ScarletMacaw Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I read the New York Times, which continues to print Names of the Dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Code Pink?Where are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseNoah Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 And the very next day Obama was in fucking Las Vegas for a fundraiser while they were still trying to locate Christopher Stephens' body. First things first, am I right? Fucking despicable. THIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melcórë Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 ...So, what, any time there's any sort of crisis, the President is supposed to hole up and refuse other duties? Kind of reminds me of the time that President sat reading a kid's book while a couple of buildings collapsed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 ...So, what, any time there's any sort of crisis, the President is supposed to hole up and refuse other duties? Kind of reminds me of the time that President sat reading a kid's book while a couple of buildings collapsed... When he first heard the news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 ...So, what, any time there's any sort of crisis, the President is supposed to hole up and refuse other duties? Kind of reminds me of the time that President sat reading a kid's book while a couple of buildings collapsed... Comparing a weeks-long disinformation/obfuscation campaign to the first 10 minutes after a President was notified of the attack when "a couple buildings collapsed"? THAT's not a stretch at all. I guess Bush should have jumped up and rushed out, leaving the kids and teachers wondering WTF just happened. Compared to the first couple hours of the Benghazi situation when Obama went to fucking bed. No wait, FIRST, he ordered rapid-response teams to stand down. THEN he went to fucking bed. But blaming Bush is so ingrained in the very DNA of liberals that this statement doesn't surprise me much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 The easiest way to manipulate people is to prey on their insecurities and to create an "Us v. Them" attitude, e.g.:"THEY think they're smarter than you!"Pink Floyd recorded a great song about that human tendency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Paw Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 The easiest way to manipulate people is to prey on their insecurities and to create an "Us v. Them" attitude, e.g.: "THEY think they're smarter than you!" I think Kipper raises a good point. Why is it that Obama is slammed with such a negatively charged word like Manifesto.? The Press should call it what it is. The Media uses these politicians to divide the 2 sides. It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world but we don't. I am so glad that you can see through this Scarlet Maccaw. But isn't it ironic how you chose a parrot for your username since you do not echo any divisive sentiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScarletMacaw Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 I think Kipper raises a good point. Why is it that Obama is slammed with such a negatively charged word like Manifesto.? The Press should call it what it is. The Media uses these politicians to divide the 2 sides. It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world but we don't. I am so glad that you can see through this Scarlet Maccaw. But isn't it ironic how you chose a parrot for your username since you do not echo any divisive sentiments. thanks for the support. I think technically a macaw is not a parrot, although I'm not sure. I have also been an iguana on the internet, but this made people think I was a man ("Iggy"). I use the Scarlet Macaw partly because it doubles as a woman's name. oops, it is a type of parrot. Anyway, I like having an animal avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 The Obama 'manifesto' is a left-wing government sponsored conspiracy aimed at taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor.....a modern day Robin Hood if you will. Just like the classic tale, Robin (Obama) is continually taking heat or receiving praise....depending on which side you find yourself on. If you're an unemployed hungry minority, you might think he's black Jesus. If you're a rich white banker that grew up surrounded by old money, you might think he's a socialist dictator that's trying to ruin our country. In reality, he's nothing but another politician playing the game. He's bought and sold like all the others. He's very good at the game though....better than most. How much of a lame-duck President he becomes in his second term remains to be seen. A scandal ridden second term is certainly a possibility....it's happened many times before. Of course one must always remember that it's always the other side pressing the charges and investigating. I just pray to the gods that we're beyond hummers and pubic hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 The Obama 'manifesto' is a left-wing government sponsored conspiracy aimed at taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor.....a modern day Robin Hood if you will. Just like the classic tale, Robin (Obama) is continually taking heat or receiving praise....depending on which side you find yourself on. If you're an unemployed hungry minority, you might think he's black Jesus. If you're a rich white banker that grew up surrounded by old money, you might think he's a socialist dictator that's trying to ruin our country. In reality, he's nothing but another politician playing the game. He's bought and sold like all the others. He's very good at the game though....better than most. How much of a lame-duck President he becomes in his second term remains to be seen. A scandal ridden second term is certainly a possibility....it's happened many times before. Of course one must always remember that it's always the other side pressing the charges and investigating. I just pray to the gods that we're beyond hummers and pubic hair.So true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 ^^^ Robin Hood? LOL. More like the Sheriff of Nottingham, especially after this creepy IRS situation and the DOJ snooping on reporters. O better come clean soon before the shit really hits the fan. He won't of course and it will drag on for months until the slow "drip, drip, drip" of revelations causes the proverbial cup to overflow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dawg Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 This fabeled presidency is more of the wolf in sheep's clothing. Aesop would be having a field day with this one. Divide and conquer my ass. Let the fox in the hen house and he will do more than pillage. Blame your miss information of conservative politics on Fox News all you want but it won't stop this administration from ravaging the rights of a free society. A phony savior to the masses is no friend of the republic principles that this nation was founded upon. His scandals involve the most basic foundation an informed citizenry with the ability to protect itself from a tyrannical government. What will libs give up for your free health care, free cell phones, free housing and free indoctrination by a failed public school system? You'll get your nanny state that allows them to rip fetuses from young mothers that the state can not afford to raise because the cost of political offerings needs to be offset with political favors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 "Spread the wealth around." -BHO 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Paw Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 "Spread the wealth around." -BHO 2007 Where do I get in line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Where do I get in line? So you would gladly/willingly take for yourself what others have earned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Welcome to the jungle it gets worse here every day Ya learn to live like an animal in the jungle where we play If you hunger for what you see you'll take it eventually You can have everything you want but you better not take it from me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagittarius Rising Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 So you would gladly/willingly take for yourself what others have earned? One could argue the same position regarding CEO's salaries vs. the workers making the products. It all depends which side you stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dawg Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 One could argue the same position regarding CEO's salaries vs. the workers making the products. It all depends which side you stand. Saggy, The problem with that philosophy is that the workers and the CEO enetered into a contract that can be rectified at anytime in a free society. Now I know you can keep more than one thought in your mind. So you are thinking the workers have no other options but in reality they do. The CEo can chose not to hire anyone and the worker can decide to not produce. The result would not be beneficial for either. This model of spreading the wealth however involves a third party that is not dependent on the symbiosis of the exec and labor. The buyer supports both management and labor because they benefit from production. The socialist model however taxes a third party that does not directly benefit them. If the the government and dependents of the states programs can not raise enough money they shake the pockets of so called wealthy. Now, I know your head is not spinning cause you have that phd in theology. The social programs that the tax payer funds are not used in proportion to their taxed rates. The more a tax payer pays the less services they use. Let's consider education. Many well paid people, at least where I am from, send their children to private school. Now why would it benefit the tax payer to pay twice for this service. They make the decision that it is inferior product. Why is it inferior you say? Because there is no incentive for the public system to compete. Competition has been removed. Does it sound familiar ? Yeah it's called socialism. That was a failed experiment in Eastern Europe. You may remember that since you can store all that info in your swollen head. Eventually the system will not be able to sustain itself once incentive and the excess wealth of the working class has been Depleted to fund the growing rolls of dependency. So your simple analogy does not work. Go ply your philosophical BS somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weslgarlic Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 This government had an ideaAnd parliament made it lawIt seems like it's illegalTo fight for the union any moreWhich side are you on, boys?Which side are you on?Which side are you on, boys?Which side are you on?We set out to join the picket lineFor together we cannot failWe got stopped by police at the county lineThey said, "Go home boys or you're going to jail"Which side are you on, boys?Which side are you on?Which side are you on, boys?Which side are you on?It's hard to explain to a crying childWhy her Daddy can't go backSo the family sufferBut it hurts me moreTo hear a scab say Sod you, JackWhich side are you on, boys?Which side are you on?Which side are you on, boysWhich side are you on?I'm bound to follow my conscienceAnd do whatever I canBut it'll take much more than the union lawTo knock the fight out of a working manWhich side are you on, boys?Which side are you on?Which side are you on, boys?Which side are you on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 What side are you on?Eh,garlic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weslgarlic Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weslgarlic Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 What side are you on?Eh,garlic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Thanks for typing that out,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 One could argue the same position regarding CEO's salaries vs. the workers making the products. It all depends which side you stand. Not really, other than by gross rationalization. CEOs and workers alike all agree to their employment / positions. And many evil corporations do spread the wealth around - to those who help earn it. My wife works for Delta and gets profit-sharing and bonuses. But the idea of taking more from someone who is wealthy to give to those who aren't is anathema to the majority of working, employed Americans. Those who are more comfortable sitting back to see how far the free ride goes, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.