Obamney 2012 - Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate
- Thread starter ax1
- Start date
ax1
Legend
I understand, incentives come only with free things these days, and none of us offered to pay your mortgage.
southpaw23
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Right, just about that time that guy took office and gave you some of that Obamamoney.
southpaw23
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Says the guy who couldn't afford to contribute to his 401k. Lol. If you need help, all you have to do is ask! It's the Marxist thing to do.
Dont be slandering me now little kid.
southpaw23
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Sorry, I read it off the "teleprompter."
Good, so go play with your illegal beaners on the street. Ive got better things to do the rest of my day than waste my time with you.
southpaw23
Well-known member
Beau
Well-known member
I find it sad when people cannot have disagreements or state differing opinions without things eventually being reduced to guttural name calling.
It seems that being “tolerant” has somehow devolved into a mis-belief that “you” should accept my position, and if you don’t then I should somehow be able to deem you as being judgmental, close-minded, or relegated to a lesser intellectual level, and have the right to belittle you and your position and affix nasty titles and intentions to you and your position.
I don’t believe those whose opinions are contrary to mine are a/an (insert your favorite degrading term or euphemism for a male of female body part or a feminine hygienic cleansing solution container); rather, it means they simply disagree with my position. And, of course, I believe my position is correct (otherwise it wouldn’t be my position). That I disagree with others makes me neither judgmental, close-minded, nor relegated to a lesser intellectual level. What it makes me is discerning . And, regardless of the forum used, name calling and personal attacks are never called for.
As to my contention that “being tolerant” now means that one must accept a position or argument contrary to his/her own, or be the recipient of name calling and claims that they are unduly/unjustly judgmental, close-minded, or of a lesser intellectual level, this type of binary thinking is foolish, yet it frequently accompanies political discussion and, to a much greater extent, issues such as abortion. If one does not see the (insert political issue du jour, abortion, etc.) the same way as the other, then that person must be bigoted, stupid, a fascist, a racist, a homophobe, etc.
Maybe a well intended illustrative example would help:
Let’s take Disneyland, for example.
Let’s say I was talking to someone about Disneyland, and the person I was talking to was a forum member who went by the name “Joe-Joe the Dog Boy”. Let’s assume I told Joe-Joe the Dog Boy that I believe (using whatever criteria I elected to use) that Disneyland was the best amusement park in Southern California. In fact, how about if I just flat out said it to him: “Joe-Joe the Dog Boy, I believe Disneyland is the best amusement park in Southern California.”
If nothing else, I was being brutally honest; at least insofar as my assessment of Disneyland.
So far, so good.
But now let’s assume Joe-Joe the Dog Boy disagrees that “Disneyland is the best amusement park in Southern California”, and he (Joe-Joe the Dog Boy) says something like “you have to be kidding Beau, you don’t really believe Disneyland is the best amusement park in Southern California, do you? I sure don’t, in fact I used to live in Buena Park California, right down the street from Knott’s Berry Farm (another amusement park in Southern California).”
Then Joe-Joe the Dog Boy says “I know for a fact that Knott’s Berry Farm is better than Disneyland, and it even says on their website that it is “One of the best amusement parks in California, if not the best amusement park in California”)."
So then, lets assume I say “OK, Joe-Joe the Dog Boy, it just looks like we disagree that Knott’s Berry Farm is better than Disneyland, because I believe Disneyland is the best amusement park in Southern California”.
Now for some reason, this doesn’t set well with Joe-Joe the Dog Boy, and he says “disagree my butt, not only is Knott’s Berry Farm better than Disneyland, but I know for a fact that Six Flags Magic Mountain (which is just north of Los Angeles, at the Magic Mountain Parkway exit off Interstate 5 in Valencia) is also better than Disneyland”.
And at this point I can just tell when he says this, he gets sort of red in the face.
But I have to tell him something; right? So I say “Look Joe-Joe the Dog Boy, I understand you feel that way, and I just see things differently”.
Thats pretty savvy on my part; right?
Not so fast. The next thing you know Joe-Joe the Dog Boy says “Oh yah, you are a Smelly Anus”.
A Smelly Anus?
Did Joe-Joe the Dog Boy call me that (you know, a Smelly Anus), just because he and I disagreed about Disneyland vis’ a vie Knott’s Berry Farm (and, to a lesser extent, Six Flags Magic Mountain)?
That’s when to whole social protocol thing goes to hell in a handbag.
So, don’t call people names just because you disagree with them, even if it is just something like "illegal beaners" or "Marxist" or "tin-tin" (all of which, admittedly, are better than "Smelly Anus").
The end.
I hope this was beneficial and there will be no more name calling.
P.S. Sorry about having to use the term "Smelly Anus”, it was just an example.
P.S.S. I don’t believe there is anyone on this forum named "Joe-Joe the Dog Boy". If that isn’t the case (meaning there is someone on this forum named Joe-Joe the Dog Boy), please let me know and I will edit this post and use another name (such as “Eric The Guy Who Likes Fat Girls”, or something else).
It seems that being “tolerant” has somehow devolved into a mis-belief that “you” should accept my position, and if you don’t then I should somehow be able to deem you as being judgmental, close-minded, or relegated to a lesser intellectual level, and have the right to belittle you and your position and affix nasty titles and intentions to you and your position.
I don’t believe those whose opinions are contrary to mine are a/an (insert your favorite degrading term or euphemism for a male of female body part or a feminine hygienic cleansing solution container); rather, it means they simply disagree with my position. And, of course, I believe my position is correct (otherwise it wouldn’t be my position). That I disagree with others makes me neither judgmental, close-minded, nor relegated to a lesser intellectual level. What it makes me is discerning . And, regardless of the forum used, name calling and personal attacks are never called for.
As to my contention that “being tolerant” now means that one must accept a position or argument contrary to his/her own, or be the recipient of name calling and claims that they are unduly/unjustly judgmental, close-minded, or of a lesser intellectual level, this type of binary thinking is foolish, yet it frequently accompanies political discussion and, to a much greater extent, issues such as abortion. If one does not see the (insert political issue du jour, abortion, etc.) the same way as the other, then that person must be bigoted, stupid, a fascist, a racist, a homophobe, etc.
Maybe a well intended illustrative example would help:
Let’s take Disneyland, for example.
Let’s say I was talking to someone about Disneyland, and the person I was talking to was a forum member who went by the name “Joe-Joe the Dog Boy”. Let’s assume I told Joe-Joe the Dog Boy that I believe (using whatever criteria I elected to use) that Disneyland was the best amusement park in Southern California. In fact, how about if I just flat out said it to him: “Joe-Joe the Dog Boy, I believe Disneyland is the best amusement park in Southern California.”
If nothing else, I was being brutally honest; at least insofar as my assessment of Disneyland.
So far, so good.
But now let’s assume Joe-Joe the Dog Boy disagrees that “Disneyland is the best amusement park in Southern California”, and he (Joe-Joe the Dog Boy) says something like “you have to be kidding Beau, you don’t really believe Disneyland is the best amusement park in Southern California, do you? I sure don’t, in fact I used to live in Buena Park California, right down the street from Knott’s Berry Farm (another amusement park in Southern California).”
Then Joe-Joe the Dog Boy says “I know for a fact that Knott’s Berry Farm is better than Disneyland, and it even says on their website that it is “One of the best amusement parks in California, if not the best amusement park in California”)."
So then, lets assume I say “OK, Joe-Joe the Dog Boy, it just looks like we disagree that Knott’s Berry Farm is better than Disneyland, because I believe Disneyland is the best amusement park in Southern California”.
Now for some reason, this doesn’t set well with Joe-Joe the Dog Boy, and he says “disagree my butt, not only is Knott’s Berry Farm better than Disneyland, but I know for a fact that Six Flags Magic Mountain (which is just north of Los Angeles, at the Magic Mountain Parkway exit off Interstate 5 in Valencia) is also better than Disneyland”.
And at this point I can just tell when he says this, he gets sort of red in the face.
But I have to tell him something; right? So I say “Look Joe-Joe the Dog Boy, I understand you feel that way, and I just see things differently”.
Thats pretty savvy on my part; right?
Not so fast. The next thing you know Joe-Joe the Dog Boy says “Oh yah, you are a Smelly Anus”.
A Smelly Anus?
Did Joe-Joe the Dog Boy call me that (you know, a Smelly Anus), just because he and I disagreed about Disneyland vis’ a vie Knott’s Berry Farm (and, to a lesser extent, Six Flags Magic Mountain)?
That’s when to whole social protocol thing goes to hell in a handbag.
So, don’t call people names just because you disagree with them, even if it is just something like "illegal beaners" or "Marxist" or "tin-tin" (all of which, admittedly, are better than "Smelly Anus").
The end.
I hope this was beneficial and there will be no more name calling.
P.S. Sorry about having to use the term "Smelly Anus”, it was just an example.
P.S.S. I don’t believe there is anyone on this forum named "Joe-Joe the Dog Boy". If that isn’t the case (meaning there is someone on this forum named Joe-Joe the Dog Boy), please let me know and I will edit this post and use another name (such as “Eric The Guy Who Likes Fat Girls”, or something else).
Beau
Well-known member
The wrestler?
Beau
Well-known member
I've see some sort of, errr, disturbing pictures of her.
ax1
Legend
Damn, I cant find what you guys are talking about.
ax1
Legend
Huh...so it probably wouldnt make the Faces of Death series then?
ax1
Legend
Presidential Elections: Powerful “Special Interest Groups” Won Again
By Invalid Link Removed
Global Research
The election that was supposed to be too close to call turned out not to be so close after all. In my opinion, Obama won for two reasons:
(1) Obama is non-threatening and inclusive, whereas Romney exuded a “us vs. them” impression that many found threatening, and
(2) the election was not close enough for the electronic voting machines to steal.
As readers know, I don’t think that either candidate is a good choice or that either offers a choice. Washington is controlled by powerful interest groups, not by elections. What the two parties fight over is not alternative political visions and different legislative agendas, but which party gets to be the whore for Wall Street, the military-security complex, Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and energy, mining, and timber interests.
Being the whore is important, because whores are rewarded for the services that they render. To win the White House or a presidential appointment is a career-making event as it makes a person sought after by rich and powerful interest groups.
In Congress the majority party can provide more services and is thus more valuable than the minority party. One of our recent presidents who was not rich ended up with $36 million shortly after leaving office, as did former UK prime minister Tony Blair, who served Washington far better than he served his own country.
Wars are profitable for the military/security complex. Israel rewards its servants and punishes its enemies. Staffing environmental regulatory agencies with energy, mining, and timber executives is regarded by those interests as very friendly behavior.
Many Americans understand this and do not bother to vote as they know that whichever candidate or party wins, the interest groups prevail.
Ronald Reagan was the last president who stood up to interest groups, or, rather, to some of them. Wall Street did not want his tax rate reductions, as Wall Street thought the result would be higher inflation and interest rates and the ruination of their stock and bond portfolios.
The military/security complex did not want Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev to end the cold war.
What is curious is that voters don’t understand how politics really works. They get carried away with the political rhetoric and do not see the hypocrisy that is staring them in the face. Proud patriotic macho American men voted for Romney who went to Israel and, swearing allegiance to his liege lord, groveled at the feet of Netanyahu. Obama plays on the heart strings of his supporters by relating a story of a child with leukemia now protected by Obamacare, while he continues to murder thousands of children and their parents with drones and other military actions in seven countries. Obama was able to elicit cheers from supporters as he described the onward and upward path of America toward greater moral accomplishments, while his actual record is that of a tyrant who codified into law the destruction of the US Constitution and the civil liberties of the American people.
The election was about nothing except who gets to serve the interest groups. The wars were not an issue in the election. Washington’s provoking of Iran, Russia, and China by surrounding them with military bases was not an issue. The unconstitutional powers asserted by the executive branch to detain citizens indefinitely without due process and to assassinate them on suspicion alone were not an issue in the election. The sacrifice of the natural environment to timber, mining, and energy interests was not an issue, except to promise more sacrifice of the environment to short-term profits.
Out of one side of the mouth came the nonsense promise of restoring the middle class while from the other side of the mouth issued defenses of the offshoring of their jobs and careers as free trade.
The inability to acknowledge and to debate real issues is a threat not only to the United States but also to the entire world. Washington’s reckless pursuit of hegemony driven by an insane neoconservative ideology is leading to military confrontation with Russia and China. Eleven years of gratuitous wars with more on the way and an economic policy that protects financial institutions from their mistakes have burdened the US with massive budget deficits that are being monetized. The US dollar’s loss of the reserve currency role and hyperinflation are plausible consequences of disastrous economic policy.
How is it possible that “the world’s only superpower” can hold a presidential election without any discussion of these very real and serious problems being part of it? How can anyone be excited or made hopeful about such an outcome?
About the author
Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous university appointments. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
By Invalid Link Removed
Global Research
The election that was supposed to be too close to call turned out not to be so close after all. In my opinion, Obama won for two reasons:
(1) Obama is non-threatening and inclusive, whereas Romney exuded a “us vs. them” impression that many found threatening, and
(2) the election was not close enough for the electronic voting machines to steal.
As readers know, I don’t think that either candidate is a good choice or that either offers a choice. Washington is controlled by powerful interest groups, not by elections. What the two parties fight over is not alternative political visions and different legislative agendas, but which party gets to be the whore for Wall Street, the military-security complex, Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and energy, mining, and timber interests.
Being the whore is important, because whores are rewarded for the services that they render. To win the White House or a presidential appointment is a career-making event as it makes a person sought after by rich and powerful interest groups.
In Congress the majority party can provide more services and is thus more valuable than the minority party. One of our recent presidents who was not rich ended up with $36 million shortly after leaving office, as did former UK prime minister Tony Blair, who served Washington far better than he served his own country.
Wars are profitable for the military/security complex. Israel rewards its servants and punishes its enemies. Staffing environmental regulatory agencies with energy, mining, and timber executives is regarded by those interests as very friendly behavior.
Many Americans understand this and do not bother to vote as they know that whichever candidate or party wins, the interest groups prevail.
Ronald Reagan was the last president who stood up to interest groups, or, rather, to some of them. Wall Street did not want his tax rate reductions, as Wall Street thought the result would be higher inflation and interest rates and the ruination of their stock and bond portfolios.
The military/security complex did not want Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev to end the cold war.
What is curious is that voters don’t understand how politics really works. They get carried away with the political rhetoric and do not see the hypocrisy that is staring them in the face. Proud patriotic macho American men voted for Romney who went to Israel and, swearing allegiance to his liege lord, groveled at the feet of Netanyahu. Obama plays on the heart strings of his supporters by relating a story of a child with leukemia now protected by Obamacare, while he continues to murder thousands of children and their parents with drones and other military actions in seven countries. Obama was able to elicit cheers from supporters as he described the onward and upward path of America toward greater moral accomplishments, while his actual record is that of a tyrant who codified into law the destruction of the US Constitution and the civil liberties of the American people.
The election was about nothing except who gets to serve the interest groups. The wars were not an issue in the election. Washington’s provoking of Iran, Russia, and China by surrounding them with military bases was not an issue. The unconstitutional powers asserted by the executive branch to detain citizens indefinitely without due process and to assassinate them on suspicion alone were not an issue in the election. The sacrifice of the natural environment to timber, mining, and energy interests was not an issue, except to promise more sacrifice of the environment to short-term profits.
Out of one side of the mouth came the nonsense promise of restoring the middle class while from the other side of the mouth issued defenses of the offshoring of their jobs and careers as free trade.
The inability to acknowledge and to debate real issues is a threat not only to the United States but also to the entire world. Washington’s reckless pursuit of hegemony driven by an insane neoconservative ideology is leading to military confrontation with Russia and China. Eleven years of gratuitous wars with more on the way and an economic policy that protects financial institutions from their mistakes have burdened the US with massive budget deficits that are being monetized. The US dollar’s loss of the reserve currency role and hyperinflation are plausible consequences of disastrous economic policy.
How is it possible that “the world’s only superpower” can hold a presidential election without any discussion of these very real and serious problems being part of it? How can anyone be excited or made hopeful about such an outcome?
About the author
Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous university appointments. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
AE14
Board Sponsor
There in lies our dilemma. We as a nation just seem to think that $ grows on trees and that it will all work out in the end. It makes no sense...would anyone run their household that way?
What people dont seem to realize is that we now have more debt per person than Greece, our unemployment #'s are much worse than reported(specifically when taken into consideration with underemployed), our President has shown no inkling to work in a bipartisan manner which will in turn lead us to a financial tipping point on 1/1 (hell even Reagan and Clinton were able to cross the aisle), and yet here we are with almost the same house and president that we had prior to the election.
It stuns me to no end how foolish we are. Very sad indeed
ax1
Legend
The bees are disappearing. Without the bees, we cannot have life. If they find out tomorrow with absolute conclusive proof (Alex Jones proof too Ill add, lol) that the reason the bees are disappearing is due to cell phones and everybody has 1 week to throw out their cell phones or our species will become extinct, can we expect the majority of people to take action?
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I agree with you completely here AE.
With regard to this election. Was Romney the answer to the problems we face? I can almost certainly say he was not. The problem now is that we have just retained the status quo that we have had for the last 4 years... in which we have seen more debt racked up in only 3.75 years than we did in all of Bush's 8 total years. And the only reason I bring up Bush is that was the campaign platform Obama ran on in 2008 to win the election, the rising debt total. Romney may have not been the answer, but he is economically savvy, I was willing to give him at least a shot since what we have been doing hasn't been working. We are defining Insanity on a national scale right now.
Problem is that people vote with their emotions, and not their brain. You know what I don't understand, why Romney's thoughts on Gay Marriage were even an issue. Last time I checked the states citizens were the ones voting on those stances.... The president has no say on state level politics. What is worse is that in the 2008 presidential debate Mr. Obama stated he was against Gay Marriage... now he is somehow the bastion of Gay hope... then again we overlook his training with the Weather Underground too.
We need a new beacon of leadership.. someone who has convictions, and sticks to them, rather than be sold to the highest bidder.
A true liberty minded party that can compete at the national stage level... too bad enough money changes hands to stop that even before it is a blip on the radar.
Clemenza
Well-known member
AE14 said:
Agree 100%. Things have actually been TOO good in this country for so long and success and financial stability had become too easy coming. Unfortunately, if you add to this the massive entitlements, gold plated tax payer funded health care plans for public union workers, untouchable public pensions.... You get a destroyed work ethic that has spread like a cancer. People don't want to work hard anymore. They want to clock in, clock out, rack up their vacation days, and expect to be entitled to great health care and a nice retirement.
This does not work
Distilled Water
Board Sponsor
Clemenza said:
I work at a non-union shop and this is their same attitude. Of everyone on my shift, only 1 person had a plan for retirement outside of the answer "social security & Medicare"
Distilled Water
Board Sponsor
gregg1494 said:
My buddy and I discussed this in length yesterday on our 6hr ride home. Would Obama send in the military to "stop" this? Raises quiet the question
ax1
Legend
Obama and Leon Panetta answer to the the United Nations and NATO, so it will be up to them.
ax1
Legend
I agree, whats the sense of doing that and waking people up when you can keep the illusion of a total democracy and change.
If Obama tried to flip on the ones who financed him they will kill him.
Invycktus
Active member
But Jim, if liberals do not live via discrediting others, how will Rachel Madcow and Chris Matthews ever have a job?
:veryhappy:
Invycktus
Active member
Pray to God he gets impeached and deported.
Does that make me a bad person though? I mean I just lost out on a huge contract, because my company said, we will end up paying more taxes, than actually making money in this consulting venture.
2 times in the last 6 months, we could have generated 14+ contracting jobs, which will now sit till the new year.
jimbuick
Legend
Oh cool Mormon jokes.....
jimbuick
Legend
I'm Mormon.
Its also against the churches rules to have more than one wife and you would be kicked out for doing it.
Maybe you should learn something before you talk about it, that way you don't make yourself look like an idiot.
Johnnayyyy
New member
funny thing is mentioning romney isnt making fun of mormons, you automatically assumed it. and to that, who cares. im not the butthurt one in the end
Johnnayyyy
New member
But here, il delete my posts since youre obviously so offended.
jimbuick
Legend
You made a joke about a Mormon being a polygamist and are going to try and say it has nothing to do with him being a Mormon? Yeah, OK.