Obama's birth debate: It's about loyalty

Damocles said:
So, denigrating the service of somebody who put their life on the line for you is less wussy than somebody who insults your wife?

You have skewed priorities.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The person that I denigrate has the ability to defend himself. If that person attacks an innocent bystander in retaliation then he's a huge wussie. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all. The person that I denigrate has the ability to defend himself. If that person attacks an innocent bystander in retaliation then he's a huge wussie. *shrug*
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

The service members who are not here do not have "the ability to defend" themselves and an insult to the service of one is an insult to the service of all. And every one of them put their lives on the line for somebody who was unwilling to serve. If you haven't served, you are in no place to denigrate the service of others.
 
meme said:
SNIP:

By James Lewis
The birth debate about Obama is real enough, but it is legally complicated, as analyzed by legal beagle Andrew McCarthy at National Review. No judge is going to question the Constitutional qualifications of an elected president. I'm sorry, but that's the practical reality. The judge is going to follow stare decisis -- the sheer weight of commitments that cannot be reversed without creating chaos. Once the political system of the United States, the voters, the media, and the politicians themselves are all committed to the proposition that Obama is president, trying to reverse it would mean riots in every city in the nation. At some point even debatable claims become irreversible. That is why Al Franken is now the US Senator from Minnesota, even if his election was corrupt and wrong. It's water under the bridge. Leave it to history.


And yet the Obama "birther" debate is important. What's important about it is the feeling a growing number of Americans have in their bones that Obama is foreign -- to our traditions, loyalties and shared understandings about the nature of America. In a way the legal debate matters less than that bone-deep sense that Obama is fundamentally "Other than American."


We all recognized George W as a prototypical American -- even if you didn't agree with him or even like him. There he was cutting dry brush around his modest West Texas ranch house, to keep down the fire danger, while the fat and foolish White House punditry stayed huddled back in the air conditioning. Or flying onto the aircraft carrier in a jet trainer after Saddam was overthrown. Or heading straight to walk Ground Zero with the cops and fire fighters right after 9/11. Bush looked at home with those cops, because he was. He likes those guys, and they like him. They are made of the same stuff. Obama isn't.


Obama is a socialist, which means that his deepest commitment is not to our nation but to the Internationalist Ruling Class. That is why the Left always has to argue that Americans' love of country will kill off the rest of the world -- by global warming, by overpopulation, any excuse will do. The fact that it's all lies proves the point: The Left must lie in order to convince millions of Americans that their normal feelings of patriotism are evil.


These facts are so obvious that they are not even worth arguing about. Obama's first international speech -- characteristically before getting elected -- started with the phrase "Citizens of the World!" Anybody on the Left has to think, "Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" That was the intended message to the left, of course -- that's how David Axelrod thinks, that's how Obama's mentors have always thought -- going back to his way-left mother and his Kenyan socialist father. The interracial affair between the Kansas anthropologist 20-year-old and the Kenyan socialist was itself a revolutionary act, the way these people think. It was a positive good to bear an interracial child, even if the kid was going to be abandoned by his father and mother. From that point onward the Old Left handled the whole chain of custody. Obama was passed along by leftie sponsors, one after the other. Frank Marshall Davis was the Communist Party guy in Hawaii, and wrote for the Hawaiian Communist Party rag. You can trace it link after link, following the Alinskyite chain all the way to the far left wing of the Chicago Machine, then 20 years of being preached at by Rev. Jeremiah Wright (whose brand of Christianity is only Marxism under a transparent layer of lies).


That's our Obama, and that's what he proudly proclaimed: Not Oh Say Can You See/ By the Dawn's Early Light, but Dreams from My (Kenyan Socialist) Father.


This is not a secret. Obama is foreign to America in a way that has little to do with his birth certificate. He could be American-born and still think in this very anti-American way. A lot of people are. But whatever he is legally, there is not a shred of doubt that he is steeped in an Anti-American way of thinking.


This is what I suspect the birther movement is about. Yes, the legalities are suspect. No, it will never make any practical difference. But most important, the birthers are aware of a deep intuition about Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Obama: That he is profoundly out of tune with the meaning of America since the Founding. He is out of harmony with this country and this culture, like the dissonant scream of a power-saw biting into steel or concrete. He just grates on the American sensibility.


Obama is a Ruling Class Aristocrat -- by intuition, beliefs, and personal egomania. He was born to rule. It's partly that he has always gone to all the elite schools, from Hawaii to Harvard, just like Michelle. But he was put into those schools by the efforts of the left, which is a Socialist Ruling Class movement. The left in its own vision is always Ruling Class To Be that is being kept unjustly from taking over the world. That's why they hate real democracy, why they sneer at Coke and fries, and why capitalism is so bad: Because it constant caters to "vulgar" tastes.

the whole article here..
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamas_birth_debate_its_about.html
Click to expand...


Did you notice Maineman's signature?

"In a rich society, no one should be allowed to suffer from deprivation such as homelessness, starvation and illness. This ideal is essential, not simply as a matter of human good, but as the price we pay for a measure of domestic tranquility."
John Kenneth Galbraith

That is the basis of a good and just society, the very thing that America claims to stand for. The fundamental difference between Conservative values and what people term Socialist values can be summed up like this; Conservatives don't have to share their bounty with others but their overall freedoms are limited. Socialists are obliged to share but they retain more freedoms.

Two examples are abortion and gay marriage. The Conservative mind set is one does not have to share but ones right to make personal decisions is limited. The Socialist or Obama mind set is one does have to share but personal decisions are left up to the individual. Which idea is closer to the definition of freedom?

There isn't anything anti-American about Obama's way of thinking. It is exactly what America claims it stands for; helping the needy and setting people free to live their life as they see fit. It is about allowing people to question their customs and religion/culture and reject the ways that hold them back.

Obama is setting the American people free just as the Afghans and Iraqis were set free albeit on a different scale and what better place to start than universal medical? Why wouldn't we remove the suffering of thousands by offering proper medical services and drugs when we are able to do so? Is the author saying the American way of life includes knowing ones neighbor is suffering and doing nothing to help? Is the wanting to help a suffering individual going against American culture/values? Is asking people who have plenty to help those less fortunate an abomination to the Founding Fathers?

Contrary to the author Obama is not only living the American beliefs and culture but trying to institute those beliefs in policy. What more could one ask for?
 
whoo hoo, the Hugo Obama is going to create a all loving, no conservatives need apply, Utopia United State and World...
everyone will be forced to pay for their neighbors lives, come hell or high water.. and we will all live HAPPILY EVER AFTER..

the end
 
Last edited:
anyone who thinks that the current elites of this world, like the Obamas, will utilize socialism to lower their stature and raise yours is smoking some real serious drugs.

socialism is nothing but a red herring to get the subjects of the world to commit more of their hard earned money to government programs.
 
Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

The service members who are not here do not have "the ability to defend" themselves and an insult to the service of one is an insult to the service of all. And every one of them put their lives on the line for somebody who was unwilling to serve. If you haven't served, you are in no place to denigrate the service of others.
Click to expand...
I don't denigrate the service of those who aren't here. In fact, the only ones that I denigrate are the ones who have insulted my family. Since the purpose of the military is to protect the innocent, these individuals have disgraced their service. *shrug*
 
apple0154 said:
Did you notice Maineman's signature?

"In a rich society, no one should be allowed to suffer from deprivation such as homelessness, starvation and illness. This ideal is essential, not simply as a matter of human good, but as the price we pay for a measure of domestic tranquility."
John Kenneth Galbraith

....
Click to expand...
Galbraith's work, in general, and The Affluent Society, in particular, have drawn sharp criticism from free-market supporters at the time of its publication. Monetarist Milton Friedman in "Friedman on Galbraith, and on curing the British disease" views Galbraith as a 20th century version of the early 19th century Tory radical of Great Britain. He asserts that Galbraith believes in the superiority of aristocracy and in its paternalistic authority, that consumers should not be allowed choice and that all should be determined by those with "higher minds":

Many reformers – Galbraith is not alone in this – have as their basic objection to a free market that it frustrates them in achieving their reforms, because it enables people to have what they want, not what the reformers want. Hence every reformer has a strong tendency to be averse to a free market.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith#Criticism_of_Galbraith.27s_Work
 
Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

The service members who are not here do not have "the ability to defend" themselves and an insult to the service of one is an insult to the service of all. And every one of them put their lives on the line for somebody who was unwilling to serve. If you haven't served, you are in no place to denigrate the service of others.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. Throughout history, there are many individuals whose military service deserves to be denigrated, from Arnold to Lee, to Oswald, to that Padilla fellow who sold secrets to al-Queda. And I am constantly reminded that some people's service is far more distinguished when I compare myself, for example, to some of the really stellar Airmen that I serve with...
 
Southern Man said:
There was never any serious retaliation by the US for the Beirut incident- certainly not a war. During the First Gulf War I was well into my civilian career and starting a family.

I don't denigrate folks who served- I denigrate you, who again, had the government pay for your education, then sailed around in an armored tub far from any conflict until you qualified for retirement.
Click to expand...

so...just like every other chickenhawk, you had "other priorities"

I understand... cowardice goes by many names.

And as I said earlier, you have no idea where I deployed or what I did... but suffice it to say, it was infinitely more dangerous than the activities YOU engaged in while serving YOUR country in uniform.

And I didn't denigrate your wife that I recall, and if I did, I am quite certain that it was in retaliation for some insult of YOURS... and, I have certainly apologized for any slights I may have aimed at your family over the years... I know that I have certainly forgiven you for YOUR prior insults to my family.

Matthew 18:22
 
maineman said:
so...just like every other chickenhawk, you had "other priorities"

I understand... cowardice goes by many names.

And as I said earlier, you have no idea where I deployed or what I did... but suffice it to say, it was infinitely more dangerous than the activities YOU engaged in while serving YOUR country in uniform.

And I didn't denigrate your wife that I recall, and if I did, I am quite certain that it was in retaliation for some insult of YOURS... and, I have certainly apologized for any slights I may have aimed at your family over the years... I know that I have certainly forgiven you for YOUR prior insults to my family.

Matthew 18:22
Click to expand...

The best definition of a coward is what you have done- attack innocent bystanders. Several here will attest that you've written long fictional stories about a poster's daughter getting gang-raped by a drunken biker gang.

No you didn't insult my wife, yet. Instead you chose to make up some disgusting story about my young son and send it to me in a PM. You're too much of a coward to post it in public. You're too much of a coward to repent your sin as well and admit what you have done.
 
Southern Man said:
The best definition of a coward is what you have done- attack innocent bystanders. Several here will attest that you've written long fictional stories about a poster's daughter getting gang-raped by a drunken biker gang.

No you didn't insult my wife, yet. Instead you chose to make up some disgusting story about my young son and send it to me in a PM. You're too much of a coward to post it in public. You're too much of a coward to repent your sin as well and admit what you have done.
Click to expand...

a chickenhawk calling a military retiree a coward....

how quaint. how droll.:pke:

I publicly apologized to you for anything and everything I EVER said to you about your son. several times. damo can certainly attest to that.

you need to get over it... carrying around all that bitterness is not good for your psyche.
 
maineman said:
a chickenhawk calling a military retiree a coward....

how quaint. how droll.:pke:

I publicly apologized to you for anything and everything I EVER said to you about your son. several times. damo can certainly attest to that.

you need to get over it... carrying around all that bitterness is not good for your psyche.
Click to expand...
A retiree who was a safe distance from any conflict.

You are a coward by your stated example. Repentance requires admission of the sin- it's exact nature, followed by penance, which will be decided by me. You lack the courage to admit, you lack the courage to be judged, and you lack the courage to face the consequences.
 
Southern Man said:
A retiree who was a safe distance from any conflict.

You are a coward by your stated example. Repentance requires admission of the sin- it's exact nature, followed by penance, which will be decided by me. You lack the courage to admit, you lack the courage to be judged, and you lack the courage to face the consequences.
Click to expand...

as I said... you have absolutely no idea what distance I was away from any conflict...but we both know that your "other priorities saved" your cowardly ass from getting anywhere NEAR any of them

I have admitted my sin... several times, and I have asked you for your firgiveness... and will not do so any more.

if you don't chose to forgive me, fine.

rot in hell, coward.
 
maineman said:
as I said... you have absolutely no idea what distance I was away from any conflict...but we both know that your "other priorities saved" your cowardly ass from getting anywhere NEAR any of them

I have admitted my sin... several times, and I have asked you for your firgiveness... and will not do so any more.

if you don't chose to forgive me, fine.

rot in hell, coward.
Click to expand...

You're too much of a coward to say what you did exactly in the Navy that makes you so brave. Since you've bragged about your service so many times we must therefore assume that the details would have you floating around the ocean in an armored tub, far from any conflict.

The first time you admitted your sin you did so generically and I forgave you, but it wasn't long after that that you committed it again. So in order to be considered for forgiveness you will have to be explicit about your sin, in public, and be judged in public. You're clearly too much of a coward to go through that.
 
Southern Man said:
You're too much of a coward to say what you did exactly in the Navy that makes you so brave. Since you've bragged about your service so many times we must therefore assume that the details would have you floating around the ocean in an armored tub, far from any conflict.

The first time you admitted your sin you did so generically and I forgave you, but it wasn't long after that that you committed it again. So in order to be considered for forgiveness you will have to be explicit about your sin, in public, and be judged in public. You're clearly too much of a coward to go through that.
Click to expand...

I have never BRAGGED about my service. I AM proud of my service. I loved the Navy and I loved serving my country. You wouldn't understand that, of course, but I have found that to be the case for most military professionals.

And I am curious....what part of this did you NOT understand the first time I typed it???

I have admitted my sin... several times, and I have asked you for your firgiveness... and will not do so any more.

if you don't chose to forgive me, fine.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
anyone who thinks that the current elites of this world, like the Obamas, will utilize socialism to lower their stature and raise yours is smoking some real serious drugs.

socialism is nothing but a red herring to get the subjects of the world to commit more of their hard earned money to government programs.
Click to expand...

If you think the Obamas are elites then what's all that business about them getting where they are via alleged affirmative action?

Elites would have gotten there by legacy, like bush.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
1. We already rely on insurance companies for our health care decisions;

We? I don't rely on insurance companies for my health care decisions. My doctor makes the decisions as I don't have an HMO.
Click to expand...

"We" = many Americans. I don't have an HMO either, but my insurance company still calls the shots.

Case in point: the company decided I (and everybody else under the plan) should have only one Rx refill for migraines every thirty days. The medicine comes in a package of 9 tablets. I have to split the tablets to make them last and hope that half the dosage will work. It's a lousy way to treat a customer who (between individual and employer) pays a monthly coverage in the 4 figures.

Why should an insurance company decide how much medicine people should have, for migraine, no less? It's not like the pill is a controlled substance with street value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top