PDA

View Full Version : Obama Hey ! Ya think OMarxist is trying to send a message to.....


Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 11:17 AM
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20120618,00.html

La literatura
06-24-2012, 12:08 PM
Sending a message to Anthony Kennedy by putting his face on TIME Magazine? No, I don't think so.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 12:11 PM
Sending a message to Anthony Kennedy by putting his face on TIME Magazine? No, I don't think so.

And why you are so naive:thumb:

La literatura
06-24-2012, 12:15 PM
And why you are so naive:thumb:

Barack Obama doesn't have anything to do with TIME Magazine. And if he did, what message are they trying to send him? That he should vote for Obamacare? It's a little too late for that: the ruling comes down this week. If Obama wanted to send Kennedy a message through TIME Magazine, this should have been done weeks ago.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 12:20 PM
Barack Obama doesn't have anything to do with TIME Magazine. And if he did, what message are they trying to send him? That he should vote for Obamacare? It's a little too late for that: the ruling comes down this week. If Obama wanted to send Kennedy a message through TIME Magazine, this should have been done weeks ago.

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

La literatura
06-24-2012, 12:24 PM
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Oh, I see. Hey, why doesn't Obama have John Roberts on the cover of TIME? After all, it was Roberts who is going to look into the Birther thing and declare Obama ineligible, right?

mlyonsd
06-24-2012, 12:38 PM
Seriously, I don't get it.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 01:17 PM
Seriously, I don't get it.

What don't you get?

mlyonsd
06-24-2012, 01:38 PM
What don't you get?The connection you're trying to make.

Chiefspants
06-24-2012, 02:58 PM
What don't you get?

Can you enlighten me on the message Obama was sending here?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1076475.1336755995!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_635/image.jpg

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 03:00 PM
The connection you're trying to make.

SCOTUS is made up of 4 Die hard Libs and 4 Die Conservatives. Kennedy is the only lone wolf Maverick of the group, voting Liberal when everyone thought he would vote conservative and voting conservative when everyone thought he would vote liberal. He is never consistent thus why IMO the WH is putting indirect pressure on him to vote their way by putting his ''mug" on the front cover. They see Kennedy as their only hope of getting Obamacare finally approved. The other 4 Libs are already in Obama's backpocket IMO.

mlyonsd
06-24-2012, 03:08 PM
SCOTUS is made up of 4 Die hard Libs and 4 Die Conservatives. Kennedy is the only lone wolf Maverick of the group, voting Liberal when everyone thought he would vote conservative and voting conservative when everyone thought he would vote liberal. He is never consistent thus why IMO the WH is putting indirect pressure on him to vote their way by putting his ''mug" on the front cover. They see Kennedy as their only hope of getting Obamacare finally approved. The other 4 Libs are already in Obama's backpocket IMO.Yeah I know all that. The idea Obama is running Time is pretty far fetched. Plus I'm sure Lit is right, when this issue was put on the news stands SCOTUS had already voted on it.

You're way out there on this one.

La literatura
06-24-2012, 03:21 PM
The idea Obama is running Time is pretty far fetched.

Hmm. I wonder if you're going to make sportsshrink's signature HOF?

You're way out there on this one.

Let's be honest --- there's almost never a time when he's not way out there.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 03:26 PM
Can you enlighten me on the message Obama was sending here?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1076475.1336755995!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_635/image.jpg

I realize this cover picture had nothing to do with politics but when I first saw this cover I thought to myself, this is Obama's vision for America !

So immediately my mind had this image of Obama as the Statue of Liberty wearing a "Ushanka"(russian winter hat) holding a kid to one of his breasts( labeled "We The People") and rather than Obama holding the torch it would be the book "Rules For Radicals".

The irony is that because Obama had made all these "hope and change" promises and because he is male and his legislation and policies only take and thus his breasts 'NEVER' give any milk to "We The People" is a perfect analogy that "SOCIALISM NEVER PROVIDES TO "We The People".

Someone needs to photoshop this image !! I tried getting shtsprayer to do it but got no response. Who else is good at this stuff???

La literatura
06-24-2012, 03:28 PM
I realize this cover picture had nothing to do with politics but when I first saw this cover I thought to myself, this is Obama's vision for America !

So immediately my mind had this image of Obama as the Statue of Liberty wearing a "Ushanka"(russian winter hat) holding a kid to one of his breasts( labeled "We The People") and rather than Obama holding the torch it would be the book "Rules For Radicals".

The irony is that because Obama had made all these "hope and change" promises and because he is male and his legislation and policies only take and thus his breasts 'NEVER' give any milk to "We The People" is a perfect analogy that "SOCIALISM NEVER PROVIDES TO "We The People".

Someone needs to photoshop this image !! I tried getting shtsprayer to do it but got no response. Who else is good at this stuff???

How often do you think the White House dictates to TIME what their front cover/feature will be?

mlyonsd
06-24-2012, 03:39 PM
Hmm. I wonder if you're going to make sportsshrink's signature HOF?



Let's be honest --- there's almost never a time when he's not way out there.He's even more out there than me. And that's saying something.

VAChief
06-24-2012, 03:42 PM
He's even more out there than me. And that's saying something.

Exponentially...it is mind boggling sometimes.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 03:42 PM
Yeah I know all that. The idea Obama is running Time is pretty far fetched. Plus I'm sure Lit is right, when this issue was put on the news stands SCOTUS had already voted on it.

You're way out there on this one.

Of course not that Obama 'formally' runs TIME, but when OMarxist or any Lib for that matter or any Lib legislation needs help TIME is just a phone call away:thumb:

Listen, if you think for one moment that the mainstream marxist press isn't in Obama's back pocket you are just as naive as "Clit". Do you realize that Stephanopolous from ABC news is on a conference call every a.m. getting talking points from the WH? They have covered for this guy and they got this guy elected by not vetting him and not reporting his true intentions of what was really behind all this "hope and change" BS !! And now they must save face because not only did they get him elected but they really believe(like "Clit") in his worldview of Progressivism/Marxism as well.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 03:51 PM
It's a little too late for that: the ruling comes down this week. If Obama wanted to send Kennedy a message through TIME Magazine, this should have been done weeks ago.

I assure you Kagan (A Progressive Marxist herself)through her surrogates has been talking to Obama's surrogates on the side. I put $$ on this:thumb: Yes the ruling comes down this week and they knew it would come down this week. But IMO the WH also knew as of the printing of the TIME COVER they hadn't voted yet and why not put a little pressure on Anthony:shrug:

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 03:53 PM
How often do you think the White House dictates to TIME what their front cover/feature will be?

When they are desperate for better poll numbers or legislation to pass:thumb:

La literatura
06-24-2012, 03:54 PM
Of course not that Obama 'formally' runs TIME, but when OMarxist or any Lib for that matter or any Lib legislation needs help TIME is just a phone call away:thumb:

Listen, if you think for one moment that the mainstream marxist press isn't in Obama's back pocket you are just as naive as "Clit". Do you realize that Stephanopolous from ABC news is on a conference call every a.m. getting talking points from the WH? They have covered for this guy and they got this guy elected by not vetting him and not reporting his true intentions of what was really behind all this "hope and change" BS !! And now they must save face because not only did they get him elected but they really believe(like "Clit") in his worldview of Progressivism/Marxism as well.

Did you read the article about Anthony Kennedy from TIME?

La literatura
06-24-2012, 03:56 PM
I assure you Kagan (A Progressive Marxist herself)through her surrogates has been talking to Obama's surrogates on the side. I put $$ on this:thumb: Yes the ruling comes down this week and they knew it would come down this week. But IMO the WH also knew as of the printing of the TIME COVER they hadn't voted yet and why not put a little pressure on Anthony:shrug:

No, the preliminary vote comes soon after oral arguments. Those were in late March. The TIME magazine came out in late June, well after the voting.

La literatura
06-24-2012, 03:59 PM
When they are desperate for better poll numbers or legislation to pass:thumb:

So, how does this work? Some White House assistant calls the Editor in Chief of TIME and tells him what to publish? Does the White House write the story, too?

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 04:16 PM
No, the preliminary vote comes soon after oral arguments. Those were in late March. The TIME magazine came out in late June, well after the voting.

Yeeeeeeeeeeah it does but not in this special situation IMO:shrug:

I will however come to the middle and actually be partisan with you in that this TIME cover either is sending a message because the vote had not occurred yet or it could be a "praise" to Kennedy from the Left IF it passed or it sets Kennedy up for the radical base and the Media to skewer him because they already know the outcome. But I don't think so and I don't think the vote had happened yet.

FD
06-24-2012, 04:18 PM
Yeeeeeeeeeeah it does but not in this special situation IMO:shrug:

I will however come to the middle and actually be partisan with you in that this TIME cover either is sending a message because the vote had not occurred yet or it could be a "praise" to Kennedy from the Left IF it passes or it sets Kennedy up for the radical base and the Media to skewer him because they already know the outcome. But I don't think so and I don't think the vote had happened yet.

Its like you know there MUST be a conspiracy here, you just can't figure out what it is. Sounds frustrating.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 04:28 PM
Its like you know there MUST be a conspiracy here, you just can't figure out what it is. Sounds frustrating.

No not a conspiracy. But politics are very dirty and this is how the real world of politics works especially with radical Lefties. :shrug:

Fairplay
06-24-2012, 04:28 PM
I would think this has been decided at least a week ago.

The time cover is too little to late.

La literatura
06-24-2012, 05:28 PM
Yeeeeeeeeeeah it does but not in this special situation IMO:shrug:

That's not an opinion. Either they voted for it per usual custom, or they did not. You're just provided a statement that could be true or false, and not providing any evidence to support it.

I will however come to the middle and actually be partisan with you in that this TIME cover either is sending a message because the vote had not occurred yet or it could be a "praise" to Kennedy from the Left IF it passed or it sets Kennedy up for the radical base and the Media to skewer him because they already know the outcome. But I don't think so and I don't think the vote had happened yet.

Thanks for being 'partisan.' It's such ah, a fresh change for you. However, could you be honest and admit whether you read the actual article or not?

La literatura
06-24-2012, 05:30 PM
No not a conspiracy. But politics are very dirty and this is how the real world of politics works especially with radical Lefties. :shrug:

I think you've unearthed the TIMEGate. This is going to be the crisis that completely tarnishes the Obama legacy.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 05:58 PM
That's not an opinion. Either they voted for it per usual custom, or they did not. You're just provided a statement that could be true or false, and not providing any evidence to support it.

It's an opinionated guess just like yours. You have no definitive proof that they followed 'usual custom' and I have no definitive proof that they delayed the vote for special circumstances based on the size of the bill and the significance it will have on our free society. But I believe the latter to be true.:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 05:58 PM
I think you've unearthed the TIMEGate. This is going to be the crisis that completely tarnishes the Obama legacy.

No that will be Fast and Furious:thumb:

La literatura
06-24-2012, 06:17 PM
It's an opinionated guess just like yours. You have no definitive proof that they followed 'usual custom' and I have no definitive proof that they delayed the vote for special circumstances based on the size of the bill and the significance it will have on our free society. But I believe the latter to be true.:thumb:

Actually, the Justices did meet after oral arguments to cast their preliminary vote.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/31/opinion/la-ed-healthcare-supreme-court-20120331

The vote, which is preliminary and non-binding, is necessary to determine whether there are at least five Justices (a majority) who agree on the various issues.

http://aclj.org/obamacare/obamacare-supreme-court-next-steps

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 07:17 PM
Actually, the Justices did meet after oral arguments to cast their preliminary vote.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/31/opinion/la-ed-healthcare-supreme-court-20120331



http://aclj.org/obamacare/obamacare-supreme-court-next-steps

Key word there is "preliminary".:thumb:

La literatura
06-24-2012, 08:20 PM
Key word there is "preliminary".:thumb:

Yeah, that's what we were talking about. You said they didn't take a vote because it was special or some such.

Captain Obvious
06-24-2012, 09:20 PM
:tinfoil:

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 10:03 PM
:tinfoil:

From the boy who is "OBLIVIOUS":rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 10:19 PM
Yeah, that's what we were talking about. You said they didn't take a vote because it was special or some such.

There you go splittin hairs:rolleyes: You framed yourself as though the final vote was a done deal prior to the cover of TIME. Whatever man:rolleyes:

La literatura
06-24-2012, 10:22 PM
There you go splittin hairs:rolleyes: You framed yourself as though the final vote was a done deal prior to the cover of TIME. Whatever man:rolleyes:

Oh, I'm sure it was. That, I don't have definitive proof of. The preliminary vote, however, was done long before the magazine. It takes weeks to write these things, edit them, persuade fellow justices, make trade offs, etc. The idea that Kennedy hadn't done anything relating to the bill until, or that he made some change after, the TIME Magazine's article on him is one of the silliest damn things I've ever heard which wasn't supposed to be a joke.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 10:35 PM
Oh, I'm sure it was. That, I don't have definitive proof of. The preliminary vote, however, was done long before the magazine. It takes weeks to write these things, edit them, persuade fellow justices, make trade offs, etc. The idea that Kennedy hadn't done anything relating to the bill until, or that he made some change after, the TIME Magazine's article on him is one of the silliest damn things I've ever heard which wasn't supposed to be a joke.

Just trust me on this one at least Lit. I bet we find out down the road when the final vote took place and I bet it was after the cover shot.:thumb:

La literatura
06-24-2012, 10:37 PM
Just trust me on this one at least Lit. I bet we find out down the road when the final vote took place and I bet it was after the cover shot.:thumb:

So you're absolutely certain that Kennedy is voting in favor of Obamacare? And it's because of TIME Magazine's cover shot?

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 11:16 PM
So you're absolutely certain that Kennedy is voting in favor of Obamacare? And it's because of TIME Magazine's cover shot?

No, like you I do not know for sure what his final vote will be at this point nor does anybody else for that matter. However, because they put his "mug" on the front cover of TIME tells me IMO that the final vote had not taken place and they are trying to influence him as much as they can because this is OMarxist signature legislation that will get shot down IF he doesn't vote for Obamascare.

This will be HUGELY EMBARRASSING to OMarxist since he is a Constitutional lawyer. Kennedy is the big ?? judge who has shown a voting history of 50/50 on both sides of the aisle in recent years. Bottom line: I think they are trying to send a message while kissing his ass at the same time in hopes they get his approval vote.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-25-2012, 05:16 AM
Embarrassing.

cosmo20002
06-25-2012, 02:37 PM
SCOTUS is made up of 4 Die hard Libs and 4 Die Conservatives. Kennedy is the only lone wolf Maverick of the group, voting Liberal when everyone thought he would vote conservative and voting conservative when everyone thought he would vote liberal. He is never consistent thus why IMO the WH is putting indirect pressure on him to vote their way by putting his ''mug" on the front cover. They see Kennedy as their only hope of getting Obamacare finally approved. The other 4 Libs are already in Obama's backpocket IMO.

Obama runs Time Magazine, right down to the photo and cover choices.

Whoever is is charge of such things here at CP really needs to look into some additional smiley-face icons, because there are times when this one ROFL really just doesn't cut it.

Aries Walker
06-25-2012, 03:54 PM
No, like you I do not know for sure what his final vote will be at this point nor does anybody else for that matter. However, because they put his "mug" on the front cover of TIME tells me IMO that the final vote had not taken place and they are trying to influence him as much as they can because this is OMarxist signature legislation that will get shot down IF he doesn't vote for Obamascare.

This will be HUGELY EMBARRASSING to OMarxist since he is a Constitutional lawyer. Kennedy is the big ?? judge who has shown a voting history of 50/50 on both sides of the aisle in recent years. Bottom line: I think they are trying to send a message while kissing his ass at the same time in hopes they get his approval vote.
Except what in the world makes you think Time Magazine takes orders from the President? Even if Obama was trying to manipulate the votes, that's really tin-foil-hat stuff.

I'm beginning to think you're a little bit obsessively preoccupied with this whole Obama Conspiracy thing. You saw the tit-sucking cover and thought it was a massive left-wing conspiracy? What the hell?

Chiefshrink
06-25-2012, 11:00 PM
Except what in the world makes you think Time Magazine takes orders from the President? Even if Obama was trying to manipulate the votes, that's really tin-foil-hat stuff.

I'm beginning to think you're a little bit obsessively preoccupied with this whole Obama Conspiracy thing. You saw the tit-sucking cover and thought it was a massive left-wing conspiracy? What the hell?

I'm beginning to think you are just as naive as "Clit", Cosmonaut, Mis-directed, Go Blow, etc.........

Ever heard the phrase in the media, called "puff piece"? Marxist Dems live by them and are soley dependent upon the Marxist Media to continually produce these BS pieces for propaganda for whatever cause they are pushing or triying to pass legislation or get the polls up. I assure you Libs have a hotline to all these major political and news magazines (the majority of them Lefty) where a "puff piece" is just a call away. IMO, the WH used TIME to put on the "knee pads" for Kennedy in hopes to get his vote. :shrug:

BTW, who are you voting for this Nov ?

La literatura
06-25-2012, 11:20 PM
This will be HUGELY EMBARRASSING to OMarxist since he is a Constitutional lawyer.

That doesn't make any sense. Presumably, at least the four liberals will vote in favor of the law. If they end up in the minority, are they going to be embarrassed? Of course not. This is about an interpretation of the Constitution, which is based on an opinion, not a formula.

By the way, you haven't answered my easiest question yet: have you actually read this article?

La literatura
06-25-2012, 11:22 PM
I'm beginning to think you are just as naive as "Clit", Cosmonaut, Mis-directed, Go Blow, etc.........

Ever heard the phrase in the media, called "puff piece"? Marxist Dems live by them and are soley dependent upon the Marxist Media to continually produce these BS pieces for propaganda for whatever cause they are pushing or triying to pass legislation or get the polls up. I assure you Libs have a hotline to all these major political and news magazines (the majority of them Lefty) where a "puff piece" is just a call away. IMO, the WH used TIME to put on the "knee pads" for Kennedy in hopes to get his vote. :shrug:

BTW, who are you voting for this Nov ?

In my opinion, TIME Magazine is a right-wing magazine, and gets its orders from Mitt Romney and the Republican machine.

Chiefshrink
06-25-2012, 11:24 PM
In my opinion, TIME Magazine is a right-wing magazine, and gets its orders from Mitt Romney and the Republican machine.

:spock: You serious?

La literatura
06-25-2012, 11:26 PM
:spock: You serious?

Yes. Most of its articles are pro-Republican. Also, the president and CEO of TIME is a personal friend of Mitt Romney, and they eat dinner together weekly. Most of the writers are Republicans, and many of them are part of the Tea Party.

Chiefshrink
06-25-2012, 11:31 PM
Yes. Most of its articles are pro-Republican. Also, the president of CEO is a personal friend of Mitt Romney, and they eat dinner together weekly. Most of the writers are Republicans, and many of them are part of the Tea Party.

Now who is the 'real 'crazy' now? ROFL

La literatura
06-25-2012, 11:34 PM
Now who is the 'real 'crazy' now? ROFL

Show me a TIME Magazine that isn't significantly critical of the Tea Party. Show me where the President of TIME isn't good friends with Romney.

In my opinion, the Republican Party fed the Kennedy article to TIME. They wanted to pressure Kennedy into voting against the law. TIME Magazine, as usual, was a willing accomplice.

Refute anything I've just said, and I'll take it all back. Until then, this cover is the brainchild of the Republican/Tea Party gang.

cosmo20002
06-25-2012, 11:36 PM
Yes. Most of its articles are pro-Republican. Also, the president and CEO of TIME is a personal friend of Mitt Romney, and they eat dinner together weekly. Most of the writers are Republicans, and many of them are part of the Tea Party.

And how many times has Mitt been on the cover? A few weeks ago they ran a cover story on Mitt and his mommy. It was a positive article. I assume that Obama didn't approve that story, so obviously that means Mitt actually runs it.

La literatura
06-25-2012, 11:40 PM
And how many times has Mitt been on the cover? A few weeks ago they ran a cover story on Mitt and his mommy. It was a positive article. I assume that Obama didn't approve that story, so obviously that means Mitt actually runs it.

Romney alone has been on the cover of TIME Magazine three times since last December. All were positive pieces. Gushing, in fact. How many times has Obama been on the cover in that time? Just once, and the article was overtly negative.

Romney is a billionaire, with billionaire friends who run magazines and other media outlets. He has his hands in everything, especially TIME Magazine.

J Diddy
06-25-2012, 11:43 PM
Romney alone has been on the cover of TIME Magazine three times since last December. All were positive pieces. Gushing, in fact. How many times has Obama been on the cover in that time? Just once, and the article was overtly negative.

Romney is a billionaire, with billionaire friends who run magazines and other media outlets. He has his hands in everything, especially TIME Magazine.
To hell you say. Every'ne knows the media is on óbamas jock.

Chiefshrink
06-26-2012, 12:18 AM
To hell you say. Every'ne knows the media is on óbamas jock.

yeah especially about Fast and Furious:rolleyes: Obama's watergate !!:thumb:

Aries Walker
06-26-2012, 05:54 AM
I'm beginning to think you are just as naive as "Clit", Cosmonaut, Mis-directed, Go Blow, etc.........
Well, if I am, you haven't done anything to correct me, except to repeat OMarxist and :thumb: and to make really far-fetched claims like this one. Oh, and . . .

Ever heard the phrase in the media, called "puff piece"? Marxist Dems live by them and are soley dependent upon the Marxist Media to continually produce these BS pieces for propaganda for whatever cause they are pushing or triying to pass legislation or get the polls up. I assure you Libs have a hotline to all these major political and news magazines (the majority of them Lefty) where a "puff piece" is just a call away. IMO, the WH used TIME to put on the "knee pads" for Kennedy in hopes to get his vote. :shrug:
Oh, you assure me? Then it's settled!

BTW, who are you voting for this Nov ?
I'm voting for Obama. I agree with most of his social policies, his foreign policy is solid, and most of all, his economic plans are working; unemployment continues to drop and new jobs continue to rise. I do not, however, think the world will come to a screeching halt if Romney wins, but I find him untrustworthy and snobbish, and I think he says we he has to to get elected. I don't think being successful in business means he will be successful in reining in a government economy. Trickle-down economics don't work - bosses want to spend as little as possible on their employees, and if it wasn't for the regulation that Republicans hate so much, we'd be working 14 hour shifts in coal mines, and 13-year-old girls would be sitting at sewing machines at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory day and night - and austerity, as Europe is currently showing us, is not the way to avoid a double-dip depression. Recovery requires investment.

I also think Romney is largely controlled by the rest of the Republican party, and the modern Republican party scares the hell out of me. This is not the GOP of Ronald Reagan, as much as they present themselves to be - it's dominated now by the far-right wing, and they stop at nothing. Under the guise of fixing the economy, they're instituting social policies that are setting us back decades if not centuries. They promote anti-intellectualism, they care not at all about the poorest or least fortunate of our society, and are boldly slashing social programs that are the lifeblood of millions of people. The right listens to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, without irony. The right today has a shocking amount of warhawks, and the big money being dumped their way is a mockery of our system. Possibly worst of all, they foment divisiveness - witness Richard Mourdock, who just won the Senate primary here in Indiana, and who has said publicly that he intends to purposefully not work with the Democrats on anything, and Mitch McDonnell, who said just as publicly that his party's own only goal was to make Obama lose in 2012, everything else be damned. The Republicans also use mass rhetoric designed to win arguments by repetition or shallow appeal, rather than informed reason, reliable statistics, or logic; as a group, they deny global warming, for example. The Romney campaign is running the Karl Rove playbook page by page, and it's awful to watch.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have plenty of criticism for the Democrats as well, and I've been happy to correct them from time to time; that Clinton was unfairly impeached for getting a beej in the Oval Office, when he really was impeached for lying under oath; when they cry that Reagan was horrible and bad and ruined our country; when they hold up Kennedy as a demigod who saved us from the brink of war (conveniently forgetting that he also brought us to it). There are things that Obama does that I don't like; he supports partial birth abortion, which I think is monstrous; I was not a fan of how his cabinet used shaky legal-ese to justify continuing the attack on Libya, even though his 30-day War Powers Act time limit was up; and I wish he would have brought up gun control, even if only once ever, especially after Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a guy with a should-be-illegal bonus-bullets banana clip, among other things.

However, I'm no longer the single-issue voter I was in my 20's; I have since realized the real skulking evil out there is extremism - throughout history, it's caused more damage to people, society and the world than any other movement. Our country was founded by and has been successful because of people with ideological differences working in unison, but today we're more divided than we have been since the Civil War. The Democrats aren't exactly the paragons of Utopian harmony, but the modern Republican party is downright divisive, as I said before.

Being a historian, I have been wondering a lot lately whether the Romans of the time could tell that their Empire was falling. I'm also looking around and wondering whether we are too. We only have these two choices, and I think Obama's path is more likely to keep this grand experiment running for a while longer.

Chiefshrink
06-26-2012, 08:43 AM
I'm voting for Obama. I agree with most of his social policies, his foreign policy is solid, and most of all, his economic plans are working; unemployment continues to drop and new jobs continue to rise.
I also think Romney is largely controlled by the rest of the Republican party, and the modern Republican party scares the hell out of me. This is not the GOP of Ronald Reagan, as much as they present themselves to be - it's dominated now by the far-right wing, and they stop at nothing. Under the guise of fixing the economy, they're instituting social policies that are setting us back decades if not centuries. They promote anti-intellectualism, they care not at all about the poorest or least fortunate of our society, and are boldly slashing social programs that are the lifeblood of millions of people. The right listens to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, without irony. The right today has a shocking amount of warhawks, and the big money being dumped their way is a mockery of our system. Possibly worst of all, they foment divisiveness - witness Richard Mourdock, who just won the Senate primary here in Indiana, and who has said publicly that he intends to purposefully not work with the Democrats on anything, and Mitch McDonnell, who said just as publicly that his party's own only goal was to make Obama lose in 2012, everything else be damned. The Republicans also use mass rhetoric designed to win arguments by repetition or shallow appeal, rather than informed reason, reliable statistics, or logic; as a group, they deny global warming, for example. The Romney campaign is running the Karl Rove playbook page by page, and it's awful to watch.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have plenty of criticism for the Democrats as well, and I've been happy to correct them from time to time; that Clinton was unfairly impeached for getting a beej in the Oval Office, when he really was impeached for lying under oath; when they cry that Reagan was horrible and bad and ruined our country; when they hold up Kennedy as a demigod who saved us from the brink of war (conveniently forgetting that he also brought us to it). There are things that Obama does that I don't like; he supports partial birth abortion, which I think is monstrous; I was not a fan of how his cabinet used shaky legal-ese to justify continuing the attack on Libya, even though his 30-day War Powers Act time limit was up; and I wish he would have brought up gun control, even if only once ever, especially after Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a guy with a should-be-illegal bonus-bullets banana clip, among other things.

However, I'm no longer the single-issue voter I was in my 20's; I have since realized the real skulking evil out there is extremism - throughout history, it's caused more damage to people, society and the world than any other movement. Our country was founded by and has been successful because of people with ideological differences working in unison, but today we're more divided than we have been since the Civil War. The Democrats aren't exactly the paragons of Utopian harmony, but the modern Republican party is downright divisive, as I said before.

Being a historian, I have been wondering a lot lately whether the Romans of the time could tell that their Empire was falling. I'm also looking around and wondering whether we are too. We only have these two choices, and I think Obama's path is more likely to keep this grand experiment running for a while longer.

Nothing personal here but who has the "real" rose colored glasses on here?ROFLROFLROFLROFL

What's highlighted in black is complete "lunacy" and what is highlighted in red is "truth". The rest is not even worth responding to but I do appreciate your honesty in your opinion and am not surprised. BTW, you contradict yourself on his so-called solid "foreign policy".:thumb:

Aries Walker
06-26-2012, 04:46 PM
I'm totally not surprised that we disagree on this, which is OK (even good, in our great country). I just posted it as one big blurb in the interests of point of view and discourse and so on.

And I really didn't like that one foreign policy thing he did, but overall he's been doing a pretty good job there.

Chiefspants
06-28-2012, 11:17 AM
MESSAGE SENT

Reaper16
06-28-2012, 11:44 AM
I just want to slow-clap for hours at this thread now.