Register

Board index » Rant Forum » Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Non-Stiller related rants, pontifications, and soapbox lectures
Seasoned Veteran
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:56 pm

Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby bigjoespompano » Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:45 pm

I know most of you libs here are young, wide-eyed tree huggers so I'll cut you a break for having no clue as to what your boy is up too as you've never seen it before. But let me 'splain it to you as it's right there on page 263 of the Democratic play book.

He announces to the nation that HE (and he alone...) will be sending several thousnad more troops to Afganistan to buck up the boots already on the ground (Yeaaa Glorious Leader!!...) This will insure victory (or some such thing).

Then he announces (in the same speech) that at the end of twelve months (if things have not improved, bleh, bleh bleh) He will begin withdrawl proceedings!!!

I know the closest any of you libs have gotten to any military personeel is to spit on them and call them 'Baby killer' but to expect the military to completely turn this mess around in a year and begin withdrawing boots is just STUPID. How many years have we been there? And these fresh troops will ensure that the conflict will be completed to a satisfactory level in twelve months?? And the Afgan forces will be strong enough in twelve months to handle things themselves so we can pull out?? They are not strong enough now to do the job but they WILL be in a year??? Am I missing something Libs?


Okay Libs, here's the deal. In tweleve months O'Bama will be ramping up his 2012 campagin and he can then tell the STUPID O'Bama slobber buckets that he did all he could but it's time to bring the trrops home and let the Afgans do what we trained them to do! And when they fail, cut and run or simply change sides and join the TB, your boy will simply blame the failure on the corrupt Afgan goverment and we did all we could do (Go study your Vietnam political History to get a better grip on this...)

Oh, one last thing concerning your O'Bama boot-licker Chris Matthews. So West Point is now 'Enemy Territory'??? You libs are sick, sick SICK....

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:15 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby SteelThatDon'tRust » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:26 pm

Hmmm, being from Texas originally, I have friends who vote democratic and proudly serve. Also, many liberals think Obama is a bigger failure than you do. But you wouldn't know that because you seem to me one who spends more time talking at us, than with us... :suahhbs: That said, no, it's hard to think he could be more transparent. But which politicians aren't transparent? Where's the conservative agenda that is set to solve our problems? You, my friend, just might be a political homer...Also regarding "HE (and he alone...) will be sending several thousnad more troops to Afganistan," he's the commander in chief. According to the constitution, who else can send them? And glorious leader? Remember rich-boy Bush's draft dodging ass on that destroyer ship in "full gear," all ready to hump—you're close to the military so I assume you know what that means—announcing mission accomplished? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You asked with your eyes Trent, you asked with your eyes.

Seasoned Veteran
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby bigjoespompano » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:35 am

SteelThatDon'tRust wrote:Hmmm, being from Texas originally, I have friends who vote democratic and proudly serve. Also, many liberals think Obama is a bigger failure than you do. But you wouldn't know that because you seem to me one who spends more time talking at us, than with us... :suahhbs: That said, no, it's hard to think he could be more transparent. But which politicians aren't transparent? Where's the conservative agenda that is set to solve our problems? You, my friend, just might be a political homer...Also regarding "HE (and he alone...) will be sending several thousnad more troops to Afganistan," he's the commander in chief. According to the constitution, who else can send them? And glorious leader? Remember rich-boy Bush's draft dodging ass on that destroyer ship in "full gear," all ready to hump—you're close to the military so I assume you know what that means—announcing mission accomplished? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Uh, "cuse me there Libtard but again you bow down and kiss the feet of your media GODS at CNN, CBS and all the rest. THEY have been telling us for years that the 'Mission Accomplished' sign was engineered, designed and placed by the Bushies. WRONG again, dope smoker! It was put there by the sailors on that ship! It was THEIR idea and doing. But of course, the filthy, slimey, muck-sucking Urinalists in the big media would NEVER put this out there as the actual truth. Do your research, Lib. Let us know what you come up with (or will you be too busy standing in line waiting for an O'slobba bail out check?)

Now run along little Demoncrat! There's work to do on *GASP!* 'Global Climate Change!!!! Gotta stop those Eeeeeevile green house gases like CARBOB DIOXIDE!!! *SCREAM!!*

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:15 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby SteelThatDon'tRust » Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:07 pm

Don't get news from the tele, I still read papers. Let's see, a few things. I said Bush announced mission accomplished, didn't say anything about a sign so you should read more and watch less TV since watching Fox News all day is ruining your reading skills. Why do you assume I smoke pot? More of bourbon man. Waiting in line for a bail out check? The banks got those, not the people who deserved them. Finally, climate change seems to me to be about humans more than the earth. If humans are causing the climate to get screwy and a screwy climate means no more humans, then why shouldn't we attempt to save ourselves? The earth isn't in trouble, only maybe us. Do some research on what the debate is actually about little conservative. Last, you have confirmed yourself as a political homer. I said some libs think Obama is a bigger failure than a lot of conservatives, but you wouldn't know that because you only want to make fun of us rather than actually learn why some of us think the way we do. You want to know my political ideology? Read Aristotle's Politics and Plato's Laws and then get back to me so we can have a talk on what real conservatism is since William Buckley would laugh in your face. I agreed with that Obama is transparent and all you do is feebly flail some crap about a sign back at me and then make fun of the climate change debate.
You asked with your eyes Trent, you asked with your eyes.

Greenhorned Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby Witchblade » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:57 am

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
~H.L. Mencken, 1956

Vote Libertarian!

You wanna know how far we've come from where we were?

James Madison:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers."

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.
P. J. O'Rourke (1947 - )

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:15 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby SteelThatDon'tRust » Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:16 am

Witchblade wrote:Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
~H.L. Mencken, 1956

Vote Libertarian!

You wanna know how far we've come from where we were?

James Madison:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers."

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."


I'm inclined to be sentimental with some of this, but no way do I vote for Ron Paul or any other crazy libertarian who thinks the government's sole and single role is defense of the homeland and defense of private property. Roads, public education—both lower and higher, fire depts, arts and science support, etc are too important to me: as they were to Madison who was NO libertarian. It's true the founding fathers were big fans of Locke—that's where the emphasis on property comes from, see his Second Treatise on Government—they were also big fans of Aristotle and Plato, i.e., virtue and education. And that means taxes to support both. In short. none of the founding fathers were libertarians.
You asked with your eyes Trent, you asked with your eyes.

Greenhorned Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby Witchblade » Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:10 pm

"[We] disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think or pretend would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others."
~ Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:444

The powers specified are clear in Article 1 Section 8 of the USC & the remaining powers, those you place so much importance on above are left to the states (10 Amendment) or to the people themselves.

They separated the powers to ensure liberty. No state could over tax their citizens because they would just move to a state that was less oppressive or like wise citizens are of course were/are free to move to a more progressive state. They feared the concentration of power because there is no check to combat the abuse of power. Jefferson is most eloquent articulating this principle.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate. And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free (and it is blasphemy to believe it), that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher and higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical."
~ Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
~ Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332

"I wish... to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation of both [the State and General governments], and never to see all offices transferred to Washington where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market."
~ Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450


"What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!"
~ Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:15 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby SteelThatDon'tRust » Sat Jan 09, 2010 9:05 am

Witchblade wrote:"[We] disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think or pretend would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others."
~ Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:444

The powers specified are clear in Article 1 Section 8 of the USC & the remaining powers, those you place so much importance on above are left to the states (10 Amendment) or to the people themselves.

They separated the powers to ensure liberty. No state could over tax their citizens because they would just move to a state that was less oppressive or like wise citizens are of course were/are free to move to a more progressive state. They feared the concentration of power because there is no check to combat the abuse of power. Jefferson is most eloquent articulating this principle.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate. And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free (and it is blasphemy to believe it), that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher and higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical."
~ Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
~ Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332

"I wish... to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation of both [the State and General governments], and never to see all offices transferred to Washington where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market."
~ Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450


"What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!"
~ Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168


Sir, you're absolutely correct that the states are given the power to provide for what I hold dear. And how these things, with the exception of support of the arts, sciences and the humanities save for state universities that have gigantor endowments, are paid for is with taxes. A lot of taxes. And I don't care whether it's the state of the feds taxing, as long as public education and services are provided. I'm not sure what you're point is. When you say, "They separated the powers to ensure liberty . . . They feared the concentration of power because there is no check to combat the abuse of power," remember there were not only Anti-Federalist papers, there were Federalist papers too. It's not like all the founders were of one mind or had a super high opinion of the public, e.g., see Hamilton as opposed to Jefferson. Part of the purpose of the separation of powers, after all, was to curb the power of the people! "They" knew direct democracy was a horrible idea because it leads to tyranny by majority and tyranny by the majority or masses even if not by a centralized government is still tyranny. If we'd left things up to the states and the "people" only and greatly weakened the control of the federal government, we'd still have Jim Crow, etc. Lincoln was accused of being a tyrannt and a king precisely because he eroded states' rights—and he did!— and not just by the nut job who killed him. The separation of powers between state and Fed actually allowed us to get beyond that injustice. Power to the people by all means, but only when they're being sensible and respecting the rights of others! Nor should power to the people imply privatization of public services. No, tell me what you mean by libertarian and you may find me agreeing with you, but I'm suspicious.
You asked with your eyes Trent, you asked with your eyes.

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:15 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby SteelThatDon'tRust » Sat Jan 09, 2010 9:22 am

Actually, Thucydides makes me want to lean libertarian much more than Jefferson. If you want to read this obnoxiously long post (though I'm by no means assuming you are not familiar with it already btw) from his history of the peloponnesian war, think of the aftermath of 9/11 and the politicization around the failed attempt to blow up a jet (from Book 3):

Chapter 82
[1] So bloody was the march of the Corcyraean revolution, and the impression which it made was the greater as it was one of the first to occur. Later on, one may say, the whole Hellenic world was convulsed; struggles being everywhere made by the popular chiefs to bring in the Athenians, and by the oligarchs to introduce the Lacedaemonians. In peace there would have been neither the pretext nor the wish to make such an invitation; but in war, with an alliance always at the command of either faction for the hurt of their adversaries and their own corresponding advantage, opportunities for bringing in the foreigner were never wanting to the revolutionary parties.[2] The sufferings which revolution entailed upon the cities were many and terrible, such as have occurred and always will occur, as long as the nature of mankind remains the same; though in a severer or milder form, and varying in their symptoms, according to the variety of the particular cases. In peace and prosperity states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants, and so proves a rough master, that brings most men's characters to a level with their fortunes.[3] Revolution thus ran its course from city to city, and the places which it arrived at last, from having heard what had been done before carried to a still greater excess the refinement of their inventions, as manifested in the cunning of their enterprises and the atrocity of their reprisals.[4] Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence, became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence.[5] The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended,[6] until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime.[7] The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first.[8] The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy, engaged in the direct excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honor with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.
Chapter 83
[1] Thus every form of iniquity took root in the Hellenic countries by reason of the troubles. The ancient simplicity into which honor so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow.[2] To put an end to this, there was neither promise to be depended upon, nor oath that could command respect; but all parties dwelling rather in their calculation upon the hopelessness of a permanent state of things, were more intent upon self-defence than capable of confidence.[3] In this contest the blunter wits were most successful. Apprehensive of their own deficiencies and of the cleverness of their antagonists, they feared to be worsted in debate and to be surprised by the combinations of their more versatile opponents, and so at once boldly had recourse to action:[4] while their adversaries, arrogantly thinking that they should know in time, and that it was unnecessary to secure by action what policy afforded, often fell victims to their want of precaution.
You asked with your eyes Trent, you asked with your eyes.

Greenhorned Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby Witchblade » Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:31 pm

I'm not sure what you're point is.



My point is the constitution is there to protect us from government. It basically says what they can and can not do and reserves the power to provide these services you want and raise the taxes for them to the states and denies this power to the federal government. We can argue about what each individual involved in writing the constitution said or wrote but the fact is what we know of today as the US Constitution is a compromise between the Virginia Plan written mostly by James Madison and the New Jersey Plan. The Jersey plan was put forth for the protection of the smaller states to counter population weighted representation on congress that favored larger states. Both plans were necessary because the original "articles of confederation" were inadequate. So when you look at what they had. The two main components of the compromise and what they came up with, to me, it's pretty clear what there intentions were when they agreed to the language in the constitution. Not every body got what they wanted but they compromised and the result is the foundation of our system of government where the law is supreme not those in authority.

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
~ Thomas Jefferson


"[We] disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think or pretend would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others."
~ Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:444


I’m not sure what your second post is all about but surely the Greeks are the founders of democracy which by the way our founders were afraid of at least in it pure form.

Also, please consider:

[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.
~ Edward Gibbon
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.
P. J. O'Rourke (1947 - )

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby steelcitymetal » Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:36 pm

i can't read all of that...

is this about the fact that the health care talks will not be televised like he promised 8 times on campaign?
Image

Greenhorned Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby Witchblade » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:15 am

When he made the promise, was his left or right hand over his heart?

Image
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.
P. J. O'Rourke (1947 - )

Practice Squad
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:16 pm

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby AZ Steel » Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:03 pm

This is a very interesting discussion even though it started out on a typically boorish and naïvely conservative note.
The fact is that despite the best intentions of our forefathers, corporate interests (especially military ones) and not the people truly control this country. Politicians including President Obama are merely pawns to massive corporate powers. Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address on 17 January 1961 ominously showed us where we were headed and where we now dwell. In his speech, Eisenhower (a republican, five star general, and supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII) coined the phrase “military-industrial complex” and warned against the dangers of a massive corporate arms industry. He expressed his fears that the power of these corporations could become immense and go unchecked by congress and the American people. Sadly, his worst fears have been realized.
Whatever your political affiliation, don’t be fooled into thinking that the Republicans or Democrats actually have any power. President Obama’s only goal with the war in Afghanistan is to appease the military-industrial complex. It is an unwinnable war and we all know that – just ask Russia. War makes a few people an immense amount of money and that is the objective of war in the 21st century. People will say, what about 9-11? Well, we all know about the “faulty intelligence” that lead us to that war. I would also point to the fact that most of the attackers were from… Saudi Arabia! Did we attack them? Of course not, we want their oil and they gladly give it to us at exorbitant prices. Furthermore, Bush's goal in Iraq was no different, it was about money and greed – just ask Dick Cheney (former CEO and current stockholder of Halliburton, one of the biggest recipients of US military contracts in history).

Here’s an excerpt from Eisenhower’s speech (it’s a bit long but well worth it):
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So, in this my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth; and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Practice Squad
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:16 pm

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby AZ Steel » Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:12 pm

Witchblade wrote:When he made the promise, was his left or right hand over his heart?

Image


This picture is just reversed by the way. Photographers do this all the time.

Seasoned Veteran
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:33 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby Steelhope » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:13 pm

Holy discourse Batman.....that was some beautiful reading, thanks Swithblade and Rust and AZ......PGHeaven you ain't !

Stillers.com Team
User avatar
Posts: 4627
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:21 pm

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby thesteelhammer » Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:47 pm

AZ Steel wrote:
Witchblade wrote:When he made the promise, was his left or right hand over his heart?

Image


This picture is just reversed by the way. Photographers do this all the time.


I though so at first to, but now am not so sure it is reversed because:

1. - wedding rings are still on their left hands
2. - his suit is still buttoned correctly. (left side over the right side)
3. - flag pin is not reversed.

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby steelcitymetal » Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:28 pm

thesteelhammer wrote:1. - wedding rings are still on their left hands
2. - his suit is still buttoned correctly. (left side over the right side)
3. - flag pin is not reversed.

obama's ring and jacket button area look shopped

and the flag pin is an easy thing to move
Image

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby steelcitymetal » Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:29 pm

and thanks to snopes, original image:

Image
Image

Practice Squad
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:16 pm

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby AZ Steel » Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:46 pm

Steelhope wrote:Holy discourse Batman.....that was some beautiful reading, thanks Swithblade and Rust and AZ......PGHeaven you ain't!

I know, I know. Intellectual giants like PG Heaven only come along once every few generations. He’s done for politics what Einstein did for Physics. Obviously, we can’t even begin to approach his immense genius. We all have our dreams though…

Here’s a link to the actual Obama photo by the way:

http://www.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.1438844.1252687032!image/2971327105.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/2971327105.JPG

Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:13 am

Re: Hey Libs! Could your boy O'Bama be any more transparent???

Postby Coke Oven » Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:09 pm

"I know the closest any of you libs have gotten to any military personeel is to spit on them and call them 'Baby killer' but to expect the military to completely turn this mess around in a year and begin withdrawing boots is just STUPID."

Not stupid if your goal, as is Obanga's, is the total bankruptcy, downfall, and destruction of the United States. That sonofabitch hates this country, as do all liberals, and every move that he's made since taking office is directed towards that goal. Don't listen to anything that those philosophying coward bastards have to say but keenly watch what they do.

Return to Rant Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Don't be stingy, share: