Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why don't you procide some proof of these "admissions" on Obama's part...
His books his writings, his associations in the past. If you think a lepoard can change his spots then I do belive you are one deluded individual. Obama telegraphed it precisely with these things or are you obtuse as well?
So now 42% is a "vast majority"? Interesting math.
Cite where you get this figure because lately Obama is suffering from DISTRUSTfrom many, and remorse from those that voted FOR him.
Why don't you define those words for us, and explain the differences? Or are you just repeating talking points without understanding words.
stat·ism (stā'tĭz'əm)
n. The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
stat'ist adj. & n.
____________________
MARXISM : An ideology created in the 19th Century by one disgruntled man---Karl Marx---in response to capitalism. Marx was not a peasant beholeden to the MAN: he was a well-off elitist obscessed with his own intelligence. Marx looked at income inequalities under capitalism, thought it bad, and predicted a worker's revolution, that would destroy the bourgeois (producers/entrepeneurs), and DEMAND forced economic equality. The prism through which he viewed the world was classic leftism: he did not see people as individuals, but rather as stuck members of monlithic economic groups, or classes. Marx's poisonous ideology sought not to inspire members of the lower classes, but make them resent WEALTH, and success.
Sound familiar?
Practioners would include: Karl Marx, College Professors, and sycophant students.
Do you think I'm an "ENEMY" of liberty as well? What do you know of his politics to come to that conclusion? How about mine?
Don't know and I know more than you think I do sport. You are now dismissed.
I'll await your response.
Not familiar with the "QUOTE" Function given to you on these boards? I'll WAIT until you are.
Nice dodge. Try again, brother.
Nice tongue-In-Cheek comment. KUDOS.Any opposition to Obama's plans for future of America is clearly racist. He is the first black man to occupy the office. He won! We should all be thankful that Barack is in charge. Any opposition to his Marxism is clearly racist and unjustified. He loves us all.
You'll have to be more specific, or provide some examples.His books his writings, his associations in the past. If you think a lepoard can change his spots then I do belive you are one deluded individual. Obama telegraphed it precisely with these things or are you obtuse as well?
I got my figures from here. RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval. Where do you get your evidence of this widespread "DISTRUST" and "remorese"?Cite where you get this figure because lately Obama is suffering from DISTRUSTfrom many, and remorse from those that voted FOR him.
You've just proved that you don't know the definitions of Socialism, Statism or Marxism. So try again.stat·ism (stā'tĭz'əm)
n. The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
stat'ist adj. & n.
____________________
MARXISM : An ideology created in the 19th Century by one disgruntled man---Karl Marx---in response to capitalism. Marx was not a peasant beholeden to the MAN: he was a well-off elitist obscessed with his own intelligence. Marx looked at income inequalities under capitalism, thought it bad, and predicted a worker's revolution, that would destroy the bourgeois (producers/entrepeneurs), and DEMAND forced economic equality. The prism through which he viewed the world was classic leftism: he did not see people as individuals, but rather as stuck members of monlithic economic groups, or classes. Marx's poisonous ideology sought not to inspire members of the lower classes, but make them resent WEALTH, and success.
Sound familiar?
Practioners would include: Karl Marx, College Professors, and sycophant students.
What exactly do you know?Don't know and I know more than you think I do sport. You are now dismissed.
Nope, it sure wasn't. Did you just need a little extra time to come up with a response? I'd of thought you'd come up with something a little better than that.Not dodging anything. Now that wasn't so hard, now was it?
You'll have to be more specific, or provide some examples.His books his writings, his associations in the past. If you think a lepoard can change his spots then I do belive you are one deluded individual. Obama telegraphed it precisely with these things or are you obtuse as well?
I got my figures from here. RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval. Where do you get your evidence of this widespread "DISTRUST" and "remorese"?Cite where you get this figure because lately Obama is suffering from DISTRUSTfrom many, and remorse from those that voted FOR him.
You've just proved that you don't know the definitions of Socialism, Statism or Marxism. So try again.
What exactly do you know?Don't know and I know more than you think I do sport. You are now dismissed.
Nope, it sure wasn't. Did you just need a little extra time to come up with a response? I'd of thought you'd come up with something a little better than that.Not dodging anything. Now that wasn't so hard, now was it?
It's my work to make your argument for you? That's not quite the way it works. This to me means "I don't have any sources, so I'm just gonna be an asshole about it".And you've just proved to me that you are full of total unabashed horse pellets. Everything I posted is provable, and documented. Don't rely upon me to do your work for YOU.
Typical Liberal. Make others do the work. I left the onus upon you, and you have done ZERO to refute any of it.
Having the majority doesn't mean anything in the Senate, where the minority can just filibuster anything that moves.
Except the Democrats had 60 votes till Kennedy died. Can not filibuster shit with only 40 votes.
And you've just proved to me that you are full of total unabashed horse pellets. Everything I posted is provable, and documented. Don't rely upon me to do your work for YOU.
Typical Liberal. Make others do the work. I left the onus upon you, and you have done ZERO to refute any of it.
TRY AGAIN>
But then they say they are for "freedom Of Speech", but that is until they are confronted with strong opposition to "their speech", then we all become "Astroturf" which for those that don't know is "FALSE Grass Roots Movement"...Anyone who says they are against protesting is not a true liberal, period.
But then they say they are for "freedom Of Speech", but that is until they are confronted with strong opposition to "their speech", then we all become "Astroturf" which for those that don't know is "FALSE Grass Roots Movement"...Anyone who says they are against protesting is not a true liberal, period.
Just adding to your comment.
Kooks, aka Ditto heads.
Lots of words from the right, lots of opinion, no evidence, no facts. Nothing but talking points, digested bull food and personal attacks.
The 21% refers to those who continued to support the policies and activities of Bush&Co up to the end of his presidency, and now pretend they know the future. Their posts are mostly hysterical rants filled with name calling and propaganda.
Kooks, aka Ditto heads.
Lots of words from the right, lots of opinion, no evidence, no facts. Nothing but talking points, digested bull food and personal attacks.
The 21% refers to those who continued to support the policies and activities of Bush&Co up to the end of his presidency, and now pretend they know the future. Their posts are mostly hysterical rants filled with name calling and propaganda.
It seems the Republican establishment is focused on bringing the Obama Administration down - no matter what the consequences. .
Why should you expect GoPers to differently from the way Dems actted in the previous administration?It seems the Republican establishment is focused on bringing the Obama Administration down - no matter what the consequences. At a critical time in our nations history, it seems we, as a people, ought to pull together and not apart.
Yet many of you (those who post on this forum) choose to continue the attack everything done or suggested by the new administation.
What bothers me is that no counter proposals are offered and the attacks on Obama are often personal and nearly all are emotion laden.
I don't support President Obama in lockstep, and would welcome honest and reasoned debate on the issues facing our nation. Unfortunately, there seems to be no honorable opposiition on the right.
There is a huge difference between the debate on the war in Iraq, Katrina and torture and the controversy today on health care, the economy in general and the on going action in Afghanistan.
To equate the personal criticism of President George W. Bush with the attacks on President Obama is hyperbole at its greatest, as well as hypocritical.
Bush may have been called stupid, incompetent, incurious, and a coward - face it, his military career was inglorious; yet his motives were rarely questioned; he simply was not up to the job. Yes, that is my opinion, but there is little to suggest history and historians will disagree.
Obama has been under attack since before he was elected president. Most of the attacks are silly, many are covertly racist, and in general the attacks are outright lies, or half-truths, exaggeratons or prophecies of doom.
The 'dishonorable oppositon' doesn't have the truth on their side. So debate is unthinkable, they come to the match unarmed and resort to mean spirited fantasies.
There is a huge difference between the debate on the war in Iraq, Katrina and torture and the controversy today on health care, the economy in general and the on going action in Afghanistan.
To equate the personal criticism of President George W. Bush with the attacks on President Obama is hyperbole at its greatest, as well as hypocritical.
Bush may have been called stupid, incompetent, incurious, and a coward - face it, his military career was inglorious; yet his motives were rarely questioned; he simply was not up to the job. Yes, that is my opinion, but there is little to suggest history and historians will disagree.
Obama has been under attack since before he was elected president. Most of the attacks are silly, many are covertly racist, and in general the attacks are outright lies, or half-truths, exaggeratons or prophecies of doom.
The 'dishonorable oppositon' doesn't have the truth on their side. So debate is unthinkable, they come to the match unarmed and resort to mean spirited fantasies.
