CharlesCS CharlesCS

When it comes to Obama, the joke is only on George W. Bush

When it comes to Obama, the joke is only on George W. Bush

Hypocrisy, it's a word that should be added to all dictionaries as part of the description of politics. Especially when it comes to Democrats.

It would seem there are some out there upset because Obama is being dipicted as the villian of our society because of his socialist policies. The image below is one showing up all over L.A. portraying Obama as the joker from the movie "The Dark Knight".

Looks pretty good if you ask me. But I bet these complaints are just the beginning. It's only a matter of time before the creator of these imagine, unknown as of this moment, will somehow be searched for as some kind of criminal. Maybe the Obama Administration will create another email or maybe a website where people can report these kinds of images (some would call it freedom of speech and expression). Hell some are already calling this "politically mean-spirited and dangerous". But as usual, these kinds of propaganda are only bad when it's Obama that is the victim. How dare people dipict the President of the US in such a manner thru out the streets of the US?

But what about Former President George W. Bush? How come Vanity Fair, a well known magazine in the US, didn't find the below image of George W. Bush (President of the US at the time), from their July 2008 copy, "politically mean-spirited and dangerous"? Hmmm, double standards, another word that should be part of the definition of Politics.

I wonder if Obama was aware of how Politics are played in the US once you become President?

Powered by Zoundry Raven

7,134 views 29 replies
Reply #26 Top

Please provide proof to your assertions. So much for your ethics.
End of quote

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-3162&tab=votes

 

Funny how you call me paranoid over Obama's report your neighbor, and cry about the Patriot Act, which Obama has kept in place BTW. You do make these pages fun AJ.
End of quote

 

The patriot act has been shown to have been used for specific means/gains. Has obama's so claimed storm troopers broken down any doors lately? Has Obama specifically used the report your neighbor to jail anyone, or claim some groups are terrorists?

Besides, have I ever said that I agree with Obama keeping it? Nope, in fact I want him to get rid of it. If I'm guilty of anything, it's of not being more vocal on that.

 

My bad, (dispite my comment being just that and not a debate) everything I posted was covered extensively on the pages of JU. Silly me for assuming you read them (even though you posted to many yourself). I'll be sure to put a link for the folks too lazy to click the next page at the bottom. Also, for someone crying for "proof" so much you rarely provide it yourself.
End of quote

 

Setting aside your laziness and...pomp, for lack of a better term; I don't remember everything, I try though.

BTW Al Quiada is not or never was a signer of the Geneva Convention, nobody is forcing them to fight. Having been to Gitmo, most US prisoners would kill (again and again) to get locked up there. These detainees are getting better than they ever give. I'm sure they appreciate your sympathy though, maybe they will save your infidel back side for last.
End of quote

 

I still believe they have basic rights as human beings.

 

 

 

On thing I do know about you (because I've seen it many times, not just responses to me) is that you often assume it's all about you and it's not. If I'm wrong, I ask someone besides yourself to say so.
End of quote

 

Well duh, if you're addressing me on a comment then I'm going to take it as being about me. Wtf? As for you believing I am all about me, I don't know where exactly you're getting that from. Ironically this will sound self interested and such, but 99% of the time it is never about me. So if you could explain what you mean, I would greatly appreciate that.

 

If their is something I really want to know I'll ask. Sorry no burning questions at this time. That's not to say you can't learn by plain old reading, in fact nobody ever learned a thing by speaking or writing. Since I've spent more than half my life having to dissect what people say, their intentions, motives, and innuendos, I think I'm pretty fair at doing it, even though voice modulation and tone is not part of the JU environment.
End of quote

 

Mmm, I always thought I was clear on what I believe in, but apparently I fail at that.

 

Just curious, many other nations monitor international (and domestic) phone calls without the notification or support of their citizens. Does that bother you? I thought the left want us to be like the rest of the world? Careful what you wish for.
End of quote

Modern liberals/democrats, to an extent, maybe...

Am I a person living in France? Do I live in England? I still do not agree with it, but who am I to say what another country should do? I have no foundation to do such.

 

What is ironic, is that I'm not only "rejected" by conservatives (here), but it seems that most die hard liberals/democrats, etc. reject me as well. Wtf? *shakes head* Anyways...

 

Again, you read and comprehend the part of my post that suits you. I said I was not crazy about the PA. Like most folks I am willing to make sacrifices for security. There was a time where I'm from where people left homes and cars unlocked (even keys in the visor). Those days are gone because people learned the hard way that some will exploit your convenience for their own gain.

I want the terrorists to get caught in their planning phase, not after the planes hit the buildings. Does it step on my conservative principles? Sure does, but the potential for worse things to happen are too great. That doesn't mean surrender to the government, we need to be vigilant.

The PA does not have people listening to your international calls. Software searches for key words that terrorist might use. Then if further monitoring is deemed necessary it is ordered. If you have something to say that is harmful to the security of this country, I can see your concern, but I have no sympathy for you in that case.
End of quote

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Franklen

That's what I think of the security programs.

 

 

 

Reply #27 Top

Great, your left-wing liberal ID card is in the mail and should arrive soon (please turn in your "Libertarian" card (your claimed affiliation) as you espouse none of their core principles. Still waiting for you to admit that BS claim. Pride trumps truth I guess, but it sure hurts credibility.
End of quote



None? What the fuck are you smoking?

Lets take a look at the platform:


 1.0    Personal Liberty

[I believe in complete and utter liberty for people. ]

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1    Expression and Communication

[I oppose censorship and believe in the right to express ones self. ]

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2    Personal Privacy

[Yup, I'm such a big government guy. I'm such a flaming liberal, that I go against wiretapping, am against any sort of privacy invasion...libertarian? Nope, I must be a liberal loon. Stupidity ftw.]

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3    Personal Relationships

[Agree with 100%]

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4    Abortion

[Yup, believe it's a personal issue, not a government issue. ]

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5    Crime and Justice

[Yup, agree with.]

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6    Self-Defense

[Hmm, don't agree with aggresive action, only self defense - though i agree with the second amendment (doesn't mean I see the sense in having assuault rifles) - the only thing I have an issue with is whether or not we're handling sales right. I look at the Va Tech shootings as an example, the guy shouldn't have gotten a weapon, period.]

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0    Economic Liberty

[I believe in a free, and FAIR market. I believe regulation should only extend to the point of establishing the rules and preventing manipulation/screwing over of people. IF you enter the market, you're expected to play by the rules, period.]

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1    Property and Contract

[Yup, agree with.]

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2    Environment

[Agree with 100%]

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3    Energy and Resources

[I am 50/50 on this and am still formulating where I stand]

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4    Government Finance and Spending

[While I would love no taxes; ultimately, taxes are a necessity, even for a small government. I believe the best answer is, if we keep taxes, to have a fixed tax. I also believe it makes sense to have a balanced budget. In fact, I've always felt that a government wide audit would be a wonderful thing to have done.]

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.  We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5    Money and Financial Markets

[Not educated enough in this area to really make a stand, though, as above, I'm learning]

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.


2.6    Monopolies and Corporations

[Agree with for the most part, though I'm 50/50 on the government subsidies to interests [like farming for example]]

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7    Labor Markets

[Agree with.]

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8    Education

[I can understand and even agree that if a school is forced to work to be better and better, than it could work for the best for the students. However, my concern is over schools that may (a la Kansas or other states) wish to...indoctrinate, and not educate. A school is supposed to educated and inspire, not put baseless fancies in their heads. Religion, intelligent design, and such are the parents responsibilities, not the schools. In that sense, I believe that there should be a standard curriculum.If a school is usurped into teaching the children dogma or other things that are not things like math, reading, writing, art, languages, etc...If they're taught that, then would that child grow into an individual who would ]

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9    Health Care

[I agree, though I think the current health insurance market needs to be reformed.]

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.


2.10    Retirement and Income Security

[I'm leaning toward a safety net, because not always will everything planned work out - there are external, unforeseen circumstances that can totally screw over  a persons retirement. I do not believe it is right for someone who has worked most of their life, to be screwed out of their retirement for an external reason.]

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

3.0    Securing Liberty

[Agree\]

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1    National Defense

[Agree 110%]

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2    Internal Security and Individual Rights

[I agree, especially the part i put in bold.

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens.  The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3    International Affairs

[Agree - though ultimately individuals have the right to decide whether they wish to live the way they live, to echo point 1.]

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4    Free Trade and Migration

[Free trade only so long as it is fair; I believe in workers rights and enviromental/social standards. I do not advocate trading with, or supporting a country (or corporation) that treats its citizens/workers like slaves, etc.]

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade.  Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.  Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.  However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.


3.5    Rights and Discrimination

[Agree with 1,000,000%]

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6    Representative Government

[Agree, though I'm not a fan of "partisan party politics".]

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels.  As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7    Self-Determination

[Agree with.]

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0    Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

Reply #28 Top

Love your choice of words when you feel a bit threatened. Yeah, you can cover up any mention of these topics being from the LP and you will find that many people, from a wide variety of political leanings would agree with most of them. To simply put a check mark by the topic and state your support doesn't really cover your past arguments does it?

I'm not gunning for you by any means AJ. So why do I mention it at all? Probably because I'm interested why one would argue points (on a wide range of articles) that went against their claimed political leanings. If it were a one (or couple) off thing, it wouldn't be of much interest. But, it seems to be a pattern over time.

I have no problem with a person having their convictions, be it liberal or conservative. In fact I admire those that stick to their guns if they truly believe in the issue. Folks are free to have a change of heart too, that happens from time to time. It's only when the duck moo's that my attention is piqued.

When you dive deeper into the LP topics that are part of the more regular JU topics (can't comment on topics that are never or rarely discussed) your simple affirmation of the party line seems to fall by the wayside. Here are a few topics, if I recall correctly. where you seem to diverge from the LP. Now nobody is usually in lock step 100% with there political party. Maybe all the pertinent topics where just where you diverge. If so, my bad, but then again I don't choose the articles you reply to.

Anyway, here's what I'm smoking (from the Libertarian Party website http://www.lp.org/issues

The Economy

"A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society." - Libertarian Party Platform, Section 2.0  (adopted: May 2008)

Crime and Violence

The Libertarian Party is the party of personal responsibility. We believe that anyone who harms another person should be held responsible for that action. By contrast, the Democrats and Republicans have created a system where criminals can get away with almost anything.

We believe that the private ownership of firearms is part of the solution to America's crime epidemic, not part of the problem. Evidence: law-abiding citizens in Florida have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.

Poverty and Welfare

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

Taxes

How Can We Cut Taxes?

Instead of tending to the basics, government has grown into a bloated conglomerate of political services that gets larger every year -- with no end in sight.

For example, politicians spend millions of dollars to urge people not to smoke -- while spending more millions to subsidize tobacco farmers. They send billions overseas for foreign aid -- while the federal deficit swells. They spend millions to subsidize public art -- while working families struggle to pay their taxes.

Politicians also run trains, bail out savings and loans, construct houses, sell insurance, print books, and build basketball courts -- you name it! But the fact is, every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business.

Reply #29 Top

I'm not gunning for you by any means AJ. So why do I mention it at all? Probably because I'm interested why one would argue points (on a wide range of articles) that went against their claimed political leanings. If it were a one (or couple) off thing, it wouldn't be of much interest. But, it seems to be a pattern over time.

I have no problem with a person having their convictions, be it liberal or conservative. In fact I admire those that stick to their guns if they truly believe in the issue. Folks are free to have a change of heart too, that happens from time to time. It's only when the duck moo's that my attention is piqued.
End of quote

Well honestly, and it is probably just my irritable mood currently, but it feels like it. There's always a snide comment waiting in the wing. Why? I get and support saying whatever is on your mind, but what is the point (what is constructive) about making such comments?

 

welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.
End of quote

Mmm, I could go both ways on this. So call me undecided.

But the fact is, every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business.
End of quote

 

Mmm, perhaps; I've experienced some pretty crappy and expensive stuff from private businesses though, heh.  

 

government has grown into a bloated conglomerate of political services
End of quote

Like I said, government wide audit and get rid of the parts that we don't need or can privatize. Thereafter, keep only the essentials parts of government.

 

 

All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society
End of quote

Mmm, like I previously mentioned, I believe the free market is the best option - but can be too easily manipulated. Set up the rules to make sure no one screws over the market, or when it comes to companies - their workers. Call me cynical, but I don't trust corporations/companies or some people. That is largely why I have a hard time toward accepting lassez faire. More often than not, people will screw others to succeed.

personal responsibility
End of quote

No different than what I believe.

 

 

We believe that the private ownership of firearms is part of the solution to America's crime epidemic, not part of the problem. Evidence: law-abiding citizens in Florida have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.
End of quote

 

You think I am divergent from the right to keep and bear arms? When have I said that? I support the second amendment, even though I don't see the sense or point in keeping assault weapons, still though - to each their own.