• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Obama's Socialist Agenda Exposed

bedspirit

Active Member
Dems suck, I won't argue otherwise, my contention is that Repubs suck more is all. Obama is a great dissapointment to me, Gitmo, transparency in government, perpetuating wars, even more invasions of privacy, and don't get me started on his about face on marijuana.
I think that the perception that the Republicans are soley responsible for the lack of progress is manufactured. There are two ways to get someone to vote for you. One is to get them to like you and the other is getting you to hate the other guy. This election is all about voting against someone because no one is proud to vote for Obama or Romney.

I started a thread that explains why I these guys have so much in common that they could start their own political party: https://www.rollitup.org/politics/546688-false-left-right-paradigm.html
The number of issues that these guys agree on outnumber the issues they disagree on. If you look at the issues they differ on, you'll see that they're really not all that different. An example would be their positions on same sex marriage. One is cool with it, and the other isn't but they both want the states to decide, so there is no difference in policy between them. On taxes, larger businesses and wealthier people already have loopholes they can use to lower their tax rate. Since they already don't pay taxes based on the official rate, a few percentage points up or down from Obama and Romney will have a smaller impact than you think. Based on Romney statements about healthcare, it sounds like he's more interested in renaming Obamacare than repealing it. Their foreign policy is identical. It really doesn't matter who wins.

I have found that the vast majority of the third parties seem like they are the opposition to team Obama/Romney. The variety of Libertarians groups, Socialists, and Green Party all have the right things in common. They're opposed to the military industrial complex, they're against the drug war, and they're against efforts to regulate the internet, they're against the FED. I encourage to people to vote for any third party and change the right/left paradigm.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
President Barack Obama addressed supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday afternoon and took a shot at the business community. President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success:

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."



This is a typical speech of a college Marxist who's never ran a thing other than his mouth.

The sine qua non Teleprompter in-Chief revealed his true ambitions for transcending America.
This is propaganda at it's most insidious. It is an attempt to change the public's attitude toward the wealthy. Where does this idea of "give something back", come from? Successful people are supposed to feel guilty because they prosper? I think not. If they want to donate to charities, that's fine but for the government or anybody to tell them that they have to give something back just because they are successful is immoral... but then what else would you expect from a bunch of jealous little whiners.
 

bedspirit

Active Member
This is propaganda at it's most insidious. It is an attempt to change the public's attitude toward the wealthy. Where does this idea of "give something back", come from? Successful people are supposed to feel guilty because they prosper? I think not. If they want to donate to charities, that's fine but for the government or anybody to tell them that they have to give something back just because they are successful is immoral... but then what else would you expect from a bunch of jealous little whiners.
This is the justification for a progressive tax rate and it's not without warrant. A country with no taxes, no infrastructure, and no education is not the ideal place to process. Just ask all the food producers who moved to China in the early 2000's only to come scrambling back the the US a few years later.

But none of this matters. No worries. No one is going to have to give anything back. Our tax code is filled with opportunities to avoid paying taxes. Raise the tax rate on the wealthy and you can silence the poor angry mob below, while the wealthy just have to get more creative with subsidiaries and tax havens. Nothing really changes, just our perception.
 

bedspirit

Active Member
Process what, exactly?
It depends. If your product requires workers with hygiene or an education you'd probably be wise to stay out of China or Central America. In the mid 2000's we had a huge amount of food recalls because workers over there were uncleanly and were contaminating the hell out of everything. A lot of companies found that processing food in the US was cheaper because there were less recalls. The extra paid in taxes for education was a wise investment. On the other hand, if you making little plastic things like toys or utensils, you can get away with a tax free third world country.
 

bedspirit

Active Member
Second plank in the Communist Manifesto.
Whatever, man. Education has to be paid for. You can hope that enough parents do it. Or if they don't the state can set up a program to do it. How you divide the public's bill for that might land you a label like communist, socialist, or conservative.

what's the alternative? No education and a country of hillbilly dumb fucks?
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Whatever, man. Education has to be paid for. You can hope that enough parents do it. Or if they don't the state can set up a program to do it. How you divide the public's bill for that might land you a label like communist, socialist, or conservative.

what's the alternative? No education and a country of hillbilly dumb fucks?

Free, public, mandatory education... the 10th plank in the Communist Manifesto.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
If you look at the issues they differ on, you'll see that they're really not all that different. An example would be their positions on same sex marriage.
une 17, 2009: “Ordered the federal government to extend key benefits to same-s3x partners of federal employees.”

June 29, 2009: “Hosted the first-ever White House lg bt Pride reception.”

August 12, 2009: “Awarded the highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom, to Billie Jean King and Harvey Milk.”

October 28, 2009: “Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law.”

October 21, 2009: “Created a National Resource Center for l3sbian, g4y, Bis3xual, and Transgender Elders.”

January 1, 2010: “Banned discrimination in federal workplaces based on gender identity.”

January 4, 2010: “Lifted the ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States.”

March 23, 2010: “Enacted the Affordable Care Act, reforming health care in America by lowering costs, expanding choice, and improving health care quality.”

April 15, 2010: “Ensured hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for g4y and l3sbian patients.”

June 22, 2010: “Released America’s first comprehensive plan to prevent and end homelessness, which includes homeless lg bt youth.”

June 22, 2010: “Clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure family leave for lg bt employees.”

June 9, 2010: “Allowed transgender Americans to receive true gender passports without surgery.”

October 1, 2010: “Awarded a grant to the Los Angeles g4y and l3sbian Community Services Center to work with lg bt foster youth.”

October 21, 2010: “Recorded ‘It Gets Better’ video to support lg bt youth experiencing bullying.”

December 21, 2010: “Led a United Nations measure to restore ‘s3xual orientation’ to the definition of human rights.”

December 22, 2010: “Signed the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

March 10, 2011: “Hosted first-ever White House Conference on Bullying Prevention in America’s schools.”

February 23, 2011: “Declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and announced the administration will no longer defend it in court.”

March 31, 2011: “Completed an Institute of Medicine study on lg bt health, the first of its kind.”

May 27, 2011: “Issued guidance to foster safer working environments for transgender federal employees.”

July 19, 2011: “Endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, a legislative effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.”

August 15, 2011: “Ended the Social Security Administration’s gender ‘no-match’ letters.”

August 19, 2011: “Supported l3sbian widow Edith Windsor in her suit against DOMA.”

August 18, 2011: “Clarified the meaning of ‘family’ to include lg bt relationships, helping to protect bi-national families threatened by deportation.”

September 20, 2011: “Implemented the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

September 30, 2011: “Permitted military chaplains to officiate same-s3x marriages where legal.”

October 1, 2011: “Addressed the annual Human Rights Campaign dinner for the second time.”

October 20, 2011: “Awarded Citizen’s Medal to Janice Langbehn, l3sbian mother whose story paved the way for hospital visitation rights for same-s3x couples.”

October 13, 2011: “Allison Nathan become second openly g4y appointee to be confirmed to the federal bench under President Obama’s administration.”

October 31, 2011: “Included specific data on health needs of l3sbian and bis3xual women in the Health Resources and Services Administration’s ‘Women’s Health USA 2011' federal report.”

November 1, 2011: “In his presidential proclamation of National Adoption Month, President Obama called for equal treatment for same-s3x adoptive parents.”

December 6, 2011: “Created first-ever U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against lg bt persons abroad.”

December 1, 2011: “On World AIDS Day, recommitted the U.S. to creating an AIDS-free generation.”

January 8, 2012: “Announced HUD’s new rule protecting against housing discrimination based on s3xual orientation and gender identity.”

February 2, 2012: “Announced White House lg bt Conference Series to address issues affecting lg bt Americans, including health, housing and safety.”

February 7, 2012: “Promoted equal access to quality health care by enabling searches for health plans with same-s3x partner benefits on Healthcare.gov.”

February 13, 2012: “Proposed a 2013 federal budget for an economy built to last, including providing security for the lg bt community.”

March 5, 2012: “Ensured transgender veterans receive respectful care according to their true gender through the Veterans Health Administration.”

March 15, 2012: “Michael Fitzgerald, fourth openly g4y nominee under President Obama, is confirmed to the federal bench in California.”

March 16, 2012: “Came out against North Carolina’s Amendment 1, which would prohibit same-s3x marriage in the state.”

Dont worry
If you or someone else brings it up again
I will just repost this list
 

ink the world

Well-Known Member
This is propaganda at it's most insidious. It is an attempt to change the public's attitude toward the wealthy. Where does this idea of "give something back", come from? Successful people are supposed to feel guilty because they prosper? I think not. If they want to donate to charities, that's fine but for the government or anybody to tell them that they have to give something back just because they are successful is immoral... but then what else would you expect from a bunch of jealous little whiners.
Your post is insidious deception at it's worst.

You're are an intelligent man, I know that from your postings here. You are purposely misrepresenting what he said and you know it. He said that things work best when private industry and govt work together. The 2 depend on each other. Without govt. research and investment we wouldn't be here debating.

He never said anything about people "giving back", more bullshit.

It's sad when your point is baseless and completely built on bullshit and easily verifiable misrepresentations. Anyone with a set of ears and a working brain can listen to his speech to get the truth instead of regurgitated bullshit Fox talking points
 

beenthere

New Member
It depends. If your product requires workers with hygiene or an education you'd probably be wise to stay out of China or Central America. In the mid 2000's we had a huge amount of food recalls because workers over there were uncleanly and were contaminating the hell out of everything. A lot of companies found that processing food in the US was cheaper because there were less recalls. The extra paid in taxes for education was a wise investment. On the other hand, if you making little plastic things like toys or utensils, you can get away with a tax free third world country.
Are you saying that the FDA is just another useless reactionary bureaucracy?
 

beenthere

New Member
Your post is insidious deception at it's worst.

You're are an intelligent man, I know that from your postings here. You are purposely misrepresenting what he said and you know it. He said that things work best when private industry and govt work together. The 2 depend on each other. Without govt. research and investment we wouldn't be here debating.

He never said anything about people "giving back", more bullshit.

It's sad when your point is baseless and completely built on bullshit and easily verifiable misrepresentations. Anyone with a set of ears and a working brain can listen to his speech to get the truth instead of regurgitated bullshit Fox talking points
You got those MSM marching orders down don't you. Why is it you lefties always have to translate what Obama says? Obviously your missing a set of ears or a working brain, Obama's speech was nothing but a half digested regurgitation of the New Party creed.
 

ink the world

Well-Known Member
I have no clue wtf MSM is.

I dont have marching orders from anyone. I do have a rational brain that can hear someone talking and comprehend what they're saying. You obviously either don't have that ability or are so full of rage with Obama that anything he says or does is wrong.

Being able to comprehend something doesn't make me a leftist or whatever bullshit tag you wanna place in me. In case you havent figured it out you sir are an extremist. The vast majority of Americans are left of you. That doesn't make us Leftists, it makes us reasonable people.
 

beenthere

New Member
I have no clue wtf MSM is.

I dont have marching orders from anyone. I do have a rational brain that can hear someone talking and comprehend what they're saying. You obviously either don't have that ability or are so full of rage with Obama that anything he says or does is wrong.

Being able to comprehend something doesn't make me a leftist or whatever bullshit tag you wanna place in me. In case you havent figured it out you sir are an extremist. The vast majority of Americans are left of you. That doesn't make us Leftists, it makes us reasonable people.
Yeah, ok! LOL
 

beenthere

New Member
Great retort oh wise one, but you forgot the marginilized extremists calling cards. Lemme help you..

Socialist!
Marxist!
Anti American!
Secret Muslim brotherhood mole

You are the Michelle Bachman of RIU man. Thanks for the laughs
Ya getting cooped up in mom and dads basement?
 

ink the world

Well-Known Member
Nah, sitting on my back deck enjoying a great coastal New England morning w/ a great cup
of coffee and a bowl of Querkle. Just checked the garden outside and inside. Fed my babies and made breakfast for the kids. Gotta love fresh eggs from our chickens.

You?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I am not claiming that one side only delivers the gospel truth. I am claiming that due to the sociological nature of the different sides that the right is more prone to offer the public a wildly distorted perception while the left far less so. It is easy to say "oh they both do it, so why should I beleieve anyone" but that would be lazy thinking. The left consistantly presents information more in tuen with reality than does the right. For instance, I have been talking about the rightist echo chamber where opinions are injected into the public debate and then bounced around from rightist source to rightist source finally to become common wisdom or common "fact". This occurs far less often on the left. The right depends upon general agreement or consensus, they cannot tolerate thoughts that do not conform to the generaly accepted norm and so they will naturaly tend to distort.
your perspective distorts your perceptions.

the leftist press and the rightist press are both pandering to their respective adherents, both are using the same methods of distortion, to the same degree which is absolute distortion to it's utmost. CNN use to pay Glen Beck to sling the same batshit crazy crap that fox paid him to sling. he would have been fired by niether side if he had toed the line and only indulged in the speculation lies and deceptions that favored their separate but inseparable agendas.

the press on both sides is playing tug-o-war with the public, and both sides require the other to keep from falling on their asses. politics in america is no longer a battle of ideals or ideas it's a battle for control of the populace and the cash resources of the tax payers.

Barrack Obama wants the tax payers to give him every penny they have to:

make the world more fair and just (despite the fact that only utopians could believe his nonsense)
provide "healthcare to all" (yet he has no qualms about passing it all through the sticky fingered middlemen of the insurance companies and their profit driven boards of directors)
restore our economy to greatness (but not the greatness of the past, a new indefinable greatness where companies exist to provide jobs)

Mitt Romney want the taxpayers to give him every penny they have to:

restore our economy to greatness (but only the greatness which enriches the investors and money changers)
provide "healthcare for most" (yet he also wants to pass it all through the sticky fingers of the same middlemen)
make the world a safer more peaceful place (by ushering in the 1000 year reign of jesus, and casting all unbelievers into outer darkness)

the press has prepared two cups, we must drink from one. both are poisoned, but one has a dose of Country-Time lemonade for those who like their poison tangy, the other is mixed with delicious Grape Kool-Aide for those who prefer it sweet.

meanwhile the realists, and honest straight shooters like ron paul are offering a glass of piss. we need to drink the piss, or face ruin. needless to say the poison is more popular with those who have no grasp of consequences.

stop arguing over which predatory sodomite is going to fuck you in the ass, and join the fight to keep our butt-holes intact.
 

beenthere

New Member
Nah, sitting on my back deck enjoying a great coastal New England morning w/ a great cup
of coffee and a bowl of Querkle. Just checked the garden outside and inside. Fed my babies and made breakfast for the kids. Gotta love fresh eggs from our chickens.

You?
Lucky for you, I can't smoke in the morning during the week, I have to make a living.
You?
 
Top