Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Where is General Wenck? And when is he going to attack?
Where is General Wenck? And when is he going to attack?
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 XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
- Status
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
"We (notice: not "I") are the ones (notice: plural, not singular) we've been waiting for."
He is saying that for years people have been waiting (and hoping, and working) for someone to come along to make things better. See, in our perspective, fighting two wars and sending millions of jobs to Asia is a pretty crappy thing. You may be fine with it, but we were hoping for something better. He was telling us that we (the collective "WE") were the people who were going to make things better - it wasn't going to happen because someone else did it, it was up to us.
But by all means, go ahead and mangle his words and pretend he referred to himself as "The One" and he's supposed to be some messiah. It just makes you look petty, absurd and monumentally stupid.
"We (notice: not "I") are the ones (notice: plural, not singular) we've been waiting for."
He is saying that for years people have been waiting (and hoping, and working) for someone to come along to make things better. See, in our perspective, fighting two wars and sending millions of jobs to Asia is a pretty crappy thing. You may be fine with it, but we were hoping for something better. He was telling us that we (the collective "WE") were the people who were going to make things better - it wasn't going to happen because someone else did it, it was up to us.
But by all means, go ahead and mangle his words and pretend he referred to himself as "The One" and he's supposed to be some messiah. It just makes you look petty, absurd and monumentally stupid.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Your exegesis clearly explains away his messianic delusions. And what about all of those breathless ecomiums from the MSM? To deny the hagiography is to make YOU look "petty, absurd and monumentally stupid."
Your exegesis clearly explains away his messianic delusions. And what about all of those breathless ecomiums from the MSM? To deny the hagiography is to make YOU look "petty, absurd and monumentally stupid."
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Good call. This has been established many times.
Good call. This has been established many times.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
None of the above comes to mind
busterman62
I got a pocket full of kryptonite
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
That was my vote in the last election. Although still the best and most appropriate choice, I've gotta come up with something new.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
it sounds like some people are so concerned about connotational aspects of a particular word that they overlook its denotative descriptive value. Fair enough: for purpose of discussion, we need a word that means 'direct goverment control or substantial government oversight.' I've suggested (a) we already have a lot of it, (b) there is a good philosophical justification for it, in many cases, and (c) the democrats in general and Obama in particular are saying flat out that we need more of it.
For example, generally a person can develop and introduce a new product to the marketplace without getting a special permit first. Not so for pharmaceuticals. Before you can introduce a new pharmaceutical to the marketplace, you first must have it approved by the Food and Drug Administration. This fits both the Hobbesian and the Platonic definition I used before: "you need a strong central government to engender trust otherwise distrust would interfere with anything getting done at all" and also "most people are so busy in their daily lives that they don't have the requisite specialized knowledge and expertise to make sound judgments, hence we need a panel of experts."
I had used the word "totalitarian" to describe this situation, and people got their knickers in a twist because of that. However, given the strict denotative value contained in the word, and the commensurate justification for times in which it was appropriate, I used the term to describe
> Dept of Agriculture food safety inspections
> Food and Drug Administration
> Federal Communication Commission
> Air Transport Safety Commission
> Equal Employment Opportunity Agency
> Environmental Protection Agency
> OSHA
> on and on with more agencies, departments, etc.
Many of these are a result of progressive politics. I said that there has been a strong totalitarian strain behind the progressive movement, and all of this data supports that conclusion, except for the connotational discomfort associated with that particular word. Okay, find another word that means governmental control instead, and plug that in. Even the idea of national parks -- removing land from ownership by any individual to centralize it in the hands of the government -- may or may not fit this concept. To deny that the FDA is a "totalitarian" agency given how I defined that word is just silly. Of course it is.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, if we limit ourselves to the actual words in the Act itself, is very much a "totalitarian" (okay, strike that word and insert your preferred replacement) document: it specifies deductibles and levels of coinsurance, it even specifies loss ratios! (hence the 831 waivers granted so far). It requires that every individual purchase a product from a private manufacturer or be fined.
You may think these are all good things, I'm not disputing one way or the other if these are "good" or "bad." However if you try to deny these are "totalitarian" (oops, sorry, strike that word and insert your preferred replacement), I have to wonder why you want to deny reality so badly!
it sounds like some people are so concerned about connotational aspects of a particular word that they overlook its denotative descriptive value. Fair enough: for purpose of discussion, we need a word that means 'direct goverment control or substantial government oversight.' I've suggested (a) we already have a lot of it, (b) there is a good philosophical justification for it, in many cases, and (c) the democrats in general and Obama in particular are saying flat out that we need more of it.
For example, generally a person can develop and introduce a new product to the marketplace without getting a special permit first. Not so for pharmaceuticals. Before you can introduce a new pharmaceutical to the marketplace, you first must have it approved by the Food and Drug Administration. This fits both the Hobbesian and the Platonic definition I used before: "you need a strong central government to engender trust otherwise distrust would interfere with anything getting done at all" and also "most people are so busy in their daily lives that they don't have the requisite specialized knowledge and expertise to make sound judgments, hence we need a panel of experts."
I had used the word "totalitarian" to describe this situation, and people got their knickers in a twist because of that. However, given the strict denotative value contained in the word, and the commensurate justification for times in which it was appropriate, I used the term to describe
> Dept of Agriculture food safety inspections
> Food and Drug Administration
> Federal Communication Commission
> Air Transport Safety Commission
> Equal Employment Opportunity Agency
> Environmental Protection Agency
> OSHA
> on and on with more agencies, departments, etc.
Many of these are a result of progressive politics. I said that there has been a strong totalitarian strain behind the progressive movement, and all of this data supports that conclusion, except for the connotational discomfort associated with that particular word. Okay, find another word that means governmental control instead, and plug that in. Even the idea of national parks -- removing land from ownership by any individual to centralize it in the hands of the government -- may or may not fit this concept. To deny that the FDA is a "totalitarian" agency given how I defined that word is just silly. Of course it is.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, if we limit ourselves to the actual words in the Act itself, is very much a "totalitarian" (okay, strike that word and insert your preferred replacement) document: it specifies deductibles and levels of coinsurance, it even specifies loss ratios! (hence the 831 waivers granted so far). It requires that every individual purchase a product from a private manufacturer or be fined.
You may think these are all good things, I'm not disputing one way or the other if these are "good" or "bad." However if you try to deny these are "totalitarian" (oops, sorry, strike that word and insert your preferred replacement), I have to wonder why you want to deny reality so badly!
Last edited:
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Sorry but yet again, data does not support your conclusion. The definition is as follows...Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.
All of the governmental examples do not dictate what businesses produce or what people do with their lives. The government simply has a set of laws by how to behave as companies and people conduct themselves. This is simply the rule of law. Secondly, none of the examples your advancing here really deal that much with US individuals in terms of restricting how we behave...but rather rules for corporate behavior. Frankly looking at that list the outcomes of which are extremely favorable to society, and if these don't actually enhance individual freedoms they certainly have a huge plus to your and my quality of life.
So both the word is incorrect but also the general concept is off base. And because your concept is so far off base, most are not willing to enterain any really value you're bringing to the table.
Sorry but yet again, data does not support your conclusion. The definition is as follows...Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.
All of the governmental examples do not dictate what businesses produce or what people do with their lives. The government simply has a set of laws by how to behave as companies and people conduct themselves. This is simply the rule of law. Secondly, none of the examples your advancing here really deal that much with US individuals in terms of restricting how we behave...but rather rules for corporate behavior. Frankly looking at that list the outcomes of which are extremely favorable to society, and if these don't actually enhance individual freedoms they certainly have a huge plus to your and my quality of life.
So both the word is incorrect but also the general concept is off base. And because your concept is so far off base, most are not willing to enterain any really value you're bringing to the table.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
All that statement meant was "if you want to see change, get off your tookus and be that change." Every president in my memory has said that. It's Bush Senior's call to be "a thousand points of light." When Obama said it the dittoheads were told to go nuts, so they did.
The one rhetorical thing Obama does use that annoys me is using "I" when talking about his administration, e.g., "When I got here 3 years ago..." Reagan and Clinton used "We" and it just makes the message better. Now, no president in history has been humble, but we like to think of our presidents as Cincinnatus, being pulled by the call of their country to serve against their will. It's BS, but it's healthy BS.
All that statement meant was "if you want to see change, get off your tookus and be that change." Every president in my memory has said that. It's Bush Senior's call to be "a thousand points of light." When Obama said it the dittoheads were told to go nuts, so they did.
The one rhetorical thing Obama does use that annoys me is using "I" when talking about his administration, e.g., "When I got here 3 years ago..." Reagan and Clinton used "We" and it just makes the message better. Now, no president in history has been humble, but we like to think of our presidents as Cincinnatus, being pulled by the call of their country to serve against their will. It's BS, but it's healthy BS.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Different definitions lead to different results. Your definition does not appear to be supported by history; even totalitarian governments have limits to their authority because totalitarian regimes are tossed from power from time to time.
Again, I suggested at the outset that we need a different term. Why would you ignore that suggestion?
Different definitions lead to different results. Your definition does not appear to be supported by history; even totalitarian governments have limits to their authority because totalitarian regimes are tossed from power from time to time.
Again, I suggested at the outset that we need a different term. Why would you ignore that suggestion?
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Frankly I didn't ignore that suggestion...I threw out a concept of Rule by Law. Not perfect, but faar better than a totalitarianism concept that has never been close to anything witnessed in the US. While the term has been demonized, societal protection at least explains what's going on.
Again your positioning assumes that spectrum is good on one side and bad on the other. Like anything else, it is a mixed scale...with most of what is currently in place a huge benefit for today's complex society.
Frankly I didn't ignore that suggestion...I threw out a concept of Rule by Law. Not perfect, but faar better than a totalitarianism concept that has never been close to anything witnessed in the US. While the term has been demonized, societal protection at least explains what's going on.
Again your positioning assumes that spectrum is good on one side and bad on the other. Like anything else, it is a mixed scale...with most of what is currently in place a huge benefit for today's complex society.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Are you dim? Whether or not the regime has unlimited power doesn't change that they view themselves with having it. We don't need a different term we need you to understand basic definitions.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
Don't hold your breath.
Don't hold your breath.
FadeToBlack&Gold
8647
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
It may be hyperbole, but I still laughed.
It may be hyperbole, but I still laughed.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
It's not an exaggeration, it's a misrepresentation, by the same people who would have been freaking out over JFK being catholic because then he takes orders from the pope. Can't win on economic issues so shift the braying to social ones and get the ignorant masses to think Obama is going to take away their occasional sunday trip to one of the many fine tax free churches lining the streets of America. Poor xtians, so persecuted.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
So when an agent of "the government" tells an elementary school child the perfectly appropriate lunch her mother made for her is insufficiently nutritious, and she must eat an alternative lunch, as provided by "the government," this is an example of "the government" NOT dictating "what people do with their lives?" Got it.
So when an agent of "the government" tells an elementary school child the perfectly appropriate lunch her mother made for her is insufficiently nutritious, and she must eat an alternative lunch, as provided by "the government," this is an example of "the government" NOT dictating "what people do with their lives?" Got it.
Re: Obama XXIII: The Muslin Anti-Christ Wages War on the forces of Christianity!
That's not the issue. It is whether the state can require a religious institution to do something they find morally abhorrent. Lest you think it is just a Catholic issue, I'm reading that many Protestant colleges are contemplating dropping their student health plans because of the diktat.
- Status