Barack Obama

[sissygirl]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

And your opinion of Palin is?

I doubt she will ever become president. I share some of her views but like obama she lacks any experience to be President. hopefully those that voted for obama will remember how it was pointed out numerous times he never had a real job and was absent or failed to vote the majority of time he was in the senate. so he obviously lacked integrity and commitment to those that elected him.

the spend at all cost political hacks we have in office now are not listening to the american people and hopefully we can get rid of them in 2010. what ever happened to "We the People" . have Obama lovers forgotten why they elected him in the first place? the independants sure understand now how much of a liar and phoney he turned out to be and how until recently (only when forced to) the congress and senate didn't care one bit or listen to the american people just rubber stamp king obama and drive the country into socialism.

like Margret Thatcher once said. " the thing about socialism is that eventually they run out of other people money".

Well I for one worked hard for what i have and have no intention of following obamas plan to "redistribute the wealth to those who who only want wants given to them so they become more reliable on big gov"t.

I like freedom of choice and then living by the consequences of my own actions; be they good or bad, that is what American is all about, and what I have faught for during my 26 years serving my country in the Military.

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by sissygirl

I like freedom of choice and then living by the consequences of my own actions; be they good or bad, that is what American is all about, and what I have faught for during my 26 years serving my country in the Military.

I guess you're for transsexuals serving openly in the military then, right?

[randolph]

Partial piece by Stewart Watley, Huffington Post



Though the movement claims to have no defined leadership, there are public figures and entities who nevertheless carry that mantle, which has led to perhaps its greatest irony: A portion of the American populace who carries a populist banner against the coddling of greedy bankers is led by some of the country's most cynical and base profiteers.
When the movement was christened last April for a large tax day protest, it was derived wholesale from the efforts of a registered corporate lobbyist and a right-leaning cable news network, whose president recently pointed out that it's all about ratings. At the Tea Party's national convention last weekend, its keynote speaker was a former governor who quit midterm in order to peddle a book that she didn't write, but for which she collects most of the royalties. If this were Iran's Green Movement, these would be the people slinging marked-up green headbands on the street corner.
Of course, the Tea Party is not without its whistleblowers. The $500 per plate entry fee to last week's convention almost led to it being canceled altogether. But the exodus of reasonable elements will only homogenize the movement further towards a particularly polarizing worldview that opens itself to continued profit-driven exploitation.
In Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics, a revealing work of political science published last year that unfortunately went somewhat unnoticed, Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler describe a specific worldview -- authoritarianism -- which they argue lies at the heart of political polarization in modern American politics. (It should be noted: their use of the term is not related to the more quotidian and overly negative connotation associated with despotic regimes; rather, it describes a particular lens through which certain people view the world, based on a wide range of scholarly work spanning the fields of psychology, sociology, political science, and other cognitive sciences.)
According to Hetherington and Weiler, authoritarians tend to rely more on emotion and instinct in decision-making, view politics in black and white, resent confusion or ambiguity in the social order, and are suspicious of specific groups who they believe could alter that order (typically gays and immigrants). The difference between authoritarians and nonauthoritarians, according to the authors, becomes far more pronounced during tumultuous economic or social periods when there are more perceived "threats". During such times, authoritarians in particular lose accuracy motivation and, "become much less interested than nonauthoritarians in seeking information that [is] balanced in its approach, and much more interested in pursuing one-sided information that reinforc[es] existing beliefs." Or in other words, they are highly susceptible to misinformation campaigns, the likes of which pervaded the health care reform debate last summer.
Most every characteristic of an authoritarian worldview lends itself well to the impassioned rhetoric of the Tea Party movement and the shrewd players operating behind the scenes and atop the soap box. The movement's overly simplified, often-confused solutions to complex problems align with authoritarians' Manichean worldview. That Tom Tancredo's anti-immigrant laced speech at last weekend's convention was well received comes as no surprise. And that this is the group who so often embraces proven falsehoods and spin-narratives to defend its anti-administration agenda should speak for itself with regards to accuracy motivation.
Despite criticism it receives, the Tea Party continues to be praised as a political force. It is loud, passionate, and generally unconcerned with pesky things like facts or reasoned, practical solutions to the country's problems. This bodes ill for 2010's political environment, and it is a shameful representation of what constitutes an American political or social movement. While the Tea Party may alienate some who see it for the profit-machine that it is, others who share the fearful, intolerant authoritarian worldview that it is increasing coalescing around will be lured in and pitted against the very people in power who could actually help them. That this movement has grown political legs is too bad, and by Hetherington and Weiler's account, it means even more polarization is yet to come.

[Talvenada]

RANDY:

Accurate motto!!



TAL

[sissygirl]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

I guess you're for transsexuals serving openly in the military then, right?

who really cares anymore I'm retired now

obama still is an idiot and we can't afford his socialistic stance and his hate for individual liberties and freedoms if he continues to apologize and bow to foreign contries for America being free, then he diserves to be impeached

I'm done with this topic

[TracyCoxx]

Miss me yet? lol

[jimnaseum]

Let's try this, maybe I can get through.....


Odama is Go0b

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Let's try this, maybe I can get through.....


Odama is Go0b

Yeah, and that Obama guy too

[randolph]

New York Times, Paul Krugman

February 10, 2010, 10:59 am

Clueless

I?m with Simon Johnson here: how is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?
The lead story on Bloomberg right now contains excerpts from an interview with Business Week which tells us:
President Barack Obama said he doesn?t ?begrudge? the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.
The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is ?an extraordinary amount of money? for Main Street, ?there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don?t get to the World Series either, so I?m shocked by that as well.?
?I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,? Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. ?I, like most of the American people, don?t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.?
Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business and trumpeted the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies. He plans to reiterate that message when he speaks to the Business Roundtable, which represents the heads of many of the biggest U.S. companies, on Feb. 24 in Washington.
Oh. My. God.
First of all, to my knowledge, irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn?t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse and cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and/or houses.
And more specifically, not only has the financial industry has been bailed out with taxpayer commitments; it continues to rely on a taxpayer backstop for its stability. Don?t take it from me, take it from the rating agencies:
The planned overhaul of US financial rules prompted Standard & Poor?s to warn on Tuesday it might downgrade the credit ratings of Citigroup and Bank of America on concerns that the shake-up would make it less likely that the banks would be bailed out by US taxpayers if they ran into trouble again.
The point is that these bank executives are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; they run companies that are essentially wards of the state. There?s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we?re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private. And at the very least, you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what?s happening.
But no. If the Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet ?the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.?
We?re doomed.

Well, you guys are going to have a hard time accusing him of being a Socialist after this.