Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Arnold jr on October 08, 2010, 10:32:49 AM
-
333, not sure if you posted this already, so I apologize if this is a repeat but even if it is, I feel it deserves its own thread.
Obama to kill more jobs
Americanthinker.com ^ | September 13, 2010 | Joseph Mason
The latest job killing initiative by Barack Obama: focus new taxes on the oil and gas industry.
Just last week, President Obama explicitly targeted the industry for two massive tax hikes. First, he'd ban oil and gas companies from using the "Section 199" tax credit, a measure for domestic manufacturers enacted in 2004 to boost US employment. (The Senate is set to vote this week on its version of the ban.) Second, he wants to end "dual capacity" protection for US energy firms.
Without this shield against double taxation on foreign revenues, American companies would be competing on an uneven global playing field. Again, Obama aims directly and specifically at the US oil and gas industry.
Yet, by the federal government's own economic model, these tax hikes would lead to huge, immediate job losses. I ran the numbers through the Commerce Department's RIMS II model; it shows, under the proposed changes to Section 199 and dual capacity, Americans would almost immediately lose more than 150,000 stable, private-sector jobs.
By repealing the tax credit US-based companies claim on the taxes they pay abroad, Obama's "stimulus" plan would effectively double-tax American businesses -- driving investment to foreign competitors that don't face the same tax burden.
Again, Obama is enriching foreign oil companies at the expense of domestic ones. He has done this previously when he extended billions in loans to the Brazilian oil company Petrobras with extensive offshore oil programs through the U.S. Export-Import Bank, while trying to kills off offshore oil exploration in the Gulf by our companies.
Obama did it again this past week when the Ex-Im bank extended another billion in loans to support Mexican oil development in the Gulf. Obama seems to relish the opportunity to redistribute power and wealth to foreign countries and companies at our expense.
Why?
As Dinesh D'Souza writes, not only is Barack Obama the most anti-business President in American history but he seems to relish the opportunity to enrich and empower foreign companies at the expense of American ones. D'Souza speculates this is a legacy of Obama's immersion in foreign cultures as a child and the anti-colonial views of his father. American companies were seen as greedy and rapacious. His father railed against neo-colonialism where foreign companies replaced foreign government officials as the ruling power in the third world. His Indonesian stepfather worked for an American oil company in Indonesia and earned far less and lived a lesser lifestyle than American executives posted there. Also, Obama feels Americans use too much energy and that the lesser-developed nations should be entitled to use more, at our expense. What better way than to extend our tax dollars to foreign oil companies?
This strategy also is a way to further to enrich promoters of green schemes that benefit Democratic donors. The stories are accumulating of politically connected Democrats plugged into green schemes that depend on government powers that be, since the economics don't exist-being showered with government money-that they recycle into Democratic campaigns.
America, Obama is just not into us.
-
Throw a copy into my daily running thread.
I plan on hanging that thread around every obama voters' neck in 2012.
-
Proof of Obama trying to collapse the nation is in my thread on this.
I know it seems crazy guys - but if you do any research on this guy, like Arnold and I have, there is no other reasonable conclusion to this.
It is intentional.
-
Reagan, Bush1 and Clinton all raised taxes
I guess they were tying to "intentionally collapse the nation"
Funny - the only POTUS who actually came close to collapsing the nation was Bush2 and he lowered taxes
-
Reagan, Bush1 and Clinton all raised taxes
I guess they were tying to "intentionally collapse the nation"
Funny - the only POTUS who actually came close to collapsing the nation was Bush2 and he lowered taxes
Go look at my thread Straw. This is not a damn joke anymore. He funds petrobas to drill in the gulf but sacks domestic companies for trying to do the same thing? Why is that?
At a time where the economy is on life support - who in their right mind does this? Serious - who the hell does this knowing the results will be more job losses and misery other than someone intent on collapsing the system.
I am reading Rules for Radicals by saul Alinsky and it is eery the amount of stuff in there that Obama repeats word for freaking word.
-
Go look at my thread Straw. This is not a damn joke anymore. He funds petrobas to drill in the gulf but sacks domestic companies for trying to do the same thing? Why is that?
At a time where the economy is on life support - who in their right mind does this? Serious - who the hell does this knowing the results will be more job losses and misery other than someone intent on collapsing the system.
I am reading Rules for Radicals by saul Alinsky and it is eery the amount of stuff in there that Obama repeats word for freaking word.
just saying, if Obama is really trying to intentionally collapse the country then he should do what Bush did because right around Sept/Oct/Nov of 2008 it sure looked like we were heading in that direction
-
just saying, if Obama is really trying to intentionally collapse the country then he should do what Bush did because right around Sept/Oct/Nov of 2008 it sure looked like we were heading in that direction
He is!
What don't you get? He is smarter than maybe even i gave him credit for in the public statements and persona he portrays while concealing the true intent of his policies.
He is not going to come out and say "I want to collapse the nation" because he knows he would get impeached tommorow. Instead, he presents these straw man arguments and diversions to the public all while poldding along with these crazy policies intended to undermine the system, collapse it from within, and all folling the Cloward & Piven model.
There is simply no explanation for his actions at this point as he has been told from Day 1 that these policies are simply reckless in times like these. So why would he pursue them?
ObamaCare? Geez dude - look at that mess! I spent months warning of the drastic threat that was and the most likely outcome and guess what? We are already there! the system is collapsing from within due to this disaster.
Straw - you need to wake up and realize that obama is not who you thought he was. He is a dedicated socialists/marxist intent on collapsing the system because he utterly detests this nation and everything it stands for.
-
just saying, if Obama is really trying to intentionally collapse the country then he should do what Bush did because right around Sept/Oct/Nov of 2008 it sure looked like we were heading in that direction
lmfao and exactly what did bush do to cause that strawman?
-
lmfao and exactly what did bush do to cause that strawman?
I'll let you decide on that
can you remember back to the last quarter of 2008 when we were supposedly days away from a global banking collapse and hemoraging jobs?
If Obama really wanted to collapse the nation (whatever that even means) he should just do what Bush was doing at that time
that's all I'm saying
-
I'll let you decide on that
can you remember back to the last quarter of 2008 when we were supposedly days away from a global banking collapse and hemoraging jobs?
If Obama really wanted to collapse the nation (whatever that even means) he should just do what Bush was doing at that time
that's all I'm saying
LMAO please give me specifics...
I can specifically give you a number of things that obama has intentionally done that have harmed the economy so please specifically what did bush do?
-
I'll let you decide on that
can you remember back to the last quarter of 2008 when we were supposedly days away from a global banking collapse and hemoraging jobs?
If Obama really wanted to collapse the nation (whatever that even means) he should just do what Bush was doing at that time
that's all I'm saying
There are some similarities with Bush2 and Obama but there are also drastic differences. Bush has some big government progressive tendencies, no one is denying that. He made some poor decisions, the federal government grew far too large under Bush, no one's denying that.
Obama, he doesn't have progressive tendencies, he is a progressive through and through, a true anti-colonialist, a true fabian socialist.
Bush loved the system America is built on, but he did make decisions that were damaging to it. Obama hates the system America was built on, he finds it evil and unfair and makes no bones about it.
Bush based all his decisions on what he felt was for the good of the country, what he thought was for the good of the economy and free-market. Obama makes his decisions on what he believes is fair globally and puts the U.S in the back seat when making his decisions.
Bush, made mistakes but his biggest concern was the U.S.. Obama's last concern is the U.S. global fairness, social utopia is his only concern.
-
Again - i refer everyone to DSouzas book, my thread on Obama and the economy, his statements, and especially the below clips. Who other than someone who hates the system says these things.
-
Raise the taxes but give them an incentive, something they can do to not pay those taxes like reduce their carbon footprint, or hire more full time employees.
-
Check out this gem.
________________________ _____________
October 07, 2010
Categories:White House.MTV screening Obama's audience for views, looks
The Backstage.com listing:
PRESIDENT OBAMA TOWN HALL, MTV
MTV, BET and CMT are casting the audience for town hall meeting with President Obama. Shooting Oct. 14, 4 p.m. in Washington, D.C.
Seeking—Audience Members: males & females, 18+.
To apply, email townhallaudience@mtvnmix.com and put “Town Hall” in the subject line. To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name, phone number, hometown, school attending, your job and what issues, if any, you are interested in or passionate about. Also, provide a recent photo and short description of your political views. Submission deadline: Oct. 14. No pay.
Kelly McAndrew, a spokeswoman for Viacom, which owns MTV, said the screening was aimed at attracting a diverse audience.
"We’re just trying to get the broadest, most diverse audience possible," she said, denying that either Republicans or ugly people would be screened out. "We want to have divergent points of view – we’re not looking for a single-view audience."
"We’re going to have a very diverse looking audience," McAndrew said. "We want gender diversity, we want ethnicity diversity, we want religious diversity, we want political view diversity. We want diversity of all kinds."
(h/t Geraghty)
-
Check out this gem.
________________________ _____________
October 07, 2010
Categories:White House.MTV screening Obama's audience for views, looks
The Backstage.com listing:
PRESIDENT OBAMA TOWN HALL, MTV
MTV, BET and CMT are casting the audience for town hall meeting with President Obama. Shooting Oct. 14, 4 p.m. in Washington, D.C.
Seeking—Audience Members: males & females, 18+.
To apply, email townhallaudience@mtvnmix.com and put “Town Hall” in the subject line. To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name, phone number, hometown, school attending, your job and what issues, if any, you are interested in or passionate about. Also, provide a recent photo and short description of your political views. Submission deadline: Oct. 14. No pay.
Kelly McAndrew, a spokeswoman for Viacom, which owns MTV, said the screening was aimed at attracting a diverse audience.
"We’re just trying to get the broadest, most diverse audience possible," she said, denying that either Republicans or ugly people would be screened out. "We want to have divergent points of view – we’re not looking for a single-view audience."
"We’re going to have a very diverse looking audience," McAndrew said. "We want gender diversity, we want ethnicity diversity, we want religious diversity, we want political view diversity. We want diversity of all kinds."
(h/t Geraghty)
I'll be shocked if they allow any anti-Obama people in that thing and if they do, they will pick the biggest redneck idiots they can find.
-
Proof of Obama trying to collapse the nation is in my thread on this.
I know it seems crazy guys - but if you do any research on this guy, like Arnold and I have, there is no other reasonable conclusion to this.
It is intentional.
Conspiracy Theory
-
Conspiracy Theory
One of the words in your post is right.
It's important to know, not all conspiracies are theories, there are actual real ones. People throw that phrase around so much "conspiracy theory" that it automatically discredits real conspiracies in peoples minds regardless of the blatant evidence.
-
LMAO please give me specifics...
I can specifically give you a number of things that obama has intentionally done that have harmed the economy so please specifically what did bush do?
still waiting for specifics straw...
i can rattle off a list of things that obama has done that has had a directly negative effect on the economy pls tell me what bush has done... ;)
-
Conspiracy Theory
Is it a CT? In one sense, yes and I try to back my assertions with stories, opinions, and evidence supporting the theory.
Is there another explanation for the daily insanity we see?
-
There are some similarities with Bush2 and Obama but there are also drastic differences. Bush has some big government progressive tendencies, no one is denying that. He made some poor decisions, the federal government grew far too large under Bush, no one's denying that.
Obama, he doesn't have progressive tendencies, he is a progressive through and through, a true anti-colonialist, a true fabian socialist.
Bush loved the system America is built on, but he did make decisions that were damaging to it. Obama hates the system America was built on, he finds it evil and unfair and makes no bones about it.
Bush based all his decisions on what he felt was for the good of the country, what he thought was for the good of the economy and free-market. Obama makes his decisions on what he believes is fair globally and puts the U.S in the back seat when making his decisions.
Bush, made mistakes but his biggest concern was the U.S.. Obama's last concern is the U.S. global fairness, social utopia is his only concern.
Great post
-
what does a "collapsed nation" look like
how does Obama and his cadre of communist co-conspirators benefit in the "post collapse" America
-
As if Obama was the first and last President that has been gutting and destroying the USA? ::) Fucking just about every President before him since the 60's has been destroying this country. Republican and Democrat. Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Bush I/ Bush II, and now Obama. They are all bought and paid for by corporations and banks.
-
what does a "collapsed nation" look like
how does Obama and his cadre of communist co-conspirators benefit in the "post collapse" America
He has everything to gain.
You're missing the point, no one is saying that "post collapse" America doesn't exist or anything. The point is to collapse the current system, that system being the one we've had for 200+ yrs and put a new one in it's place that is one of government reliance.
-
He has everything to gain.
You're missing the point, no one is saying that "post collapse" America doesn't exist or anything. The point is to collapse the current system, that system being the one we've had for 200+ yrs and put a new one in it's place that is one of government reliance.
I never suggested America wouldn't exist. I asked what it would look like "post collapse"
I know most right wingers here think the health care legislation is part of his secret plan but we've had medicare/medicade for years and social security even longer.
The healthcare legislation is not going to change much, if anything other than hopefully stopping some of the most agregious abuses by insurance companies.
Other than heallcare what is going to cause this so called collapse and what exactly does Obama gain (other than going down in history as causing the aformentioned collapse)
-
I never suggested America wouldn't exist. I asked what it would look like "post collapse"
I know most right wingers here think the health care legislation is part of his secret plan but we've had medicare/medicade for years and social security even longer.
The healthcare legislation is not going to change much, if anything other than hopefully stopping some of the most agregious abuses by insurance companies.
Other than heallcare what is going to cause this so called collapse and what exactly does Obama gain (other than going down in history as causing the aformentioned collapse)
I don't think it's just "Right Wingers" that have a problem with all of this. Obama is continually losing support from independents and several who typically identify themselves as left-leaning.
The idea of all this is to take away responsibility from the individual and rest the responsibility on the shoulders of the government. The idea is to create what Obama views as "fair" in the realm of personal liberty. The idea is for others to decide how much you are allowed to have. The basic idea is to create a nanny state because the idea is "They know better than you."
The health care bill was the first big step towards all of this because you can put anything on this earth under "health care" that's why there are so many random things in that bill that really have nothing to do with health care. It's also going to destroy insurance companies, this has already started, it is slowly but surly making being in the business of selling health insurance completely unprofitable and guess what, as much as it pains some people to think insurance companies should earn a profit, the truth is they have to or they can't remain in business and provide insurance. Yes, there needs to be regulation but not at the expense of the industry altogether.
-
Straw - I just finished dSouzas new book as well as Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I have read Creature from Jeklyll island, Hazlitts Econ in one lesson, and many others recently.
I am 1000% convinced Obama is seeking to collapse the nation and achieve revolutionary "change'. Straw - if you read alinsky's book, Obama parrots many of the ideas, themese, even actual phrases in there word for freaking word like.
Obama is not dumb in the sense that he does not know the ffects of his policies, he does, and that's why he is pushing them. He is smart in that he knows he cant be honest with the public since he knows that the public hates his goals and policies by an large. This is why he does almost no public press conferences despite the need for them, reliance on the teleprompter, and speaks almost always in generalities and never specifics of his policies.
If you look at the totalitiy of obama's agenda, obamacare, cap and trade, finreg, auto takeover, school loan takeover, etc etc, using the EPA to shut down domestic energy producers and impose mandates and regs impossible to meet, his goal is to collapse the existing system by making is unworkable, let it collapse, and then 'transform" it into a socialist/marxist model which is his true intention. He even admitted as much on health care if you look it up.
And its not only health care and cap & trade, its support for the mosque, civilian trials for terrorists in NYC, radicalizing the DOJ, suing Arizona, the gates affair, etc etc - all of which are meant to undermine the existing fabric of the nation he knows is a center right politic. His goal is to undermine, depress, and make the average american completely overwhelmed by a feeling of helplessness such that they beg for him and the govt to take over and run the economy, their lives, and literally everything.
Obama has revealed all of this in a few different venues. I posted a clip where he said his biggest gripe with the constitution is that it is one of "negative liberties" to where it only deals with what the government "cant do to you" and not "what it should do on yourbehalf" Its essentially a complete repudiation of what this nation was founded upon and he believes the force of his charachter is enough to usher this transformation in because most of the public is uninformed, ignorant, apathetic, and somehwat trusting of him. He also uses his race to his advantage in that he knows he can get away with a lot more, and suffer a lot less scrutiny from the msm, out of fear of the racial accusations, etc etc.
I know all of this sounds outlandish, but when you read the actual history of this man, his statements, his past, his influences, the obvious outcomes of these crazy policies, the many times people have warned him not to pursue these things, one can only come to the conclusion that Obama is intending to collapse the existing structure and hope that the populace is willing and desirous of a socialist marxist state.
BTW - if you think i am making this up on the economic stuff, go look through my thread on obama the job destroyer.
-
Again - i refer everyone to DSouzas book, my thread on Obama and the economy, his statements, and especially the below clips. Who other than someone who hates the system says these things.
BUMP - listen to these clips carefully morons.
-
still waiting for specifics straw...
i can rattle off a list of things that obama has done that has had a directly negative effect on the economy pls tell me what bush has done... ;)
still waiting for specifics straw...
obama passed health care, finreg, is letting tax cuts expire, talking about cap/trade all during a recession where stability is key to moving the economy forward...
what did bush do again? :D :D :D
-
Straw - I just finished dSouzas new book as well as Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I have read Creature from Jeklyll island, Hazlitts Econ in one lesson, and many others recently.
I am 1000% convinced Obama is seeking to collapse the nation and achieve revolutionary "change'. Straw - if you read alinsky's book, Obama parrots many of the ideas, themese, even actual phrases in there word for freaking word like.
Obama is not dumb in the sense that he does not know the ffects of his policies, he does, and that's why he is pushing them. He is smart in that he knows he cant be honest with the public since he knows that the public hates his goals and policies by an large. This is why he does almost no public press conferences despite the need for them, reliance on the teleprompter, and speaks almost always in generalities and never specifics of his policies.
If you look at the totalitiy of obama's agenda, obamacare, cap and trade, finreg, auto takeover, school loan takeover, etc etc, using the EPA to shut down domestic energy producers and impose mandates and regs impossible to meet, his goal is to collapse the existing system by making is unworkable, let it collapse, and then 'transform" it into a socialist/marxist model which is his true intention. He even admitted as much on health care if you look it up.
And its not only health care and cap & trade, its support for the mosque, civilian trials for terrorists in NYC, radicalizing the DOJ, suing Arizona, the gates affair, etc etc - all of which are meant to undermine the existing fabric of the nation he knows is a center right politic. His goal is to undermine, depress, and make the average american completely overwhelmed by a feeling of helplessness such that they beg for him and the govt to take over and run the economy, their lives, and literally everything.
Obama has revealed all of this in a few different venues. I posted a clip where he said his biggest gripe with the constitution is that it is one of "negative liberties" to where it only deals with what the government "cant do to you" and not "what it should do on yourbehalf" Its essentially a complete repudiation of what this nation was founded upon and he believes the force of his charachter is enough to usher this transformation in because most of the public is uninformed, ignorant, apathetic, and somehwat trusting of him. He also uses his race to his advantage in that he knows he can get away with a lot more, and suffer a lot less scrutiny from the msm, out of fear of the racial accusations, etc etc.
I know all of this sounds outlandish, but when you read the actual history of this man, his statements, his past, his influences, the obvious outcomes of these crazy policies, the many times people have warned him not to pursue these things, one can only come to the conclusion that Obama is intending to collapse the existing structure and hope that the populace is willing and desirous of a socialist marxist state.
BTW - if you think i am making this up on the economic stuff, go look through my thread on obama the job destroyer.
it doesn't sound outlandish, it sounds stupid at best and crazy at worst
Dems (and even some Repubs) have been pushing for health care reform for 50+ years and what we have so far hasn't even been implemented yet so no one has even felt the benefits
There was no "take over" of the auto industry and the student loan reforms just got rid of sweet heart/no lose deals for banks. Nothing is stopping banks from makeing student loans
Just because other far right nut jobs write books about this nonsense doesn't make it true
-
I don't think it's just "Right Wingers" that have a problem with all of this. Obama is continually losing support from independents and several who typically identify themselves as left-leaning.
The idea of all this is to take away responsibility from the individual and rest the responsibility on the shoulders of the government. The idea is to create what Obama views as "fair" in the realm of personal liberty. The idea is for others to decide how much you are allowed to have. The basic idea is to create a nanny state because the idea is "They know better than you."
The health care bill was the first big step towards all of this because you can put anything on this earth under "health care" that's why there are so many random things in that bill that really have nothing to do with health care. It's also going to destroy insurance companies, this has already started, it is slowly but surly making being in the business of selling health insurance completely unprofitable and guess what, as much as it pains some people to think insurance companies should earn a profit, the truth is they have to or they can't remain in business and provide insurance. Yes, there needs to be regulation but not at the expense of the industry altogether.
Obama is losing support from Independents and Democrats for not being more liberal and doing more of what he promised on the campaign trail
Private insurance compnaies will still exist, just like they still exist in England and just like the FedEX, DHL, etcc.. still exist in spite of the fact that we have a public postal system
the FinReg bill sucks and I've said so since the beginning but mostly because it did nothing to regularate credit defualt swaps or the bond rating agencies which were at the crux of the financial meltdown
-
Raise the taxes but give them an incentive, something they can do to not pay those taxes like reduce their carbon footprint, or hire more full time employees.
Do people really not understand what employees are for?
You start a business because you believe you have the ability to produce some kind of "good" that people "need." You believe you can produce the goods cheaper than you will sell them for and hope that there is enough of a "market" of buyers to allow you to earn a profit.
Employees are hired when demand is high enough to require more production than you can do alone.
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE FOR.
Employees aren't hired because of tax incentives.
Maybe I didn't pay attention before, but the garbage I've heard about "jobs" in the past year has me completely dumbfounded.
People really seem to have no idea what an employee actually is.
You don't create jobs by "creative policies."
Who the fuck thinks that businesses are going to hire an UNNEEDED employee $30k (or possibly much more..) a year in order to get a $5,000 tax
break? The businesses aren't hiring because they don't need the employees. There isn't enough WORK for them. People aren't buying shit.
I'm literally astounded by the job "plans" I see being discussed by the elected officials.
Why the fuck am I going to hire someone I don't need...someone I don't have work for...someone I have to pay a shit ton of money every week to just sit there.....so that I can get a minor tax incentive?
You want me to hire employees?
Get rid of the uncertainty about my future taxes.
Give me a reason to think the economy is going to rebound.
Give me a reason to think that people will return to buying goods at a higher rate.
Quit loading me with restrictions and growth smothering regulations so that I can try to grow my business (i.e. have a need for more workers) without being punished for it.
Business don't hire employees because "people need jobs."
They hire employees because people are buying their products, they take the risk of expanding their production.....and NEED employees to fuel that expansion.
-
Do people really not understand what employees are for?
You start a business because you believe you have the ability to produce some kind of "good" that people "need." You believe you can produce the goods cheaper than you will sell them for and hope that there is enough of a "market" of buyers to allow you to earn a profit.
Employees are hired when demand is high enough to require more production than you can do alone.
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE FOR.
Employees aren't hired because of tax incentives.
Maybe I didn't pay attention before, but the garbage I've heard about "jobs" in the past year has me completely dumbfounded.
People really seem to have no idea what an employee actually is.
You don't create jobs by "creative policies."
Who the fuck thinks that businesses are going to hire an UNNEEDED employee $30k (or possibly much more..) a year in order to get a $5,000 tax
break? The businesses aren't hiring because they don't need the employees. There isn't enough WORK for them. People aren't buying shit.
I'm literally astounded by the job "plans" I see being discussed by the elected officials.
Why the fuck am I going to hire someone I don't need...someone I don't have work for...someone I have to pay a shit ton of money every week to just sit there.....so that I can get a minor tax incentive?
You want me to hire employees?
Get rid of the uncertainty about my future taxes.
Give me a reason to think the economy is going to rebound.
Give me a reason to think that people will return to buying goods at a higher rate.
Quit loading me with restrictions and growth smothering regulations so that I can try to grow my business (i.e. have a need for more workers) without being punished for it.
Business don't hire employees because "people need jobs."
They hire employees because people are buying their products, they take the risk of expanding their production.....and NEED employees to fuel that expansion.
^^^^^^^What he said!!!
-
There are some similarities with Bush2 and Obama but there are also drastic differences. Bush has some big government progressive tendencies, no one is denying that. He made some poor decisions, the federal government grew far too large under Bush, no one's denying that.
Obama, he doesn't have progressive tendencies, he is a progressive through and through, a true anti-colonialist, a true fabian socialist.
Bush loved the system America is built on, but he did make decisions that were damaging to it. Obama hates the system America was built on, he finds it evil and unfair and makes no bones about it.
Bush based all his decisions on what he felt was for the good of the country, what he thought was for the good of the economy and free-market. Obama makes his decisions on what he believes is fair globally and puts the U.S in the back seat when making his decisions.
Bush, made mistakes but his biggest concern was the U.S.. Obama's last concern is the U.S. global fairness, social utopia is his only concern.
i find it hilarious that you and 3333386 have done research yet you believe "bush" and obama are responsible for these fucked up decisions.... these two figure heads aint running the show trust me
-
still waiting for specifics straw...
obama passed health care, finreg, is letting tax cuts expire, talking about cap/trade all during a recession where stability is key to moving the economy forward...
what did bush do again? :D :D :D
Ill take your silence as "I have nothing" straw...
-
i find it hilarious that you and 3333386 have done research yet you believe "bush" and obama are responsible for these fucked up decisions.... these two figure heads aint running the show trust me
I find it annoying and beyond frustrating when someone such as yourself makes a statement like "Trust Me" with no facts behind it. OK, fine, I'll trust you when you present an argument, build a case for your argument, provide some evidence, show that you've done some research, etc.
For example, the next presidential election, you tell me to vote for guy number one because guy number two is bad. I ask, "why is guy number two bad?" and then you say, "He just is, trust me." Come on, can you see how ridiculous that is?
1. Lay out your argument
2. Build a case around your argument
3. Present evidence that supports your argument
4. Present an opinion based on that evidence
5. Close your argument
Anyone can do this, it's not hard. The only time it can't be done is if the argument is false.
-
I challenge every single one of you to go read Rules for Radicals by Alinsky with an open mind and report back. Things obama has written, said, represented, and proclaimed are literally WORD FOR WORD out of there.
And people who say : "they are all the same" - please go the fuck away. If you have nothing else to add to the discussion, why do you even bother posting in these threads?
The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with an administration fundamentally at war with the fabric of the nation, the constitution, its history, its laws, its assumptions, its social contract, and ultimately, its people.
And please anyone: WHAT ARE THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THESE POLICIES:
$860 Billion Stim Bill, ObamaCare, cap & trade, finreg, the out of control EPA, support for civilian terrorist trials in NYC to give them platform to spew their hate for america, support for the mosque, the world apology tour, card check, suing Arizona, shutting down domestic oil producers while loaning money to petrobas to do the same, prolifigate spending on everything, hyper partsian politics like we have never seen, etc etc.
TELL ME: WHAT IS THE NET EFFECT OF ALL THIS CRAZINESS?
-
Ill take your silence as "I have nothing" straw...
it's pathetic how you're dying for my attention
-
it's pathetic how you're dying for my attention
LOL what im dying for is you to back up any of the bull shit you spew on this board... ;)
-
LOL what im dying for is you to back up any of the bull shit you spew on this board... ;)
you should have been able to figure out by now that I don't think Bush or Obama was/is trying to "collapse the nation"
the whole fucking premise is moronic
-
you should have been able to figure out by now that I don't think Bush or Obama was/is trying to "collapse the nation"
the whole fucking premise is moronic
You keep saying that yet you've done nothing to support your claim. Nothing, only repeatedly called it stupid...re-read 333's post above and then re-read mine above that. After that, hopefully you'll have the ability to put together a coherent sentence based on a reasonable assertion.
-
You keep saying that yet you've done nothing to support your claim. Nothing, only repeatedly called it stupid...re-read 333's post above and then re-read mine above that. After that, hopefully you'll have the ability to put together a coherent sentence based on a reasonable assertion.
I read it
what's the proof?
he calls the auto execs coming to DC with hat in hand begging to be bailed out as a "takeover"
he calls getting rid of the sweet heart/ no lose deal that we gave banks for years in the student loan biz a "takeover" even though there is nothing stopping banks from making students loans if they choose to do so
He calls health care legistalation a "takeover" even though the legeslation does nothing more than reform some of the most abusive practices in the health insurance (not actual heahlth lcare) business.
And yes, I think it's abusrrd to suggest that any POTUS (even Bush) was intentionally trying to harm this country. Your or I may not agree on their choices but I think even Bush thought he was doing what was right for the country
-
I read it
what's the proof?
he calls the auto execs coming to DC with hat in hand begging to be bailed out as a "takeover"
he calls getting rid of the sweet heart/ no lose deal that we gave banks for years in the student loan biz a "takeover" even though there is nothing stopping banks from making students loans if they choose to do so
He calls health care legistalation a "takeover" even though the legeslation does nothing more than reform some of the most abusive practices in the health insurance (not actual heahlth lcare) business.
And yes, I think it's abusrrd to suggest that any POTUS (even Bush) was intentionally trying to harm this country. Your or I may not agree on their choices but I think even Bush thought he was doing what was right for the country
You're right, Bush did what he thought was best for the country.
Mistakes and victories and everything in between, Bush did the things he thought were right based on the idea of free-market U.S., based on the basic principles of U.S. beliefs.
Obama, you're right, he's also doing what he thinks is best for the country but he basis what he thinks is best on another model of thinking, one that is anti-free-market and anti-U.S. principled beliefs. His repeated words, "Fundamental Transformation" are not words to be taken lightly.
No, he doesn't want to see America completely destroyed. He doesn't want it to fall into the ocean or into oblivion. But he does want the Republic to fall, he wants the free-market republic to fail and in it's place enter a socialized-democracy. Sure, it's still America but a very, very different one.
-
You're right, Bush did what he thought was best for the country.
Mistakes and victories and everything in between, Bush did the things he thought were right based on the idea of free-market U.S., based on the basic principles of U.S. beliefs.
Obama, you're right, he's also doing what he thinks is best for the country but he basis what he thinks is best on another model of thinking, one that is anti-free-market and anti-U.S. principled beliefs. His repeated words, "Fundamental Transformation" are not words to be taken lightly.
No, he doesn't want to see America completely destroyed. He doesn't want it to fall into the ocean or into oblivion. But he does want the Republic to fall, he wants the free-market republic to fail and in it's place enter a socialized-democracy. Sure, it's still America but a very, very different one.
you may believe this but I don't share that belief and nothing that I have read or heard has convinced me that premise is even remotely true
-
you may believe this but I don't share that belief and nothing that I have read or heard has convinced me that premise is even remotely true
how about the fact the he intentionally put his agenda in front of the well being of the ppl of the US?
-
I find it annoying and beyond frustrating when someone such as yourself makes a statement like "Trust Me" with no facts behind it. OK, fine, I'll trust you when you present an argument, build a case for your argument, provide some evidence, show that you've done some research, etc.
For example, the next presidential election, you tell me to vote for guy number one because guy number two is bad. I ask, "why is guy number two bad?" and then you say, "He just is, trust me." Come on, can you see how ridiculous that is?
1. Lay out your argument
2. Build a case around your argument
3. Present evidence that supports your argument
4. Present an opinion based on that evidence
5. Close your argument
Anyone can do this, it's not hard. The only time it can't be done is if the argument is false.
I like it. :)
-
you may believe this but I don't share that belief and nothing that I have read or heard has convinced me that premise is even remotely true
Straw - let me put this in terms you will grasp.
Let's say you are laying in bed with your new boyfriend (Obama) who you met while drunk in the bar (Hope & Change Campaign). You met him on the rebound (Nation in recession) after your last boyfriend (Bush) broke up with you and screwed up the relationship. You are still in that phase where you don't see his flaws, faults, history, etc., (Hope & Change), however, you do know he bang you in the ass real good (Soaring speeches).
Now, lets say you have been with this guy for a few months and you decide to go get married to him (Election 2008). 5 days before your marriage to this guy you have only known a few months, but who you know does right by you in bed, he says this to you:
"Straw - I am five days away from fundamentally transforming you"
Now - Straw - don't you ask yourself before going forward with your nuptuals tot his guy you have only know a few months:
1. What does he mean "fundamentally transform"?
2. What needs to be transformed and into what?
3. Before getting married tot his guy, shouldnt I at least find out what he is talking about with this change and transformation stuff?
4. Has he ever done this before and with who?
5. What is wrong with me now that I need to be "transformed"?
6. What am I going to be transformed in to?
Ok Straw - so lets say you don't ask yourself these questions and you get married (2008 Vote). All of a sudden you realize that the guy you married is quickly changing into someone you did not know (Bailouts, Crony corporatism, Geithner, Summers, Goldman). He starts doing things he never said he would (Mandate of health care, expanding patriot act, fails to close gitmo, etc etc) . He starts hanging out at the bar again where he met you, he starts hanging out with women 9Bankers, insurance carriers, drug companies), he starts introducing crazy things to your relationship (Suining arizona, GZ mosque, communist czars, gates affair, etc etc) , he starts attacking you personally (calling out progressives, telling his base to shut up, calling them F'ing retards, etc etc), he starts going back on the promises he made while he was seducing you, etc etc.
Don't you at any point say - is he intentionally trying to sabotage our marriage (The nation and social contract)?
-
1. What does he mean "fundamentally transform"?
the clip is 8 seconds long and I don't hear what he said before or after.
maybe he's talking about the fundamental difference that he hoped his adminstration would be as compared the the crime syndicate that had been running our country for the prior 8 years. That would make a lot more sense than the absolutely bat shit crazy fears about a secret communist agenda that you've been blathering about non-stop for the past 20 months.
Let's face reality here for a moment. You're a nut. You support ever nutbag candidate (Palin, ODonnel, Paladino), etc... You're conspiracy theories are beyond nutty and your own stated beliefs about how YOU would like to transform this country (if you could do so) are not shared by the majority of the people in this country. I predict you will be posting the same drivel about Obam for the next 6 years right up until the day he leaves office at the end of his second term
-
the clip is 8 seconds long and I don't hear what he said before or after.
maybe he's talking about the fundamental difference that he hoped his adminstration would be as compared the the crime syndicate that had been running our country for the prior 8 years. That would make a lot more sense than the absolutely bat shit crazy fears about a secret communist agenda that you've been blathering about non-stop for the past 20 months.
Let's face reality here for a moment. You're a nut. You support ever nutbag candidate (Palin, ODonnel, Paladino), etc... You're conspiracy theories are beyond nutty and your own stated beliefs about how YOU would like to transform this country (if you could do so) are not shared by the majority of the people in this country. I predict you will be posting the same drivel about Obam for the next 6 years right up until the day he leaves office at the end of his second term
Let me ask it to you this way - what would it take to convince you that obama is intending to collapse the nation? And is there anything anyone could ever present to you to convince you?
-
the clip is 8 seconds long and I don't hear what he said before or after.
maybe he's talking about the fundamental difference that he hoped his adminstration would be as compared the the crime syndicate that had been running our country for the prior 8 years. That would make a lot more sense than the absolutely bat shit crazy fears about a secret communist agenda that you've been blathering about non-stop for the past 20 months.
Let's face reality here for a moment. You're a nut. You support ever nutbag candidate (Palin, ODonnel, Paladino), etc... You're conspiracy theories are beyond nutty and your own stated beliefs about how YOU would like to transform this country (if you could do so) are not shared by the majority of the people in this country. I predict you will be posting the same drivel about Obam for the next 6 years right up until the day he leaves office at the end of his second term
Straw - to believe your statement - you need to ignore the statements he has made in the past about redistributive change, spreading the wealth, consitution bering fatally flawed, his daliances with Ayers, Alinsky, Dohrn, khalidi, Wright, etc.
-
Let me ask it to you this way - what would it take to convince you that obama is intending to collapse the nation? And is there anything anyone could ever present to you to convince you?
first you would have to define "collapse the nation"
to me that term means the collapse of our goverment
then you would actually have to show me some proof but keep in mind if you could actually do that then you would be testifying in front of congress or you would have an "accident" or something like that.
what you actually do is read far right wing nutjobs and then swallow their bullshit hook, line and sinker and then come running over to GB.com to post the same thing day after day after day after day after day
-
first you would have to define "collapse the nation"
to me that term means the collapse of our goverment
then you would actually have to show me some proof but keep in mind if you could actually do that then you would be testifying in front of congress or you would have an "accident" or something like that.
what you actually do is read far right wing nutjobs and then swallow their bullshit hook, line and sinker and then come running over to GB.com to post the same thing day after day after day after day after day
Saul Alinsky is a right wing source?
Obama's own words, actions, past, are right sources now? Someone tells me they want to "transform me", the first thing on my mind is "transform me from what to what?"
-
Saul Alinsky is a right wing source?
Obama's own words, actions, past, are right sources now? Someone tells me they want to "transform me", the first thing on my mind is "transform me from what to what?"
what does a guy who died almost 40 years ago have to do with your conspiracy theory about Obama?
do me a favor and don't cut and paste
just use your own words and try to keep it short
-
what does a guy who died almost 40 years ago have to do with your conspiracy theory about Obama?
do me a favor and don't cut and paste
just use your own words and try to keep it short
Obamas policies CLEARLY show that his intent is the destruction of the country.The health care bill WILL NOT bend the cost curve as predicted and will sky rocket premiums[which you will see in a month or so].The goal is eliminate private health care companies,so government health care will be "the answer".
The stimulus was passed NOT to help the economy,but to pay off unions.No thought at all about the deficit.
The financial reform bill will put government in control of deciding which companies and buisiness' might fail and they will be allowed to take them over.
Every policy this man has passed or intends to pass is designed to put the government in total control of the economy and the country.He wants to completely eliminate the private sector and put the government in charge of it.
-
what does a guy who died almost 40 years ago have to do with your conspiracy theory about Obama?
do me a favor and don't cut and paste
just use your own words and try to keep it short
Obama went to Chicago to become a community organizer and was trained specificially in the Saul Alinsky methods. Alinsky is to the far left what Goldwater is to many conservatives.
Now, community organizer is not like a guy doing charity work. Its not, its more of an extortion racket specifically to building power, and being able to use the "Have-Nots" to take away power and money from the "Haves", and getting the "Have little-Want More" to go along with the revolution. When you look at obamas suing banks knowning they would suffer as a result of the bad loans, the polarization, the daily enemies list, the overwheling of the system so everything is a crisis and collapses, it is clear as day he is following this play book to the letter.
There are specific phrases in that book Straw that Obama himself uses daily, and the whole book is centered about bringing oabout "Change", although it is never mentioned what it is, so long as it collapses the existing power structure. Alinsky even says to never really say what "change" means since that will open one up for attack, just keep making more demands and demands on the system in the name of "change" such that the system can't accomodate all the demands and collapses from within.
Reading this, book, I was disgusted and revolted to see how we are dealing with a extoritionist in 1600 PA Ave. using the same tactics explicitly outlined in this book. i have another running thread on this.
Whether its health care, cap & trade, all these other crazy schemes destimned to fail, the goal is to make so many demands on the existing system so that it colapses from within and a new marxist/socialist regime can be put into place.
-
Obamas policies CLEARLY show that his intent is the destruction of the country.The health care bill WILL NOT bend the cost curve as predicted and will sky rocket premiums[which you will see in a month or so].The goal is eliminate private health care companies,so government health care will be "the answer".
The stimulus was passed NOT to help the economy,but to pay off unions.No thought at all about the deficit.
The financial reform bill will put government in control of deciding which companies and buisiness' might fail and they will be allowed to take them over.
Every policy this man has passed or intends to pass is designed to put the government in total control of the economy and the country.He wants to completely eliminate the private sector and put the government in charge of it.
lot's of speuclation but not one shred or proof to support the premise of "intentional collapse"
I see no proof of intent andin fact I don't see proof of any of your statements
how about some proof that the stimulus purpose was to pay off unions. That one should be pretty easy to prove
how about some proof that the intent of the health care legislation was to put private companies out of buseinss (yet at the the same time giving them 30 million new customers many of whom will get federal aid to pay premiums to private companies).
how about just one statement and then some clear cut proof to support that statement or admit that you're just offering nothing more than pure speculation and conspiracy theories
-
LOL what im dying for is you to back up any of the bull shit you spew on this board... ;)
no tony...bush did everything right economically for 8 years to lead to state of the economy at the culmination of his term...
-
Obama went to Chicago to become a community organizer and was trained specificially in the Saul Alinsky methods. Alinsky is to the far left what Goldwater is to many conservatives.
Now, community organizer is not like a guy doing charity work. Its not, its more of an extortion racket specifically to building power, and being able to use the "Have-Nots" to take away power and money from the "Haves", and getting the "Have little-Want More" to go along with the revolution. When you look at obamas suing banks knowning they would suffer as a result of the bad loans, the polarization, the daily enemies list, the overwheling of the system so everything is a crisis and collapses, it is clear as day he is following this play book to the letter.
There are specific phrases in that book Straw that Obama himself uses daily, and the whole book is centered about bringing oabout "Change", although it is never mentioned what it is, so long as it collapses the existing power structure. Alinsky even says to never really say what "change" means since that will open one up for attack, just keep making more demands and demands on the system in the name of "change" such that the system can't accomodate all the demands and collapses from within.
Reading this, book, I was disgusted and revolted to see how we are dealing with a extoritionist in 1600 PA Ave. using the same tactics explicitly outlined in this book. i have another running thread on this.
Whether its health care, cap & trade, all these other crazy schemes destimned to fail, the goal is to make so many demands on the existing system so that it colapses from within and a new marxist/socialist regime can be put into place.
again - not one shred of any proof to support your speculation
I have no problem with speculation but stop pretending you've proven anything
you are a lawyer right?
-
lot's of speuclation but not one shred or proof to support the premise of "intentional collapse"
I see no proof of intent andin fact I don't see proof of any of your statements
how about some proof that the stimulus purpose was to pay off unions. That one should be pretty easy to prove
how about some proof that the intent of the health care legislation was to put private companies out of buseinss (yet at the the same time giving them 30 million new customers many of whom will get federal aid to pay premiums to private companies).
how about just one statement and then some clear cut proof to support that statement or admit that you're just offering nothing more than pure speculation and conspiracy theories
Straw - the health care bill is a joke. it contains an unworkable mandate and is shifting millions onto medicaid which will collapse state budgets. The goal of his health care bill is to give the existing system a few years to collapse and then have everyone begging for a govt takeover.
Everyone knows this thing stinks and is mathmatically impossible. so why do it? to collapse the health system and replace it with a govt run program entirely.
Straw - watcht his -
-
again - not one shred of any proof to support your speculation
I have no problem with speculation but stop pretending you've proven anything
you are a lawyer right?
Straw - do you really think Obama is going to admit this? He know if he does the military will oust him in 5 seconds flat. He can't say it, and that is the damn point. You have to look at his actions in total and ask yourself where this all comes from and what is the intent?
-
Everyone knows this thing stinks and is mathmatically impossible. so why do it? to collapse the health system and replace it with a govt run program entirely.
nice claim
where's the proof
if everyone knows it then surely the proof would be easy to find and everyone would agree on it
btw - didn't most of his supporters want a single payer, universal type system
why didn't he support it in 2010?
-
Straw - do you really think Obama is going to admit this? He know if he does the military will oust him in 5 seconds flat. He can't say it, and that is the damn point. You have to look at his actions in total and ask yourself where this all comes from and what is the intent?
that's why it's a Conspiracy Theory
don't you think someone other than Obama would need to be in on the conspiracy
who else to you think it part of the plan?
are they are just secret communist or will they be personally enriched in some way when the plan comes to fruition?
-
that's why it's a Conspiracy Theory
don't you think someone other than Obama would need to be in on the conspiracy
who else to you think it part of the plan?
are they are just secret communist or will they be personally enriched in some way when the plan comes to fruition?
Straw - there are many factions who have been to dumbed down - so manipulated and brain washed you could have passed literally anything, put a label of "health care" on it, and they would support it.
BTW - Straw - Obama does not give a damn about his base of voters or people like yourself. If getting a called an F'ing retard is not enough, i don't know what is.
-
Straw - there are many factions who have been to dumbed down - so manipulated and brain washed you could have passed literally anything, put a label of "health care" on it, and they would support it.
BTW - Straw - Obama does not give a damn about his base of voters or people like yourself. If getting a called an F'ing retard is not enough, i don't know what is.
333 - you're all over the place man
most of Obama's supporters are not happy that he's not following through with the things he talked about on the campaign trail such as the single payer system.
regardging "retards" are you talking about the comment that Rahm allededly made? Why would anyone care about that? Why in the world would you think that's significant. I know you love to take a strand of nothing and fabricate a world wide conspiracy theory but even by your standards that's nutty.
-
333 - you're all over the place man
most of Obama's supporters are not happy that he's not following through with the things he talked about on the campaign trail such as the single payer system.
regardging "retards" are you talking about the comment that Rahm allededly made? Why would anyone care about that? Why in the world would you think that's significant. I know you love to take a strand of nothing and fabricate a world wide conspiracy theory but even by your standards that's nutty.
Its significant to me in the sense that Obama and his admn are not giving a damn about what base voters like yourself think on issues. Whether its DOMA, gitmo, DADT, public option, and a whole host of other issues, you have been told to swallo a bunch of crap and like it. Not that I support those causes, but I find it very strange how he attacks you guys.
Now - GWB - really didnt do that to his base until 2005 and look where that got him?
Something is really strange here Straw, and you have to admit that Obama is not acting like a person who remotely gives a damn about his base voters or those who approvingly marched to the polls in 2008 to support him.
-
Its significant to me in the sense that Obama and his admn are not giving a damn about what base voters like yourself think on issues. Whether its DOMA, gitmo, DADT, public option, and a whole host of other issues, you have been told to swallo a bunch of crap and like it. Not that I support those causes, but I find it very strange how he attacks you guys.
Now - GWB - really didnt do that to his base until 2005 and look where that got him?
Something is really strange here Straw, and you have to admit that Obama is not acting like a person who remotely gives a damn about his base voters or those who approvingly marched to the polls in 2008 to support him.
everything is "significant" to you
I find it hard to believe that you really care that Obama doens't care about his base (as you claim).
If he were doing more of what his base really wanted you'd be screaming even louder about his secret communist agenda
-
everything is "significant" to you
I find it hard to believe that you really care that Obama doens't care about his base (as you claim).
If he were doing more of what his base really wanted you'd be screaming even louder about his secret communist agenda
Straw - i can seperate the two. I read HP, FDL, DU, etc to see what the lib base thinks on stuff.
I am astonished at how Obama attacks the left, attacks the right, and is not "triangulating" like clinton did in the process.
-
The way I see it is A) he is doing what he is doing intentionally and has no business being POTUS or B) he is completely incompetent and has no business being POTUS. Either way it sucks for America
-
Stanley Kurtz
Archive | Latest | E-mail | Log In
October 12, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Obama’s Radical Past
And his connection to socialism isn’t all ancient history, either.
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
On the afternoon of April 1, 1983, Barack Obama, then a senior at Columbia University, made his way into the Great Hall of Manhattan’s Cooper Union to attend a “Socialist Scholars Conference.” There Obama discovered his vocation as a community organizer, as well as a political program to guide him throughout his life.
The conference itself was not a secret, but it held a secret, for it was there that a demoralized and frustrated socialist movement largely set aside strategies of nationalization and turned increasingly to local organizing as a way around the Reagan presidency — and its own spotty reputation. In the early 1980s, America’s socialists discovered what Saul Alinsky had always known: “Community organizing” is a euphemism behind which advocates of a radical vision of America could advance their cause without the bothersome label “socialist” drawing adverse attention to their efforts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A loose accusation of his being a socialist has trailed Obama for years, but without real evidence that he saw himself as part of this radical tradition. But the evidence exists, if not in plain sight then in the archives — for example, the archived files of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which include Obama’s name on a conference registration list. That, along with some misleading admissions in the president’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, makes it clear that Obama attended the 1983 and 1984 Socialist Scholars conferences, and quite possibly the 1985 conclave as well. A detailed account of these conferences (along with many other events from Obama’s radical past) and the evidence for Obama’s attendance at them can be found in my new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.
The 1983 Cooper Union Conference, billed as a tribute to Marx, was precisely when Obama discovered his vocation for community organizing. Obama’s account of his turn to community organizing doesn’t add up. He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing.
The 1983 conference took place in the shadow of Harold Washington’s first race for mayor of Chicago. Washington was not only Obama’s political idol, he was the darling of America’s socialists in the mid-1980s. Washington assembled a “rainbow” coalition of blacks, Hispanics, and left-leaning whites to overturn the power of Chicago’s centrist Democratic machine. Washington worked eagerly and openly with Chicago’s small but influential contingent of socialists, many of whom brought the community organizations and labor unions they led onto the Washington bandwagon.
America’s socialists saw the Harold Washington campaign as a model for their ultimate goal of pushing the Democrats to the left by polarizing the country along class lines. This socialist “realignment” strategy envisioned driving business interests out of a newly radicalized Democratic party. The loss was to be more than made up for through a newly energized coalition of poor and minority voters, led by minority politicians on the model of Harold Washington. The new coalitions would draw on the open or quiet direction of socialist community organizers, from whose ranks new Harold Washingtons would emerge. Groups like ACORN and Project Vote would swell the Democrats with poor and minority voters and, with the country divided by class, socialism would emerge as the natural ideology of the have-nots.
Figures pushing this broader strategy at the 1983 Socialist Scholars Conference included ACORN adviser Frances Fox Piven and organizing theorist Peter Dreier, now a professor at Occidental College and an adviser to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. That is to say, Obama’s connection to socialist ideologues didn’t end with his recruitment into the ranks of community organizers. It began there and blossomed into a quarter century of intricate relationships with both on-the-record and in-all-but-name socialists. I’ve spent the last two years in the archives unraveling the connections. Here are a few.
By the mid-1980s, James Cone, Jeremiah Wright’s theological mentor, had struck up a close cooperative relationship with the DSA. Cone and a prominent follower spoke at the conferences Obama attended. Shortly after the 1984 conference, Cone joined Reverend Wright in Cuba, where they expressed support for the Cuban social system as a model for the United States. Wright touted his Cuba trips to his congregation for years. Obama would have quickly discovered Wright’s ties to the liberation theologians he’d first learned of at the Socialist Scholars conferences. The connection helps explain Obama’s choice of Wright as his pastor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A little-known Chicago training institute for community organizers, the Midwest Academy, is in many ways the key to Barack Obama’s political rise. The Midwest Academy was closely allied to the DSA, which sponsored the Socialist Scholars conferences in New York. Most Midwest Academy leaders remained quiet about their socialism. Inspired by the success of the American Communist “Popular Front,” and by 19th-century American reformers who used populist and communitarian language to achieve socialist ends through incremental legislative means, the Midwest Academy’s leaders advocated a strategy of stealth.
In the ’70s and ’80s, theory was put into action in a series of “populist” coalitions quietly controlled by the socialist leadership of the Midwest Academy and the DSA. The Citizen/Labor Energy Coalition, for example, fought a series of legislative battles against oil and gas companies. Its signature proposal was its call for a public energy corporation to “compete” with private companies.
Officials from the Midwest Academy network trained Obama, supplied him with funds, and got him appointed head of Illinois Project Vote. Years later, Obama sent foundation money to the Midwest Academy. Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called “Public Allies” that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy. Alice Palmer, the Illinois state senator who chose Obama as her successor, was once a high official in the Midwest Academy network. Several Midwest Academy leaders advised Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Academy founder Heather Booth is now a key figure in coordinating grassroots support for the president’s budget, health-care, and financial-reform plans.
The leaders of the Midwest Academy were eager to avoid public exposure of their socialism. Yet they trusted Obama enough to put him on the board of their satellite organization, Chicago Public Allies, and to succeed one of their own as state senator.
As I detail at length in Radical-in-Chief, deceptions and glaring omissions about his radical past reach far beyond Obama’s involvement with the Socialist Scholars conferences and the Midwest Academy. Archival documents reveal that Obama lied during the 2008 campaign about his ties to ACORN. New evidence confirms that Obama has hidden the truth about his relationships to Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. The unknown story of Obama’s deep involvement with a radical group called UNO of Chicago is revealed. The claims of candidate Obama and his mentors that he shunned Saul Alinsky’s confrontational tactics turn out to be a sugary fairy tale. The obfuscating techniques of Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, are exposed.
The pattern of misdirection upon which President Obama’s political career has been built has its roots in the socialist background of community organizing. ACORN, Reverend Wright, and Bill Ayers were all routes into that hidden socialist world, and that is why Obama has had to obscure the truth about these and other elements of his past. More important, the president’s socialist past is still very much alive in the governing philosophy and long-term political strategy of the Obama administration.
As we move into the first national election of the Obama presidency, Americans are confronted with a fateful choice. Either we will continue to be subject to President Obama’s radical and only very partially revealed plans for our future, or we will place a strong check on the president’s ambitions. Knowing the truth about Obama’s past is the best way to safeguard our future.
— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.
-
BUMP
Guys what do you think the effects of QE2 and all this crazy money printing schemes are?
-
GLOBAL ECONOMY-Obama returns fire after China slams Fed's move
SOURCE: REUTERS
Tweet ThisShare on LinkedIn Share on Facebook1diggdiggRelated NewsObama: world can't sustain massive trade imbalances
3:09am EST
China ratchets up pressure after Fed move
3:01am EST
Obama: India to be off restricted trade entities list
2:50am EST
UPDATE 1-China ratchets up pressure after U.S. Fed move
2:44am EST
SCENARIOS-Can G20 make FX, trade progress in Seoul and beyond?
Sun, Nov 7 2010Analysis & OpinionWashington Extra – Down but not out
Enter the era of dollar devaluation
Mon Nov 8, 2010 8:41am EST
* Obama says U.S. low growth or no growth danger to world
* China says U.S being irresponsible over QE
* Russia says G20 should have been consulted by Fed
* Trichet: c.bankers insist no currency weakening sought
(Adds Trichet, Geithner)
By Patricia Zengerle and Krittivas Mukherjee
NEW DELHI, Nov 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama defended the Federal Reserve's policy of printing dollars on Monday after China and Russia stepped up criticism ahead of this week's Group of 20 meeting.
The G20 summit has been pitched as a chance for leaders of the countries that account for 85 percent of world output to prevent a currency row escalating into a rush to protectionism that could imperil the global recovery. [ID:nSGE6A703T]
But there is little sign of consensus.
The summit has been overshadowed by disagreements over the U.S. Federal Reserve's quantitative easing (QE) policy under which it will print money to buy $600 billion of government bonds, a move that could depress the dollar and cause a potentially destabilising flow of money into emerging economies.
"I will say that the Fed's mandate, my mandate, is to grow our economy. And that's not just good for the United States, that's good for the world as a whole," Obama said during a trip to India.
"And the worst thing that could happen to the world economy, not just ours, is if we end up being stuck with no growth or very limited growth," he said.
European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said all participants at a meeting of the world's central bankers in Basel, Switzerland had insisted they were not pursuing weak currency policies.
"We're attached to avoiding excessive volatility. It's very counterproductive for global growth and global stability," he told a news conference.
CHINA, RUSSIA ATTACK FED MOVE
-
New deepwater drilling permits: Zilch
Relief wells were drilled this summer to stop the BP spill, which led to a shut down in Gulf of Mexico deepwater drilling.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.comNovember 12, 2010: 9:14 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama lifted his moratorium on deepwater oil drilling nearly a month ago, but the government still hasn't issued any new permits in the Gulf of Mexico.
And most analysts say permits will be slow in coming through 2011.
11Email Print CommentThe Interior Department halted deep water permits shortly after BP's Macondo well blew out last April. The accident resulted in the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
The moratorium was lifted in mid-October after government officials were confident new, stricter rules and regulations were in place.
But no new permits for wells covered under the ban have been issued, according to a spokeswoman for the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement.
"[BOEMRE director Michael] Bromwich has indicated that he hopes to see some approved by the end of the year but cannot speculate," the spokeswoman said in a statement.
Even if a few permits come through, analysts say it will be a far cry from the amount issued pre-spill.
"We're not holding our breath for a return to business as usual," Whitney Stanco, and energy analyst at the Washington Research Group, wrote in a recent research note. "Despite pressure from Gulf state lawmakers and the oil and gas industry, we believe permitting in 2011 will likely be slower than it has been in recent years."
The moratorium did not affect current oil production in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, which comes from wells that have already been drilled. Currently, about a quarter of the nation's five-million-barrel-a-day crude output comes from the deepwater Gulf, according to the Government's Energy Information Administration.
But future output could fall if new wells aren't drilled. EIA predicts U.S. output will drop by about 170,000 barrels a day in 2011 thanks to the ban.
With Republicans taking over the House, it's possible that the generally more pro-drilling lawmakers will push the administration to issue more permits.
"You could see hearings in the first quarter of the year," said Kevin Shaw, an energy lawyer at the law firm Mayer Brown. "But it will just be a stick to beat the administration with. I'm not expecting a much different outcome."
0:00 /:59BP's rebound
Indeed, analysts say most lawmakers will be reluctant to push the Interior Department to issue permits faster than it thinks it can safely do so.
"What happened this summer was pretty dramatic," said Joseph Stanislaw, an independent energy adviser at Deloitte & Touche. "I think everyone agrees that people really need to work out the rules."
That's tough news to the people who do the actual drilling.
"What's going on over here is a whole lot of nothing," said Jim Noe, and executive at Hercules offshore, who said they are still having a hard time getting permits even for shallow water wells.
Noe said they haven't had to lay off too many people yet, and have kept workers busy doing maintenance work and other jobs. But the longer the permit drought continues, the harder it gets.
"We're not optimistic we'll be back in business in a meaningful way anytime soon," he said.
-
no tony...bush did everything right economically for 8 years to lead to state of the economy at the culmination of his term...
;D
-
The EPA’s new ozone regulation will damage the US economy for no reason
climatequotes.com ^ | 11/14/10 | Sam
________________________ ________________________ ___________
There was much talk about the EPA's recent declaration of CO2 as a pollutant, and rightfully so. However, there is something else the EPA is regulating which is also very harmful to the US economy: ozone levels. Not only do they currently regulate ozone levels, but they are about to tighten their regulations on them. Many areas in the US are projected to already be in violation as soon as the new regulations are in place.
The current limit on ozone level is 75 ppb (yes that's parts per BILLION), which was set in 2008 by the Bush administration. The Obama administration has been wanting to change it ever since they got into office, and they were about to in August, but they didn't. Why? Politics. They intentionally waited until after the election to change the regulation. It is expected to change at the end of this year.
It isn't know exactly what level they will change the regulation to. It is expected between 60-70 ppb, but I expect it will be on the low end of that scale because changing the level from 75 to 70 hardly seems worth the amount of time they have invested in it. If the level is set at 60ppb, will that really be a problem? Absolutely. Here are a few articles from different areas in the US warning what is about to come:
Manatee likely to violate new ozone rule
MANATEE — Manatee and Sarasota counties soon could face a big-city problem: excessive smog. The two-county area is likely to violate new federal ozone standards, triggering an extensive — and expensive — effort to improve the region’s air quality, officials say. “I think they’re going to lower the standard to a point where we are going to be in violation,” said Mike Maholtz, a planner with the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization....The DEP estimates 14 Florida counties would not meet a 70 parts per billion standard. At 60 parts per billion, that figure jumps to 38 counties.
EPA ozone targets will hurt job creation in Lehigh Valley, New Jersey
Our region’s government health departments and businesses are working hard to reach the current 2008 ozone standard. The oil and gas industries alone spent $175 billion from 1990 to 2010 to meet all of the Clean Air Act emission standards. This is a difficult task because, as in football, the final few yards are the most difficult to achieve.
For the Lehigh Valley and New Jersey, very real economic hardships will result if the EPA implements these new regulations. Twenty-eight Pennsylvania counties and 21 New Jersey counties are expected to have ozone levels above 60 ppb in 2020. EPA’s new 60 ppb standard will force these counties into a “nonattainment” violation of the standard. This will force power plants, energy-intensive industries, trucking firms, commuters and small businesses under Draconian restrictions on their ozone emissions which will cause the destruction of profitability and growth. The EPA literally will be choking the economic life out of these 28 Pennsylvania counties and 21 New Jersey counties and their businesses.
This NYT article has two interesting quotes in it. The first is talking about the potential costs:
According to an analysis by the Manufacturers Alliance, setting the standard at 60 ppb would cost the economy about $1 trillion per year from 2020 to 2030 and would result in the loss of 7.3 million jobs.
$1 trillion a year?!?! That sounds high, but this regulation will put hundreds of counties across the nation into 'nonattainment', which is expensive. But how much does the EPA say it will cost? That brings me to my second quote:
In its proposal last January, EPA said it would set the standard somewhere between 60 and 70 ppb, eliciting the applause of environmental and public health groups. Depending on the standards chosen, the proposed changes would yield between $13 billion and $100 billion in health benefits at a cost of $19 billion to $90 billion, according to EPA estimates.
First of all, when governmental agencies estimate costs they usually are off by at least three-fold, usually five or more. However, what if we did take the numbers simply at face value? Look at the range of uncertainty! The ranges are essentially the same! In other words, the EPA is going to force every county in the US to obey an arbitrary ozone limit in order to obtain health benefits which are essentially the same as the cost imposed.
Why are they lowering the limit at all? Here is a fact sheet about the proposal. They say this:
• On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, the main component of smog. The proposed revisions are based on scientific evidence about ozone and its effects on people and the environment.
Alright, so they are basing these results on scientific evidence. What evidence is that? Let's see:
• In this reconsideration, EPA is not relying on studies about the health and ecological effects of ozone that have been published since the science assessment to support the 2008 review was completed. However, EPA conducted a provisional assessment of these newer studies and found they do not materially change the conclusions of the Agency's earlier science assessment.
So they aren't even looking at new evidence since the 2008 limits were put in place. They are basing it on the same evidence they had earlier, but they believe that 75ppb wasn't tight enough. However, they believe that 70ppb is tight enough. Obviously FIVE parts in a BILLION is enough of a difference to merit a new draconian rule. Are we really supposed to believe that a decrease of a few parts in a billion will significantly affect the health of our nation? If ozone is that bad (there is no safe background level) why is 60ppm the right number? There will still be asthmatic children harmed at 60ppb, so why not 20ppb or 0ppb? Can someone please inform the EPA about the concept of statistical significance? What I want to know it the margin of error on the ozone monitoring equipment. I bet it is at least 5ppb.
Counties and states across the country should stand up to the EPA and tell them the truth: you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Leave us alone.
-
Gerald Celente has a good take on this.
-
Anyone who doubts me - needs to listen to the Ex-Ceo of Shell on his meeting with Obama in 2007.
http://www.wor710.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5076772
-
I don't think it's just "Right Wingers" that have a problem with all of this. Obama is continually losing support from independents and several who typically identify themselves as left-leaning.
The idea of all this is to take away responsibility from the individual and rest the responsibility on the shoulders of the government. The idea is to create what Obama views as "fair" in the realm of personal liberty. The idea is for others to decide how much you are allowed to have. The basic idea is to create a nanny state because the idea is "They know better than you."
The health care bill was the first big step towards all of this because you can put anything on this earth under "health care" that's why there are so many random things in that bill that really have nothing to do with health care. It's also going to destroy insurance companies, this has already started, it is slowly but surly making being in the business of selling health insurance completely unprofitable and guess what, as much as it pains some people to think insurance companies should earn a profit, the truth is they have to or they can't remain in business and provide insurance. Yes, there needs to be regulation but not at the expense of the industry altogether.
I am amazed at the paranoid delusions I have been reading in this thread. My lord the left would be ecstatic if Obama was any of the things you claim, but he is not, and they are pissed at him for it. Obama is barely a progressive, he is a corporate shill, the same as every other politician, he is just shilling for different corporations than Bush. I am just absolutely blown away that any sane person could think such things about Obama considering the outright Gift's Obama has made to Wall Street and how Obama ditched his entire political team that got him into the White House and replaced it with the Elite of Wall Street and Finance. Have you read a single piece by Matt Tiabii that excoriates Obama for his corporate giveaways and his complete betrayal of his campaign rhetoric. His health care plan sucks that is for damn sure, but it is a far cry from the socialistic "nightmare" that you are decrying. The healthcare reform is really just a complete gift to the Insurance industry as Obama has offered them millions of new customers, paid for at the public expense, and whose rates are not going to be negotiated. This is hardly anti-business, it is pro-busines, just a different business. That is what you people have to get in your heads and wake up. There is no way anyone desiring any real change to the system is ever getting elected for the presidency in this country, the system protects itself and we are provided the charade of having a voice every 4 years. These rants about Obama hating America and how he is a commie intent on destroying America just make me laugh at how simplistic and easily manipulated people really are. Distract the population with insane conspiracy theories to hide the theft of the country that is occurring right under our noses. Are you really that untainted and idealistic that you think someone who has not been completely vetted by our ruling financial elite would ever even make it beyond city alderm in this country, or are you really just that paranoid about Obama, because either way, you are living in a world of pure fantasy if you think that anyone who desired anything other than what our corporate masters want is ever getting ahead in politics in this country. There is definitely a conspiracy but you are looking in completely the wrong way towards some mythological monster from the 1950's that did not even exist then, much less now. Sorry buddy, Obama is a corporate whore just like the rest of them, I love that you think someone could get elected who really wanted even marginal change, much less the complete destruction of our entire system. AS for the D'souza article, what an inspired piece of fiction, I give D'souza credit for inventiveness that is for sure. It was a good laugh. Carry on, I am interested in how Obama is going to pull off this destruction of America, the great colonial oppressor!!! Seriously, no really, seriously, you really think this? Man and I thought the people who went on and on about Dick Cheny conspiracies were nutty. You are swimming in peanut butter.
-
Anyone who doubts me - needs to listen to the Ex-Ceo of Shell on his meeting with Obama in 2007.
http://www.wor710.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5076772
First off, the guy is not the CEO of Shell, he is president of the US division, a far, far cry from CEO. Second, I listened to it and it is nothing other than the continued desire to get at deposits in the US which will not in any manner reduce the cost of oil on the market or what we pay at the pump but will enrich the companies who are able to extract the oil. This is the same shit that was going on when the Cheney wanted to tear into Anwar and allow drilling right off the coast line, there is no benefit at all to the American consumer and all the economic data is there to prove this. So we have almost nothing to gain, but as been morbidly illustrated by the Gulf disaster, we have everything to lose by opening up more areas to the type of destruction BP has brought to the Gulf Coast. This is not Obama wanting to destroy America, this is actually a bit of commonsense being implemented instead of bowing to the oil industry's every whim.
-
First off, the guy is not the CEO of Shell, he is president of the US division, a far, far cry from CEO. Second, I listened to it and it is nothing other than the continued desire to get at deposits in the US which will not in any manner reduce the cost of oil on the market or what we pay at the pump but will enrich the companies who are able to extract the oil. This is the same shit that was going on when the Cheney wanted to tear into Anwar and allow drilling right off the coast line, there is no benefit at all to the American consumer and all the economic data is there to prove this. So we have almost nothing to gain, but as been morbidly illustrated by the Gulf disaster, we have everything to lose by opening up more areas to the type of destruction BP has brought to the Gulf Coast. This is not Obama wanting to destroy America, this is actually a bit of commonsense being implemented instead of bowing to the oil industry's every whim.
you just made too much sense.3333 is going to hunt you down
-
First off, the guy is not the CEO of Shell, he is president of the US division, a far, far cry from CEO. Second, I listened to it and it is nothing other than the continued desire to get at deposits in the US which will not in any manner reduce the cost of oil on the market or what we pay at the pump but will enrich the companies who are able to extract the oil. This is the same shit that was going on when the Cheney wanted to tear into Anwar and allow drilling right off the coast line, there is no benefit at all to the American consumer and all the economic data is there to prove this. So we have almost nothing to gain, but as been morbidly illustrated by the Gulf disaster, we have everything to lose by opening up more areas to the type of destruction BP has brought to the Gulf Coast. This is not Obama wanting to destroy America, this is actually a bit of commonsense being implemented instead of bowing to the oil industry's every whim.
::) ::)
Ever here of basic supply and demand as well as there being no vible alternative foroil or gasow, or any time in the foreseeable future?
Additionally - I have been hearing the same bogus shit for years - "It will take too long", "we cant dril here", "we can'tdrill there" blah blahblah
In case you don't remember - the economy went off the cliff when prices went to $4 a gallon. That was not a coincidence asour conomycan not grow or recover with high energy prices.
Finally - Obama has already stated his goal is to jack up energy prices as high as possible. What does that tell you?
-
-
Does Obama Want the Best for America or Does He Want to Destroy It?
American Thinker ^ | 2-13-11 | Jack Kerwick
________________________ __________________-
Among pundits on the right, there has been disagreement for quite some time over the fundamental motives informing President Obama's agenda. Essentially two schools of thought on the matter have emerged.
One school insists that while the president's policy prescriptions are indeed ultimately destructive, he nevertheless genuinely believes that their implementation is what's best for the country. This is the position taken by the likes of, say, Bill O'Reilly and nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved.
Members of the other school are convinced that Obama is resolved to weaken America. Only a determination on his part to diminish the country's military and economic preeminence in the world and traditional liberties at home can account for an agenda that is so obviously destructive of the nation that we have always known. Among the most illustrious exponents of this view is Rush Limbaugh.
Adherents of the first position think that the adherents of the second line are idiotic, if not "crazy" (although, interestingly, they haven't dared to call out by name "the King of talk radio" who has been in the vanguard of advancing it); champions of the latter believe that the former are naïve and confused.
This may come as a shock to both sets of apologists, but a synthesis of their perspectives is attainable.
Though there have been more than a few thinkers who have quarreled with it, the thesis that no one ever chooses evil for its own sake has an impressive pedigree stretching back into antiquity. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Christian theorists up to the present day have affirmed that evil is always done for the sake of some perceived good -- pleasure, riches, power, fame, love, and so forth. It is in light of this principle that we can hope to go some distance in reconciling these two competing positions on Obama's intentions.
The idea that the President of the United States wakes up each morning scheming over how he may ruin the country over which he presides is, of course, the stuff of fantasy. Contrary to what the Michael Medveds insinuate, however, I don't think for a second that either Rush or the legions of people who share his view of Obama entertain this view. Still, given the baldness with which Rush and others have stated their position, I suppose it lends itself to this caricature.
But it is similarly foolish to think that it is from nothing other than the union of an ignorance of the most basic economic principles and a comparable ignorance of history that the President's obviously destructive policies are begotten. Regrettably, to hear O'Reilly and Medved speak, one could be forgiven for concluding that this is what they really think.
While discussing this issue with a friend of mine recently, he reminded me of C.S Lewis' argument regarding the Jesus who is presented to us in the pages of the New Testament: either Jesus was the Son of God, as He claimed, or else He was an egomaniac or a madman. Given the self-referential remarks that the Biblical authors attribute to Jesus, there is simply no other alternative. Likewise, my friend continued, Obama's utterances and deeds are born of either an invincible ignorance of their consequences -- in which case he is without question the most incompetent president of all time -- or a plan to ruin America -- in which case he is indeed guilty of the designs that Rush and others ascribe to him. There is no third possibility.
Or maybe there is.
Obama knows that his economic policies are productive of neither liberty as traditionally conceived by Americans nor prosperity. He would have to be, not just the most incompetent president ever, but among the most dense of human beings, for given the extensive exposure that he has had to both Keynesian and neo-Marxian philosophy -- anyone who takes the time to read his memoirs, particularly his first, and who considers the worldview of the people with whom he has surrounded himself for most of his life would know this -- he could only know by now full well the fruits that these policies promise to reap.
But from this it doesn't follow that Obama anticipates the ruination of America as such. There can be no doubt, I think, that he wants to preside over an America that is morally superior and, hence, better, than the country that elected him two years ago. The problem, though, is that the America of Obama's imaginings is radically unlike the America to which most of its citizens have an acquired affection and even more unlike the America within which their ancestors made their home. That is, the "fundamental transformation" that Obama wants to visit upon America demands nothing more or less than the death of America as it is currently constituted; only once America as a living reality is eliminated can America as Obama's ideal be substituted for it.
The philosopher Ronald Dworkin once said that "a more equal society" -- a society the resources of which are equally "distributed" -- is better than the contrary, even if its citizens prefer inequality. Anyone who has paid any attention at all to Obama must know that he couldn't agree more with this thought.
So, our president does indeed think that as a people, Americans will be "better" in the wake of the "fundamental transformation" that he wants to impose upon us. So the O'Reillys and Medveds are correct in this respect. However, neither Rush, myself, nor the large numbers of Americans who love the liberties which our forefathers labored indefatigably to bequeath to us are likely to receive much consolation from this. After all, the fact remains that his intentions aside, our president is determined to see the historic nation that is the real America go the way of the dinosaur.
-
Obama is a KGB agent! Everybody loves America!
-
::) ::)
Ever here of basic supply and demand as well as there being no vible alternative foroil or gasow, or any time in the foreseeable future?
Additionally - I have been hearing the same bogus shit for years - "It will take too long", "we cant dril here", "we can'tdrill there" blah blahblah
In case you don't remember - the economy went off the cliff when prices went to $4 a gallon. That was not a coincidence asour conomycan not grow or recover with high energy prices.
Finally - Obama has already stated his goal is to jack up energy prices as high as possible. What does that tell you?
Hey send me te article that obama said he wanted to make gas unaffordable
-
Well-Meaning or Not, Obama Threatens America
Pajamas Media ^ | February 26, 2011 | Mike McDaniel
A wealth of evidence points to an inescapable conclusion.
In an Feb. 14 Wall Street Journal article, Michael Medved asserts, by way of title, “Obama Isn’t Trying to ‘Weaken America.’” A film critic and generally conservative cultural commentator, Medved only approaches the primary thrust of his argument in his final paragraph when he writes:
Americans may not see a given president as their advocate, but they’re hardly disposed to view him as their enemy — and a furtive, determined enemy at that. For 2012, Republicans face a daunting challenge in running against the president. That challenge becomes impossible if they’re also perceived as running against the presidency.
As a 2012 political strategy, Medved’s final point is, as far as it goes, reasonable. However, the rest of his essay often argues against his thesis, which seems to be that Mr. Obama is not consciously trying to harm America and is a conventional American president and politician with conventional political goals and aspirations. If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that this is true — if Mr. Obama is, with the best intentions and with good will, pursuing policies that are manifestly harmful to America and Americans — the end result is the same. The matter of his motivations will doubtless be a ripe controversy for future historians, but will matter little to contemporary Americans, who will suffer regardless.
Medved begins his essay with a quote from John Adams: “I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May not but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” Medved mentions some who were not so wise and honest in making the point that the quality of our presidents has always been limited by the fact that we are limited to choosing from the human race. “For all their foibles, every president attempted to rise to the challenges of leadership and never displayed disloyal or treasonous intent. This history makes some of the current charges about Barack Obama especially distasteful — and destructive to the conservative cause.” Perhaps, but only if Mr. Obama is unquestionably a member of that august company.
Mr. Medved quotes a number of prominent conservative commentators to level a blanket criticism:
None of the attacks on Mr. Obama’s intentions offers an even vaguely plausible explanation of how the evil genius, once he has ruined our “strength, influence and standard of living,” hopes to get himself re-elected. In a sense, the president’s most paranoid critics pay him a perverse compliment in maintaining that his idealism burns with such pure, all-consuming heat that he remains blissfully unconcerned with minor matters like his electoral future. They label Mr. Obama as the political equivalent of a suicide bomber: so overcome with hatred (or “rage”) that he’s perfectly willing to blow himself up in order to inflict casualties on a society he loathes.
Thinking that Mr. Obama is a conventional American politician who will react in predictable, rational ways to common American political stimuli is a common mistake, so it is unsurprising that Mr. Medved makes it. But Mr. Obama manifestly and demonstrably is not a convention politician. The evidence is stark and easy to find for those willing to see.
Mr. Obama is a doctrinaire socialist who does not, perhaps cannot, see that the pursuit of socialist policies is harmful to America and harmful to his electoral prospects. He simply can’t bring himself to believe that the public won’t ultimately be grateful to him and catapult him back into the White House. Recall that he has, on more than one occasion, said that people ought to be thanking him for imposing socialist policies, and in making those statements, seemed genuinely puzzled and angry that they were not.
Begin with the reality that Mr. Obama is a socialist. Those doubting this assertion of fact need only refer to Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. There, Stanley Kurtz meticulously and undeniably lays bare Mr. Obama’s socialist education, associations, mentoring, roots, beliefs, and actions. Let us also keep in mind that socialism, like Marxism, is fundamentally incompatible with freedom, democracy, and capitalism as embodied in America’s founding documents and as practiced in America. If Mr. Obama is indeed a socialist — and he is — then his belief system, his way of thinking, is innately hostile to America. Socialism and American democracy cannot coexist, so if Mr. Obama is pursuing socialist policies, American democracy must, of necessity, be weakened or destroyed.
But if this is true, how did Mr. Obama become president? It boils down to this: He lied. He lied about who he is, about his background, his fundamental beliefs, his intentions, and his methods. He employed standard Marxist/socialist tactics and concealed his true nature so as to seize power and impose his will, and for two years, he pretty much got away with it. A recurring theme of Mr. Medved’s article is that such things are impossible, as Mr. Obama — like all politicians — wants to be reelected. Put aside, for the moment, that Mr. Obama has addressed this issue explicitly, saying that he’d rather accomplish his (socialist) goals than be a two-term president.
Consider then the following examples, not by any means an exhaustive list:
(1) Mr. Obama’s 2012 budget flies in the face of fiscal and political reality. Not only does it fail to actually cut spending, it dramatically increases spending — and the deficit — far into the future, while raising taxes, ignoring the entitlement crisis, and continuing the promulgation of policies that can have no result other than to destroy the creation of wealth, jobs, and the economy. America is broke, beyond broke, and the utter dissolution of our existing entitlements — not considering ObamaCare — is imminent. Unemployment is arguably at 10.3%; virtually every economic indicator is in the toilet. Any responsible president, any president for whom the welfare of the nation is his first concern, will not propose a budget that spends, now and into the future, far more money than America produces and can possibly take in or repay. Yet Mr. Obama wants to spend billions on projects like high-speed rail, a boondoggle the public neither wants nor needs.
(2) Since taking office, Mr. Obama has serially and crudely insulted our strongest and most faithful allies, such as Great Britain and Israel, while extending “outreach” to virtually every thuggish, repressive, anti-democratic regime on the planet. His repeated threats to establish yet another deadline when Iran violates the last have established only his impotence. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and all Mr. Obama can do is threaten to trot out even more threatening rhetoric.
(3) Mr. Obama’s neophyte involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” has served only to destroy it. He tried to force concessions on Israel that even Palestinian President Abbas admitted the Palestinians did not want, destroying any contemporary chance for peace.
(4) Mr. Obama’s statements and policies, across the board, are nothing less than Islamic boosterism. Any president serving as a cheerleader for say, Catholicism, would be rightfully criticized, but a starstruck media and a benumbed public have nothing to say when the head of NASA announces a new, primary mission, handed down from Mr. Obama, to make Muslims feel good about the scientific accomplishments of their ancient ancestors. Of course, since Mr. Obama has impaired NASA’s budget to the point of driving it entirely out of space, ancient Muslim outreach may be all that it can afford to do.
(5) One of the only constants in Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is a reflexive, mindless support for Marxist and/or Islamist despotism. Take the example of Honduras, where a Marxist president attempted to overthrow the Honduran Constitution and install himself as ruler for life. Adhering to the rule of law, the Hondurans threw him out of office and out of the country. Mr. Obama immediately sided with the Marxist, and has personally, and through the State Department, supported him against the Honduran rule of law ever since.
(6) Mr. Obama has appointed avowed Marxists (Van Jones) and worshippers of Communist mass murderers (Anita Dunn) to high-ranking positions in his administration. For any other American president, even contemplating such appointments would be unthinkable. For Mr. Obama, so low have our expectations sunk that it’s almost unremarkable.
(7) Venezuela has taken delivery of some 2,000 Russian man-portable, anti-aircraft missiles. It has entered into an agreement with Iran to build ground-to-ground missile bases in Venezuela, stocked with Iranian missiles capable of carrying nuclear and/or biological warheads that could reach virtually anywhere in America. Mr. Obama has had nothing to say about this, and has apparently done nothing at all to stop it. Did I mention that Mr. Chavez is also going to build a nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons-grade materials? Neither did Mr. Obama.
(8) Mr. Obama has done enormous harm to immigration policy and national security. He has sued Arizona for daring to try to enforce immigration laws that he will not, and surrendered huge portions of the southern United States to terrorists and drug cartels, posting signs warning Americans to stay out of those areas for their own safety.
(9) Mr. Obama and his administration refuse to identify our Islamist enemy, and continue to pursue policies that make Americans far less safe, including trying terrorists in civilian courts and establishing a paralyzing regime of political correctness in every governmental institution. Despite recent speeches by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, all acknowledging not only the failure but danger of multicultural political correctness, Mr. Obama shows no sign of abandoning socialist multi-culti orthodoxy.
(10) When the Iranian public rose up against the mullahs, Mr. Obama ignored them, giving lip service to “bearing witness.” When the Egyptian uprising occurred, Mr. Obama flip- flopped, offering support to the protestors one day and to Mr. Mubarak the next. He succeeded only in alienating virtually everyone in the region, giving Islamists a boost by declining to delegitimize the Muslim Brotherhood, and encouraging its involvement in an Egyptian government. In so doing, he convinced the leaders of every Middle Eastern nation that as an enemy, America under Obama is harmless, and as a friend, fickle and treacherous.
(11) Under Eric Holder, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has pursued blatantly racist and class warfare policies, refusing to pursue — as a matter of internally declared policy — cases where non-blacks are discriminated against in violation of federal law. Mr. Holder has also allowed states to blatantly violate federal law that requires that overseas members of our military receive absentee ballots prior to elections. (Our military members tend to vote overwhelmingly for conservatives.)
(12) While decrying America’s reliance on regimes hostile to American interests for energy, Mr. Obama has cut off domestic exploration and production, actually saying that he wants energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket” to better force socialist policies on the public. He has announced his goal of destroying the coal industry in America. His administration has ignored court orders to issue new drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico and has blatantly doctored scientific evidence — and been caught in the attempt — to support its unsupportable policies.
(13) Mr. Obama rammed through ObamaCare against the wishes of the public, and has continually lied about its contents, effects, costs, and consequences. Even though Great Britain and Canada are beginning to back away from the well-documented daily horrors of socialized medicine, Mr. Obama blindly rushes ahead into that pit of despair. The largest single entitlement program in history, ObamaCare alone will bankrupt the nation. This despite the fact that without considering ObamaCare, Mr. Obama has spent more money — money that we do not have — in only two years in office than every other president combined. He is laboring mightily to make things worse, much worse.
(14) Mr. Obama federalized the entire student loan industry as part of ObamaCare (!) — apparently as prelude to his oft-expressed desire that everyone attend college on the public dime, equally apparently whether they need (or want) to or not. Add to this faulty calculation the bursting of the higher education bubble, fueled by out-of-control loan and tuition costs, and by the fact that a bachelor’s degree no longer guarantees employment or an enhanced yearly wage. Mr. Obama’s actions serve only to further depress the private sector, reducing tax revenues while providing no public benefit.
(15) Under the guise of saving it, Mr. Obama has federalized 2/3 of the domestic auto industry, enriching his union supporters.
(16) Mr. Obama and his various State Department functionaries, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have so berated America in foreign capitals and elsewhere that their enmity toward America can scarcely be denied. Any man who spoke of the alleged failings and faults of his wife the way Mr. Obama and his administration speak of America would be hard pressed to make anyone believe that he loved and respected her.
Imagine, if you will, a socialist/Marxist president whose party controlled both houses of Congress and who was determined to actually harm America diplomatically, domestically, economically, and in every other way. Apart from building a domestic KGB-like intelligence apparatus and paramilitary force, how would such a president and his actions differ from Mr. Obama and his own?
Each of the few examples I’ve provided are, by themselves, cause for alarm in a people dedicated to liberty and prosperity. Taken together, they suggest that far more than poor policy, incompetence, stubbornness, or stupidity are at work.
It may be argued that Mr. Obama’s expressed and implied beliefs and actions merely reflect a profound lack of experience, perhaps even utter incompetence, and there is doubtless some significant element of this present in the Obama administration at virtually all levels. Witness the recent pronouncement of CIA Director Leon Panetta, who admitted that the information on Egypt he gave the same committee was not the fruits of professional CIA analysis, but of media accounts.
Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano is likewise a fount of late night TV talk show jokes, and Vice President Joe “The Sheriff” Biden is in a gaffetastic class by himself.
The problem, for Mr. Medved, and the nation, is that mere incompetence cannot adequately explain away Mr. Obama’s background, his expressed and implied beliefs, or his associations, appointments, and official actions. Believing that he actually wishes America harm is, in light of the voluminous and growing evidence, not unfounded but logical — not a reactionary, emotional conclusion but a reasonable one based on objective evidence, most of which has been provided by Mr. Obama himself.
If this was not so, wouldn’t at least some of his policies have the consequence of substantially and honestly benefiting America?
And reelection? Wouldn’t any normal politician acting as Mr. Obama has acted and continues to act be committing political suicide? Wouldn’t he know this and engage in Clintonian triangulation, at least giving the appearance of tracking to the center? Yes. But Mr. Obama is not a conventional politician.
All politicians, particularly presidents, have healthy egos, but Mr. Obama’s narcissism is the stuff of legend. Consider his pseudo- presidential Great Seal of Obama; his extra-constitutional and non-existent “Office of the President-Elect”; his Marxist, Cold War-inspired propaganda posters and symbols; his announcement, upon receiving his party’s nomination for president, that history would record it as the moment the seas began to recede and the planet began to heal; or his response to a Democrat worried about the outcome of the 2010 Congressional election that Democrats had nothing to worry about “because you have me.” One might be forgiven for believing that Mr. Obama’s narcissism gets in the way of a clear-eyed, realistic view of the world.
Bill Clinton did indeed tack toward the center to ensure his reelection. He was not a socialist and did not surround himself with socialist radicals. There is reason to believe that Mr. Obama would like to be reelected, but there is greater reason to believe that he, first and foremost, sees the world through Obama-colored glasses. Peering through those lenses, he sees a world not only hanging on his words, grateful to receive them and anxious to act upon them, but breathlessly waiting for him to bestow his transformative words. He sees a world where his rhetoric and the force of his personality and matchless intellect can and will cause transformative change. He sees a world where foreign policy is an annoying distraction from his true interest in, as he has often put it, “fundamentally changing America.”
Despite his protestations (common God- and gun-clinging folk would call them “lies”) to the contrary, Mr. Obama sees as one of his guiding principles the necessity and morality of redistributing wealth. He made this clear when Joe the Plumber dared ask him if he was going to raise his taxes and Obama replied that he believed that things were better if you spread the wealth around. And of course, no one is more qualified to know to whom it should be spread than Mr. Obama, who makes a virtual sacrament of class warfare — particularly against the evil and greedy rich, a class to which one need make a surprisingly small amount to belong. (I seem to remember something about class warfare being an integral part of Marxist theory.)
Mr. Medved is correct in suggesting that it would be unwise for the GOP to attack the presidency, but he makes the same mistake made by Mr. Obama in equating Mr. Obama with the presidency. This is a significant part of the reason why Mr. Obama fails so badly in foreign policy: he speaks not as the president of the United States, willing and able to use its might and prestige to further American interests, but as Barack Obama, who routinely disparages America’s might and prestige, seeks to further his interests, and diminishes not only his office but the nation it exists to serve. His ego keeps him from understanding this distinction, but it is surely appreciated by foreign leaders who fear and respect him not.
In the 2012 election, the GOP standard bearer should not make the same mistake made by Sen. John McCain. He must be willing and able to criticize every negative and foolish aspect of Mr. Obama’s ideas, policies, associations, appointments, and beliefs. He must be willing and able to point out exactly why Mr. Obama is not fit to occupy the Oval Office. He must make plain that the office of the President does not exist to empower its occupant to “fundamentally change” America, to ignore the Constitution, and to gain ultimate, intimate power over the lives of its citizens, but to faithfully uphold the Constitution and to ensure individual dignity and liberty. This is not attacking the presidency, but upholding its dignity and importance — a dignity and importance substantially diminished by Mr. Obama. John Adams would almost certainly think him neither honest nor wise.
-
I am amazed at the paranoid delusions I have been reading in this thread. My lord the left would be ecstatic if Obama was any of the things you claim, but he is not, and they are pissed at him for it. Obama is barely a progressive, he is a corporate shill, the same as every other politician, he is just shilling for different corporations than Bush. I am just absolutely blown away that any sane person could think such things about Obama considering the outright Gift's Obama has made to Wall Street and how Obama ditched his entire political team that got him into the White House and replaced it with the Elite of Wall Street and Finance. Have you read a single piece by Matt Tiabii that excoriates Obama for his corporate giveaways and his complete betrayal of his campaign rhetoric. His health care plan sucks that is for damn sure, but it is a far cry from the socialistic "nightmare" that you are decrying. The healthcare reform is really just a complete gift to the Insurance industry as Obama has offered them millions of new customers, paid for at the public expense, and whose rates are not going to be negotiated. This is hardly anti-business, it is pro-busines, just a different business. That is what you people have to get in your heads and wake up. There is no way anyone desiring any real change to the system is ever getting elected for the presidency in this country, the system protects itself and we are provided the charade of having a voice every 4 years. These rants about Obama hating America and how he is a commie intent on destroying America just make me laugh at how simplistic and easily manipulated people really are. Distract the population with insane conspiracy theories to hide the theft of the country that is occurring right under our noses. Are you really that untainted and idealistic that you think someone who has not been completely vetted by our ruling financial elite would ever even make it beyond city alderm in this country, or are you really just that paranoid about Obama, because either way, you are living in a world of pure fantasy if you think that anyone who desired anything other than what our corporate masters want is ever getting ahead in politics in this country. There is definitely a conspiracy but you are looking in completely the wrong way towards some mythological monster from the 1950's that did not even exist then, much less now. Sorry buddy, Obama is a corporate whore just like the rest of them, I love that you think someone could get elected who really wanted even marginal change, much less the complete destruction of our entire system. AS for the D'souza article, what an inspired piece of fiction, I give D'souza credit for inventiveness that is for sure. It was a good laugh. Carry on, I am interested in how Obama is going to pull off this destruction of America, the great colonial oppressor!!! Seriously, no really, seriously, you really think this? Man and I thought the people who went on and on about Dick Cheny conspiracies were nutty. You are swimming in peanut butter.
Nice
-
Go listen to the drew interview I posted. Obama told his college collegues he was a radical marxist intent on communist revolution. But oh yeah, you know more than drm drew.
-
Go listen to the drew interview I posted. Obama told his college collegues he was a radical marxist intent on communist revolution. But oh yeah, you know more than drm drew.
I dont know either of them so he might know more than this Drew guy who knows..,.
If Obama is a commie he would hate big coorporations right?
Why did he initiate the stimulus to save them then?
-
Ha ha ha ha. Have you ever read a history book about revolutions and who funds them? Lenin was backed by wall street.
And the stim bill did nothing but keep public sector unions employed.
Go listen to the Drew interview and come back.
-
Do people really not understand what employees are for?
You start a business because you believe you have the ability to produce some kind of "good" that people "need." You believe you can produce the goods cheaper than you will sell them for and hope that there is enough of a "market" of buyers to allow you to earn a profit.
Employees are hired when demand is high enough to require more production than you can do alone.
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE FOR.
Employees aren't hired because of tax incentives.
Maybe I didn't pay attention before, but the garbage I've heard about "jobs" in the past year has me completely dumbfounded.
People really seem to have no idea what an employee actually is.
You don't create jobs by "creative policies."
Who the fuck thinks that businesses are going to hire an UNNEEDED employee $30k (or possibly much more..) a year in order to get a $5,000 tax
break? The businesses aren't hiring because they don't need the employees. There isn't enough WORK for them. People aren't buying shit.
I'm literally astounded by the job "plans" I see being discussed by the elected officials.
Why the fuck am I going to hire someone I don't need...someone I don't have work for...someone I have to pay a shit ton of money every week to just sit there.....so that I can get a minor tax incentive?
You want me to hire employees?
Get rid of the uncertainty about my future taxes.
Give me a reason to think the economy is going to rebound.
Give me a reason to think that people will return to buying goods at a higher rate.
Quit loading me with restrictions and growth smothering regulations so that I can try to grow my business (i.e. have a need for more workers) without being punished for it.
Business don't hire employees because "people need jobs."
They hire employees because people are buying their products, they take the risk of expanding their production.....and NEED employees to fuel that expansion.
Nice
-
no tony...bush did everything right economically for 8 years to lead to state of the economy at the culmination of his term...
I love how the republican party spend like there was no tomorrow under Bush and didnt give a rats ass about the deficit, but know Obama is in office the deficit is suddenly so important
-
Are you joking?
-
Are you joking?
Actually no
Ron Paul was talking about the coming crisis and the need for reducing the deficit also by cutting the military etc
All his repub co-runners used this against him claiming he was weak on terror bla bla marginalising him and the need for action in this area
-
Actually no
Ron Paul was talking about the coming crisis and the need for reducing the deficit also by cutting the military etc
All his repub co-runners used this against him claiming he was weak on terror bla bla marginalising him and the need for action in this area
Bush did spend too much yes, but on a matter of scale, its nothing compared to what we see now. Everything bad bush did, Obama is doubling and tripling in terms of insanity.
And what was the average deficit while GWB and GOP controlled congress compared to when the Dems took over congress in 2006?
-
Its no excuse for shitty politics that the other guy does it worse
-
Its no excuse for shitty politics that the other guy does it worse
No its not - but Team Kneepad tries to make it that - Its ok for obama to be horriblebecause GWB was horrible too. Mind you, they consider GWB the worst ever, so what does that say?
-
No its not - but Team Kneepad tries to make it that - Its ok for obama to be horriblebecause GWB was horrible too. Mind you, they consider GWB the worst ever, so what does that say?
It goes both ways of course
-
Obama’s Socialism
by Uncommon Knowledge
President Obama’s cult of personality and feel-good message of “change” allowed him to sail through the 2008 campaign without being thoroughly vetted by the press. No one took the time to delve into his past and look at his influences, his actions, or his political theory. And when something did come up, the press allowed him to skate on by rather than press him for real information (Jeremiah Wright, anyone?).
Recent guest Stanley Kurtz decided to do what the press failed to do – take an honest look at Obama’s politics. His investigation resulted in Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. In this episode, Kurtz discusses the many socialist influences in Obama’s life, from his college years to his time as a community organizer, with men such as Bill Ayers, Frank Marshal Davis, and Jeremiah Wright.
In examining Obama’s main mentors, Kurtz begins to see a clear ideology that motivates the President’s disdain for the middle class, take-no-prisoners approach to passing socialized healthcare, reluctance to discuss political theory and desire for, ultimately, a socialist revolution.
Here is the full episode, you won’t want to miss it:
http://biggovernment.com/uknowledge/2011/02/27/obamas-socialism
-
BUMP
-
After giving 2 billion to Brazil and then losing the oil, veto'ing Keystone, shutting down the coal plants, and refusing to give drilling permits to the Gulf, I think its becoming pretty obvious.
I went from thinking Obama was just ignorant and hardheaded, to believing no one can be this stupid and the only explanation is he's willing to destroy the country to try and push his "ideal vision" on the public.
-
After giving 2 billion to Brazil and then losing the oil, veto'ing Keystone, shutting down the coal plants, and refusing to give drilling permits to the Gulf, I think its becoming pretty obvious.
I went from thinking Obama was just ignorant and hardheaded, to believing no one can be this stupid and the only explanation is he's willing to destroy the country to try and push his "ideal vision" on the public.
Discuss
-
Discuss
Seen it, complete idiocy, out of touch with reality and the common man. I cannot believe that people actually saw this and still believed he gave a damn about the middle class.
-
CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831
CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs byPhilip Klein Senior Editorial Writer
President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.
Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.
UPDATE: I've done another post with additional details from the CBO report.
-
Is Obama Presidentially-Incapacitated by Narcissistic Rage? --
Family Security Matters ^ | 2014-09-14 | LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
Posted on November 9, 2014 5:04:37 PM EST by Patton@Bastogne
.
2014-11-09
Is Obama Presidentially-Incapacitated by Narcissistic Rage?
For those perplexed by Barack Obama's often inexplicable behavior, wonder no more.
An individual with narcissistic personality disorder exhibits extreme self-importance, has a constant need for attention and admiration, is secretive and controlling, cannot empathize with others, and has a heightened sensitivity to criticism. To get the attention he craves, a narcissist may try to create crises or diversions that return the focus to him. The narcissist feels entitled, that the world owes him, regardless of whether he makes a contribution.
Narcissists are selfish and self-centered people, who are capable only of thinking about their own issues regarding power, prestige, and personal adequacy. They cannot understand the problems of people around them, and are not aware of other peoples' feelings. Although they act superior and confident, this actually hides the fact that they have very fragile egos. They live with the illusion that they are perfectionists and that people revere them. The slightest disrespect or challenge can quickly lead to the development of "Narcissistic Rage," a term coined by Heinz Kohut in his 1972 book "The Analysis of the Self." The fuming rage the narcissist exhibits is different from the anger that people usually feel; it is either irrational or severely blown out of proportion from an insignificant remark or action. According to Kohut, this rage impairs a narcissist's cognition, therefore impairing his judgment.
A narcissist needs to sustain the illusion of being bigger, larger, smarter and more successful than everyone else in order to feel stable. Narcissists need constant admiration, attention and compliments, not to increase their self-esteem, but to prevent a feeling of instability that could lead to dysfunction or breakdown. Narcissistic rage occurs when that core instability is heightened. In essence, the reason narcissists are so self-centered is that their grandiosity-based personality needs to be constantly reinforced to remain stable.
In the present context, narcissistic rage can take two forms:
I. Explosive - The narcissist attacks everyone in his immediate vicinity and is verbally and psychologically abusive.
II. Pernicious or Passive-Aggressive - The narcissist sulks, gives the silent treatment or is vindictive, plotting how to put the transgressors in their proper place. They can sabotage the work of people whom they regard to be the sources of their mounting wrath.
As described by Ernest Istook, Obama's behavior matches the American Psychiatric Association's definition of passive-aggressive behavior, "a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements, opposition, stubbornness, and negativistic attitudes in response to requirements for normal performance levels expected of others." Often, such persons see themselves as blameless victims, projecting fault onto others. Commonly, they follow erratic paths and cause constant conflicts.
Obama is cautious and dithers even on perilous issues like confronting the ISIS threat, not as a result of campaign promises, but because to make any decision risks the reassuring adulation of his political base and a fawning media.
And nothing the narcissist says is ever what he means. Language is simply used as a tool for deception, and manipulation. Everything they do is for show, or only meant in the moment. That's why everything around them seems so chaotic and confusing.
Obama's vindictive and illegal use of the IRS results from his perception that critics are enemies, seeing Republicans as a greater threat to him personally than terrorists. When you are a narcissist, the world looks like it should approve, adore, agree and obey you. Anything less than that seems like an assault and a narcissist feels justified in raging back at it.
No one should expect a significant change in Obama's behavior because narcissists demonstrate an enduring pattern of inflexibility that is pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations.
Nevertheless, even narcissists eventually have to be held accountable for their actions.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of "Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution ". He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.
.