I should probably post the definition of Fascism, just to get the ball rolling…
But anyway, this awesome image is available as a shirt, poster, and a version of it as a bumper sticker at Zazzle! Click the link in the blog to check them out!
ComicStripClub.com
The home of ranting and panting…
-
June 2011 S M T W T F S « Mar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 -
Latest Comics
-
Monthly Archives
August 7th, 2009
Fascist Obama
-
Menu
Categories
CSC Links
Took it from this, btw.
Nice Graphic
So……Obama is both a socialist and a fascist? He’s all over the place.
Seriously Hapa, sometimes you make me wonder if you even know the difference between left and right. I even wonder if you know where they stand.
Tuesday, Obama is a socialist. Obviously this is considering that this guy has more liberal policies than conservative French President Sarkozy. And by Liberal policies, I’m talking about economics.
Today, he is a Facist although he clearly is further left than every single president (except maybe Carter) who passed before him.
I also notice he is an islamist as well. Very well pointed out.
But you forgot he was a goat raper, anti-semetic, racist terrorist who enjoys using the american flag as toilet paper…
I’m far from beeing a fan of Obama but you are going as low as “conspirationists” went when they said W. Bush was behind 9-11…
I’m sure you could benefit from posting the definition of ‘fascism’ because you apparently have no idea what it means.
Hi, you guys must be new, because Hapa has never know what the hell he’s talking about.
And I’d just like to crosspost this:
Griz,
“You fucking lib’tards can keep chanting the Big Lie mantras until Hell freezes over, but history has shown time and time again that socialism DOES NOT WORK, and the poverty, disease, repression, stagnation and death that results is proportional to the degree that socialism is applied.”
Yeah, you’re totally right. I mean just look at some of the countries with Universal Health Care like England, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Swedan, Switzerland, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand.
Oh, wait. It turns out that each and every one of those countries has a higher life expectancy than Americans, AND they pay less money per capita on medical expenses than Americans too. Its almost as if UHC works. But that’s nonsense, since it’s a commie socialist program that will kill our old people and stab our babies. (And since you’re none too bright, Griz, that last part was sarcasm.)
Yeah, he’s also a nigger.
Obama’s state of the union address:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOCZNE42Ev8
Hey, remember when this site used to post shitty conservative comics. I sure don’t.
Damn, my crotch still itches. I wish mom hadn’t given me crabs…
Let’s see, centralized economy controlled by the govt., via unelected regulatory agencies answerable only to the chocolate messiah (Czars)? Check. Centralized confiscation of personal wealth, production and property (taxation) and redistribution of same to “those who need it most” (welfare, Fanny Mae, et al.)? Check. Centralized collection of names of citizens, groups, and businesses to be stored for any future reference (census)? Check. Centralized control and distribution of medical needs (sinlgepayer healthcare, Medicade/Medicare)? Check. Demonization of freemarket enterprise, entrepeneurs, businessmen, capitalists, and centralized control of harrassment of same (ACORN, et al.)? Check. Centralized oversight of indoctrination of nation’s youth (public school systems)? Check. Centralized direction of the weakening of American economic system to create dependency on govt.-run programs (current domestic policies)? Check. Centralized direction and protection of brownshirts to quell dissent and create fear of ruling elite and thereby denying freedom of expression (Black Panthers, unions, et al.)? Check. Centralized organization of demonization and squelching of protesters (current reaction to townhall phenomenon)? Check. Centralized weakening of trust and effectiveness of nation’s police forces (police acting “stupidly”)? Check. Plans to replace same with centralized stasi (campaign pledge to create citizen police force with funding and equipping equal to military)? Check. Centralized mandate for citizens to snitch on dissenters (current snitch request on taxpayer-funded Whitehouse website)? Check. Centralized control of speech and thought (political correctness, incorrect usage of term “Racist”, hate crime legislations)? Check. I dunno, if it walks like a duck…
Please forgive me, but I neglected to add the most important aspect of all: Centralized control of media or media beholden to and enamored of the ruling elite to the point that all coverage of them is positive and coverage of their opponents is negative (establishment media, public television, FCC)? Check. Centralized attempts to deny gun ownership (Brady bill, gun control legislation, Fairness Doctrine, et al.)? Centralized censorship of speech and freedom of expression (ibid above “political correctness, incorrect usage of term “Racist”, hate crime legislations”)? Check. Quack, quack, quack…
So every president in the past 80 years has been a fascist by your definition, Derry, you fucking moron.
Obama’s not a fascist, and your country is not on the road to anything except AWAY from the stupid neocon policies that took us from a decade of peace and prosperity to the worst recession we’ve had in seventy years. Conservative policies have failed, and democracy did exactly what it’s supposed to – took power out of the hands of a party that is clearly incapable of wielding it wisely. It’s not fascism, it’s what happens in a democracy when the rest of the country decides that your party is a bunch of incompetent shits with bad ideas. Hope you enjoy it, you really deserve it.
Not at all, Brenda. Since my party is the party of Independants (I’m by no means a Republican), and hence bear no affiliation with either of the primary parties, I think you’ll be hardpressed to prove that my party is an incompetent shit because we’re not a homogenous group such as you liberals. We believe in the Constitution and original intent of the founders, and no other party ideology. So by extension, your definition of my “party” means that you believe that the Founding Fathers were incompetent shits. Interesting. A look at even the most Liberally-biased pollilng shows that the rest of the country by and easy 2-1 ratio agrees with me and not with you. Bad news for the chocolate messiah and his rabid devotees. Finally, before I can actually take your argument seriously, do you have anything substantive to back up your ad hominem claims or is the sole raison d’être of your argument? Even if I stipulate for the purpose of the argument that me and my “party” (again, easily 3/4 of the American population) are incompetent shits, how does that prove me wrong? Tell me which president in the past 80 years has nationalized idustries and banking? I mean, besides Obama (pbuh)? By the way, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re aware of the takeover of GM, AIG, etc., so please don’t embarrass yourself further by denying it isn’t happening now. Ta for now, darling,
Hugs n kisses,
Derry Jeffersonian
“I think you’ll be hardpressed to prove that my party is an incompetent shit because we’re not a homogenous group such as you liberals”
No, I think we’d be hardpressed to prove anything because you’re all unelectable morons.
And, BTW, Brenda, I must apologise for neglecting to mention that you’re not entirely incorrect. It’s because of the behavior of the Republican party that they did, indeed, get voted out. You’re correct in your statement that this is what happens in a democracy. Where you err is that what the new boss is doing is not part of that democracy, and your blind devotion to his dismantling of over 200 years of a functioning representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic is sad and frightening in it’s effects and hypocrisy.
SAW, how can I possibly respond to such stunning logic and reasoning. Clearly, you’ve run rings around me rhetorically and your spot-on analysis of my argument and example-laden riposte is devastating. I bow before yours and Brenda’s set of superior and meaningful declarative sentences and carefully explained premises which in one fell swoop laid waste to all arguments before them. Well done, lad, splendidly played. But just for elucidation’s sake, could you please explain how I’m an unelectable moron if: a) I haven’t run for any elected office and therefore haven’t proven my electability and: b) how I’m a moron by any definition of the word (note to you and the equally brilliantly redoubtable Brenda, you’ll find all these words in this book called a dictionary, which you’ll have to borrow from someone because judging from your posts it’s unlikely you have one on hand). L8r dude. Stop sniffing the glue, it ain’t helping.
Jeez, I can’t believe I’m forgetting to include this information as I’ve been intending to for the past three posts. Anyway, my original post was merely to show how fine a distinction it is between Obama (pbuh) and those whom we associate with fascism. Personally, I wouldn’t define him as a fascist (not yet, anyway). As I’ve often said in debates and arguments with people, Obama is not the first black person elected to the office of president, he’s the first Marxist. Perhaps that’s a fine distinction between ideologies, but not all fascists are marxists. Most are just despots. Again, Saw and Brenda, check out this book with the word “Dictionary” on the spine and cover, it’ll explain all the big words.
Well, if it’s superfluous pontification that you require in order to elucidate upon an ideal, than I’ll be happy to oblige. You see, you make the ascertation that you are an affiliate of what you allegate is the political preponderance of this nation and that the Bi-Partisan parties of the Democrats and the Republicans are the minority. However any layman could discern that this is an apocryphal actuality, as the Independent Presidential aspirant, Ralph Nader, appropriated less than 2% of votes this last election. Thus, one could easily ratiocinate that not only is your proposal counterfactual, but that it is rather the antithetical of the truth.
Lol, Saw, the difference between you using a thesaurus and Derry’s use of multisyllabic words is that he’s using them in a natural and effortless way. You’re clearly trying to sound smarter than you are. Or rather, more educated than you are. I’d hate for you to confuse the two.
Actually, Mike, I find that Derry comes off as pretentious and forced, but I can understand that my satire may have been a bit too subtle for you to grasp.
Big words are good to use because niggers like B. Hussein don’t understand them. Also, if he tries to take your hard-earned money for “redistribution”, just distract him with some watermelon.
^^^ Probably the best summary of what Conservatives actually believe. ^^^
SAW, this is a brilliant, splendid attempt. While I fear you may have mistaken a Thesaurus for a Dictionary, it’s not a bad start. You would sound almost erudite if not for the giveaway that you’ve used “big” words without regard to their connotation which makes it appear to be a puerile effort. However, that notwithstanding, you actually do come across now as a fairly reasonable, thoughtful debater. Honestly, in spite of your obvious attempt at mockery, didn’t you feel just a little bit more civilized, cultured, even well-bred by the attempt? Personally, it makes your point sound a little more reasoned (emphasize “sound”) and thereby almost forces one to consider them seriously. Your previous usage of crude language, personal insults, only makes you come across as a boor that no one would take seriously from the get-go and so you’ve defeated your own argument ere you made it. With this last post, you’ve actually forced the readers to consider your words, analyze them, draw our own conclusions and then respond. Understand that this does not guarantee agreement with your points, only that they be taken seriously. Please believe me, I mean every word I just wrote and I intend it as a compliment, although I can see how it might be construed as a back-handed one it is meant with the best intentions. I would highly recommend that you strive to elevate your arguments by continuing to engage in such a civilized, thoughtful, and gentlemanly method of stating your points. The important thing to remember is that a Dictionary gives definitions of words, whereas a Thesaurus gives alternate words that approximate the same definition so that you can find just the right connotation to add punch to your statements. The point of using “big” words is not to sound self-important and pretentious, but to give a more direct and clear meaning to your thoughts. The “big” words should be used not to try to impress others with how “smart” you are, but to give a razor precision to your rhetoric and premise. That’s the problem with the crude language that you and Brenda previously used. It lacks finesse, implies if not outrightly demonstrates ignorance and low breeding, and is so limited in scope and limiting to your point as well as being intellectually lazy that you really do defeat your own argument. Which is a shame as, much like the proverbial broken clock, you may occassionally be right. So, with that being said, I now address your points. Merely claiming superflousness without putting forth evidence of such is a very weak position to take and so is easily dismissed as a statement derived from envy. In the future I would avoid such mistakes in logic and reasoning if you really want to hit home on the mark and avoid being made a mockery of derision and scorn. Also, allow me to disabuse you of your notion that I seek superfluous pontification. Since I addressed yours and Brenda’s points with accurate and precise language, aimed directly at the points without (much) blathering, then, as you’re clearly implying, I really ain’t pontificatin’ am I? This is especially true as I’m also not a Catholic. You seem to have missed my point about “party affiliation”, which, to show what a sporting fellow I am, I take as a failure on my part to make more clear what I meant. Although, in fairness to myself, said failure was based for the most part on my giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your abilities to analyze rhetoric. My point was that independant voters have the liberating quality of voting for whom we choose without being taken for granted, hence the rush by both established parties to court the “swing vote”. Unlike diehard Democrats and Republicans, if you want my vote, you’ll have to earn it. It’s as precious to me as my life and as sacred as the Constitution and I won’t whore it out for anyone. I’ve voted Democrat in the past, mostly split-ticket based on the qualitites of the candidate and not on whether or not they have an R or a D next to their name. What you state as an independent party (i.e: the Green/Nader movement) was not independent at all, but a stated third party which had it’s own adherants. That a third party only garnered 2% of the vote reflects on them as an establishment party and not on unnafiliated voters such as myself. So while you were misleading and very much incorrect in your presenting my “allegation” of myself and other independents as somehow being a third party, you were correct in the observation that the 2 major establishment parties are clearly not in the minority (although since that was not my point it needs no defense in this regard), which is really the crux of the nation’s problems. That being said, my argument has thus been exonerated from your incorrect conclusion. But let me add that providing the example of Nader’s party to support your argument is exactly the kind of thing that lends more credence to your premise, and while I disagreed with one part of your premise I was forced to concede the other part. You see why that’s important, now, right? If you’d merely stated that my proposal [sic] was counterfactual, etc. I could have dismissed it outright. But that you included some example forced me to (in all intellectual honesty) agree with you at least on some level. SAW, in all sincerety, I was delighted by your post. You have proven capable of rising above the lowbrow, low-class and thus easily dismissed level of your previous posts. I urge you to continue to do so, although with more serious attention paid not to the size of the words, but in finding just the right words that more precisely matches the intention of your argument. Keep it up, man, and I will be pleased to discuss with you any issue you deem important enough to debate. And please, keep it impersonal, the ad hominem attacks really hurt.
Hap, what can I say? It’s like a joke, I suppose, in that if you have to explain it, it probably isn/t that funny or you’re telling it to the wrong crowd. Trucker, WTF are you talking about? Clearly SAW has demonstrated an ability to consider and use “big” words, and his earlier responses, as crude and low-bred as they may have been at least shows that he has read and inferred if not outrightly understood the meaning and intent of those words. Please consider my previous comments to SAW regarding crude, boorish, ad hominem attacks and try to elevate yourself and your premise to the level of civil discourse. Sheesh. Now where’s my weak tea and milquetoast?
Happa, can I ask you question, do you wear these shirt designs you create? It’s all well and good to expect us, your fellow compatriots to give you money for the opportunity to spread your Ideology. But do you, Hapajap, do you go out in public wearing a shirt that equates the President of the United States to Stalin & Hitler? Have you gone out to the Supermarket in it? Have you worn it to pick up your kids from school? Have you Shaken hands with your boss in it? Have you worn it at a Pro-Obama rally? And if not, why not?
Derry, I have to apologize for my earlier misconduct. I originally assumed that you were simply an ultra-conservative that refused to acknowledge it and instead professed to be a “independent” in order to make himself seem more credible. Having read your more recent explanations and arguments, I must concede a begrudging respect, even though I still disagree with you on many points. You have to understand that often times it’s so easy to find yourself dropped to the level of your opponents without even noticing it. I will strive to act in a more civil manner, to you at least. Although, I do have to say I still feel that you come off on the opposite end of the spectrum, seemingly over-verbose for the mere sake of using more and larger words and more than slightly condenscending.
Regardless, I think you might be making some out of context accusations. Czars aren’t an actual position or organization, per se, but rather they serve as informants and advisors for Obama, making sure he understands every angle about the positions to which they are assigned. While I cannot deny that having the ear of the President is a powerful position, they themselves can still do nothing, and certainly they cannot directly control the government.
Nor is Obama attacking entrepreneurs or inventors, and certainly not with ACORN. Again, ACORN is only an organization that helps inform people of certain issues, helps them with voter registrations, and even provides transportation to polling places for low-income and infirm voters. Certainly they aren’t some sort of mafia-style organization that bullies people into submission, and I think you’d find it hard if not nigh-impossible to prove otherwise, though certainly I would read and contemplate any information you had to rebut me.
Also, please, please, PLEASE, find my an article where Obama said he would instate a civilian militia with equipment and training comparable to the united states army. I’d very much like to read that one as well.
Derry:
I’m talking about that nigger pretending to be our president. If there’s one thing we should be mad about, it’s the fact that the man in our oval office was born in Mombasa, Kenya! Orly Taitz found his real birth certificate, you can look it up yourself! It’s high time we let this impostor know that in the United States of America, we don’t let Kenyan niggers play us for fools!
SAW, apology accepted and in fariness to you may I add that my initial comments were, indeed, condescending. But that was merely in response to the, shall we say, aggressive comments on myself rather than my argument. Also, don’t apologize for the assumption that I’m ultra-conservative, as I am verrry consesrvative. However, please note the lowercase “c” as indicative of my not following any ideology except those found in and derived from the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. As to being verbose, let me assure you that for the most part this is how I really speak, having been taught by people who were absolute martinets regarding the English language and its usage. Now, on occassion, when typing my thoughts I do admit my tendency toward verbosity and floridity, but I do choose my words very carefully and perhaps go overboard to make sure I cover every angle. Not only does this ensure that I state my premise more accurately, it also leaves little room for others to circumvent the argument into a circular one and thereby obfuscating it. I’ve found early on that leaving too broad an interpretation of my words allowed others to quibble over what I was really trying to say and thus defuse (though not defeat) my arguments. Your observation is noted and will be duly considered.
As to the Czars, they are with some exceptions, “advising” the president on policy, foreign and domestic and they do not have to answer to Congressional oversight. The sneer quotes indicate that they are actually writing the policy with the shared ideology of Team Obama in mind. This is fact. The entire point of Czars is that they oversee the direction and operation of whatever program their office is in charge of. Since Nixon started this years ago, they’ve always gone through a Congressional confirmation process and the press (back when they were journalists) also did some vetting of their own. Obama is the first president to create a plethora of Czars that entirely circumvent the vetting process of confirmation hearings and are, in effect and actuality political appointments. Up until this administration every president already had such people in Cabinet positions. But they had to be answerable whereas these new Czars are officially being designated as “advisors” and are not answerable to anyone. This is even more problematic with a press very much taken with our president and neglectful of their first amendment duties to report all the facts no matter who’s in the White House. They control nothing tangilbe, but their proposals become enacted by the president as executive orders with misleading titles and so in essence they do exercise control acting at the president’s behest.
While (so far) the president hasn’t actually *attacked* entrepeneurs as a group, he has attacked specific tagets within the private sector as being harmful to the country. The wealthy (whose wealth was generated by businesses and enterprises they created), so-called “Big Oil” who spend much of their filthy, dirty, evil money on research and development as well as employing millions, the insurance companies and drug companies…oh, how I could go on. The demonization of these people, the automakers with the strawman of not creating or stifling the creation of “green” cars, he’s hardly a friend to entrepeneurs and businessmen. His taxation policies and regulatory demands, especially his healthcare plans, almost ensure that companies will either fail or ship the jobs overseas. If ACORN (one of whose founders was some fellow by the name of Barack Hussein Obama) is not acting in tandem if not at the outright direction of the White House, how do you explain ACORN members demonstationing outside the private residences of bankers yelling threats and baseless accusations at their families(!) through bullhorns, effectively terrorizing them and forcing the banker to accede to their socialist demands to keep their families safe? How else to explain the admission and confession of many ACORN pollsters knowingly providing thousands of false names and addresses on their registrations? For an entity that is “only” an organizaion, how to explain, then, the current Congressional investigation for voter fraud, election fraud, RICO Act violations, money laundering, and other violations of the election process? BTW, a Congress that is majority Democrat no less. How bad do you have to be for a sympathetic governing body to nevertheless bring you to task for your thuggery? It is demonstrable that they are, in fact, a mafia-style organization whose Raison D’etre is the rigging of elections via suppression of voting through intimidation and fraud. They broke into homes belonging to the banks and attempted to coerce those institutions to lose millions of dollars by giving the homes back to the people who couldn’t afford them. Perhaps if I’ve time later this week I’ll scratch up for you some examples of media coverage though I’m a little surprised that you haven’t seen any of this extensive coverage in the past 6 months.
A simple Google search under “Obama Campaign Pledge to start Civilian militia” turned up more links than I knew what to do with. Since the media barely touched this at all during the campaign and certainly not since, most of the analysis has been done by conservative papers and bloggers. Rather than risk a cry of “Well, they’re biased, you see, and so that’s why…” No, instead, I’ll let you hear it from the man himself and let you be the judge. Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHmecy94z-M&NR=1 I believe the very definition of hard-pressed is trying to spin this any other way.
Excelsior! Ever upward!
Trucker, dude, you need to calm down a bit. First, since I believe wholeheartedly in the first amendment I am not going to insist that you stop using the word “nigger”. By all means, please continue to do so. Keep in mind that you do so at risk almost no one taking you at all seriously except as a fatuous screwball whose racist opinions are wayyyy behind the times. For now I’m being kind as I’m not yet certain whether or not you’re just engaging in some bizarre hyperbole or if you’re the real deal, burning cross and all.
My apoplogies for misreading your statement as being directed against SAW, it was an inexcusable assumption on my part. That being said, firstly, to your original post, Obama is clearly in full command of the English language, his Bush-like inability to speak extemporaneously nothwithstanding. I doubt very much I could outmatch him in such a battle of wits, and as far as I’m concerned that’s a compliment of the highest order. Ahem. Secondly, Obama’s taste for watermelon has yet to be fully established and he’s too elitist to really demean his palate by eating such common food so I doubt such a diversionary tactic would succeed with a guy like him.
As for Obama’s birth certificate, I’m not fully convinced that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. I checked out your link and I looked at the image of the supposed Kenyan birth certificate and found some issues with it. First, there are no sworn testimonies supporting the claim that he was born there, only heresay and recollections of an event 40 years ago by a really old woman. Second, the image is not certified as accurate by any official and reputable source, it’s just a grainy JPEG. Until it is so certified as authentic, it’s far too easy to Photoshop the image to make it appear genuine. For all we know, it could have been a sibling’s birth certificate with Barack’s name superimposed. Third, if you look at the double “I” denoting the Jr. status to his father’s Sr. (Barack Hussein Obama II) you’ll see the stems don’t line up with those of the rest of the letters on that same fold. In fact, upon closer inspection, his entire name is a little out of whack with the rest of the words and the sides of the columns. Looks fishy to me and I’d like a little more than a single image on some guy’s website before I sip out of that Dixie cup. Personally, I don’t doubt his status as an eligible citizen for the office of presidency. The local newspaper at the time have his name listed in the birth listings for that day and I doubt they were concerned with his presidential bid at that time.
But he did spend a lot of time, money and effort to hide his birth certificate all the same, so something’s going on. If one accepts the factuality of his citizenship status, then what conclusion could we then arrive at? I suppose first we’d have to know what information these certificates from Hawaii have on them pertaining the birth, parentage, nationality, etc of the registree and what it contains that he wants hidden. It must, in his mind at least, be very damning, but I don’t believe citizenship is the issue. Was his religion listed listed as “Muslim”? Well, that’s technically not a constitutional disqualifier and now that he’s president it’s really a moot point hardly worth mentioning. Especially as nowadays he claims to be a Christian it makes the point even more inconsequential so what is he hiding?
I think a strong argument could be made that it lists his religion as “Muslim” and so he was afraid it might derail his campaign. With guys like you on the scene I can’t imagine why he’d think such a thing. However, since it brought out a lot of “birthers” and continues to fan those flames, it works to his advantage not to finally let it be seen. In this manner the Democrats can tar all republicans with the same brush as the lunatics who rabidly run hither and thither screaming about Kenya. To be honest that’s what I’d do, laughing up my sleeve the whole time as these few people defeat their own cause. To be fair, more Liberals and Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9-11 in advance than Republicans and conservatives believe that Obama’s presidency is illegitimate, so if I’m to be tarred by your brush I’m certainly going to splash the “truthers” brush all over the Democrat party.
Honestly, lay off the glue and stop huffing the spray paint, It’s really starting to blur your vision.
Maybe you don’t mind that the current “president” has spent 2.3 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money (that, I might add, was collected only from hard-working whites while all the lazy niggers get tax breaks for sitting around all day eating watermelon) to try to hide the fact that he isn’t even eligible for his position, but I sure as hell do. This is not a time to “calm down” because some elitist told you to. This is a time for action, and is likely our last chance to save the republic. You answer to us, we don’t answer to you.
Trucker, in fact I do mind very much, and I’m livid about it. My yelling about it started a year and a half ago when Bush began the whole bailout fiasco. I’ll do you one better: I’m apoplectic about the tr-tr-trillions (!) he’s spending. I would think my previous comments about taxes being confiscatory would be a fairly clear indication of where I stand on the govt’s out-of-control spending. It was ridiculous when the Republicans were spending like they were the sun-gods and I’m no more calm now that the Democrats have taken that ball and run with it. But what has that to do with our point of contention regarding Obama’s legitimacy to be the constitutionally elected president of the United States? Just because I don’t believe he was born in Kenya you then make the astoundingly incredible and seriously retarded conclusion that I somehow am in favor of his policies. I can assure you that you will find very few people who are more anti-Obama in terms of his Marxist policies than I. As far I’m concerned, his skin color matters not at all. I’d be just as angry if he were a white guy doing this (ibid my Bush reference) to my country. And what is it with you and watermelon? Don’t blacks subsist on any other food source where you’re from? It’s monotonous and if you want to continue the stereotyping at least break it up with fried chicken, collard greens and chitlins. Sheesh, it’s like listening to Afternoon Delight that always back-skips to the chorus until you push the needle forward. As far as welfare bums go, why don’t you have a problem with all the trailer park people? Bums are bums regardless of skin color. I was challenged on this notion a few years ago and was forced to admit that I didn’t know what the racial make-up of welfare recipients was so I did the only logical thing: I kept on repeating my mantra of welfare queens. No, sseriously, I did some research and discovered that almost half of the people suckling the public titty were whites and the remaining 40-some-odd percent was made up of all minorities, predominantly blacks. But the percentage of blacks was still lower than whites. When taken as a percentage of the racial population, blacks as a race were disproportionately high amongst that group, but per capita over half of the welfare money goes to whites. Since you keep harping on “niggers” on welfare and the “nigger” in the white house the only logical conclusion that I can draw about your premise is that if he were white you’d be more accepting of his spending habits and citizenship status. If your response is that you’d be in an equal dither if he was white, then there is no reason to keep refering to his race. Here, I’m forced to agree with SAW insofar as you’re just a racist who really can’t stand the fact that a black guy is sitting in the oval office. Where SAW errs is that he believes all Republicans and conservatives believe and think that way, more’s the pity. As for being calm, yes, you’re right to be up in arms over Obama’s domestic and foreign policies. But what use is it to scream and behave in such an uncouth and low-bred manner here? This forum should be one of rational if not calm debate (its subtitle notwithstanding), but when you get all het up under the collar your emotions interfere with your rationality (assuming you possess any). Gee whiz, man, just watch an episode of Sanford and Son to its end and get over it. You’ll need more than a suspicious low-rez JPEG and the recollections of some old woman to prove your point so let the citizenship thing go. I’m not telling you to forget about, just put it on the back burner until you’ve got some real evidence and then turn up the heat. I applaud your concern and the closing line of your last post (assuming it’s directed at politicians and not me), but I fear that your anger is misdirected and thus is little more than wasted energy. Take that energy and shout from rooftops, only keep on topic with policies drop the whole “nigger” thing. You might be surprised at how seriously you’ll be taken then.
Yes, I wear my own political shirts. In fact I just wore one day before yesterday. Right now I’m not.
Derry, there is this wonderful thing called the ‘return’ key. Can you try using it once in a while? lol
Whao……Stop the presses……Hapajap and I agree on something! LMAO
(DerryJeffersonian’s post can use some use of ” this wonderful thing called the ‘return’ key”.)
Honestly, I found DerryJeffersonian and SAWhowhatnow’s exchange encouraging and entertaining. (Now if only we can get Griz and Trucker Tom on board…..) My only fear is if they continue to post in such ertrudite manner, I won’t be able to keep up!
Dispite the quibble over the tonality of some people’s post, I gotta agree with Brenda’s contention that “your country is not on the road to anything except AWAY from the stupid neocon policies that took us from a decade of peace and prosperity to the worst recession we’ve had in seventy years”.
Except that I wouldn’t characterize the policies Brenda infers as “stupid”. I think “misguided” is a more apt description – in that the priorities of those policies seemed to have been aimed to benefit a certain segment of the US population as opposed to the general population. The rationalization for this is what I consider a fallacy. – “Trickle Down Economics”.
Nah, you’re more for ‘trickle up poverty’, which is what Obama is doing.
lol, yeah, as soon as I saw the published posting I realized I’d neglected to break it up into readable paragraphs. The thing is, the comment typing window is only about 4 or 5 lines in height and it’s difficult to keep track of just how long-winded my posts get. It’s like reading a James Fenimore Cooper novel. Heh, apologies all around!
There, that was easy. I’m not saying that we all have to sit around in velvet smoking jackets while swirling brandy snifters harumphing and genteely discussing the day’s events like painfully polite English gentry. But, really, “fucking moron”? “Nigger”? My little joke about how the ad hominems really hurt aside, I’m a big boy and it really doesn’t bother me, bring it on if you must. But, damn! it’s so tedious. I applaud, no, encourage passionate debate, but keep it civil. Of course, if you want to down and dirty, just remember the maxim about mud wrestling with a pig.
Quibble schmibble. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their ilk are demonstrably taking my country pell mell down the road to European-style socialism and that is not where rational people want to go, at least according to people who live in European-style socialist countries.
Worst recession? So you’ve downgraded the Bush economy from a Great Depression, then, as the Democrat party has been droning on about for the past year and a half? I wish you guys would make up your minds. Screaming about Bushitler is protected free speech, but mocking Comrade Obama is a clear and present danger to the Republic? Hmmm. It does beg a few questions, but my pinky’s sore from hitting the return key so much. Let me just conclude with Trickle-Down Economics is a demonstrable success and our neighbors across the pond beginning to embrace Capitalism is a clear signal that socialism ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.
P.S: Kuni, before I can comment on your statement about priorities and policies, could you clarify what you mean by “certain segment”?
I have no doubt that “Trickle Down Economics” is successful. It’s simply a lot more successful for those at the “top” than those at the “bottom”.
My problem with it is “Who’s controlling how much is being ‘trickled down’?”
Being Canadian, I’ll use the beaver and stream analogy. All beavers will create damns – as is their nature – to create a habitable pools for themselves. Each of these pools reduce the flow of the stream/ river they are located on. Eventually, the cumulative effects of all this dam building could (potentially) reduce a river to a creek or trickle…. Of course, beavers will only create dams large enough to support themselves and their family. And this Many many beaver damns are required to change a river to a trickle of water.
The analogy is for the current of the river to be capital/money and the beavers are the various entities/ corporation/ organizations that utilize that capital. The beavers upstream are those at the “top” of the economic ladder.
The difference is that unlike beavers, each corporation/organization will create the biggest pool of resources as they possibly can. In this way, they can maximize their resources (profit) and maximize their control of those rescources (cash flow).
This means that large corporations/ organization, and those others at the “top” have more control than those at the “bottom”. In fact, those at the bottom are in some ways, at the mercy of those at the top.
Look at what happened when the banks (upstream) decided to “turn off the taps” to minimze their losses.
I am not for “‘trickle up poverty”. I would rather see capital injections to Small and Mid-sized companies. The big companies -those large enough to impact the economy – are sucessful enough to take care of themselves.
Where “Trickle Down Economics” promotes injecting capital to the rich because they are “more likely to reinvest the capital” into the economy (relatively small number of companies investing large amounts of capital each ), I think that a large number of small and midsize companies each investing small abounts of Capital, may net the same amount of reinvestment into the economy.
The added bonus being that in a few small businesses can not longer reinvest, the net effect on the economy would be less than if a few big companies did not reinvest. There would be more parties reinvesting and thus more resilience to the entire economic system.
The other part of the “Trickle Down Economic” fallacy is that large corporations are more likely to reinvest it’s surplus capital than smaller companies. They do reinvest their surplus capital, but it is not into the economy – it’s into “executive bonuses”, “golden parachutes” and expense accounts.
Every individual/ organization shall spent their capital as required to support themselves and those in their charge (eg. Family). Beyond this, they may set aside a savings/ contingency plan. Lastly, they spent on luxuries / reinvest etc. (actually, in North America, we tend to skip the second part.)
Trickle down economics only considers the last part to be “reinvesting” in the economy. The first part (expenditure on essentials) should also be considered “reinvesting” in the economy, as it keeps capital circulating within the economy. In this view those at the “bottom” of the economic latter will contribute more than those at the top base purely on volume.
Certain segment of the population = those ot the “Top” of the economic ladder. Larger corporations/ organization. Those who are perceived to be able to make an economic impact.
By the way, do any of you know about the rampant capitalism cocuring in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam?
Why would I care what those chinks are doing? Maybe if they are lucky and really pull it off, they will be allowed to follow when Glenn Beck leads us true believers to the promised land.
I love it when I am gone for just a little while and all the sudden all hell breaks loose. Hapa, you are going to have to start updating me on these things . . . =P
As for whether Obama is fascist and socialist, he seems to go with whatever works most at that time. However, he has never appeared to be anything but fascist or socialist. I wish he’d shake things up a bit, give a bit more variety, I keep waiting for the next episode thinking something will CHANGE, but I’m on the verge of quitting watching the sitcom altogether.
tsk tsk
(PS – I’m so clever)
Trucker Tom: If I’m not mistaken, “Chinks” is a derogatory term for people of Chinese descent, not Vietnamese….
The point is that everyone in the US media (and in other locales as well) seem to equate democracy with capitalism. And Thus Socialism is “not democratic”. The truth is Democracy and Socialism are politcal theories/ practices. While Capitalism is an economic theory. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive (as shown in my example of Vietnam.) So Obama will still allow the US to be capitalistic at the same time as being more socialistic than it currently is. And since you are still free to vote him out at the next election, democracy is still in effect.
“Chink” means a small opening or crevice you liberal moron.
Vietnamese are ‘gooks’, Chinese are ‘chinks’, Japanese are ‘japs’ or ‘nips’, Koreans are ’slopes’.
I know, we’re all so confusing…
I don’t think anyone on this forum is moronic to belive that was the context in which you were using the work “Chink” Trucker Tom.
I think you are moronic for not understanding that I was using a metaphor. You see, I called the Vietnamese “chinks” to show how “open” (as in an opening, the definition of chink) they are to the wonders of capitalism. And here I thought you liberal elitists were supposed to be educated…
Took you all evening to come up with that one?
Nice try Trucker Tom
I was hoping that you would come up with something a little more plausable such as:
How the Vietnamese came to see the Error of their socialistic ways (a “chink” in their political armour as it were) and tried to open up their society to the rest of the worlds market. Thus they embraced a small “c” capitalism that has allowed much of the middle class to prosper.
Now this is more plausible because this is exactly what happened – it started around the late ’80’s.
Now your first response -if you give any Trucker Tom – is probably that I’m a moron because what I posted is the same as what you posted.
But this would only show your lack of understanding. The Vietnamese have always embraced “main street” capitalism. They are still very much Socialistic when it comes to larger scale projects.
The phrase “Error of their socialistic ways (a “chink” in their political armour as it were)” is merely how you may interpret what happened.
In truth, politically, not much has changed in Vietnam. They Vietnamese government simply began to allow Vietnamese businesses to work with the “Western World” in around 1989.
oh yeah good point bro my bad
Chinks and slopes eh. . .hey everybody, sing the homonym song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHgt7ZZZHOg
Graeystone: That video was Hilarious! LOL
That was funny. lol