What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 6(...66)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 6(...66)

What does that even mean? "The problem is..."? Which problem? There are about 100 of them. And of each one of those, how many contributors to each problem exist? No, "the problem" is there are too many one-sided, sychophantic, ignorant, narcissistic, myopic and completely clueless people in this country that refuse to have an open mind about what it will take to make us survive - prosperously - for another 200 years and beyond. That is the problem.

What part of that obviously true statement are you having trouble understanding? To help clarify things a bit, I would suggest starting with the context.
 
Last edited:
To understand what I was saying I would suggest starting with the context.

No, to undersand it (nee accept it holds a shred of value beyond the obvious) would indicate you wish to move past, "liberal this" and, "liberal that" instead of discussing the complexities of what ail this country beyond party lines. Once again, "the problem is liberals blah, blah, blah" is a hopelessly outdated and worthless statement. Again, which problem of the 100 that exist? And of the most important ones, liberals are always the cause? You probably would anser that "yes" so what is there to understand?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

No, to undersand it (nee accept it holds a shred of value beyond the obvious) would indicate you wish to extend beyond, "liberal this" and, "liberal that" instead of discussing the complexities of what ail this country beyond party lines.

In future I'll try to organize my thoughts in a way more pleasing to you. I envy your ability to distill ten paragraphs with examples from both the left and right into a single albeit innacurate sentence. In future I'll try to avoid giving you distress for not "discussing the complexities." And will welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters with you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

In future I'll try to organize my thoughts in a way more pleasing to you.

How about you just organize them period? That would at least be a fresh start. Again, which problem of the 100 that exist do you refer? And of the most important ones, liberals are always the cause? You probably would anser that "yes" so what is there to understand?
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

How about you just organize them period? That would at least be a fresh start. Again, which problem of the 100 that exist do you refer? And of the most important ones, liberals are always the cause? You probably would anser that "yes" so what is there to understand?

Why don't you give us all a list of these 100 problems and some recommended readings so we can catch up? I'm sure there are a few of them that aren't the fault of liberals.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

You're the expert that declared liberals are the problem so please enlighten us specifically how that is so.

You are so perceptive. I mean, that's exactly what I said and what I meant.
I took ten paragraphs to make some self evidently true observations and I believe even those of us to disagree with me (except, obviously, you) understood what I meant even though they disagreed with it. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Plus I have no intention of getting involved in a Socratic dialogue with you, especially since you're not Socrates.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

You're the expert that declared liberals are the problem so please enlighten us specifically how that is so.
I don't know that that's what Old Pio is really saying (although he did try to defend the position of liberals as the enemy with his whole "The American Left was absolutely positively against us getting into World War II"... as if the entire nation wasn't supporting an isolationist philosphy on account of WWI and the Depression. The line of people itching to get involved in another expensive war on foreign soil was insanely short until 12-7-41.... but naw, it was all those **** libs!)

Patman can go ahead and name as many Marxist organizations as he desires, it doesn't change the fact that violent opposition to Americans by Americans is bi-partisan. For every gun-toting Marxist or vandalous environmentalist, there's also neo-Nazi fascist groups, abortion clinic bombers, Eric Robert Rudolph (Atlanta Olympic bomber) and that neo-nazi fascist that opened fire in the Holocaust Museum this summer.

When I tell you people that there are criminals on both sides of the political spectrum, it doesn't do anything to discredit my point to say "oh, look at these Marxist terrorists in Puerto Rico... those liberals sure hate America". All that does is to show the blinders that are on your eyes when you decry liberals as America hating criminals. Even if I'm exaggerating your claim, and you really just took exception to me pointing out that someone like Timothy McVeigh (decidedly non-liberal) was a cold-blooded murdering psychopath, I don't see how pointing out some marxist terrorist group does anything to discredit the point I made.

And some people *ahem* act like the death threats against W. during war protests were somehow unique to him, which is kind of sad. As if white supremacist groups didn't threaten assassination after Obama's election, or as if Teabaggers aren't showing up to town hall meetings with pictures of him dressed up as Hitler (or the ones that tried to show up with rifles). You think there's a shortage of political assassinations or assassination attempts in this country that reflect a large variety of political persuasions?

Yeesh, you try to point out that its not just liberals that "hate America" and some people just get their panties in a twist.

It's like there isn't even a point to being objective around some people.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

No, to undersand it (nee accept it holds a shred of value beyond the obvious) would indicate you wish to move past, "liberal this" and, "liberal that" instead of discussing the complexities of what ail this country beyond party lines. Once again, "the problem is liberals blah, blah, blah" is a hopelessly outdated and worthless statement. Again, which problem of the 100 that exist? And of the most important ones, liberals are always the cause? You probably would anser that "yes" so what is there to understand?

You cheapened your argument with everything you've posted since the bolded statement. I completely agree with that sentiment, which is why attacking someone else for going after party affiliation just didn't make any sense to me.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

OK, you all want the reason why liberals are the problem with this country? Here it is. Liberals are classic pessimists in every sense of the word. The conservative movement believes in the potential of people to succeed, while liberals migrate to the philosophy that those in dire straits are in that position because of reasons beyond their control. A very small percentage of those in poverty are there due to lack of resources. Resources are abundant, and to give some credit to the liberal left, those resources are available to those in need because of their work. However, programs such as student loans/grants, unemployment and welfare should be nothing more than stepping stones to prosperity, not support beams for a lifestyle.

The single largest problem in this country is the sense of entitlement that has overtaken several generations of Americans. Hard work is no longer in vogue. The government is expected to "level the playing field" via taxes, social programs and policies such as affirmative action. Liberals tend to believe that people that have are out to get people that have not. This could not be further from the truth. Rising waters raise all ships. Liberals would rather lower the waters and have all ships run aground. This is true especially in the form of taxation. Rather than allow employers to increase revenues via lower taxes and therefore expand and spend those revenues on an expanded workforce, liberals believe that higher taxes should be levied on the job-creators and the tax dollars spent on those who choose not to achieve. Rewarding innovation and hard work should be the standard; sadly, it is not.

If the current administration wanted to help the downtrodden, they would put them to work. Bring back programs like the CCC, but make those enrolled in social programs work on our national parks, highway infrastructure and other projects--make them earn their keep. I work in a bank here in Duluth, and I'll be d*mned if many if not most of those collecting SSDI aren't standing outside the bank at 9am sharp to clean out their account and head to the casino/bar/local dealer to p*ss it all away. I'm sorry, but if you can drag your arse out of bed to be at the bank that early, you can do SOMETHING constructive, regardless of talent or physical/mental health. We are not doing anything for people/families in welfare programs by enabling their lifestyles of entitlement. Rather, we are entrapping these Americans in a downward spiral of self-insufficeincy and, by proxy, self-destruction. This phenomena is evident in the vast majority of urban minority populations.

Liberals are also destroying the competitive advantage of America in our schools and recreational programs. Competition is now seen as mean and depricating. Here's the deal: Everyone is NOT a winner. Today's youth is being raised to learn that no matter how things turn out, they are still special and deserve to be patted on the back and told "Good job!" or, "You tried your best, so you pass this class" No. Unacceptable. Losing is part of life. Everything in life isn't fair. There is an epidemic of college grads entering the workforce and not being able to handle failure--twentysomethings actually CRYING on the job because of poor performance evaluations, not getting the promotion, losing the sale, etc. Our economy will crumble soon if we don't start teaching our youth to compete.....the rest of the world has us in the crosshairs. And the liberal "Everyone is Special" undertones in our educational system isn't helping......especially when liberals are constantly berating our country for everything it does in leading the world.

In short, the liberal movement wants us to kowtow to the world in order to be liked. This will lead to us being overrun by countries (India, China, Russia, etc.) that make no apologies for their ambitions of grandeur.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

OK, you all want the reason why liberals are the problem with this country? Here it is. Liberals are classic pessimists in every sense of the word.

That's right. The country really needs to be propelled into expensive wars, terrified daily by terrorists, driven to internal social dissention, have the US Constitution used for limiting Americans rights (rather than protect them as the founding fathers wished), commercial welfare (or really just subsidies for big Oil)...and the destruction of 11 trillion dollars of household net wealth.

Eight more years!
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

I don't know that that's what Old Pio is really saying (although he did try to defend the position of liberals as the enemy with his whole "The American Left was absolutely positively against us getting into World War II"... as if the entire nation wasn't supporting an isolationist philosphy on account of WWI and the Depression. The line of people itching to get involved in another expensive war on foreign soil was insanely short until 12-7-41.... but naw, it was all those **** libs!)

Patman can go ahead and name as many Marxist organizations as he desires, it doesn't change the fact that violent opposition to Americans by Americans is bi-partisan. For every gun-toting Marxist or vandalous environmentalist, there's also neo-Nazi fascist groups, abortion clinic bombers, Eric Robert Rudolph (Atlanta Olympic bomber) and that neo-nazi fascist that opened fire in the Holocaust Museum this summer.

When I tell you people that there are criminals on both sides of the political spectrum, it doesn't do anything to discredit my point to say "oh, look at these Marxist terrorists in Puerto Rico... those liberals sure hate America". All that does is to show the blinders that are on your eyes when you decry liberals as America hating criminals. Even if I'm exaggerating your claim, and you really just took exception to me pointing out that someone like Timothy McVeigh (decidedly non-liberal) was a cold-blooded murdering psychopath, I don't see how pointing out some marxist terrorist group does anything to discredit the point I made.

And some people *ahem* act like the death threats against W. during war protests were somehow unique to him, which is kind of sad. As if white supremacist groups didn't threaten assassination after Obama's election, or as if Teabaggers aren't showing up to town hall meetings with pictures of him dressed up as Hitler (or the ones that tried to show up with rifles). You think there's a shortage of political assassinations or assassination attempts in this country that reflect a large variety of political persuasions?

Yeesh, you try to point out that its not just liberals that "hate America" and some people just get their panties in a twist.

It's like there isn't even a point to being objective around some people.

Evidently I didn't put it clearly enough. There WAS widespread opposition to America's getting into World War II ffrom both the left and the right. We were isolationist and all. When I said the American Left I should have been more precise. I meant American communists and their various friends in the academy, elite publications and Hollywood. They didn't want us to enter the war because that was the line from Moscow, when the line from Moscow changed after the Wermacht entered the Soviet Union then they changed their minds, overnight. The attack on Pearl Harbor came months later and many more Americans changed their minds. But that first group did so out of fealty to Moscow. I'm assuming you see the difference between an attack on the USSR and an attack on us.

The issue I was addressing was the idea that some on the left in this country don't much like America and have been putting their dislike into writing and action for decades. That much is undeniable. I do not (and didn't) ascribe this notion to all or even most liberals (in the way Carter did with the issue of race).

And you have inverted my argument about presidential "threats." It is BO's friends and admirers who have had a case of the vapors over what has been said at various townhalls and demonstrations. They've suggested, because of the president's race, that these ugly sentiments are something new and unique. They aren't. The language used against W for 8 years was at least that harsh and I don't recall any high profile friends of his (like ex presidents, for instance) making generalized statement about how the vast proportion of that opposition came from some generalized character flaw on the left.
And there certainly was no hand wringing about it on MSNBC or CNN or even FOX.

Personally, I would never use that kind of language in support of anyone or anything. But I submit you're being very selective in forgetting the endless calls for Bush's death, even a film about his assassination. I'm not aware of anyone calling for BO's death (although I'll concede anything is possible in fever swamps of the right).

I believe I've been pretty clear on my view of violence or threats of violence in our country. I oppose it, period. That's why Sarah Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme should should never have been released from prison. And God forbid anyone takes a shot at BO. If it happens, whoever it is should spend the rest of their lives under the prison. I lived through the Kennedy assasinations and the killing of MLK. It was a bad time and those acts affected me profoundly even though I didn't necessarily support those men.

But it was the left, like Yale's William Sloan Coffin, who showed up in Hanoi condemning our presence in Vietnam, not anybody from the right. And it was the left that proudly carried VC flags and wore their Che Guevara T-shirts (a very odd choice for a hero, you ask me) some of 'em still do. You want to argue moral equivalence here, I just respectfully disagree. I don't attribute any anti-American motives to you or anyone who posts here. But the people I've mentioned are out there, they exist and some of 'em used to be department chairmen at the University of Colorado.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

That's right. The country really needs to be propelled into expensive wars, terrified daily by terrorists, driven to internal social dissention, have the US Constitution used for limiting Americans rights (rather than protect them as the founding fathers wished), commercial welfare (or really just subsidies for big Oil)...and the destruction of 11 trillion dollars of household net wealth.

Eight more years!

What a list and all W's fault, eh? And The One is gonna change all that? I don't think it's gonna take him 8 years. And the way he's going now he may not get 8 years. Oh well, he can always be General Secretary at the UN.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

You're darn skippy it's my country right or wrong. Who's country does it become when it does something "wrong" anyway?

"Infallibility: it isn't just for the Pope anymore." :rolleyes:

It's even more my country when it has temporarily taken a wrong turn -- that's when it takes some effort to put things right. Your philosophy doesn't ever allow course correction. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.

We should apply it to domestic policy, then. Those people who want to overturn Roe v Wade? Well, clearly they're a fifth column with no love for their country. Imagine the nerve of someone opposing something we've done in the past! And people protesting the president? Well, for goodness sake, how unpatriotic! :p
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

OK, you all want the reason why liberals are the problem with this country? Here it is. Liberals are classic pessimists in every sense of the word.

This must be why conservatives continually push for large armies and police forces. They're optimistic about human nature. :rolleyes:

Sometimes these guys just write their own rebuttals... :D

We now return you to thousands of "optimistic" hayseeds screaming that BO will be the end of the world. Hear the sweet strains of their positive message.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

That's funny, because I remember when Republicans were cozying up to Slobo Milosevic and blasting the US for stopping genocide all because the Serbs were our WWII allies. :eek: :confused: :eek:

BTW - The people keeping us out of helping England before Pearl Harbor were Isolationist Republicans - the worst political movement in this country until neo-conartists reared their ugly heads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top