush as the neoconservative, Bible-bashing, fuckwit with evil Cheney pulling his strings - but (trying as hard as I can to be objective) I maintain we had rather a lot more to base that on than the right currently do with Obama!


Exactly. Isn't the problem not so much the constant attacks, but the sheer stupidity of the attacks, on both left and right? In which case there's never an excuse to be stupid.

For example. Dick Armey will take any criticism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozpmFcZgMsw&feature=related)that his tea-bagging movement shelters obama=hitler nuts by saying Moveon.org "ran those ads that compared bush to hitler" when 1. it was never created by moveon.org, it was created by a forum user for a contest, 2. it was never run by moveon.org but taken down from their website promptly after complaints about the ad started coming in.

So I guess the equation for Dick Armey is for every one smug liberal film student we can brush off an army of hostile tea baggers as just part of the political environment? Sean you were right to object to the vitriol against Bush for this reason, as you saw how this would play out. I'm just frustrated because I think the conservative players and pundits like Armey are being very disingenuous passing the buck to past cases of liberal tastelessness - they don't see a connection as much as they see a convenient scapegoat for their own interests.

Meanwhile, the GOP itself did in fact run ads against democratic senators juxtaposing them with pictures of osama bin laden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNxcRaHSGTI) when they simply didn't go toe to toe with Bush policies.

And lets not forget what happened to the dixie chicks. I'm sure plenty of radio stations in berkeley have played toby kieth without any drama.

So to be honest, my perspective was that even in the bush hay day years, there was a competition between mob justice against liberals who dared not fall in line and the liberal/anarchist demonstrators who screamed "baby killer."

My thoughts are that all complaining, all attacks are great, so long as they aren't stupid. Regardless of where they point, they are a good thing. And that's part of my frustration with the mongooses of the world. We have to spend our time arguing about birth certificates and who's being more racist, the mixed race president or the angry marshmallow spewing hate 4 hours a day from florida? When really there are plenty of good reasons to get on Obama's case.

Frankly Obama is a huge disappointment to me. He's like the popular easy going student body president in high school who just wants to get the goths and the preppies together for a year of unity. Fuck unity.

And while we're at it, anybody realize we have more private military contractors on the government payroll now than we did under Bush?

I mean jesus Mongoose, do I have to do your job for you?

[Sean]

Case in point (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/29/franks-aide-clarifies-enemy-of-humanity-comment/)...

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A spokeswoman for a Republican congressman who called President Obama "an enemy of humanity" said Tuesday that he should have clarified that he was talking about the president's policies on abortion.

Bethany Haley, a spokeswoman for Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, told CNN on Tuesday the congressman was actually referring to "unborn humanity" — a specific reference to the president's policies on abortion.

Franks used the term in a speech to conservative activists Saturday in St. Louis, pointing to Obama's decision to aid international family planning clinics that perform abortions.

"A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can't do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity," Franks said.

Franks' speech was recorded by the liberal group People for the American Way.

In an interview with the Washington Independent after the speech, Franks also renewed a call for Obama to produce a copy of his birth certificate to end the questions by "birthers" who doubt the president's birthplace. Franks said he had once considered filing a lawsuit to get it, but did his own investigation and became convinced that the president was born in the United States.

Haley called the controversy a "silly debate" and said it is "ridiculous that the president doesn't just produce [the birth certificate] and make it go away." In the interview, Franks implied that the president might be trying to hide something else.

"Probably, Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers, you know, back off, by simply showing us his long-form birth certificate," Franks said. "That'd solve the problem. There's some other issue, I don't know what it is, that he doesn't want people to see the birth certificate on."

So in one speech, this tool calls the President an "enemy of humanity", and then feeds the "birther" movement's rabid idiocy. Has it occured to Franks that perhaps Obama hasn't accomodated "birthers" with his long-form birth certificate because doing so would mean then having to accomodate every nutty, unfounded demand of every group of idiotic whack-jobs out there trying to delegitimize the President? A legal copy of Obama's birth certificate that has been verified by Hawaii's director of the Department of Health, as well as the Registrar of Vital Statistics is available for anyone to see (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html). If that's not enough for the dumb-ass "birthers", then nothing will be.

[the mongoose]

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

[taoyoyo]

Gawd bless Murica, these are strange times indeed.

[dubman]

what a perceptive look into the minds of our top military leaders today. thanks internet.

[stimpee]

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry*snip*

Nice copy paste of an article that seems to have been posted on newsmax.com and then swiftly removed. wonder why :rolleyes:

[Sean]

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.Just wanted to quote the whole thing so that you wouldn't be able to take it down like Newsmax did, Mongoose. Don't want to lose this kind of evidence regarding Deckard's point about threats against Obama. So what do you think of the article? In light of your support of "birthers", of the "death panel" concept, of the belief that Obama wants to take away all your guns and everything else you've shared here, I have to assume you think this is a super, bang-up article that you maybe even hope will come to pass. But that's a huge assumption, so I'd like to hear it from you before reaching a definite conclusion about it.

Incidentally, as I'm sure most people have heard by now, Newsmax took down the article and claimed that they have no relationship with this writer other than him being an unpaid blogger who's post they hosted. Yet in the Newsmax biography about him (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/09/coup-columnist-john-perrys-long-history-with-newsmax.php?page=3), Perry is described as an "award-winning newspaper editor and writer" who "contributes a regular column to Newsmax.com."

[Strangelet]

I have to assume you think this is a super, bang-up article that you maybe even hope will come to pass


That's my impression of conspiracists, or even the faithful when they discuss the apocalypse in church. They all respond to these horrific disgusting theories with a sense of excitement and enjoyment. Like in their heart of hearts they want to see their nonbeliever neighbors burn in flames and their own country ripped apart. In each case, they'll be the exception, they'll always be a member of the elect that is preserved from the atrocities. And afterward, utopia will be realized and all the corruption cleansed. For them its never about solving the problem, its about blowing up the chalk board.

I got news for you mongoose, if Obama were to get offed, your whole arcadian middle class white life style of malls and video games will probably be the most threatened its ever been.

Anyhoo, Since its so fashionable to dress this current state of affairs like the 30's, take a look at this military coup plot that was targeting FDR in
'34. A rough 80% of the news back then was controlled by monopoly just as it is now. Failed american capitalism spawns interest in socialism and fascism, each side polarizing away from the middle. A liberal, charismatic, populist president is in charge during economic hardship. Elite corporate interests are at loggerheads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot


The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was a reported political conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28political%29) in 1933 which involved wealthy businessmen plotting a coup d’état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9tat) to overthrow United States President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_President) Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt). In 1934 retired Marine Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps) Major General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_General_%28United_States%29) Smedley Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler) testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_committee) that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#cite_note-0) In the opinion of the committee these allegations were credible. One of the purported plotters, Gerald MacGuire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_MacGuire), vehemently denied any such plot. In their report, the Congressional committee stated that it was able to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire which it considered more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#cite_note-1) However, no prosecutions or further investigations followed. While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of "wild scheme" was contemplated and discussed.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#cite_note-burk-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#cite_note-schmidt226-3)



One thing I think is starkly different between FDR and Obama is FDR was genuinely liberal. Obama is just smarter than 99% of his critics and black, so he makes up with these two dynamics as far as stoking the fire beneath him.

[the mongoose]

Spot on:

>>>CLICK<<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL3QeUF6CKQ)





:D

[stimpee]

Spot on:

>>>CLICK<<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL3QeUF6CKQ)





:Dtheyre scraping the barrel a bit there arent they? just search around and you'll find plenty of evidence of what Obama has done. And compared to GW Bush at least he's actually IN the white house and not on vacation. Bush spent more time on vacation than any other president in history.

[Sean]

And once again, the idea that Obama has done nothing in his first year in office can only be thought of as "spot on" if you ignore those pesky facts. Feel free to peruse this comprehensive recap of everything the Obama administration has been doing (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/44.president/first.100.days/progress.report/index.html) so far in regards to the economy, energy, health care, education, military conflicts, diplomacy, and domestic security. Just click on any of the tab headings below "Progress Report" for more details on a particular subject. The amount of stuff that's been done is far too extensive for me to try to summarize here.

Or, you can just ignore the facts yet again and stick to your unfounded, preconceived conclusions. But you may be interested since one of the many things he's done is, on March 24th, to pass a $700 million plan to bolster security resources at the U.S./Mexican border (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/obama.mexico.policy/index.html) - despite your assurances that he wants to "insure all of Mexico"! Strange that.

But my personal favorite was his reversal of Bush's limits on federal funding for stem cell research (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/09/obama.stem.cells/index.html). Or maybe it's his green energy initiatives, like putting control of additional emissions goals in the hands of State governments (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/26/obama.emissions/index.html) so they can legally require more improvements to emissions than federal law currently mandates. And of course, Republican Senator George Voinovich didn't like that, saying "I am fearful that today's action will begin the process of setting the American auto industry back even further," or in other words, "I am fearful that today's action will begin the process of me losing some political support from big businesses".

Either way, it's impossible to factually claim nothing's been done. Not that facts ever seem to have gotten in your way before...

[Strangelet]

snl should own up to the fact their grasp of political satire left with dennis miller back in the early 90's. Its a different game and one much better handled on the comedy network.

Here's a great breakdown of the assertions made in the skit versus reality


Here at PolitiFact, however, we're tracking Obama's 515 promises with our Obameter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/), which rates them as Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works and No Action.
Just for fun, we thought we'd go through Saturday Night Live's checklist and match it up with the promises we've rated on the Obameter.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/05/saturday-night-live-obama-campaign-promises/

Its more nuanced, but it really doesn't look that great to be honest. But much of the standstill is clearly a result of things getting stuck in the mire of congress and the military. A congress that holds a super majority of democrats that should just allow his agenda to be steamrolled into being signed into law.

I heard an activist talking in a church say this to his audience: "Not only is Obama not going to be able to save you, you're going to have to save Obama." I think that's God's gospel.

My criticism of obama, if I were to think about it, is a criticism of american government in general and the democratic party in more particular. Jon Stewart did a much more precise job of owning the dems in this video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/stewart-destroys-dems-for_n_305948.html

If you believe, as I do, that the health care mess is largely consequent of the insanity of the fox news backed tea party movement, then its largely consequent of Obama not stepping up and fighting for the cause. I've seen more fire from the comedy network than from the white house.

Then there's the bailout. I don't think it was meant to be a conspiratorial pillaging of our country's wealth to the bankers, that's just what its turned out to be.

[Strangelet]

its about damn time.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/8/791090/-Lightbulb-Goes-On-At-The-White-House


All the criticism, both fair and misleading, took a toll, regularly knocking the White House off message. So a new White House strategy has emerged: rather than just giving reporters ammunition to "fact-check" Obama's many critics, the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims, like the assertion that health-care reform would establish new "sex clinics" in schools. Obama, fresh from his vacation on Martha's Vineyard, cheered on the effort, telling his aides he wanted to "call 'em out." [...]
White House officials offer no apologies. "The best analogy is probably baseball," says Gibbs. "The only way to get somebody to stop crowding the plate is to throw a fastball at them. They move."

[the mongoose]

So instead of giving important facts to be checked, they are turning into a media police that is cross checking the garbage they want us to swallow with whatever free speech is left in the press, and attempting to discredit anyone who says anything off the beaten script. That's fucked and to clap and cheer over this you'd fit right in with this bunch......>>>Click<<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDa5G0czkTY)

[Strangelet]

So instead of giving important facts to be checked, they are turning into a media police that is cross checking the garbage they want us to swallow with whatever free speech is left in the press, and attempting to discredit anyone who says anything off the beaten script. That's fucked and to clap and cheer over this you'd fit right in with this bunch......>>>Click<<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDa5G0czkTY)

Sheep.

It literally hurts to type a response to you, but I'll expend the effort. I would personally prefer that the white house stay out of the media circus and not be a player. To simply provide information from which the media can fact check their critics : that was their initial strategy.

It wasn't working, because it waaaaay over-estimated the maturity and intelligence of their critics that they would really even bother listening to arguments that threatened their dogma. It also over-estimated the media that they wouldn't completely pander to the loud and obnoxious, allowing it to fester into a movement, an entire dick armey of tea-baggers, as it were.

I want Obama to do his job and stand up and fight, not for himself, but for the truth of the problems facing this country, all blurred by the psychoses of people like yourself. And that's what I find most repugnant about your posts. You think you're unpopular on here because everyone is unthinking obama yes-bots.

You're unpopular because you're an intellectual meat head committing daily crimes against truth out of some arrogant need to demonize Obama. Its not that I'm unwilling to listen to criticism of Obama when I have so many complaints myself. All I hear after pages and pages of this stupid thread is a toddler with a poopy diaper throwing their blocks at the tv screaming "I hate you!"

Look man, Obama is your president. If you really can't handle it, and you can't justify your anger with reasons, and you refuse to question and inform yourself outside of your small bag of convictions, perhaps you should just do america a favor and spend the next three and a half years masturbating to girls gone wild in your bedroom. Seriously, disappear. that's the best thing you can do for your country. Let the adults discuss the problems while you go to beddy bye.

[Sean]

It literally hurts to type a response to you, but I'll expend the effort. I would personally prefer that the white house stay out of the media circus and not be a player. To simply provide information from which the media can fact check their critics : that was their initial strategy.

It wasn't working, because it waaaaay over-estimated the maturity and intelligence of their critics that they would really even bother listening to arguments that threatened their dogma. It also over-estimated the media that they wouldn't completely pander to the loud and obnoxious, allowing it to fester into a movement, an entire dick armey of tea-baggers, as it were.

I want Obama to do his job and stand up and fight, not for himself, but for the truth of the problems facing this country, all blurred by the psychoses of people like yourself. And that's what I find most repugnant about your posts. You think you're unpopular on here because everyone is unthinking obama yes-bots.

You're unpopular because you're an intellectual meat head committing daily crimes against truth out of some arrogant need to demonize Obama. Its not that I'm unwilling to listen to criticism of Obama when I have so many complaints myself. All I hear after pages and pages of this stupid thread is a toddler with a poopy diaper throwing their blocks at the tv screaming "I hate you!"

Look man, Obama is your president. If you really can't handle it, and you can't justify your anger with reasons, and you refuse to question and inform yourself outside of your small bag of convictions, perhaps you should just do america a favor and spend the next three and a half years masturbating to girls gone wild in your bedroom. Seriously, disappear. that's the best thing you can do for your country. Let the adults discuss the problems while you go to beddy bye.Spot on post.

[dubman]

cant remember if i read it in this thread or in an article but whoever pointed out that there's a lot of people, who were very flustered by the hyperventilating claims of the left, that are now kinda relishing the idea of throwing the same apocalyptic garbage right back are pretty spot on. regardless of approach, principles, actions, or style, the opportunity to be the underdog getting fucked with just seems too irresistable to not play up.

never mind that it's one of several things that make politics and forums circuitous and depressing.

i dont recall any warnings from the white house going "watch what you say" guy, it's just playing fact-checking against fact-checkers. grow a pair.

[cured]

CNN fact checked the SNL skit about Obama from the other night. Pretty scary when a media giant thinks that's a good use of resources.

Strangelet: high five!

[the mongoose]

need to demonize Obama

http://www.somameds.com/Obama_Satan_Choicecopy.jpg

[Deckard]

You need to return to the website from where you hotlinked that image, and re-stock up on their produce.

[the mongoose]

http://www.somameds.com/wash3_dees.jpg

[Deckard]

Yay! A David Dees illustration complete with cackling politicians and sheeple!

(Careful though, your ruse is lurching a little too far into self-parody at this point)

[dubman]

going all "i need to photoshop a frown on george washingtons face. and tears"

[the mongoose]

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/obama-nwo.jpg

[Deckard]

http://i37.tinypic.com/2gujs4x.gif

[the mongoose]

http://ichatz.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/nes-1.jpg

[Deckard]

http://i34.tinypic.com/24bmfwh.jpg

[Sean]

(Careful though, your ruse is lurching a little too far into self-parody at this point)I have to agree, although I don't understand what would motivate someone to pretend to be so stupid....

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Deckard, who is that in your post #95? It's, just..., ...right there, but I cannot match a name and it's driving me crazy.

[Deckard]

Richard Dawkins.

[the mongoose]

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

[stimpee]

Okay so what did Obama actually SAY in his speech to the kids in school? I think I missed it, and trawling through this thread has just revealed that the mongoose knows how to paste childish pictures from other sites rather than engage in meaningful and intelligent conversation. can someone please enlighten me? what was all the fuss about? did that guy on facebook ever reply?

I'm thinking about disabling inline images on the world forum.

[Sean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAivL-QOImwAh. Climate change denial, an impending Communist world government, Obama signing our "freedom, democracy and prosperity" away FOREVER....Lord Christopher Monckton has all the makings of a top-notch moron...

Okay so what did Obama actually SAY in his speech to the kids in school? I think I missed it, and trawling through this thread has just revealed that the mongoose knows how to paste childish pictures from other sites rather than engage in meaningful and intelligent conversation. can someone please enlighten me? what was all the fuss about? did that guy on facebook ever reply?

I'm thinking about disabling inline images on the world forum.Here's a link to the text of the speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/). It contained such horrible and controversial statements as:

"...at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed."

But then things like the reality of what was said in this benign, in fact clearly positive speech is generally ignored by those who rabidly oppose Obama. Because the real goal isn't to expose truth, or make the country a better place. The real goal is to foment controversy, opposition, fear and paranoia of Obama in the run-up to this speech and anything else he does - like the stupidity on full display in Mongoose's link above. It's all purely political in it's motivations, and the ignorant masses are the ones who suffer for it.

[Strangelet]

I can't believe I'm saying this but mongoose might have a small point, no doubt a point he made unwittingly....

I don't think politicians are the right people we should be looking towards for solving energy crises. Its not just climate change, its the depletion of oil and the outpacing demand versus supply. In each case its our underlying foundational sources of energy that is the problem.

from a times uk article.... (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1813006.ece)


This is not the postapocalyptic vision of some film-maker, but a realistic scenario as Britain grapples with a looming energy crisis. The statistics are frightening. In only eight years, demand for energy could outstrip supply by 23% at peak times, according to a study by the consultant Logica CMG. The loss to the economy could be £108 billion each year.
“The idea of the lights going out is not a fantasy. People seem to accept that security of energy supply is a right. It is not. The industry will have to work hard to maintain supply and for that we need a clear framework,” said Simon Skillings, director of strategy and energy policy at Eon UK, Britain’s largest integrated energy company.

The UK has two worn out nuclear reactors about to be scrapped, coal has been increasingly replaced by gas from the north sea to generate power, but those stocks are dwindling.

Maybe a suite of incentives, subsidies, taxes, and carbon caps, can steer the western free-ish markets into the right direction without shocking them, and that's assuming that maybe those attending cophenhagen are smart enough to figure out the recipe, and that's assuming that maybe they'll all agree and not have it cause more political hinderence through negative reactions. But that's a lot of maybes.

If I were Obama, I would say, oi. chill. I've got 600 billion dollars to spend that miraculously didn't go to the banks and the iraq war to invest in massive, unprecedented investment to engineering and scientific research outside of any corporate or political obligations.

[Sean]

Since this seems to have become the kind of all-purpose U.S. politics thread, I thought it may be a good place to link this Republican Party Census form (http://web.campaignsolutions.com/rnc/2009surveycensus/?initiativekey=F5BMW17GUXCG) from the RNC website. I was blown away by the level of manipulation going on in it. Here are a few of the most blatantly leading questions, but it's worth browsing through them all...

5. Do you oppose the Obama National Energy Tax, also known as “cap and trade,” which would skyrocket your utility bills and destroy jobs while having virtually no impact on the environment?

1. Do you oppose the Obama-Pelosi health care takeover plan that would bring Washington bureaucrats between doctors and patients, ration medical treatment and deny critical care while skyrocketing the national debt?

1. President Obama recently signed an executive order mandating taxpayer dollars be spent to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Should Republicans pass legislation to repeal this executive order?

1. If Barack Obama tries to gut the USA PATRIOT Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans in Congress fight back?

[the mongoose]

Yes to all of those.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Choice.

[Sean]

Yes to all of those.That's "yes" to all of the most dishonest, leading, so-called "census" questions from the RNC? But wait, didn't you say...

I'm a Democrat, I never watch Fox, and I hated Bush's job in command as well.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

It's time to start being honest. If you're a Republican, that's fine. I have no issue with Republicans unless they're being douche-bags. Same with Democrats and my own group of registered independents for that matter. But if you're just being a poop-stirrer, then why not fess up?

[Strangelet]

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/idiots_article_large.article_large.jpg

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nations_morons_march_on_washington


Throughout the day, the number of protesters grew to include not just morons, but more than 6,000 nimrods, 3,500 dunderheads, and approximately 12,000 of the biggest fucking dipshits known to man.

"No Social Security for Medicare!" Michigan idiot Kevin Liston added. "Not in my backyard!"