Obama Campaign Begins

Bluenote · May 10, 2012

sanvanalona said:
thats quite unfair no? Is it the color of his skin? Just curious where all this animosity for him derides from?

And of course the demonstration of the usual Liberal Race Card bullshit. Care to have me put up a rather large list of " Minorities" who are thoroughly and completely against O'Bummer?

Here lets just get out there where **MY** animosity comes from as regards O'Bummer , he IS a piece of shyte product of the Chicago potlitical machine , a Socialist oriented asswipe groomed for the job from day one , a product of the unholy union of Black Liberation Theology and the Socialist/Marxist rhetoric and ideology of useless ** SELLOUTS to the Movement*** such as William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

He's a piece of shit that was bought and paid for far prior to ever appearing upon the national scene , so is Pelosi. But hey since YOU are for everincreasing govt , more meddling in our personal lives and yet more taxation and " rules" then of course you like O'Bummer and Nancy The Turd.

Here , lets just shortcut the rest of your usual Liberal arguements , NO I didn't vote for or even like Bushleague , no I'm not a Republican ( or a democrat) , no I don't like Ron Paul in the least ( longterm hogtroughing feeding FAUX Libertarian that he is) and wouldn't vote for him.

The System is B R O K E N and will remain so until the available opportunities for and temptations TO corruption and the exercise of GREED are removed.

Start with the Lobby system...................and term limits.

nebulius · May 10, 2012

I think its possible to completely disagree with the president, but also respect his position as the president. We live in a great country where we have the freedom to speak and not be persecuted. Although we have the freedom of speech, I think it does no good in this country to show utter disrespect for our president. I say; disagree all you want, but do it respectfully, when you're disrespectful to the position of the president, you're being disrespectful to our country. The president doesn't represent one political party, he represents US as a nation.

Hey Blue. Who do you like for pres?

squiggly · May 10, 2012

Bluenote said:
Is there anything that O'Bummer could do WRONG in yours?

I've personally seen him point out errors Obama has made--so I can answer this for him; yes.

In other news:

According to a 2011 study by cognitive neuroscientist Ryota Kanai's group at University College London published in Current Biology, people with different political views have different brain structures. The scientists performed MRI scans on 90 volunteer young adult people's brains.The results of the study showed that conservatives had a larger amygdala,a structure of the brain associated with greater sensitivity to fear and disgust emotional learning. Liberals had increased grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex,a structure of the brain associated with monitoring uncertainty and handling conflicting information. The authors stated that the research "support previous reports of differences in personality: liberals tend to be better at managing conflicting information, while conservatives are though to be better at recognizing threats". However, it is difficult to known if structures affect political preferences or if political preferences affect structure. The researchers concluded, "It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions." Kanai also warned: "More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude."

nebulius · May 10, 2012

Wonder what an MRI of Carvill would show?

squiggly · May 10, 2012

nebulius said:
I think its possible to completely disagree with the president, but also respect his position as the president.

Thank goodness for people like you--I feel this is also the right way to be. I respected Bush as our president while he held the office, and I even agreed with some of his more unpopular moves (like going to war).

The thing about the left that really gels with me is that they are more open to these complex ideas and digging deeper. Republicans want everything taken at face value for the most part--if you get too complex they flat out shut down. Despite that I have strong friendships with many republicans, it's just unfortunate that their response to being challenged to a difficult question about their beliefs is to become defensive and stave off any further complexity in the argument. They want shit to just be the way they think it is all of the time.

I wish it could be that way--that none of us ever had to be wrong, but it's not that way.

Bluenote · May 13, 2012

squiggly said:
Thank goodness for people like you--I feel this is also the right way to be. I respected Bush as our president while he held the office, and I even agreed with some of his more unpopular moves (like going to war).

The thing about the left that really gels with me is that they are more open to these complex ideas and digging deeper. Republicans want everything taken at face value for the most part--if you get too complex they flat out shut down. Despite that I have strong friendships with many republicans, it's just unfortunate that their response to being challenged to a difficult question about their beliefs is to become defensive and stave off any further complexity in the argument. They want shit to just be the way they think it is all of the time.

I wish it could be that way--that none of us ever had to be wrong, but it's not that way.

I didn't respect Bush. Not in the slightest. But then I'm originally from Texas and the state got saddled with the buncha SilverSpoon CarpetBagging Yankee Bastards with the old man , Preston Bush was a pirate sonofabitch and nothing changed downstream except the degradation of already limited intellect.

And sorry but I see the same syndrome you speak of on both sides of the aisle , got no use for the extremes of either position either.

nebulius · May 13, 2012

Ol Prescott Bush. Interesting fella. couple of excerpts from Wikipedia.
http://t1.invalid.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYg4xv0EMg2-eGn6FUV_-d5RBqgMRW1-z5LYan46Pk7XKGgGTHVA
Union Banking Corporation

Bush was one of seven directors (including W. Averell Harriman) of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank controlled by the Thyssen family.[2] In July 1942 the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders.[3] A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations, but confirmed the Thyssens' control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II.[2]
Joe Conason said that Bush's involvement with UBC was purely commercial and that he was not a Nazi sympathizer.[4] The Anti-Defamation League [5] and historian Herbert Parmet[6] agreed with that assessment.

Friedrich "Fritz" Thyssen
Thyssen himself claimed to have donated 1 million marks to the Nazi Party.[2] Thyssen remained a member of the German National People's Party until 1932, and did not join the Nazi Party until 1933.

Once the Nazi dictatorship took hold, however, Thyssen began to have second thoughts. Although he welcomed the suppression of the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the trade unions, he disliked the mob violence of the SA. In 1934 he was one of the business leaders who persuaded Hitler to suppress the SA, leading to the "Night of the Long Knives". Thyssen was horrified, however, at the simultaneous murder of various conservative figures such as Kurt von Schleicher.
Thyssen accepted the exclusion of Jews from German business and professional life by the Nazis, and dismissed his own Jewish employees, but he did not share Hitler's violent anti-Semitism. As a Catholic, he also objected to the increasing repression of the Roman Catholic Church, which gathered pace after 1935: in 1937 he sent a letter to Hitler, protesting the persecution of Christians in Germany.[3] The breaking point for Thyssen was the violent pogrom against the Jews in November, 1938 known as Kristallnacht, which caused him to resign from the Council of State. By 1939 he was also bitterly criticising the regime's economic policies, which were subordinating everything to rearmament in preparation for war.[4]

ttystikk · May 13, 2012

nebulius said:
Ol Prescott Bush. Interesting fella. couple of excerpts from Wikipedia.
http://t1.invalid.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYg4xv0EMg2-eGn6FUV_-d5RBqgMRW1-z5LYan46Pk7XKGgGTHVA
Union Banking Corporation

Bush was one of seven directors (including W. Averell Harriman) of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank controlled by the Thyssen family.[2] In July 1942 the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders.[3] A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations, but confirmed the Thyssens' control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II.[2]
Joe Conason said that Bush's involvement with UBC was purely commercial and that he was not a Nazi sympathizer.[4] The Anti-Defamation League [5] and historian Herbert Parmet[6] agreed with that assessment.

Friedrich "Fritz" Thyssen
Thyssen himself claimed to have donated 1 million marks to the Nazi Party.[2] Thyssen remained a member of the German National People's Party until 1932, and did not join the Nazi Party until 1933.

Once the Nazi dictatorship took hold, however, Thyssen began to have second thoughts. Although he welcomed the suppression of the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the trade unions, he disliked the mob violence of the SA. In 1934 he was one of the business leaders who persuaded Hitler to suppress the SA, leading to the "Night of the Long Knives". Thyssen was horrified, however, at the simultaneous murder of various conservative figures such as Kurt von Schleicher.
Thyssen accepted the exclusion of Jews from German business and professional life by the Nazis, and dismissed his own Jewish employees, but he did not share Hitler's violent anti-Semitism. As a Catholic, he also objected to the increasing repression of the Roman Catholic Church, which gathered pace after 1935: in 1937 he sent a letter to Hitler, protesting the persecution of Christians in Germany.[3] The breaking point for Thyssen was the violent pogrom against the Jews in November, 1938 known as Kristallnacht, which caused him to resign from the Council of State. By 1939 he was also bitterly criticising the regime's economic policies, which were subordinating everything to rearmament in preparation for war.[4]

Indeed, an early supporter of the Nazi Party, and then turned against what it came to stand for. From the perspective of history, it's easy to see the rise of the fascists, but not so easy when you're in the middle of it. I would say the same when it comes to some of the more draconian policies and planks of the 'modern' republican party platform in this ocuntry. When they scream 'socialist!' at Obama, I believe it's to pre-empt and drown out those who would scream 'fascists!' at them. Just because their religion tells them it's okay to act like this is no justification for it.

Bluenote · May 14, 2012

Hmmmm , looks like old Preston will lead us to Henry Ford and others , along with many of the American Eugenicists that Hitler borrowed his bullshit from.

Bluenote · May 15, 2012

Anyone care to discuss O'Bummers lifting of Elizabeth Warrens crap for incorporation into his health care plan?

Since Libdems are allegedly so " honest" perhaps some would care to discuss Warren *herself* and her various and sundry dishonesties.

squiggly · May 15, 2012

Meh no one said they were honest, or I didn't at least.

What I said is I believe their ideological setting represents a better starting point than the right. I said I want a tea party thing which is democratically minded and about "getting back to the roots" of government by and for the people. We've seen already this can be a powerful force, I want to see it happen when crazy people aren't the ones taking office.

Bluenote · May 15, 2012

squiggly said:
Meh no one said they were honest, or I didn't at least.

What I said is I believe their ideological setting represents a better starting point than the right. I said I want a tea party thing which is democratically minded and about "getting back to the roots" of government by and for the people. We've seen already this can be a powerful force, I want to see it happen when crazy people aren't the ones taking office.

Start it. And learn from the Tea Parties mistakes , don't let it get co-opted and don't bow and scrape so as to maintain 501c3 status.

squiggly · May 15, 2012

Now that's advice I can get behind.

Believe me it's not as if I haven't thought about it. I'm glad to at least see you say it's not the worst idea ever. I totally realize it's a long shot, but I think it is the shot to take. Wish I knew what platform or soap box to jump on and give it a try, but I don't.

nebulius · May 16, 2012

I think that's a brilliant idea. I think to make it work you would need some simple core beliefs that are interpreted directly from the constitution, and that people can rally behind and won't cause major polarization within your group.

This makes me think of the Sons Of Liberty from the Revolutionary War. I think that would be an awesome name too, Sons of Liberty. But then again, the ladies will feel left out. Maybe "Patriots for Liberty".

You could model your approach after The Sons of Liberty, altering the plan with updated technologies.

From a website.

somewebsite said:

A small group of men -- supported mostly by artisans, mechanics and laborers -- mobilized the colonial discontent with England's rule. Without their efforts, it is highly doubtful that the Revolution would ever have happened. The Sons used every conceivable method available to them to achieve their goal of independence. These methods included galvanizing the masses into action. They organized demonstrations, forced officials of the Crown to resign, circulated petitions, published newspaper articles and distributed handbills - they did not hesitate to employ force when necessary.

Click to expand...

somewebsite said:
The Sons of Liberty made their first appearance in late 1767. Although their origins are obscure, as the Sons were a secret organization, they were formed in some of the colonies in opposition to the infamous Stamp Act. Ten years earlier, in 1755, some "True Sons of Righteous Liberty" formed a political club in Connecticut to defend religious and personal freedom. It is probable that this group was revived as the Connecticut Sons of Liberty. A group of New Yorkers organized a group which called themselves the "Whig Club" in 1752. This club was formed for the same reasons as the Connecticut group and held weekly meetings. Each of these meetings was opened with a toast to "the immortal memory" of Oliver Cromwell, leader of the rebellious faction during the English Civil War. Some of the Whig Club members were later connected with the New York Liberty Boys.

Toker Ace · Jun 7, 2012

caregiverken said:
IBTL...

Hey Squggly...folks like you like to say its a woman choice..because its their body.

mr scientist,
Does one body have two beating hearts?

how can you be so blind?

When you stop the beating heart of a human fetus...your killing a human being.:mad:

lets talk about growing weed. :)

How about mind your own fucking business?
You don't want to pay for condoms I fucking do.
Caregiver my ass.

Dirty White Boy · Jun 7, 2012

I dont agree with the constitution massive holes leaves room for interpretation. Our founding fathers most of who were Mason's (them) and most who were part of the Jesuit Church which is the military religious order of the roman catholic church are THEM they are the THEM that your talking about. Thomas Jefferson and James Maddison had the two most popular ideas for amending the constitution. Thomas Jefferson wanted a constitutional convention every 20 years so we could amend rewrite the text to make it relevant. He was out of the country when it got voted on so we chose Madisons idea.Now we have to get 2/3rd of this vote 2/3rd of those states yada yada...basically impossible. Our constitution was writtin to be re-writtin......this bullshit from both the left and right about "sacred text" is fucking stupid never existed till recently.

"the most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside"

Who agrees with Electoral Colleges?

GR33NL3AF · Jun 7, 2012

Starting to sound like a trim session in here....

but...

I agree entirely with this:

Bluenote said:
The System is B R O K E N and will remain so until the available opportunities for and temptations TO corruption and the exercise of GREED are removed.

nebulius said:
I think its possible to completely disagree with the president, but also respect his position as the president. We live in a great country where we have the freedom to speak and not be persecuted. Although we have the freedom of speech, I think it does no good in this country to show utter disrespect for our president. I say; disagree all you want, but do it respectfully, when you're disrespectful to the position of the president, you're being disrespectful to our country. The president doesn't represent one political party, he represents US as a nation.

sanvanalona · Jun 7, 2012

Bluenote said:
And of course the demonstration of the usual Liberal Race Card bullshit. Care to have me put up a rather large list of " Minorities" who are thoroughly and completely against O'Bummer?

This was not my intent, to use the "race card" as you are accusing. I am curious where people's ideas of race fall behind when they do not like President Obama, especially when the answer to my question about whether or not he could do anything right was: "NO". That leads me to believe that this person abandoned critical thinking long ago and I guess I was just curious of the genesis. Now, one other thing I must mention here is that there are many self-hating minorities out there, just because you are a minority does not mean that you cannot be a racist, you can. I personally believe that no one is absent of racism/prejudice its just a question of how intense.

And to answer the question: "Is there anything Obummer could do wrong in yours?"

I think he is human, President Obama that is and has made a plethora of mistakes. First and foremost was his attempts to make everyone happy, that has caused him to appear to watered down as most of his policies eventually became. I am upset that the healthcare act did not have the public option, upset that he hasn't been able to do more for mmj in my home state/ shit everywhere for that matter, would love to see more Presidential pardons for those imprisoned for cannabis, wish that he would not of extended many of the atrocious bush policiies, i.e., the patriot act, I wish that he would not pander to the Republican right who no matter what are going to hate him. I wish he was some of those things you accuse him of, but he is not. Ultimately though, I understand that this world will never be the utopian idea of my dreams, just not possible as the apparatus known as this government is far too strong to ever allow real opposition at a core level. These things that upset me though are very minor in consideration of what the opposition has in store, which after Wisconsin I am pretty sure we will unfortunately see a new President. Does anyone on here support Mitt Romney? Why?

kolah · Jun 7, 2012

Obama is a racist! Hahaha.

xX Kid Twist Xx · Jun 7, 2012

what about Hermain Cain he makes 10x's more sense then Obama. i dont think its about black and white so much anymore, unless your over 50.

Obama Campaign Begins

Obama Campaign Begins

Bluenote

nebulius

squiggly

nebulius

squiggly

Bluenote

nebulius

ttystikk

Bluenote

Bluenote

squiggly

Bluenote

squiggly

nebulius

Toker Ace

Dirty White Boy

GR33NL3AF

sanvanalona

kolah

xX Kid Twist Xx

Premium Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency