The Obama's visit "Barack's home country"

I agree to an extent, but I don't see the same incoherent, paranoid ramblings from the questionable characters on this side. But again, each side has it's characters for sure.

On this board or in general?

I agree on this board given the imbalance on the political spectrum of regular contributors but in general it looks like an even divide fo sho.
 
On this board, specifically, but even in general I dunno that our loonies are as....well....loony as some of the far, far right ones. Maybe they're just more vocal so they get noticed more easily.

I mean, you (not you, specifically) may not like Obama or his ideas but do you really think the man wants to destroy the country or take away everyone's guns or make us all puppets of his regime? Even if he did, he's the president, not the king, ferchrissakes. He can't just enact laws to take everyone's money and give it to everyone else.

I appreciate that we have political differences here, but reality should still play a role, yanno?
 
I mean, you (not you, specifically) may not like Obama or his ideas but do you really think the man wants to destroy the country or take away everyone's guns or make us all puppets of his regime? Even if he did, he's the president, not the king, ferchrissakes. He can't just enact laws to take everyone's money and give it to everyone else.

People get ideas like this from mostly putting 2 and 2 together. Looking at past histories of countries that have been down the same road and they can see the same things taking place or atleast being put into motion. For example on this board somewhere, there is a thread where the President wants to ban fishing in coastal and inland waterways. Why in the world would this even be a problem? Letting people fish that is?
 
People get ideas like this from mostly putting 2 and 2 together. Looking at past histories of countries that have been down the same road and they can see the same things taking place or atleast being put into motion. For example on this board somewhere, there is a thread where the President wants to ban fishing in coastal and inland waterways. Why in the world would this even be a problem? Letting people fish that is?

See, that's exactly what I mean. That's not true.

That started with an ESPN opinion article where the author made a bunch of assumptions and it got picked up by right wing blogs that Obama wanted to ban fishing. Really? Do you really believe in your heart that he would try to ban fishing??? What could he possibly gain by doing something idiotic like that?

This is where the reality that I spoke of earlier comes in.
 
On this board, specifically, but even in general I dunno that our loonies are as....well....loony as some of the far, far right ones. Maybe they're just more vocal so they get noticed more easily.

I would suggest they are more noticeable to you since they are further removed from your POV. Likewise, I probably see more loony leftycrats than you.

I mean, you (not you, specifically) may not like Obama or his ideas but do you really think the man wants to destroy the country or take away everyone's guns or make us all puppets of his regime? Even if he did, he's the president, not the king, ferchrissakes. He can't just enact laws to take everyone's money and give it to everyone else.

Do you remember the rhetoric against Bush e.g. King George? Enriching his oil buddies, in league with Satan, modern-day Hitler, hell-bent on destroying everyone's civil rights, hates black people enough to cause hurricanes, was behind 9/11 to justify is his oil war, need I continue?

I appreciate that we have political differences here, but reality should still play a role, yanno?

Agree but that goes both ways.
 
On this board, specifically, but even in general I dunno that our loonies are as....well....loony as some of the far, far right ones. Maybe they're just more vocal so they get noticed more easily.

I mean, you (not you, specifically) may not like Obama or his ideas but do you really think the man wants to destroy the country or take away everyone's guns or make us all puppets of his regime? Even if he did, he's the president, not the king, ferchrissakes. He can't just enact laws to take everyone's money and give it to everyone else.

I appreciate that we have political differences here, but reality should still play a role, yanno?

You must have never visited the West Coast. There are some really Lefty loony toons out there, just like there are on the Right.
 
I agree to an extent, but I don't see the same incoherent, paranoid ramblings from the questionable characters on this side. But again, each side has it's characters for sure.

Simply brilliant discussion of the article and section of the Constitution you asked for.

I suppose you think the writers of that were displaying paranoid ramblings??
 
On this board, specifically, but even in general I dunno that our loonies are as....well....loony as some of the far, far right ones. Maybe they're just more vocal so they get noticed more easily.

I mean, you (not you, specifically) may not like Obama or his ideas but do you really think the man wants to destroy the country or take away everyone's guns or make us all puppets of his regime? Even if he did, he's the president, not the king, ferchrissakes. He can't just enact laws to take everyone's money and give it to everyone else.

I appreciate that we have political differences here, but reality should still play a role, yanno?

Some of the stuff that is throw out there about him is silly, and in the grand scheme doesn't really matter.

The above in bold is not one of those. That being said, hes a politician just the rest of them. (including the right) In one hand he giveth back(in taxes), in the other he takes more than that away. In the media it sounds like "Robin Hood". In reality it sounds like theft.

I do not discount his power with the help of the Senate, and HoR. The landscape of this country is changing in a lot of ways. Some want the change, some don't, some want part of it.
 
People get ideas like this from mostly putting 2 and 2 together. Looking at past histories of countries that have been down the same road and they can see the same things taking place or atleast being put into motion. For example on this board somewhere, there is a thread where the President wants to ban fishing in coastal and inland waterways. Why in the world would this even be a problem? Letting people fish that is?

You're getting too far into higher mathematics for some these guys you know?


If ignorance is bliss there should be a lot of happy people around these days.

National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)
 
No matter what the issue, and no matter what the evidence, there will always be a certain segment of the population that refuses to believe the facts. If the facts do not fit their pre-existing belief, they will either simply ignore the facts or assert, without evidence, that the facts are other than as agreed by responsible people.

There is no point in debating the Birthers because they have made up their minds to ignore the truth and to simply repeatedly assert that the facts are other than reality.
 
Simply brilliant discussion of the article and section of the Constitution you asked for.

I suppose you think the writers of that were displaying paranoid ramblings??

No, I think you have the market well cornered on that.
 
See, that's exactly what I mean. That's not true.

That started with an ESPN opinion article where the author made a bunch of assumptions and it got picked up by right wing blogs that Obama wanted to ban fishing. Really? Do you really believe in your heart that he would try to ban fishing??? What could he possibly gain by doing something idiotic like that?

This is where the reality that I spoke of earlier comes in.

Maybe you need to read the paper for yourself, pay close attention to where the terms "climate change and ecosystem" are used and how there are used. Look for areas about human use, espically in the last 15 to 20 pages.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf
 
No, I think you have the market well cornered on that.

What no brilliant interpretation of Article II Section 1??

Even as weak as you are, I didn't expect you to give up that easily!! :no:

You do know when you it's a sure sign you've lost all traction in any debate when all you can come up with is a Richad Simmons style slap at someone elses intellect or character??

richard-simmons.jpg


:no:

You can say whatever you want but if you say Barrack Hussein Obama has proven himself eligible under Articl II, Section 1 of the U S Constitution, you are just lying.

He may very well meet those requirements but he has yet to do so either in a civilian or military court.

I doubt that question will ever come up in a military court, imo that's why Colonel Lakin is yet to be charged.

If we didn't have his handpicked stooge as the Attorney General of the US, he might very well be facing a challenge in a crimminal court.
 
jelly donut or German. Either way he just wanted some of those sweet E German athletes to come visit his hotel later
 
20 % of the population already believes that Obama is a Muslim foreign national. If the Egyptian leader had said that Obama sent him a Christmas card and read Bible verses to him, then lead a hearty rendition of the pledge to the flag, and then showed video of him being born with the capitol building of Hawaii in the background of the picture, guess what? 20 % of the population would still believe he is a Muslim foreing national.

Why? Simple. Because their want for that to be the case outweighs their capacity for rational thought. It says a lot about their level of abject hatred for the man. Even more about their infinitesimally low capacity for rational thought.
 
Why? Simple. Because their want for that to be the case outweighs their capacity for rational thought. It says a lot about their level of abject hatred for the man. Even more about their infinitesimally low capacity for rational thought.

22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance - Rasmussen Reports

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

:hi:
 
20 % of the population already believes that Obama is a Muslim foreign national. If the Egyptian leader had said that Obama sent him a Christmas card and read Bible verses to him, then lead a hearty rendition of the pledge to the flag, and then showed video of him being born with the capitol building of Hawaii in the background of the picture, guess what? 20 % of the population would still believe he is a Muslim foreing national.

Why? Simple. Because their want for that to be the case outweighs their capacity for rational thought. It says a lot about their level of abject hatred for the man. Even more about their infinitesimally low capacity for rational thought.

Barry said "my Muslim faith", his wife said he was born in Kenya, and now if this story is true, he is either trying to pander to every group he talks to or he is a Muslim.
 
bham, are those stats based on the notion that they had been warned about the possibility of terrorists flying planes into a building, that Al-Qaeda was planning a major attack, or that he knew of this exact plot?

Significant difference.

I mean, I think a fair percentage of people are now aware of the memos going around about Al-Qaeda planning a major attack, and even that there were memos about the possibility of use of planes to hit buildings. The notion that anyone in our government knew of this particular plan and did not stop it is irrational. The notion that significant warning signs were ignored, not so much.

Not as much nuance when it comes to Obama. You either think he was born in the U.S. Or you don't.
 

VN Store



Back
Top