Barack Obama, Evil Socialist

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Nov 7, 2013.

?

Those are interesting numbers ....

Poll closed Dec 28, 2013.
  1. Can we put the evil socialist excrement to rest?

    53.3%
  2. Irrelevant. The DJIA is irrelevant.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. This is just evidence of exceptionalism, despite Obama. The Dow would be 20k under McCain.

    6.7%
  4. Barack Obama is an evil socialist! Lalalalalaaaa! I'm not listening!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Other

    40.0%
  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    LOL! Yeah, when was the last time the American Military pointed any guns at anyone?

    "Wasting 8.5 trillion dollars killing women and children in the Middle East" LOL! According to this : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S_g-qkgo1...UYcA/s1600/Military_Spending-US-1940-2010.jpg
    The most we have spent is maybe $5 Trillion, but we are not "wasting" that money. LOL! We are using it to spread Freedom and Democracy to the deserving people in other countries.

    Yeah, LOL! We have not even "Declared" a War in a long time...unless you want to include : The War on Poverty, Iraq, The War on Drugs, The War on Terrorism, Afghanistan...to not name a few that we currently are not engaged in...and those are not even finished, so how could we have "lost" them?
    So, yeah...LOL!

    So there...get with joepistole, and "Laugh Out Loud" at "all of those allegations (that) have been refuted umpteen times with legitimate and credible proofs".

    The nerve of some of these Posters, and what they have the gall to Post...I guess all that we can do, is indeed LOL!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    If you were paying attention, you would have noticed the discussion was about Grumpy, not about the US military…one of them minor details again. Grumpy was not pointing guns at people as Michael alleged, “Ha! Says the person who can only get along with other people in society by sticking a gun in their face!”.

    It was good of you to notice Michael’s blatant overstatement of the costs. But apparently you don’t know the difference between the present tense and past tense. I suggest you spend some time pondering that fact.

    Taking stuff out of context much? Clearly the discussion was about military actions. The US has not lost a military campaign in many decades. The wars on poverty, drugs, et al were not wars and they were not and are not military actions. They were and remain police actions. The use of the term war was for political effect only. I guess you are one of those folks who believes anything a politician says. Do you really think demolishing the Iraqi army, the Afghani army, and occupying those countries was a military failure? You and Michael should get together and write your own lexicons.

    I would settle for a little more facts, a little more honesty, a little more reason and a lot less mindless repetition of partisan demagoguery.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    My bad!. I thought the discussion was about "Barack Obama, Evil Socialist" and the effects of government conduct on the Economy.

    Again, my bad! Present tense, check! Past tense, check! Ponder... ... ... ... ...ponder, check! Should I also "spend some time pondering (the) fact" that some people seem to get really past?/present? tense over minor bits?

    My ba...wait - "the discussion was about Grumpy, not about the US military…" - "Clearly the discussion was about military actions."
    So...past tense - "not about the US military…" / present tense - "was about military actions."

    So...probably still my bad, aye?

    Me too, joepistole, but when Posts contain : little "fact", little "honesty", little "reason" and a lot of "mindless repetition of partisan demagoguery"...well...
    Well,...joepistole,... just like you,... I must LOL!

    BTW - did you even check the Link - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S_g-qkgo1i...-1940-2010.jpg

    P.S. - and further BTW - is it not proper on this Forum to respond to sarcasm, with sarcasm...LOL...?!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Here is something else for you to consider, our perceptions are colored by your experiences and biases. We can perceive things differently, especially when written text is the mode of communication. Normally, when I use the LOL, I am not being sarcastic. I am expressing an honest emotion. I do find some claims and statements to be humorous - especially when corresponding with Michael. I find Michael's devotion to his ideology sad but also humorous.
     
  8. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    joepistole, I consider it odd that "your perceptions" would be "colored", or in any way be influenced, by my "experiences and biases".

    True, you can do exactly that.

    Regardless of "normally" - how about your Post #59 ?!

    So...joepistole, would your "expressing an honest emotion" that you "find Michael's devotion to his ideology sad but also humorous", be in any way "colored by your experiences and biases" ?

    Could/would/should anyone or everyone else, when observing his written words - "find" or "perceive" - "Michael's devotion to his ideology sad but also humorous" ?

    How about your own Posts, joepistole?
    Could/would/should anyone or everyone else, when observing your written words - "find" or "perceive" - "your own devotion to your own ideology sad but also humorous" ?

    Are these points, "something else for you to consider", also, joepistole?
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, I find it odd you would think that. I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote. It’s not about my perceptions, it’s about yours dude. You had accused me of sarcasm. I told you it was humor...duh. A little grey matter and attention comes in handy every once in while.

    And exactly how is that relevant?

    It’s colored with education, facts and reason. Michael has none of those but clings desperately to his ideological notions regardless of the facts, regardless of reason. And yes, I do find that humorous. Michael has a charming way of ignoring facts and reason.

    Perhaps and perhaps not, but why should I care?

    Again, how is this relevant? Have I made any errors of fact? Have I demonstrated ideological addiction? Have I ignored facts and reason? Have I been blatantly illogical? Ah…no.

    And yes, I find blatant illogical claims and assertions humorous. If you think that is odd, read some jokes.

    How about your posts, could, would, should, anyone of everyone else reading your words find or perceive your devotion to your ideology also humorous? I think you chose your moniker well my friend.
     
  10. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    joepistole, let us both "go back and reread what" you "wrote" :
    You stated - please notice what I capitalized -:
    You DID NOT state : "YOUR perceptions are colored by YOUR experiences and biases."!

    You DID NOT state : "OUR perceptions are colored by OUR experiences and biases."!

    You, joepistole, DID state:
    So...now I'm a "Dude"?
    No, joepistole, I observed exactly what you Posted! My "perception" of the "observation" of the exact words you Posted, were in NO WAY influenced by any of my "experiences and biases"!

    No, joepistole, I asked you about sarcasm :
    Please notice the "question mark" and "exclamation point"?!

    So, sarcasm is never humor?

    And yes, it is true that :
    It is even more true that a "lot" of "gray matter" is even "handier" when used ALL OF THE TIME, instead of only "every once in while"!

    joepistole, you stated :
    You never stated whether or not you were being "sarcastic", you only stated how you "normally" use "LOL". By following that up with the statements :
    Those follow up statements made it somewhat unambiguous as to whether or not you were using "sarcasm" or not!

    joepistole, that is Your "opinion", based on YOUR "perception", created by YOUR "observation" and influenced by YOUR "experiences and biases"!

    joepistole, "Politics" and "Political Ideologies" are never based solely on "facts" or "reason", and often do indeed "ignore" any and all "facts" and "reason"!

    You get what you give.
    If yo do not "respect" another Posters "opinions" - why should any other Poster(s) "respect" your "opinions"!

    Again, joepistole, "Politics" and "Political Ideologies" are never based solely on "facts" or "reason", and often do indeed "ignore" any and all "facts" and "reason"!

    I personally do not believe that Posts on a Science Forum should be used by the readers of those Posts to make a final determination of whether or not a Poster has an "addiction".

    As far as "ignoring facts and reason", see my comments on "political ideologies".

    As far as being "blatantly illogical", again, see my comments on "political ideologies".

    BTW, are "political ideologies" ever really, completely and fully, "blatantly logical" in the first place?

    Again, joepistole, that is Your "opinion", based on YOUR "perception", created by YOUR "observation" and influenced by YOUR "experiences and biases"!

    I told you, joepistole, precisely, what I thought was odd :
    No more, no less.

    Since I have not stated my "ideology", nor exhibited any "devotion" to said "ideologies", I would find any stated "perception" of them to be somewhat erroneous and completely irrelevant.

    And again, joepistole, that is Your "opinion", based on YOUR "perception", created by YOUR "observation" and influenced by YOUR "experiences and biases"!

    joepistole, if I was honestly mistaken in "observing" your Post as "sarcasm", or containing "sarcasm", then I am truly sorry!

    My bad!
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    And any of this is suppose to make sense, how?
     
  12. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    I make no "suppositions" relating to the ability of any Poster/Reader/Member of this Forum to permit themselves to perceive, comprehend or "make sense" of anything.

    As you, joepistole, opined previously; experiences and biases appear to color some peoples perceptions.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2013
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    And you make no sense, I guess that is why you call yourself the Dumbest Man on Earth - no deception there.
     
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    So...if we are just "guessing" now, I "guess" you can not read your own Posts - word for word - and that you actually believe that :
    ?!
     
  15. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,060
    Considering the geezer is acting a role in office, i doubt any of you can speak for whom he is or what he believes.

    The american president is told what to do and say, and its planned out by others. Even bill clinton admitted this, why do you think 1 person runs a country like america?
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well, who is trying to speak for the geezer? When and where did Clinton admit that the POTUS is told what to say and do? The POTUS has a bevy of advisors who advise him what he should say and what he should do just like all national and some state politicians. But ultimately the POTUS decides what advise he will or will not say or do. And it is the POTUS who selects those advisors.

    Two, I don't recall anyone saying one person runs the country. Where does that notion come from?

    When Obama was sworn into office, Republicans were quick to insist, " the buck stops with the POTUS" even though Obama had nothing to do with creating the fiscal and monetary crisis he inherited and known by history as The Great Recession. Now, after years of recovery and increasing prosperity and steadfast Republican resistance to virtually everything Obama has done, suddenly those same Republicans seemed to have forgotten about all that "buck stops with the POTUS" stuff they were pushing just a few years ago.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2013
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, yeah, I guess that is the best you can do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    My Bad! I was attempting to have a logical discussion.

    BTW, "guessing" appears to be the "best you can do".

    Meh!
     
  19. Watcher Just another old creaker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    373
    Obama is no socialist. The US has not had what one could consider any sort of activist Left for decades. He is a bureaucrat, a typical American politician with the talent to spin a fairy tale fantastic enough to get elected. True, he spun his fairy tale farther to the Left to capture that voting block, but his actions are certainly not progressive. He has done nothing to regulate health care or to de-monopolize the Corporate State. Like every other elected official in the US, he is beholden to the same monied and powerful interests. I see very little big-picture difference between his administration and Bush's. Just the rhetoric, that's all.
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I agree, Obama is no socialist nor is he a Marxist or a fascist as Republicans and the ring wing entertainment industry like to brand him. However, I do disagree with your assertion that he has done nothing to regulate healthcare. The ACA has some important provisions which will lower healthcare costs and have already constrained healthcare cost growth rate.

    I am disappointed that Obama has not done more to effect election reform – to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to vote, to take special interest money out of our political system, to eliminate gerrymandering and to eliminate all the other election shenanigans Republicans and special interests have used to rig elections. We need a voter bill of rights and a constitutional amendment given that special interests control our Supreme Court.

    I see a great deal of difference between Obama’s administration and the George Junior administration. But I share your frustration with the Obama administration. The Obama administration hasn’t gone far enough fast enough to reform our government. But to be fair, what you are asking for is no small thing. You can see how much opposition, obstruction and crap, Obama has faced just getting a few issues through congress. ..a few issues in which Republicans once agreed with Obama on (i.e. budget cuts, Obamacare/Romneycare/Gingridgecare/Heritagecare, etc.). Those special interests empowered by a political machine, and entertainment complex and a Supreme Court are powerful foes who have and will continue to use every tool in their toolbox to thwart change. And Obama, or for that matter anyone, cannot do it alone. People like Obama need people like you and like me to help them with our votes, with our time and with our money. Big change isn’t easy, it never is. And it takes more than one person. It takes the work and resources of many people. So I guess we all need to shoulder some blame here.
     
  21. Watcher Just another old creaker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    373
    I didn't really mean that Obama has done NOTHING useful with the ACA, but I have not seen any concerted effort to constrain the COSTS of healthcare. In fact, the ACA could in the end increase the costs of health care since the administration of the ACA is amazingly burdensome to every provider in the loop. Have you read through this law? I skimmed the whole bill before it became law, and my takeaway was this: not much bang for the buck. The ROI of implementing this law is not going to be very good, just my guess. Time will tell.

    I suppose the reason I don't see a lot of difference between recent administrations is that none of them are willing to oppose the monied interests whose intent is to secure the vast wealth that has been squirreled away by Americans in their IRAs and 401Ks. In my opinion that's the real goal. Hear that sucking sound from the future out around 2020-2030? That's the sound of aging Baby Boomers exhausting their last dime of retirement savings to receive their basic health care. And now that corporations and monied interests have unfettered access to political campaigns, and have been determined by the Supreme Court to have "personhood", do you really believe that any established political party will dare to oppose them in their quest?

    Not to sound trite, but the only solution for this situation is a "nuevo movement" which would be required to restructure the government in a manner to prevent the corruption of money, which has undermined the democratic systems. It's probably too late to try to use those systems to fix this because, as you say, they are now rigged against us. But the reality is that I see very few Americans that have any understanding of this nor the motivation to understand it or change it. They have been stupefied into subjection; distracted by meaningless baubles on one hand, so the real desecration can continue unnoticed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Yes time will tell, but while Obamacare could be better, it could be more efficient, I think you are underestimating the cost saving measures included in the law. For example, record automation, something private industry did 30 years ago will result in significant savings. Our current healthcare system is so damn inefficient; small changes can have significant effects.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101065202

    Well some more than others. I think Obama is more willing that some (e.g. Bill Clinton, George I and II, Reagan, etc.), though he might not be much more able. Baby steps are better than no steps. I don’t think Americans realize how their government really works and how little power they have over their government.


    It needs to become a priority, but it isn’t going to be easy. Thanks to advancements in psychology, people have become very good at manipulating other people (e.g. Fox News, conservative talk radio, political campaigns, advertisements, etc.). And because of that, I don’t see a nuevo movement happening anytime soon. I see more of the same, more distractions, more misinformation and deception, more manipulation and more screwing of the American middle class. As much as I would like a new and powerful political movement which would reform our election processes and implement some modest ethics reforms on our elected officials, I think it is a long shot. At best, we might only get baby steps. That said, I sincerely hope I am wrong. One thing is certain; nothing will change if we just accept the status quo. Obamacare is a baby step – an important baby step, but a baby step nonetheless.
     
  23. TheHun Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    I don't understand why there is such a hateful discourse in regard to the ACA, also called Obamacare. People who are so adamantly opposed to it because they associate it with the dreaded term socialism are just wallowing in ignorance induced blindsight. If you don't like the government's social policies then you ought to volunteer to give up disability and unemployment benefits, social security payments, and all those programs that the government implemented because there was a need for it.

    It might help to listen to what John Green says about the American and global health care systems. As I canot post any links at this time, here is the title of the Youtube video. <<Why Are American Health Care Costs So High?>>
     

Share This Page