The rules of political ignorange...

theclemsonkid

theclemsonkid

Member
Rule 1 - If you are trying to make any kind of valid point, don't start your sentence with "Barack Hussein Obama..."
Rule 2 - Don't claim that building a mosque a few block from the former World Trade center is the same as if "the Japanese would build a mosque to kamikaze pilots in Pearl Harbor". Last I checked, Islam is a religion, pilots who flew into aircraft carriers are not.
Rule 3 - Don't claim that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States, or went to school as a child, or grew up in a radical Muslim home, or hates the United States, etc; unless you have first hand knowledge and/or proof.
I just so happened to be flipping through the AM dial on my way home, and this character named "Bill Cunningham" made all those points in less than four minutes.
The republicans want to garner my support, yet it's guys like this and O'Reilly and Rush that are their cheerleaders.
Every time I feel like maybe the Republicans actually do have some good things to say, I flip one of these guys on, and I immediately look the other way. Are there that many angry, paranoid people out there, that these guys actually get these ratings?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Wait for it... Wait for it... You do realize you are seriously outnumbered on this 'politically right' forum, correct? I'll just wait to see which one posts first with the snide and sarcastic remark. My bets are on Darth, Reef, or stdreb (but just a guess).
 
t316

t316

Active Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3298794
The republicans want to garner my support.

I never asked for your support. We can handle it on our own come next election.
It's obvious that you cannot see beyond your core mentality, and with all due respect, the same can be said of some Republicans. It is very difficult to watch, listen, etc., to something that you have instilled in your mind is the untruth.
By the way, Obama was not born in the U.S.....
 
jtt

jtt

Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3298794
Rule 1 - If you are trying to make any kind of valid point, don't start your sentence with "Barack Hussein Obama..."
Why not? Are you saying that starting off a sentence with his name makes whatever I am about to say total crap?
 
speg

speg

Active Member
Try not to base your opinions on what you heard from someone on AM radio...instead try to do your own research...
but seriously..it's wild that he has no problem with a mosque being built there. I understand freedom of religion, but it only states that we have the freedom to practice the religion of our choice and doesn't actually say that we get to put up a building anywhere. What's the difference if that building was 3 miles away? There shouldn't be a damn difference for those who are muslim and want to practice.
Also, as with any Amendment, there are rules and guidelines to our freedoms. "Freedom of the press" "Freedom of speech" all have restrictions and one of the bigger ones is when they insite a riot....building this mosque on ground zero has already caused a riot.
His approval rating (Obamas) is dropping everytime I look...it's surprising that he isn't doing something to try and bring his numbers back up.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3298798
Wait for it... Wait for it... You do realize you are seriously outnumbered on this 'politically right' forum, correct? I'll just wait to see which one posts first with the snide and sarcastic remark. My bets are on Darth, Reef, or stdreb (but just a guess).

I guess Looney Farrakon's space ship has been making lots of visits...
(I'll be here all week)
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by JTT
http:///forum/post/3298820
Why not? Are you saying that starting off a sentence with his name makes whatever I am about to say total crap?
No. But do you honestly believe every single piece of legislation that comes out of Washington was contrived by Obama? It's always been standard practice throughout our political history to lay blame of anything that goes wrong with this country on the 'Guy At The Top'. But in reality, he just signs the last piece of paper that was given to him by the leaders in the Congress. Not every piece of poor legislation that comes out of Congress is Obama's fault. Neither was it always Bush's fault during his eight years on the job. It doesn't work that way. You hate all these pork-filled bills that get passed? Blame whoever created the bill. You don't agree with all these stimulus packages that have spewed out of Congress over the last 3 years? Blame the initiator. The President gets elected on a platform of ideas and visions that he thinks will benefit the majority of the citizens in this country. Some of those ideas get implemented, others don't Some are controvwersial, some are not. But the bottom line is, the President, no matter who it is, doesn't have the exclusive rights to simply devise a bill, vote on it himself, then sign that bill into law. That would be the role of a Dictator. Last time I checked, we don't live in Venezuela or Cuba. And if you honestly think that Obama has the power to turn this country's political system into a Dictatorship, then you have no business arguing politics in the first place.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3298853
No. But do you honestly believe every single piece of legislation that comes out of Washington was contrived by Obama? It's always been standard practice throughout our political history to lay blame of anything that goes wrong with this country on the 'Guy At The Top'. But in reality, he just signs the last piece of paper that was given to him by the leaders in the Congress. Not every piece of poor legislation that comes out of Congress is Obama's fault. Neither was it always Bush's fault during his eight years on the job. It doesn't work that way. You hate all these pork-filled bills that get passed? Blame whoever created the bill. You don't agree with all these stimulus packages that have spewed out of Congress over the last 3 years? Blame the initiator. The President gets elected on a platform of ideas and visions that he thinks will benefit the majority of the citizens in this country. Some of those ideas get implemented, others don't Some are controvwersial, some are not. But the bottom line is, the President, no matter who it is, doesn't have the exclusive rights to simply devise a bill, vote on it himself, then sign that bill into law. That would be the role of a Dictator. Last time I checked, we don't live in Venezuela or Cuba. And if you honestly think that Obama has the power to turn this country's political system into a Dictatorship, then you have no business arguing politics in the first place.
IMO Obama is the product of, and the figure head of an ideological movement, that has spun out these bad ideas... So it is perfectly acceptable to associate him with the garbage that his ideological base comes up with.
 
theclemsonkid

theclemsonkid

Member
Originally Posted by JTT
http:///forum/post/3298820
Why not? Are you saying that starting off a sentence with his name makes whatever I am about to say total crap?
I'm saying anyone who uses his middle name is simply trying to evoke the stereotypical reaction you get from using a name closely associated with Islam. Anyone who says anything else is a liar or delusional.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3298868
I'm saying anyone who uses his middle name is simply trying to evoke the stereotypical reaction you get from using a name closely associated with Islam. Anyone who says anything else is a liar or delusional.
He's used it...
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I think a point of political ignorance would be lumping O'Reilly, Cunningham and Limbaugh into the same category.
O'Reilly is a serious commentator who is center right, Rush is an entertainer who uses Republican idealism as his foil, Cunningham is a kook but he happens to be spot on about the inappropriateness of building the memorial. The pilots weren't a religion, they carried their act out in the name of that religion. Anyone who doesn't see how inappropriate it is to build there is truly tone deaf. Even Obama (Barack Hussein) walked back his statement of support for the Mosque saying he wasn't speaking of the wisdom of making that choice.
P.S. I agree about not hitting people over the head with his middle name.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3298868
I'm saying anyone who uses his middle name is simply trying to evoke the stereotypical reaction you get from using a name closely associated with Islam. Anyone who says anything else is a liar or delusional.
I am not sure that is the motivation, could be to invoke thoughts of Saddam Hussein too.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3298863
IMO Obama is the product of, and the figure head of an ideological movement, that has spun out these bad ideas... So it is perfectly acceptable to associate him with the garbage that his ideological base comes up with.
You could say the same for every President that preceded him over the last couple of decades. Are you honestly going to sit here and say that Bush didn't have his moments of 'spinning out bad ideas' the last two years of his presidency? If he was the Great Leader that you've always depicted him as, Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide in 2008. The House and Senate wouldn't have an overwhelming Democrat majority as it does today. That's the product of Obama's so-called 'ideological movement'. The Republican's shot themselves in the foot by allowing Bush to become a 'semi-Dictator' his last two years, and they paid the price for it in the 2008 elections. You consider his policies 'garbage', yet you faill to allow them to come to fruition before chastising them. You want immediate results, but just with any dramatic change, it takes time to work itself out. Obama even admitted that some of his policies would take 10 years before they showed any significant results. If he'd left things 'status quo', we'd be worse off than if he did implement his policies. It's a no win situation for anyone in that position.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
If he'd left things "status quo" we'd have a whole lot less debt. That's saying something considering how much Bush ran it up
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3298874
You could say the same for every President that preceded him over the last couple of decades. Are you honestly going to sit here and say that Bush didn't have his moments of 'spinning out bad ideas' the last two years of his presidency? If he was the Great Leader that you've always depicted him as, Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide in 2008. The House and Senate wouldn't have an overwhelming Democrat majority as it does today. That's the product of Obama's so-called 'ideological movement'. The Republican's shot themselves in the foot by allowing Bush to become a 'semi-Dictator' his last two years, and they paid the price for it in the 2008 elections. You consider his policies 'garbage', yet you faill to allow them to come to fruition before chastising them. You want immediate results, but just with any dramatic change, it takes time to work itself out. Obama even admitted that some of his policies would take 10 years before they showed any significant results. If he'd left things 'status quo', we'd be worse off than if he did implement his policies. It's a no win situation for anyone in that position.
See I disagree, neither Bush were leaders of an ideological movement, Reagan was, and Clinton was to a point, but his first goal was to stay in office and popular, and secondarily he was a idealog.
W. Bush was anything but a conservative leader, you take out his supreme court nominees, abortion, and his position on Iraq. You have him letting Ted Kennedy write a no child left behind act(not based in conservative ideology), you have a vast expansion in medicare and medicaid (prescription drug coverage), then you have very Keynesian advisers getting him to do stuff like the bailouts... Now I realise the litmus test of democrats is abortion, so the dem's will never see past that... Now you do have a point if you want to say republicans. Because I do think Bush was a party guy. But that gets into definitions of words. Splitting hairs more than you meant to by your statement.
But that is my political science view of that.
And I disagree, I think we are seeing the results of Obama's policies right now... Hello 10% unemployment...
 
cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
Re-zone. No new places of worship to be built X miles radius of ground zero. Standing buildings to be grandfathered in. There. Problem solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top