Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

reds8n wrote:

hmmm while we're at it lets throw out the whole pre-Marxist bit about Czar this and Czar that (dunno bout you but I grew up in America not russia in the pre 20's)

Reagan appointed the first "Czar", pretty much every govt. in every developed nation has appointed people to the same sort of role -- generally with the same level of lack of success perhaps -- as well.

And wasn't it only recently that the "Czar" word has been given a more negative connotation than in years past? I believe that Conservative pundits made a lot of noise over the appointment of people who were not elected...

We should just simply let more celebrities tell us what to do and think. They're just better than us.

sebster wrote:I think it's pretty much standard practice for polls to ask basic demographic questions like political affiliation before asking questions about the political issues of the day.

It's certainly the best way of getting a realistic answer. It may not be the best way of suddenly making your poll a bit more interesting.

Thing is, if someone says they’re not a muslim and they aren’t stopping to pray five times a day and don’t fast at Ramadan, they’re not a muslim. I can’t even figure out what being a secret muslim would mean.

It means he'll help the Muslims build a victory mosque on Ground Zero!

Tyyr wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:Yes. When the Founders first asserted the right to a free press and free speech, they could have hardly envisioned the possibility of the rise of Fox News. Here we have a "news organization" that has defended its right to lie in court, has given money exclusively to one party, which has supported and encouraged a anti-government movement, and which broadcasts propaganda 24/7.

It is damaging to our democracy. Democracy, more than anything, relies on the free exchange of ideas. There needs to be honest and reasoned discussion of policies, priorities and agendas. But we cannot have that kind of conversation in this country anymore, because the right-wing has turned every single issue into one of partisan attack politics, and Fox News has played a huge role in disinforming the general public and stiffling honest debate.

So your solution to protect free speech is to start censoring people who disagree with you... I'm not sure you're really understanding exactly what Free Speech means. You're sort of advocating the exact opposite of Free Speech.

I'm 99% sure you founders didn't believe in totally free speech. They had some direct methods for dealing with speech they didn't like though. I think even Beck would think twice if the penalty for some of what he says was a duel...

efarrer wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:Yes. When the Founders first asserted the right to a free press and free speech, they could have hardly envisioned the possibility of the rise of Fox News. Here we have a "news organization" that has defended its right to lie in court, has given money exclusively to one party, which has supported and encouraged a anti-government movement, and which broadcasts propaganda 24/7.

It is damaging to our democracy. Democracy, more than anything, relies on the free exchange of ideas. There needs to be honest and reasoned discussion of policies, priorities and agendas. But we cannot have that kind of conversation in this country anymore, because the right-wing has turned every single issue into one of partisan attack politics, and Fox News has played a huge role in disinforming the general public and stiffling honest debate.

So your solution to protect free speech is to start censoring people who disagree with you... I'm not sure you're really understanding exactly what Free Speech means. You're sort of advocating the exact opposite of Free Speech.

I'm 99% sure you founders didn't believe in totally free speech. They had some direct methods for dealing with speech they didn't like though. I think even Beck would think twice if the penalty for some of what he says was a duel...

Or he'd love it. Right wingers are usually much better shots than left wingers. Half the CBS/NBC/MSNBC staff would be pushing up daisies in a week.
I don't think you want to go there on whether or not the Founding Fathers would support you in your belief in suppressing political speech. You might have ended up tarred and looking like a goose.

Wait. You're a Canadian. They might have invaded...again (and lost again). You Canadians are so possessive of your Tim Hortons. You just won't give 'em up. Mmmm...Tim Hortons....mmm...

efarrer wrote:I'm 99% sure you founders didn't believe in totally free speech.

Given that most of them were in on the writing of the document and that most of the opposition was concern that putting it down in writing might unintentionally abridge people's rights or make the government think it can take anything not specifically spelled out in the bill of rights I'd say you are about as wrong as you can possibly be.

All this hulabaloo.

Washington wasn't even American, he was English!

Gwar! wrote:All this hulabaloo.

Washington wasn't even American, he was English!

Hey even giants have to overcome handicaps before they achieve greatness.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:All this hulabaloo.

Washington wasn't even American, he was English!

Hey even giants have to overcome handicaps before they achieve greatness.

And sometimes you have to go giant killing:


Don't ask...

For me, most of it is his terrible understanding of socialism and fascism, and how they relate to the modern political discourse

I dunno, I think they totally relate, or at least the discussion of socialism does. I think it's wrong to say "Obama is going to turn us into socialists!" He's not. But he is going to make us MORE socialist. He's already done so, really, and he would have preferred to have done more.

The fact is, the US, even before Obama had elements of socialism. Public schools, government programs for housing and student loans, etc. etc. In order to be truly "socialist" you'd have to have a lot more government owenership of a lot more industries and services, but for every industry and service you turn over to government control, you're that much closer to socialism.

he’s inventing a whole new reality full of impending doom for the once great United States of America.

He certainly does do a lot of doom and gloom, followed by hope and light. Obama is destroying the country, faith will lead us out, and miracles will happen, etc.

I just view that as his flavor of hyperbole, though.

The main difference I see between him and Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly, is that those guys are much more constrained to the news cycle, they hit the big issues of the day and give their spin on them. Hannity in particular is like that, he's like a talking point machine, he just gets on the mic and starts framing the debate in his terms, bang, bang, bang, roll credits.

What Beck does that's different, is he's got all these rallies and side projects, and he's always trying to go his own way, and wander off the mainstream media's track. He's going back and talking about Woodrow Wilson, he's tracking progressivism over time, and as a movement (obviously in his terms and worldview), but in general, he's much more off on his own, doing his own thing, which I sorta like.

I realize that many might not like his style or conclusions, but his willingness to pick his own topics and to veer off the beaten path is useful as a trend, even if the specific arguments don't appeal to you.

Like all religions, it is complex and full of internal debate.

Well, not exactly... Unlike almost all religions, it has an official leader, and it has official rules. Even so, what you're saying still applies, but probably far less so than for most any other major religion/sect.

You're sort of advocating the exact opposite of Free Speech.

Not "sort of." All the way.

China owns the largest share of our foreign owned national debt, but is a drop in the bucket compared to the total.

I'm not sure what you're saying. China owns about 22% of our debt. Is that a drop in the bucket?

The IRS isn't really in the business of sending people to jail.

They're not, but they do. Generally what they do is just take the money from you, by garnishing wages, etc.

They send people to jail when they feel that the evasion was large enough and deliberate enough to warrant making an example of the person involved.

I dunno, I think they totally relate, or at least the discussion of socialism does. I think it's wrong to say "Obama is going to turn us into socialists!" He's not. But he is going to make us MORE socialist. He's already done so, really, and he would have preferred to have done more.

The fact is, the US, even before Obama had elements of socialism. Public schools, government programs for housing and student loans, etc. etc. In order to be truly "socialist" you'd have to have a lot more government owenership of a lot more industries and services, but for every industry and service you turn over to government control, you're that much closer to socialism.

I fail to see how it's a useful term then. Calling the ghost of socialism out every time Obama expands or creates a new program (as if conservative governments haven't done the exact same thing, and as if every president and congress in 50 years hasn't) is just a hyperbolic scare tactic designed to incite the anger (and thus the passion to watch) in people who don't know what the word means. Socialism means virtually nothing in modern parlance, and it's use as a boogeyman is a ridiculous hallmark of the scare tactics that Beck uses to maintain his audience.

He certainly does do a lot of doom and gloom, followed by hope and light. Obama is destroying the country, faith will lead us out, and miracles will happen, etc.

I just view that as his flavor of hyperbole, though.

The main difference I see between him and Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly, is that those guys are much more constrained to the news cycle, they hit the big issues of the day and give their spin on them. Hannity in particular is like that, he's like a talking point machine, he just gets on the mic and starts framing the debate in his terms, bang, bang, bang, roll credits.

What Beck does that's different, is he's got all these rallies and side projects, and he's always trying to go his own way, and wander off the mainstream media's track. He's going back and talking about Woodrow Wilson, he's tracking progressivism over time, and as a movement (obviously in his terms and worldview), but in general, he's much more off on his own, doing his own thing, which I sorta like.

I realize that many might not like his style or conclusions, but his willingness to pick his own topics and to veer off the beaten path is useful as a trend, even if the specific arguments don't appeal to you.

Why is it useful? You seem like a somewhat worldly guy, it's not like beck ever touches on anything that hasn't already been chewed out by the actual news process. He just hits them harder and with less fact checking. What do you ever actually gain from it other than something to giggle at?



When the feth does this ever become anything other than precisely whats wrong with news media in america? (Ignore the dude talking over the video, there were many many beck videos to chose from and this was just the one that was at the top). Seriously, how is this anything but severely damaging to the credibility and concept of free speech and freedom of the press?

I'm not sure what you're saying. China owns about 22% of our debt. Is that a drop in the bucket?

No, it's just inaccurate. China holds about 22% of our foreign owned debt which is 27% of our debt. Thus they hold around 5% of our debt. Thats not nothing, but it's a FAR smaller number than most people seem to think.

When the feth does this ever become anything other than precisely whats wrong with news media in america?

He's talking about people who are relevant, but who would probably not otherwise be talked about.

Honestly, I've never really understood how the American left manages to get away with some of the things they do. Take the whole Bill Ayers thing, which Beck is talking about. I don't know what Obama's ties are to Ayers, and really, whatever...

What I always found funny about that whole thing was how the right wing media tried to "nail" Obama for having ties to Ayers, and Obama and the left wing media thought it was ridiculous and a non-issue. The confusion stems from the fact that this isn't about Obama, this is about the entire American left.

Bill Ayers set a BOMB in the PENTAGON. That's clearcut treason. I don't care if it was small. It's a BOMB. It's in the PENTAGON. In CAPS. The fact that he was no executed is somewhat stunning, but the fact that he's now a tenured professor and widely awarded for it is LUNACY. Again in CAPS.

It'd be like Terry Nichols getting a job teaching college classes. It's madness.

So, what does all this mean? It means that the left gets to just arbitrarily forgive their traitors, and then give them jobs and awards, and call it good. No matter what the right thinks, the left has decided that it's perfectly OK to associate with Bill Ayers. They kinda know it's not, or at least that most Americans won't think it's ok, but they don't care. They write this history. So they sill sorta argue "oh, they're not close friends" because they're vaguely aware that their actions are completely unacceptable, and that nobody who actually knows what's going on would accept it, but it's just a show. They've decided he's ok, even though he's a traitor.

That's why I think it's somewhat positive for Beck to be doing what he's doing. He's hyperbolic and crazy, but at the end of the day, he's challenging a version of history that is entirely written by the left, and is entirely lacking in real objectivity.

I realize that probably doesn't sit well with you, but here's the thing: if we're going to have our history be told by liars, let's at least let both sides' liars have a go at it, so people can hear it both ways.

Basically what I'm saying is that we're LIVING a history as told by the liberal version of Glenn Beck. I find it hard to demonize the guy for evening the scales a bit.

I think that's really the joke behind "fair and balanced." Clearly Fox knows it's not fair and balanced. But they are the balance to what the left has been doing for decades. They're balancing things by plopping a huge, loudly shouting mass on a scale that used to be pegged left.

I'm sure I go way off your loony-meter by saying it, but I feel that American history has, virtually since day one, been written by people left of center. Over time America has moved left, and over that same time period the people on the left winning the battle have been writing the history. The winners write the history.

To me, having a loud, moronic, shouting debate is better than not having it at all.

He's talking about people who are relevant, but who would probably not otherwise be talked about.

Honestly, I've never really understood how the American left manages to get away with some of the things they do. Take the whole Bill Ayers thing, which Beck is talking about. I don't know what Obama's ties are to Ayers, and really, whatever...

What I always found funny about that whole thing was how the right wing media tried to "nail" Obama for having ties to Ayers, and Obama and the left wing media thought it was ridiculous and a non-issue. The confusion stems from the fact that this isn't about Obama, this is about the entire American left.

Bill Ayers set a BOMB in the PENTAGON. That's clearcut treason. I don't care if it was small. It's a BOMB. It's in the PENTAGON. In CAPS. The fact that he was no executed is somewhat stunning, but the fact that he's now a tenured professor and widely awarded for it is LUNACY. Again in CAPS.

It'd be like Terry Nichols getting a job teaching college classes. It's madness.

Yeah, it's pretty inexplicable though the right has just as many men with just as many skeletons walking free and with ties to political establishments.

Also, I don't know if you had your head buried in the sand or something, but everyone was talking about Ayers and Beck didn't even get at the issue until well after it had broken into the circuit when he started to feel safe that he could connect him to obama using his magic chalkboard. Honestly, no, beck talking about Ayers was pretty much just political BS. This is a nation of three hundred million. There are bad people. It's not hard to find them, and it's not hard to make gak up and connect them to political figures when it suits you.

So, what does all this mean?

Absolutely nothing.

It means that the left gets to just arbitrarily forgive their traitors, and then give them jobs and awards, and call it good.

No, it's means absolutely nothing.

. No matter what the right thinks, the left has decided that it's perfectly OK to associate with Bill Ayers.

I'm pretty sure most of them have never met him, but hey, if you want to wrap early 70's radical leftist militantism with the left am I allowed to wrap 60's era segregationist violence with the right? Theres a point at which you let it go. I think that point might be around forty to fifty years later.

They kinda know it's not, or at least that most Americans won't think it's ok, but they don't care. They write this history. So they sill sorta argue "oh, they're not close friends" because they're vaguely aware that their actions are completely unacceptable, and that nobody who actually knows what's going on would accept it, but it's just a show. They've decided he's ok, even though he's a traitor.

Meh. He did bad stuff forty years ago that resulted in zero deaths. He may have been implicated in more, but honestly, thats how the legal system works. Dudes walking about, he wrote a few books, a few people have kinda met him. It's life. The mans a reformed leftist extremist, how long are you going to hold a grudge?

That's why I think it's somewhat positive for Beck to be doing what he's doing.

Everyone was talking about Ayers, beck just didn't let it go because his viewership is a bunch of idiots and eat that gak up.

He's hyperbolic and crazy, but at the end of the day, he's challenging a version of history that is entirely written by the left, and is entirely lacking in real objectivity.

No, he's really not.

I realize that probably doesn't sit well with you, but here's the thing: if we're going to have our history be told by liars, let's at least let both sides' liars have a go at it, so people can hear it both ways.

Beck is the only liar you have yet to mention.

Basically what I'm saying is that we're LIVING a history as told by the liberal version of Glenn Beck. I find it hard to demonize the guy for evening the scales a bit.

Translation: I am phryxis, and I am delusional.

I think that's really the joke behind "fair and balanced." Clearly Fox knows it's not fair and balanced. But they are the balance to what the left has been doing for decades. They're balancing things by plopping a huge, loudly shouting mass on a scale that used to be pegged left.

Theres no joke behind it, they perform yellow journalism and their viewership is statistically less aware of current events then of any other major news network. They just rake in money because they say inflammatory things and people are dumb.

I'm sure I go way off your loony-meter by saying it, but I feel that American history has, virtually since day one, been written by people left of center.

Yeah, you're going way off my loony meter. The left right divide as currently understood didn't even exist 80 years ago, let alone 150 or 200. If you're going to try and talk up some sort of leftist revisionist superconspiracy it makes sense. You like glenn beck. I think I now understand why.

To me, having a loud, moronic, shouting debate is better than not having it at all.

What does that have to do with Beck who has the moronic shouting, but lacks a personality or viewership with the stomach for a debate.

Since being "left" is so awesome, my advice is that people should definitely become "left" and be so awesome too.

Translation: I am phryxis, and I am delusional.

I think you confuse certainty with wisdom. You're incapable of understanding how intelligent, well-read people could possibly hold a different view than you, and so they're delusional, stupid, whatever other ad hominem feels clever to you that day.

Once upon a time I was as immature as you are now, and thought that this whole thing was just a battle to be won, and I sought to fortify my own conviction that my political opponents were categorically unworthy of respect.

Quite frankly, I still fall into that trap from time to time.

But what I try to focus my attention on is the need to understand that people will simply never agree, and given that fact, they should all, at least, have somebody who speaks for them in the national debate.

I know you're not even intellectually capable of hearing what I'm saying right now. "But Glenn Beck is WRONG! AND STUPID!"

Except he's NOT. He has numerous flaws, but they're flaws common to people in his line of work. At the end of the day, he speaks to/for a large number of Americans. He may get some things wrong, but they all do. He may act like a fool, but they all do.

I'm not saying the guy is perfect, or even laudable. I'm just saying that he's necessary.

You seem to think that demonizing and dismissing a good 50% of your countrymen is a reasonable solution. That's because, really, you're a snarky, arrogant child, who thinks that somehow getting in more insulting zingers is going to solve the world's problems.

It's not.

The American right views itself as the "silent majority." I'm sure you think that's wrong, and stupid, and they're not the majority, and they're such delusional idiots, they should be silent.

But, again, you're useless.

The fact remains that these people exist, and they view themselves as the silent majority. As long as these people are walking around, feeling like the mainstream media ignores them and disrespects them, there will be partisan bitterness, there will be the escalating rancor that we're seeing, and the nation will continue to spiral into crap.

Both sides need to TRY to learn to understand the other, TRY to give just a little more respect to one another's opinions.

That's why I keep giving you insight into my perspective. It's neither "wrong" nor uncommon. It's an opinion that many Americans share.

So, we've got Fox and the WSJ and then we've got everyone else, and they're arguing with each other like idiots. But, at least we now have the pieces in place for the debate. People are starting to get tired of the tawdry crap. They're starting to lose faith in ALL media. Eventually these media orgs will have to respond, to improve the standard of debate, and then, hopefully, we can finally have a serious debate where all sides are represented.

I think you confuse certainty with wisdom. You're incapable of understanding how intelligent, well-read people could possibly hold a different view than you, and so they're delusional, stupid, whatever other ad hominem feels clever to you that day.

An intelligent well read person doesn't watch or listen to Glen Beck in a fashion that is not ironic. But thats neither here nor there.

Once upon a time I was as immature as you are now, and thought that this whole thing was just a battle to be won, and I sought to fortify my own conviction that my political opponents were categorically unworthy of respect.

Is that time now? The future? I'm pretty sure we're currently there. Is this like, the prologue before starwars where it says "A long time ago" but then spends the next hour and a half establishing that a long time ago is right now?

Quite frankly, I still fall into that trap from time to time.

You also hit enter between every sentence.

But what I try to focus my attention on is the need to understand that people will simply never agree, and given that fact, they should all, at least, have somebody who speaks for them in the national debate.

That doesn't even make coherent sense, especially in the context of the conversation we've been having.

I know you're not even intellectually capable of hearing what I'm saying right now. "But Glenn Beck is WRONG! AND STUPID!"

I've heard all of it. You know, this sentiment actually works both ways!

Except he's NOT.

I'm the one saying he wasn't stupid. Are you drunk?

He has numerous flaws, but they're flaws common to people in his line of work. At the end of the day, he speaks to/for a large number of Americans. He may get some things wrong, but they all do. He may act like a fool, but they all do.

Yes, glenn beck and the people he speaks for/to act like fools. I know.

I'm not saying the guy is perfect, or even laudable. I'm just saying that he's necessary.

You seem to think that demonizing and dismissing a good 50% of your countrymen is a reasonable solution. That's because, really, you're a snarky, arrogant child, who thinks that somehow getting in more insulting zingers is going to solve the world's problems.

If not even all of the right likes glenn beck then 50% of my countrymen certainly do not. You are posting while inebriated.

The American right views itself as the "silent majority." I'm sure you think that's wrong, and stupid, and they're not the majority, and they're such delusional idiots, they should be silent.

How can they be the silent majority? They have the highest rating cable news network and practically own radio political commentary? I would love for them to be silent, but it's not going to happen.

But, again, you're useless.

I'm pretty good at video editing. I'm sure I have some sort of use.

The fact remains that these people exist, and they view themselves as the silent majority. As long as these people are walking around, feeling like the mainstream media ignores them and disrespects them, there will be partisan bitterness, there will be the escalating rancor that we're seeing, and the nation will continue to spiral into crap.

So you blame them for the nation spiraling into crap as well? Glad we're on the same page.

Both sides need to TRY to learn to understand the other, TRY to give just a little more respect to one another's opinions.

I understand your opinions well and truly fine. They are just pretty stupid in this case.

That's why I keep giving you insight into my perspective. It's neither "wrong" nor uncommon. It's an opinion that many Americans share.

I never said uncommon, but it's certainly wrong.

So, we've got Fox and the WSJ and then we've got everyone else, and they're arguing with each other like idiots. But, at least we now have the pieces in place for the debate. People are starting to get tired of the tawdry crap. They're starting to lose faith in ALL media. Eventually these media orgs will have to respond, to improve the standard of debate, and then, hopefully, we can finally have a serious debate where all sides are represented.

I agree, and I find it bizzare that you can somehow both think that people are losing faith in news media and it's inability to have a serious debate and yet can laude Becks attempts at derailing it al even further and faster. It's like you hate having your house on fire but you're enraptured with the man throwing around the matches.

Phryxis wrote:

Bill Ayers set a BOMB in the PENTAGON. That's clearcut treason. I don't care if it was small. It's a BOMB. It's in the PENTAGON. In CAPS. The fact that he was no executed is somewhat stunning, but the fact that he's now a tenured professor and widely awarded for it is LUNACY. Again in CAPS.

Indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Modquisition on.
Just because this is the OT does not mean that normal Dakka conventions do not apply. Dakka Rule #1 is still in force here. Statements that other posters are "delusional" have no place on place Dakka, and similar posts by other posters are not acceptable.

ShumaGorath wrote:then let me continue with the whole Healthcare thing (gonna make it mandatory for eveyone including the poor to pay for their own health insurance or go to jail do not pass go pay upto an additional $500 in fines per incident...vets pay for injuries sustained in combat because they 'volunteered'?)

There are no jail terms for not having health insurance. Strike one.

Hmmm guess you didn't watch the reports about the "failed healthcare bill" it failed because it included trash like the fines and possible jail time that were written in...of course we can't forget the myriad of smaller trash items written in that this senator or that representative wanted to get passed for thier very own special interest group...

...then get into the bail outs (where do you think the money came from Gary...hmmm?...not our taxes...China maybe??...or did they just print more??...nope it came form China...if they called in the markers 47% of this country would belong to that country)

China owns the largest share of our foreign owned national debt, but is a drop in the bucket compared to the total. Foreign owned national debt is one of the smallest slices of that piechart. Strike two.

I'm seeing a contradiction here...they own the largest part but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the total?...hmmm where did you get your math skills as clearly percentages weren't among your favored topics The 'pie chart' is carved all to hell because of the multiple nations we owe as well as private sector contractors from various countries including our own...as a result...the largest slice of our FOREIGN debt belongs to China...27% at last count...if you look at a pie...cut just a quarter and take it away...that is what we owe china...is that easier to understand?...what you are left with, then cut into roughly 71 lil pieces...hmmm there's your drop in the bucket...yet those countries that owe us are forgiven their debts...politics as usual

...hmmm while we're at it lets throw out the whole pre-Marxist bit about Czar this and Czar that (dunno bout you but I grew up in America not russia in the pre 20's)

And the teaparty has a manifesto, I don't know about you, but this is the english language, not the russian one. Strike three.

True and I don't support that group of self indulgant fuss pots either...however...Czar is a Russian word...check out the definition...means KING...last time I heard we were a democracy? ?I think? Where is it in our constitution that we are ruled by KINGS?...OH yeah that's why we fought for independence "from Sovereign rule of one individual"...but that was supposed to be over...hmmm

...oh and lest we forget the blatant lies about how he was going to change things in washington...oops he just jumped on the band wagon with the rest of the corrupt politicians...lets face it...all politicians are a useless waste of human flesh...they can vote themselves a pay raise in 30 minutes but takes em two years to come up with some FUBAR reform for health care? Do you honestly think any of them have any moral standard when it comes to the people they are 'SUPPOSED' to be watching out for?...it's all about the Benjamins Baby!!!!

*yawn*

point made there...unless of course my facts bothered you? Yes it only took Congress 30 minutes to vote themselves their last pay raise...and of course how many times did they try to pass the all mighty 'Health Care Bill' but it failed because of the special interest lobbyists? IIRC 6 times??

staying on topic...as I believe it was about his religion...if you did your research...you would find that Mr Obama isn't even sure about his religion...as over the years he has played theological ping pong when it pertains to his beliefs (basically making sure they stayed mainstream and on target for his 'career')...a person that does not know who he is has no business runnin the place I call home...and as I am from the state where Mr Obama and his family originally resided and represented...

Examples?

I do know a lil more than the general public as not much of his early stuff made national headlines...but local news covered enough of his/her antics to leave a bad taste in the mouths of anyone who listened and learned...

No, I'm pretty sure that you don't "know a lil more then the general public". Though I'm willing to bet you think you know plenty.
lemme guess...you voted for and support him?...I do not...I am a vet, a tax payer, a patriot and a citizen...

LOL nothin like butchering the paragraph, misplacing and arranging it out of context...the point i made is that I was raised in Illinois...near Chicago as a matter of fact...watched WGN before it was syndicated news...so as for the national general publics knowledge of local happenings in the Chicago area...yeah I do know a bit more than say YOU would..unless of course you were from there as well...HMMMM...That's where Obama and the missus are from...hmmmm...Michele lost her ability to practice law there...hmmmm...several law suits for fraud and misconduct against both of them....hmmmm....and yes our president has played ping pong with his beliefs...born and raised Muslim not long but yep it is...then converted to christianity...not Catholicism as he wasn't allowed under tenant...but Presbetyrian, Lutheran, Baptisit were/are all viable religious alternatives...what ever church had the best preacher and picnics usually...of course we can't blame him for that...as that would be before he was a self sufficient individual on his own and making his own living...

You also don't seem to know much about the healthcare bill or our nations economic structure.

.as are many of my friends and family...I have served, this country and my fellow citizens (and those who aren't and hiding here illegaly) Obama is a stain on this country...as bad as the countless other politicians who have screwed over the American people and gotten away with it...just to put a few more dollars in their pockets.

*yawn*

that's right lay yer head down and sleep...another reason our world is in the mess it is...Hmmm seems you cut the paragraph in half for some reason...truth hurt? lemme guess you never served anything but yourself right? I have skimmed the proposed bill and know why it is currently in the federal court systems for unconstitutional content...or does that document mean something different to you, as opposed to other citizens of this country, as well? are you a citizen?...Where's yer green card son?

wolfpack wrote: are you a citizen?...Where's yer green card son?

This could only get more ironic if ShumaGorath was native American. If he is, lol. If not, still silly.

Hmmm guess you didn't watch the reports about the "failed healthcare bill" it failed because it included trash like the fines and possible jail time that were written in...of course we can't forget the myriad of smaller trash items written in that this senator or that representative wanted to get passed for thier very own special interest group...

There were thousands of provisions added and removed, the most visible being the cornhusker kickback which was a conservative piece of pork. There were never serious considerations to the idea of jailing people for not having insurance and there are fines.

I'm seeing a contradiction here...they own the largest part but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the total?...hmmm where did you get your math skills as clearly percentages weren't among your favored topics The 'pie chart' is carved all to hell because of the multiple nations we owe as well as private sector contractors from various countries including our own...as a result...the largest slice belongs to China...47% at last count...if you look at a pie...cut just under half and take it away...that is what we owe china...is that easier to understand?...what you are left with, then cut into roughly two or three hundred lil pieces...hmmm there's your drop in the bucket...yet those countries that owe us are forgiven their debts..politics as usual

Five percent of our national debt is a drop in the bucket. They own a large percentage of our foreign owned debt, which is a small percentage of our debt. You people don't know how this all works and I really wish you would do the barest amount of research or use some sort of logical basis for your arguments before coming in here.

True and I don't support that group of self indulgant fuss pots either...however...Czar is a Russian word...check out the definition...means KING...last time I heard we were a democracy? ?I think? Where is it in our constitution that we are ruled by KINGS?...OH yeah that's why we fought for independence "from Sovereign rule of one individual"...but that was supposed to be over...hmmm

czar   [zahr, tsahr] Show IPA
–noun
1.
an emperor or king.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) the former emperor of russia.
3.
an autocratic ruler or leader.
4.
any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry.

Words can change in meaning, especially when they change languages and eighty years pass.

point made there...unless of course my facts bothered you? Yes it only took Congress 30 minutes to vote themselves their last pay raise...and of course how many times did they try to pass the all mighty 'Health Care Bill' but it failed because of the special interest lobbyists? IIRC 6 times??

What facts? You rambled about political greed senselessly. It was boring.

LOL nothin like butchering the paragraph, misplacing and arranging it out of context...the point i made is that I was raised in Illinois...near Chicago as a matter of fact...watched WGN before it was syndicated news...so as for the national general publics knowledge of local happenings in the Chicago area...yeah I do now a bit more than say YOU would..unless of course you were from there as well...HMMMM...That's where Obama and the missus are from...hmmmm...Michele lost her ability to practice law there...hmmmm...several law suits for fraud and misconduct against both of them....hmmmm....and yes our president has played ping pong with his beliefs...born and raised Muslim not long but yep it is...then converted to christianity...not Catholicism as he wasn't allowed under tenant...but Presbetyrian, Lutheran, Baptisit were/are all viable religious alternatives...

His father was a secularist and his mother was a christian. I don't care where you grew up or what you did with your life. Apparently neither of those things gave you a very good basis on which to judge the world considering you lack the perspective to understand even the barest facts.

that's right lay yer head down and sleep...another reason our world is in the mess it is...Hmmm seems you cut the paragraph in half for some reason...truth hurt? lemme guess you never served anything but yourself right? I have skimmed the proposed bill and know why it is currently in the federal court systems for unconstitutional content...or does that document mean something different to you, as opposed to other citizens of this country, as well? are you a citizen?...Where's yer green card son?

Oh man, look, the old vet whose mad at the hippies is shoutin' at me for being a mexican. Please, wake me when this thread comes back to actually being a reasonable or factual debate rather than a conspiratorial wankfest for people who lack a grasp of the basic history of the last three years.

I would hope not...give the rest of us a bad name...LMAO

Think now's a good time to close the thread. In the words of the immortal Bard:

"Less Bark and more Wag!"