PDA

View Full Version : Elections Soros: "Romney not much different than Obama"


Chiefshrink
02-01-2012, 08:42 AM
Soros is right on more than he knows about Romney;)

As long as a true conservative is not elected the radical left is much less worried with a RINO in office and why they want to run against Romney. Romney will still play the game of "politics as usual" and it takes repeal of Obamacare "off the table" regardless if Romney say's he will repeal it. No way in hell he will repeal it. He will cosmetically just 'tweak it' if elected.


Soros Sits Out Obama Super-PAC Money Race Beside Big Givers

Hans Nichols, 2012 Bloomberg News

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- George Soros, the billionaire investor who bankrolled Democratic groups during George W. Bush's presidency and then indicated in 2010 that his giving days were over, is back.

He just isn't giving to the political action committee working to re-elect President Barack Obama.

Soros is joined by million-dollar donors such as film producer Stephen Bing and auto insurer Peter Lewis in not contributing to Priorities USA, a group founded by former White House aides to help return Obama to the White House. The pro- Obama organization raised $1.2 million in the second half of 2011, bringing its yearly total to $4.4 million, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

In 2011, Soros gave $75,000 to the House Majority PAC, dedicated to returning the House to Democratic control, and $100,000 to Majority PAC, an organization working to keep the Senate in Democratic hands, according to the FEC reports.

"Most of the major progressive donors, such as Soros and Bing, if they do give, are going to give to the committees that have been established to recapture the Congress," said Anthony Corrado, a political scientist at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. "There's a general sense, among the big progressive donors, that the Obama campaign will be well-funded and where the money is really needed is on Capitol Hill."

While Soros's 2011 congressional contributions are small compared with the more than $30 million that he gave in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 election cycles, Democrats say they want him to do more, to counter so-called super-PACs formed by Karl Rove and other Republicans.


House and Senate


"Given that our prospects in House and Senate races are looking increasingly better, some in the Democratic community certainly hope that donors like Soros and Bing come off the sidelines so that our candidates have the resources needed to match the GOP and their super-PACs," said Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist.

Soros has expressed ambivalence about a second term for Obama and said in a Reuters interview in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 25 that he was "not the only one who has been slightly disappointed" in Obama, while noting that "I continue to support him."

If the 2012 contest were between Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Soros said that "there isn't that much difference, except for the crowd that they bring with him."

Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Soros, said that the Hungarian-born financier has recently traveled to Myanmar, has been working with emerging democracies in Africa and has not been concentrating on the U.S. election.


European Crisis


"Soros's focus has been on the crisis in Europe and no decisions have been made on 2012," he said. "He has not been focused on U.S. politics."

In 2004, Soros gave $23.7 million to Democratic groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. For the 2006 election, he contributed $3.5 million to organizations working to elect Democrats. Two years later, he donated a total of $5 million, according to the non-profit group that tracks campaign finances. Then in 2010, he indicated that he was done with seven-figure political giving, calling his 2004 activism an "exception."

Struggling to keep pace with American Crossroads, formed by Karl Rove, and Americans for Prosperity, founded by billionaire David Koch, the five main Democratic super-PACs have been working together to court donors who are willing to write seven- figure checks. Super-PACs are allowed to raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations and unions.

Any sharing arrangement reached by those Democratic groups, and the bigger checks they want to collect, might not appear in the 2011 disclosure reports, which don't capture fundraising in January. Bill Burton, a former White House spokesman, who founded Priorities USA with Sean Sweeney, a former political adviser at the White House, said that they weren't concerned about signing up specific donors like Soros.

"It's not about any one particular individual," he said. "It's about a community of Democrats who see a threat of outside money and want to get involved and make sure the President isn't without a response."


Gingrich Support


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has benefitted from $10 million in donations from Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, according to a person close to him.

Bing, who gave $13 million in 2004 to Democratic committees, contributed $250,000 to Majority PAC and $150,000 to American Bridge 21st Century, a group that fact-checks Republican and conservative claims, according to FEC reports and the Center for Responsive Politics.

Peter Lewis, who contributed $23 million in 2004 to defeat President George W. Bush, gave $200,000 to American Bridge in 2011

Obama's presidential campaign has out-raised his Republican challengers in total donations and cash on hand. In 2011, Obama for America raised $128 million and ended the year with $81.8 million in cash.

Romney raised $57 million last year, more than any of his Republican presidential rivals, and entered the primary season with $20 million to spend.

Burton's group, along with the other Democratic committees, are essentially media funds will be ready to make large commercial buys as soon as the donations arrive, said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a Washington-based advocacy group formerly called the New Democrat Network. Democratic donors, after assessing the impact of the outside groups in Republican contest, will soon start to donate, he said.

"The success of Romney's super-PAC in wounding Gingrich will force reluctant Democrats to get off the sideline and spend more money on these outside groups in 2012 than they were anticipating," Rosenberg said.




--Editors: Steven Komarow, Jeanne Cummings


To contact the reporter on this story: Hans Nichols in New York at hnichols2@bloomberg.net



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/01/bloomberg_articlesLYOCDI0D9L3501-LYP30.DTL#ixzz1l8zc1qbT

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 08:51 AM
I have said this several times already. This is what I was referring to when I said patteeu was like Soros. Except that patteeu thinks Romney is different.

Chiefshrink
02-01-2012, 08:56 AM
I have said this several times already. This is what I was referring to when I said patteeu was like Soros. Except that patteeu thinks Romney is different.

Romney will just give better lip service than Obama and that is saying a lot.:thumb:

Are you saying that 'patt' is just "politics as usual"? :shrug:;)

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 09:02 AM
Romney will just give better lip service than Obama and that is saying a lot.:thumb:

Are you saying that 'patt' is just "politics as usual"? :shrug:;)

Yeah, without knowing it's that...and that's pragmatic. You know defeatism and nothing can be really done about things anyway type thinking. He's not the only one. They need to bust out of living in the Truman Show.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 09:16 AM
I have said this several times already. This is what I was referring to when I said patteeu was like Soros. Except that patteeu thinks Romney is different.

Romney is different because his foundation is in capitalism and American exceptionalism rather than progressivism and anti-colonialism. Soros seems to be upset with Obama because he ended up governing more like a politician than a true believer. In that sense, he and Romney are alike. But also in that sense, "the crowd that they bring with them" is a huge difference between the two.

ChiefsCountry
02-01-2012, 09:20 AM
I fucking hate Soros with a passion. That fucker can rot in hell.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 11:01 AM
As a conservative, I would much rather see Obama win and Romney lose for the fact that Republicans will fight against Obama's advance of government, whereas they would go to sleep against Romney's advance of government (much like they went to sleep against Bush's advance).

Conservatives win nothing by Romney winning the election - which is a moot point because Romney won't be able to beat Obama for the fact that he doesn't have a conservative base to rally. He has the establishment which will get him to the dance, but like McCain, fail to get him over the top.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 11:26 AM
As a conservative, I would much rather see Obama win and Romney lose for the fact that Republicans will fight against Obama's advance of government, whereas they would go to sleep against Romney's advance of government (much like they went to sleep against Bush's advance).

Conservatives win nothing by Romney winning the election - which is a moot point because Romney won't be able to beat Obama for the fact that he doesn't have a conservative base to rally. He has the establishment which will get him to the dance, but like McCain, fail to get him over the top.

What is the Taco John strategy for dealing with a Supreme Court that's been re-stacked with a decisive liberal majority that can be expected to last for 15 or 20 years even if a real conservative somehow gets elected to the Presidency after another Obama term?

Taco John
02-01-2012, 11:36 AM
What is the Taco John strategy for dealing with a Supreme Court that's been re-stacked with a decisive liberal majority that can be expected to last for 15 or 20 years even if a real conservative somehow gets elected to the Presidency after another Obama term?

My strategy is to elect Ron Paul because I trust his appointments over Romney or Obama. Failing that, I'll let the chips fall where they may and lament the missed opportunity to move the Republican party, and thus the country in a truly conservative direction.

http://i.imgur.com/Xj74E.jpg

It's Paul or nobody for me. I don't have a second option. Either the Republican party recognizes the situation for what it is and opens the door for us, or they turn us out and ride the election without us. It's their choice really.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 11:38 AM
Romney is different because his foundation is in capitalism and American exceptionalism rather than progressivism and anti-colonialism. Soros seems to be upset with Obama because he ended up governing more like a politician than a true believer. In that sense, he and Romney are alike. But also in that sense, "the crowd that they bring with them" is a huge difference between the two.

LMAO

patteeu
02-01-2012, 11:56 AM
LMAO

You don't think so?

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 12:00 PM
My strategy is to elect Ron Paul because I trust his appointments over Romney or Obama. Failing that, I'll let the chips fall where they may and lament the missed opportunity to move the Republican party, and thus the country in a truly conservative direction.

http://i.imgur.com/Xj74E.jpg

It's Paul or nobody for me. I don't have a second option. Either the Republican party recognizes the situation for what it is and opens the door for us, or they turn us out and ride the election without us. It's their choice really.

Another option, is the one Paul mentioned in one of the later debates regarding RvW, use congressional power to remove non-federal types of cases out of the jurisdiction of the SC. That way you don't have to wait for another conservative to come into the executive branch. This deals with most of the abuses leftist activist judges who like to centralize everything.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 12:00 PM
You don't think so?

My first thought of anti-colonialism is as one of the primary driving forces for the United States of America's establishment. Obama's anti-colonialism puts him in an illustrious field that includes each and every signer of the Declaration of Independence and American Revolutionary veteran.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 12:32 PM
My first thought of anti-colonialism is as one of the primary driving forces for the United States of America's establishment. Obama's anti-colonialism puts him in an illustrious field that includes each and every signer of the Declaration of Independence and American Revolutionary veteran.

Yeah, that's a pretty non-conventional meaning for the term and certainly not what I was talking about. My meaning had more to do with seeing ongoing western influence in the third world as a repressive/exploitive force rather than a force for good. I'd extrapolate from that to include the concepts preached by Jeremiah Wright that extended to condemn the American power structure in terms of it's domestic as well as international impact.

"America's chickens are coming home to roost."

"God damn[ed?] America!"

alnorth
02-01-2012, 12:34 PM
What is the Taco John strategy for dealing with a Supreme Court that's been re-stacked with a decisive liberal majority that can be expected to last for 15 or 20 years even if a real conservative somehow gets elected to the Presidency after another Obama term?

I seriously doubt anyone in the GOP field will defeat Obama, short of a sudden deep recession this summer.

Breyer and Ginsburg will probably be replaced by younger liberal justices in the next couple years (unless they are stubborn and are willing to risk letting a republican pick their successor), which will pretty much cement the 4 side of these 5-4 decisions for another 15-20 years.

Scalia and Kennedy will just need to exercise, eat right, and make it to their 80's.

Even that might not be a guarantee on Kennedy. He may not particularly care who succeeds him and may just go till he wants to quit or dies.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 12:43 PM
I seriously doubt anyone in the GOP field will defeat Obama, short of a sudden deep recession this summer.

Breyer and Ginsburg will probably be replaced by younger liberal justices in the next couple years (unless they are stubborn and are willing to risk letting a republican pick their successor), which will pretty much cement the 4 side of these 5-4 decisions for another 15-20 years.

Scalia and Kennedy will just need to exercise, eat right, and make it to their 80's.

If Obama wins a second term, I'll keep my fingers crossed for those two.

If Romney, or any other Republican wins, it means a likely solid conservative majority for a generation assuming either Breyer or Ginsburg can't hold on. I think Ginsburg and Scalia are the most likely to leave the scene over the next 4 years regardless of who wins. This election is probably the last chance for conservatives to finally get over the hump to achieve a solid majority for many years (for the first time in decades). We've gotten so close. It would be a shame to let it all slip away.

Any conservative who withholds a vote from the ultimate GOP nominee, no matter who he is, is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 12:53 PM
Any conservative who withholds a vote from the ultimate GOP nominee, no matter who he is, is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

There's going to be a LOT of people missing noses if Romney gets the nomination.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 12:55 PM
Or maybe not... Romney is a political creature, and Paul is going to have enough delegates to make a difference in the platform. I'd vote for Romney/Rand. But not Romney/Rubio. I would be among the supporters who abandoned the Republican party once and for all in favor of a third party if the ticket is Romney/Rubio.

banyon
02-01-2012, 01:08 PM
Yeah, that's a pretty non-conventional meaning for the term and certainly not what I was talking about. My meaning had more to do with seeing ongoing western influence in the third world as a repressive/exploitive force rather than a force for good. I'd extrapolate from that to include the concepts preached by Jeremiah Wright that extended to condemn the American power structure in terms of it's domestic as well as international impact.

"America's chickens are coming home to roost."

"God damn[ed?] America!"

It's really just a covert way to give a friendly wink and nod to the lunatic fringe/birther types in the party who think Obama was born in "marxist kenya" while keeping enough distance so that you aren't directly identified as a kook yourself.

Obama hasnt done 1 thing in 4 years that would lead a rational person to think he was seriously "anti-colonialist". You know better than this, patteeu.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 01:23 PM
It's really just a covert way to give a friendly wink and nod to the lunatic fringe/birther types in the party who think Obama was born in "marxist kenya" while keeping enough distance so that you aren't directly identified as a kook yourself.

Obama hasnt done 1 thing in 4 years that would lead a rational person to think he was seriously "anti-colonialist". You know better than this, patteeu.

I see you're singing directly from the WH hymnal (that's exactly how Robert Gibbs responded when Dinesh D'Souza used the term to describe the President's worldview). This has nothing to do with where Obama was born (Hawaii, btw) and before you or anyone else goes there, it has nothing to do with his race either.

Supporting rebellions against US-friendly (or cooperative) regimes in North Africa, while at least appearing to stand by silently as anti-US regimes in Iran and Syria brutalize their own rebellions is one entire strand of foreign policy that supports my view. Likewise with Obama's shift toward the palestinians and away from our longtime ally Israel. His chilling of US support for US-friendly regimes in Honduras and Columbia while siding with Zelaya and (at least initially) reaching out to Chavez are a couple of other examples.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 01:46 PM
My meaning had more to do with seeing ongoing western influence in the third world as a repressive/exploitive force rather than a force for good.

I wouldn't parrot one of the most widely-disclaimed, illegitimate, and baseless attacks launched by an Obama critic. Despite being drenched in intellectual posturing and alleged sophistication, that campaign landed nowhere. That was a pure character assassination steeped in speculation and self-fulfilled prophesy ("I think he hates America. Yes, this quote proves it.").

Don't stoop to that level, because it's pathetic. We've known Barack Obama's political career, public speeches, writings, and actions for years now. It's clear his foundation for his political philosophy and public policy has nothing to do with anti-colonialism. He's order the executions of top terrorists, and he's done virtually nothing of consequence for the third world.

It's arguable Bush did more to help Africans than Obama has done. But of course, you wouldn't accuse Bush of having a foundation of anti-colonialism against westernism. Why accuse Obama? Because the mythical aura of conspiracy and ignorance provides you with that bed of disgraceful accusation.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 02:14 PM
I wouldn't parrot one of the most widely-disclaimed, illegitimate, and baseless attacks launched by an Obama critic. Despite being drenched in intellectual posturing and alleged sophistication, that campaign landed nowhere. That was a pure character assassination steeped in speculation and self-fulfilled prophesy ("I think he hates America. Yes, this quote proves it.").

Don't stoop to that level, because it's pathetic. We've known Barack Obama's political career, public speeches, writings, and actions for years now. It's clear his foundation for his political philosophy and public policy has nothing to do with anti-colonialism. He's order the executions of top terrorists, and he's done virtually nothing of consequence for the third world.

It's arguable Bush did more to help Africans than Obama has done. But of course, you wouldn't accuse Bush of having a foundation of anti-colonialism against westernism. Why accuse Obama? Because the mythical aura of conspiracy and ignorance provides you with that bed of disgraceful accusation.

LOL I take it you just read up on the D'Souza article and the WH's response. Denied, sure. Illegitimate and discredited, hardly. Executions of terrorists don't have much to do with this. Nor does a lack of paternalistic support for the third world. I've already given several examples of Obama's foreign policy that suggest a disapproval of third world regimes that cooperate too closely with the US (and therefore can be accused of effectively being puppet regimes).

Your paragraph about Bush betrays a continued lack of understanding of what anti-colonialism means. The Bush efforts to spread US influence by helping third world nations is just the type of thing that an anti-colonialist would be suspicious of. 'Hamas' Jenkins is an anti-colonialist as are many white American born liberals so don't be so quick to assume it's a racist or birther code word.

It might help you if you interpret anti-colonialism as the opposite of American exceptionalism. We can surely agree that Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. It's not a perfect antonym but it's antonymish. I'm not suggesting that Barack Obama hates America like a jihadist. I'm suggesting that he comes from a line of thinking where it's hard to be proud of what America has been (see his wife for a good example) but who thinks that by changing the place radically enough it can be redeemed.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 02:25 PM
I read the article when it first came out. It was in a thread here, describing how fascinating the read was.

The article went into particular strains tying Obama's roots of anti-colonialism to a weak military and passive view of external threats. "From the anticolonial perspective, American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War, America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anticolonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world."

Yes, killing terrorists and driving up the war in Afghanistan directly show the complete ridiculousness of this portrait of Obama-"anti-colonialist," as the author uses it.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 02:31 PM
I'm suggesting that he comes from a line of thinking where it's hard to be proud of what America has been (see his wife for a good example) but who thinks that by changing the place radically enough it can be redeemed.

This sounds like a Republican candidate railing against post-Depression developments in American government.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 02:48 PM
I read the article when it first came out. It was in a thread here, describing how fascinating the read was.

You must have forgotten it when you lumped our founding fathers in under that term then.

The article went into particular strains tying Obama's roots of anti-colonialism to a weak military and passive view of external threats. "From the anticolonial perspective, American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War, America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anticolonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world."

Yes, killing terrorists and driving up the war in Afghanistan directly show the complete ridiculousness of this portrait of Obama-"anti-colonialist," as the author uses it.

D'Souza isn't making this argument, I am. But I do think that even in his policy toward Iraq (premature withdrawal), Obama shows a reluctance to strongly advocate American influence. You might think that he's just motivated by a cynical political calculation based on the "bring our troops home" sentiment of a war weary nation, and that's arguable, but given the big picture (see my previous examples) I think it's more likely a convergence between political interests and basic philosophy.

Terrorists are not the objects of an anti-colonialist's sympathy, and killing them doesn't disprove the charge.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 02:49 PM
This sounds like a Republican candidate railing against post-Depression developments in American government.

Depression era Republicans and democrats alike would have been aghast at the things Barack Obama stands for.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 03:05 PM
Terrorists are not the objects of an anti-colonialist's sympathy, and killing them doesn't disprove the charge.

Yes, I think a person whose foundation is anti-colonialism (as you charge Obama's is), would find Middle Eastern terrorism, a product of an era of greater actual Western emergence in the Middle East, to be largely sympathetic. I don't think ordering their deaths shows a strong foundation to any anti-colonialism, but instead, more goes to prove the contrary.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 03:09 PM
Depression era Republicans and democrats alike would have been aghast at the things Barack Obama stands for.

Oh yeah!? Well, I think they all would have been aghast at America's invasion of Iraq! Considering Obama's response to the 2008 collapse, compared to FDR's response to the collapse of 1929, I think Depression era Democrats would have been completely tame, rather than shock and horror.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:18 PM
Yes, I think a person whose foundation is anti-colonialism (as you charge Obama's is), would find Middle Eastern terrorism, a product of an era of greater actual Western emergence in the Middle East, to be largely sympathetic. I don't think ordering their deaths shows a strong foundation to any anti-colonialism, but instead, more goes to prove the contrary.

Mitt Romney's foundation is in capitalism, but that doesn't mean he supports robber barons, completely unregulated markets, and a sink-or-swim policy of no social safety net. By the same token, Obama's foundation of anti-colonialism doesn't mean he's a fellow traveler with Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zawahiri (although admittedly he pals around with the likes of William Ayers).

La literatura
02-01-2012, 03:22 PM
Mitt Romney's foundation is in capitalism, but that doesn't mean he supports robber barons, completely unregulated markets, and a sink-or-swim policy of no social safety net. By the same token, Obama's foundation of anti-colonialism doesn't mean he's a fellow traveler with Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zawahiri (although admittedly he pals around with the likes of William Ayers).

That really doesn't matter. I'm concerned with possible sympathetic views of anti-American terrorists. It seems if a person's foundation is anti-colonialism, the person would have some degree of sympathetic views to anti-American terrorists, who are extreme anti-colonialists.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:29 PM
That really doesn't matter. I'm concerned with possible sympathetic views of anti-American terrorists. It seems if a person's foundation is anti-colonialism, the person would have some degree of sympathetic views to anti-American terrorists, who are extreme anti-colonialists.

I see that you're going to ignore the case I've actually made in order to tear down your own strawman. If your standard is that short of aligning himself with the worst of the anti-American terrorists in the world, any degree of effort to reduce American influence abroad and undercut long-time American allies is acceptable, we'll have to agree to disagree.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 03:34 PM
I see that you're going to ignore the case I've actually made in order to tear down your own strawman. If your standard is that short of aligning himself with the worst of the anti-American terrorists in the world, any degree of effort to reduce American influence abroad and undercut long-time American allies is acceptable, we'll have to agree to disagree.

And if your standard is that despite the continued and relatively effective war on al-Qaeda, Obama actually has a degree of sympathy towards their views, we do have to agree to disagree. I see no evidence that Obama is motivated by ends that are adverse to America's best interests or shares any degree of anti-Americanism with terrorists.

If you want to dispute policy, you should. If you want to assassinate the moral character of Obama by portraying him as holding views that directly conflict with his position as Commander-in-Chief and America's president and question his integrity and motivations, then you are going down a disgraceful path.

You are too smart, with too much of a voice in this forum, to not be contradicted.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:47 PM
And if your standard is that despite the continued and relatively effective war on al-Qaeda, Obama actually has a degree of sympathy towards their views, we do have to agree to disagree. I see no evidence that Obama is motivated by ends that are adverse to America's best interests or shares any degree of anti-Americanism with terrorists.

If you want to dispute policy, you should. If you want to assassinate the moral character of Obama by portraying him as holding views that directly conflict with his position as Commander-in-Chief and America's president and question his integrity and motivations, then you are going down a disgraceful path.

You are too smart, with too much of a voice in this forum, to not be contradicted.

You're the one equating what I'm actually describing with my words to sympathy for terrorism, not me. I gave several examples of decisions taken by the Obama administration that I think are adverse to America's best interests and you've elected not to discuss them. I've even gone so far as to accept that Obama's view of what's best for America (i.e. radically transforming it from the nation that he believes he must apologize for) are different than what I think is best for America. That doesn't make his positions any better, but it certainly argues against your efforts to suggest that I'm playing on some kind of shady conspiratorial subtext.

banyon
02-01-2012, 05:12 PM
You're the one equating what I'm actually describing with my words to sympathy for terrorism, not me. I gave several examples of decisions taken by the Obama administration that I think are adverse to America's best interests and you've elected not to discuss them. I've even gone so far as to accept that Obama's view of what's best for America (i.e. radically transforming it from the nation that he believes he must apologize for) are different than what I think is best for America. That doesn't make his positions any better, but it certainly argues against your efforts to suggest that I'm playing on some kind of shady conspiratorial subtext.

Your position on this is absurd. You claim (with a straight face?) that some efforts in which Obama has not supported rebellions mean he is anti-colonialist, but the occasions in which he has supported rebellions also somehow mean he is anti-colonialist. That's been what virtually every president since Theodore Roosevelt has done. How is your view even internally consistent?

banyon
02-01-2012, 05:23 PM
LOL I take it you just read up on the D'Souza article and the WH's response. Denied, sure. Illegitimate and discredited, hardly. Executions of terrorists don't have much to do with this. Nor does a lack of paternalistic support for the third world. I've already given several examples of Obama's foreign policy that suggest a disapproval of third world regimes that cooperate too closely with the US (and therefore can be accused of effectively being puppet regimes).

Your paragraph about Bush betrays a continued lack of understanding of what anti-colonialism means. The Bush efforts to spread US influence by helping third world nations is just the type of thing that an anti-colonialist would be suspicious of. 'Hamas' Jenkins is an anti-colonialist as are many white American born liberals so don't be so quick to assume it's a racist or birther code word.

It might help you if you interpret anti-colonialism as the opposite of American exceptionalism. We can surely agree that Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. It's not a perfect antonym but it's antonymish. I'm not suggesting that Barack Obama hates America like a jihadist. I'm suggesting that he comes from a line of thinking where it's hard to be proud of what America has been (see his wife for a good example) but who thinks that by changing the place radically enough it can be redeemed.

And I had no idea what Gibbs had said, but it sounds like a common sense response to that attempted slur.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 05:26 PM
Your position on this is absurd. You claim (with a straight face?) that some efforts in which Obama has not supported rebellions mean he is anti-colonialist, but the occasions in which he has supported rebellions also somehow mean he is anti-colonialist. That's been what virtually every president since Theodore Roosevelt has done. How is your view even internally consistent?

Because he chooses to support rebellions against regimes that are cooperative/collaborative with the US while he chooses not to support those against regimes that are our adversaries.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 05:28 PM
And I had no idea what Gibbs had said, but it sounds like a common sense response to that attempted slur.

Call it a slur if you want, but it's still true.

banyon
02-01-2012, 05:38 PM
Because he chooses to support rebellions against regimes that are cooperative/collaborative with the US while he chooses not to support those against regimes that are our adversaries.

Bush said Libya was collaborating with us. Repeatedly. They bragged about how they got Qaddafi to voluntarily disarm. Were they anti-colonialists too?

So far, the only "rebellions" we really supported were Libya and Egypt, correct?

Why can't it be a matter of seeing the writing on the wall, probably with the benefit of State dept and CIA intel, and wanting to have a decent relationship with the victors?

We also didn't (once again) support rebellions in Saudi Arabia, or Palestine, who are respectively, friends and adversaries in your paradigm. We didn't support Tunisia's arab spring which was friendly to us. Your memory seems conveniently selective on this to support the conclusion you want.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 11:29 PM
Bush said Libya was collaborating with us. Repeatedly. They bragged about how they got Qaddafi to voluntarily disarm. Were they anti-colonialists too?

So far, the only "rebellions" we really supported were Libya and Egypt, correct?

Why can't it be a matter of seeing the writing on the wall, probably with the benefit of State dept and CIA intel, and wanting to have a decent relationship with the victors?

We also didn't (once again) support rebellions in Saudi Arabia, or Palestine, who are respectively, friends and adversaries in your paradigm. We didn't support Tunisia's arab spring which was friendly to us. Your memory seems conveniently selective on this to support the conclusion you want.

Libya was cooperating with us. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that. And no, it wouldn't make Bush an anti-Colonialist. Why would it? Indeed, it makes him successful at pursuing the kind of American interests that an anti-colonialist would consider imperialistic. The same interests we had when Libya was our adversary.

It could be a matter of seeing the writing on the wall, but there's abundant evidence that he has an anti-colonial worldview. It's not really that unusual for a leftist. In addition to the examples I've already offered, it explains why he feels the need to apologize for his country's past international behavior so often and it explains why he didn't find Reverend Wright's church offensive.

I think you're stuck with this idea that anti-colonialism is some unusual belief system that only some dark skinned 3rd worlder would hold, but it's not.

banyon
02-02-2012, 07:53 AM
Libya was cooperating with us. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that. And no, it wouldn't make Bush an anti-Colonialist. Why would it? Indeed, it makes him successful at pursuing the kind of American interests that an anti-colonialist would consider imperialistic. The same interests we had when Libya was our adversary.

It could be a matter of seeing the writing on the wall, but there's abundant evidence that he has an anti-colonial worldview. It's not really that unusual for a leftist. In addition to the examples I've already offered, it explains why he feels the need to apologize for his country's past international behavior so often and it explains why he didn't find Reverend Wright's church offensive.

I think you're stuck with this idea that anti-colonialism is some unusual belief system that only some dark skinned 3rd worlder would hold, but it's not.
Anti-colonialist, other than the winking/nodding way it is being used here is a term that is not even in current usage, primarily for the rather obvious fact that no one has truly had "colonies" for many decades. "anti-imperialist" might be a term in modern usage, but i think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a mainstream news source referring to any other world leader the way you are attempting to.

You of course, leave unaddressed the "pro-colonial" (using your reasoning) foreign policy examples I raised which did not fit the preconceived narrative. If he had truly possessed this crazy worldview, it would have been simple, of course, to make those situations work to meet the imaginary agenda goals too.

It's obvious, particularly when newt Gingrich is the one who brought this term back into the discussion and did it adding the terms "kenyan anti-colonialism", what was really going on.

Chiefshrink
02-02-2012, 08:31 AM
As a conservative, I would much rather see Obama win and Romney lose for the fact that Republicans will fight against Obama's advance of government, whereas they would go to sleep against Romney's advance of government (much like they went to sleep against Bush's advance).

Conservatives win nothing by Romney winning the election - which is a moot point because Romney won't be able to beat Obama for the fact that he doesn't have a conservative base to rally. He has the establishment which will get him to the dance, but like McCain, fail to get him over the top.

If this were 4 yrs ago and prior this is what political history has shown and I would thoroughly agree with you. We saw it 4yrs ago. Saw it in 76,92,96.

However, as I have stated many times prior in other threads, we live in very very unique times and so unique that our American populous has never seen our Fed Govt become so tyrannical and gargantuan these last 4yrs. So much so that "We The People" are not only that angry but evenmoreso that fearful of losing our country.

I expect the majority of the conservative base to still vote regardless of who the GOP candidate is because they realize a no vote or third party vote is a vote for OMarxist which "CANNOT BE AFFORDED THIS TIME AROUND" based on OMarxist's actions(policies) these last 4yrs.:thumb:

Chiefshrink
02-02-2012, 08:33 AM
Or maybe not... Romney is a political creature, and Paul is going to have enough delegates to make a difference in the platform. I'd vote for Romney/Rand. But not Romney/Rubio. I would be among the supporters who abandoned the Republican party once and for all in favor of a third party if the ticket is Romney/Rubio.

What don't you like about Rubio?

patteeu
02-02-2012, 10:04 AM
Anti-colonialist, other than the winking/nodding way it is being used here is a term that is not even in current usage, primarily for the rather obvious fact that no one has truly had "colonies" for many decades. "anti-imperialist" might be a term in modern usage, but i think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a mainstream news source referring to any other world leader the way you are attempting to.

You of course, leave unaddressed the "pro-colonial" (using your reasoning) foreign policy examples I raised which did not fit the preconceived narrative. If he had truly possessed this crazy worldview, it would have been simple, of course, to make those situations work to meet the imaginary agenda goals too.

It's obvious, particularly when newt Gingrich is the one who brought this term back into the discussion and did it adding the terms "kenyan anti-colonialism", what was really going on.

I addressed your examples previously when I pointed out that just because the foundation for a person's worldview is anti-colonialist (or capitalist in the case of Mitt Romney), doesn't mean that they put that consideration ahead of all others. Obama is also interested in getting re-elected and even if he could have managed to give the Saudi uprising enough support for it to topple the Saudi regime (and I don't think he could without being crucified here at home), the fallout would leave him unelectable.

Rather than complaining about the term I used, maybe you should stick to focusing on the substance of the criticism.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 10:09 AM
What don't you like about Rubio?

I don't like him either. However, I did vote for him for Florida because *gasp* I do vote for the lesser of two evils, at times. For me another R up in DC was a counterweight to Obama.

However, Rubio is another NeoCon.* Great orator. So far, though, great orators don't necessarily make for a president that has the ideas I seek.

He cites "American Exceptionalism" which currently incorporates the idea of superiority that leads to killing foreigners because we don't like their way of life or beliefs. It is the philosophical root of the Bush Doctrine which seeks to make-over the world. That's not what being exceptional as an American is about to me. In fact it is not Americanism at all.

On the other hand, removing Rand from the Senate would be a waste. He can do more there, including persuading minds. I would much rather see a deal cut for a Supreme Court appointment such as Judge Andrew Napolitano to gain votes for Romney. If I could be assured of such a man getting on the SC I would vote for Romney but not a Rand as a VP. It's do-less and comes across as marginalizing the man.

Dave Lane
02-02-2012, 10:09 AM
All you conservatives had better be ready to suck the cock that is offered to you. Its your one and only choice. Now suck it bitches!!!!

ChiefaRoo
02-02-2012, 01:23 PM
Romney is different because his foundation is in capitalism and American exceptionalism rather than progressivism and anti-colonialism. Soros seems to be upset with Obama because he ended up governing more like a politician than a true believer. In that sense, he and Romney are alike. But also in that sense, "the crowd that they bring with them" is a huge difference between the two.

Right.

Soros is a scumbag.

bandwagonjumper
02-02-2012, 01:55 PM
Even if Romney and Obama were the same the same cannot be said about the people surrounding them. I still remember when it was said that George W. Bush and Al gore were two peas in pod. The people surrounding Bush were pretty extreme. The same thing will happen with Romney. To balance his 'moderation' he will pick lots and lots of right wing nutjobs. So don't worry my rabid republican friends. Your country will be in the 'right' hands.

Calcountry
02-02-2012, 02:05 PM
I don't like him either. However, I did vote for him for Florida because *gasp* I do vote for the lesser of two evils, at times. For me another R up in DC was a counterweight to Obama.

However, Rubio is another NeoCon.* Great orator. So far, though, great orators don't necessarily make for a president that has the ideas I seek.

He cites "American Exceptionalism" which currently incorporates the idea of superiority that leads to killing foreigners because we don't like their way of life or beliefs. It is the philosophical root of the Bush Doctrine which seeks to make-over the world. That's not what being exceptional as an American is about to me. In fact it is not Americanism at all.

On the other hand, removing Rand from the Senate would be a waste. He can do more there, including persuading minds. I would much rather see a deal cut for a Supreme Court appointment such as Judge Andrew Napolitano to gain votes for Romney. If I could be assured of such a man getting on the SC I would vote for Romney but not a Rand as a VP. It's do-less and comes across as marginalizing the man.Napalitano on the supreme court would rock.

mikey23545
02-02-2012, 02:21 PM
All you conservatives had better be ready to suck the cock that is offered to you. Its your one and only choice. Now suck it bitches!!!!

God, you are a bitter, hate-filled, little man, aren't you?...LMAO

mikey23545
02-02-2012, 02:24 PM
I can't believe how many conservatives are falling for such a simple ruse...

Soros pops this stupidity out of his mouth, and bunches of conservatives start screaming about how they'll never vote for Romney..."Look what Soros just said about him!"

Soros's mission accomplished.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-02-2012, 02:29 PM
I can't believe how many conservatives are falling for such a simple ruse...

Soros pops this stupidity out of his mouth, and bunches of conservatives start screaming about how they'll never vote for Romney..."Look what Soros just said about him!"

Soros's mission accomplished.

I didn't need soros to tell me Romney/Obama are the White/Black version of each other.

Calcountry
02-02-2012, 02:42 PM
All you conservatives had better be ready to suck the cock that is offered to you. Its your one and only choice. Now suck it bitches!!!!All you liberals, had better be ready to suck the tough titty of the kitty when the milk runs dry.

banyon
02-02-2012, 04:09 PM
I addressed your examples previously when I pointed out that just because the foundation for a person's worldview is anti-colonialist (or capitalist in the case of Mitt Romney), doesn't mean that they put that consideration ahead of all others. Obama is also interested in getting re-elected and even if he could have managed to give the Saudi uprising enough support for it to topple the Saudi regime (and I don't think he could without being crucified here at home), the fallout would leave him unelectable.

Rather than complaining about the term I used, maybe you should stick to focusing on the substance of the criticism.

I'm sorry, but I left my scanning electron microscope at home.

In any event, like I said, when it conforms to your hypothesis, it's damning evidence, but when it doesn't, it's irrelevant, and somehow he had other, overriding concerns.

Try explaining why Newt appended the word "Kenyan" to it and how that's when the term resurfaced.

patteeu
02-02-2012, 05:17 PM
I'm sorry, but I left my scanning electron microscope at home.

In any event, like I said, when it conforms to your hypothesis, it's damning evidence, but when it doesn't, it's irrelevant, and somehow he had other, overriding concerns.

Try explaining why Newt appended the word "Kenyan" to it and how that's when the term resurfaced.

I didn't know about Newt's use of the phrase until after I mentioned it in this thread. My assumption is that he's speaking to the idea that Obama was influenced to some extent by his estranged father based on what Obama wrote in his book, Dreams From My Father. His father was from Kenya.

When you're prosecuting a guy who you think is a dirtbag based on a history of anti-social behavior, does it force you to change your mind if you find out he can occasionally do something nice for his mother or some other special person in his life?