Oabama passed 'Indefinite Detention' bill on NYE!
- Thread starter Precarious
- Start date
Help Support Mantidforum:
lol OBAMA!!!!!!
What you want another 4 years of obama drama and can you name one thing Gripen that he has done that is good for the country and good for the tax paying citizens and not those who think we need to spread the wealth mentality!
He is a tax and spend president more then all the other presidents combined and he has a socialist agenda and if you doubt me then take a look at these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s8UJ1AJnZ0
What you want another 4 years of obama drama and can you name one thing Gripen that he has done that is good for the country and good for the tax paying citizens and not those who think we need to spread the wealth mentality!
He is a tax and spend president more then all the other presidents combined and he has a socialist agenda and if you doubt me then take a look at these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s8UJ1AJnZ0
Precarious
Well-known member
You're not allowed to do that. The system is set up in such a way that it's virtually impossible. Those in power like it that way. Control only 2 parties and you rule the country. But I agree and that's why I like Ron Paul. He's as far from business-as-usual as we can hope to get. And his constitutional knowledge and loyalty will guarantee our country will be run as the founders intended for a change.
massaman i highly doubt you know what socialism is
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
Ah, I do know about socialism having lived under a socialist party. You are not alone in abhoring socialism, Massaman, but you may find that it is best fought on an individual basis. For example, if you know anyone, like my daughter, who receives disability payments, you might want to point out that while it is not enough of itself to have the US declared a socialist state, receiving government handouts isn't "rugged individualism", either. Generally, though, "socialist" has become the latest insult, now that "card carrying communist" is so 20th century, when you are not sure why you dislike/oppose someone. If you truly want to learn about socialism, though, Pragmatic Hominid is our forum expert and could probably suggest a few texts for you.
What genuinely puzzles me, though, is your comment, Henry, about the idyllic days and sentiments of the founding fathers. I am sure that many, if not most, Americans would agree with you, but though I have lved in the US for over half a century, I missed expoure to the American Ideal with which the young in their school years are embued.
My own, limited readings on the founding fathers and such docs as the Federalist Papers give me the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that they were a bunch of upper class bigots, who believed in the suffrage of only white males and who were quite happy, from the start, to trample on their own constitution in order to obtain their ends.
I'd love to do Buchanon, the Missouri Compromise and the secession, but by counting on my fingers, I find that he is #15, which is too late for our purposes, so John Adams, a much less nice man than Buchanon, I would think, will have to do instead. He must have been the original advocate of a "strong presidency". At least Obama and Bush tend/tended to listen to their cabinet. Adams, as you know, totally disregarded his advisors in such issues as America's relationship to France, and unilaterally decided to avoid war with them Much more egregious was his passing of the Aliens and Sedition Act (do I have that right? I'm going back to bed in minute and am too lazy to look it up) which abridged Americans' right to freedom of speech and put his federalist opponents at risk of being jailed for what they said in opposition in Congress. Fortunately, Jefferson beat him at the next election (its amazing how those 3/5 of a white man add up!), but he managed to use the same bill before it expired to get revenge on some of his own enemies. The spectacle of the Shiites and Sunis clobering each other is part of a long, universal tradition.
They were creatures of their time, and I doubt if they were any worse morally than their modern equivalents, but surely, to regard them as models of moral or political probity requires us to wear very thick and very rosy spectacles.
And the sibilant, sussurating sound of my silken sheets is becoming too persuasive to resist. Tomorrow to fresh fields and pastures new!
What genuinely puzzles me, though, is your comment, Henry, about the idyllic days and sentiments of the founding fathers. I am sure that many, if not most, Americans would agree with you, but though I have lved in the US for over half a century, I missed expoure to the American Ideal with which the young in their school years are embued.
My own, limited readings on the founding fathers and such docs as the Federalist Papers give me the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that they were a bunch of upper class bigots, who believed in the suffrage of only white males and who were quite happy, from the start, to trample on their own constitution in order to obtain their ends.
I'd love to do Buchanon, the Missouri Compromise and the secession, but by counting on my fingers, I find that he is #15, which is too late for our purposes, so John Adams, a much less nice man than Buchanon, I would think, will have to do instead. He must have been the original advocate of a "strong presidency". At least Obama and Bush tend/tended to listen to their cabinet. Adams, as you know, totally disregarded his advisors in such issues as America's relationship to France, and unilaterally decided to avoid war with them Much more egregious was his passing of the Aliens and Sedition Act (do I have that right? I'm going back to bed in minute and am too lazy to look it up) which abridged Americans' right to freedom of speech and put his federalist opponents at risk of being jailed for what they said in opposition in Congress. Fortunately, Jefferson beat him at the next election (its amazing how those 3/5 of a white man add up!), but he managed to use the same bill before it expired to get revenge on some of his own enemies. The spectacle of the Shiites and Sunis clobering each other is part of a long, universal tradition.
They were creatures of their time, and I doubt if they were any worse morally than their modern equivalents, but surely, to regard them as models of moral or political probity requires us to wear very thick and very rosy spectacles.
And the sibilant, sussurating sound of my silken sheets is becoming too persuasive to resist. Tomorrow to fresh fields and pastures new!
Last edited by a moderator:
StevieHification
Well-known member
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
Wow! What an impressive gallery of Youtube clips! This way, at least, no one can get warning points for inappropriate language. Since next Xmas is so far away, perhaps I should post this now:
lunarstorm
Well-known member
Thanks Phil, I appreciate your perspective.Ah, I do know about socialism having lived under a socialist party. You are not alone in abhoring socialism, Massaman, but you may find that it is best fought on an individual basis. For example, if you know anyone, like my daughter, who receives disability payments, you might want to point out that while it is not enough of itself to have the US declared a socialist state, receiving government handouts isn't "rugged individualism", either. Generally, though, "socialist" has become the latest insult, now that "card carrying communist" is so 20th century, when you are not sure why you dislike/oppose someone. If you truly want to learn about socialism, though, Pragmatic Hominid is our forum expert and could probably suggest a few texts for you.
What genuinely puzzles me, though, is your comment, Henry, about the idyllic days and sentiments of the founding fathers. I am sure that many, if not most, Americans would agree with you, but though I have lved in the US for over half a century, I missed expoure to the American Ideal with which the young in their school years are embued.
My own, limited readings on the founding fathers and such docs as the Federalist Papers give me the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that they were a bunch of upper class bigots, who believed in the suffrage of only white males and who were quite happy, from the start, to trample on their own constitution in order to obtain their ends.
I'd love to do Buchanon, the Missouri Compromise and the secession, but by counting on my fingers, I find that he is #15, which is too late for our purposes, so John Adams, a much less nice man than Buchanon, I would think, will have to do instead. He must have been the original advocate of a "strong presidency". At least Obama and Bush tend/tended to listen to their cabinet. Adams, as you know, totally disregarded his advisors in such issues as America's relationship to France, and unilaterally decided to avoid war with them Much more egregious was his passing of the Aliens and Sedition Act (do I have that right? I'm going back to bed in minute and am too lazy to look it up) which abridged Americans' right to freedom of speech and put his federalist opponents at risk of being jailed for what they said in opposition in Congress. Fortunately, Jefferson beat him at the next election (its amazing how those 3/5 of a white man add up!), but he managed to use the same bill before it expired to get revenge on some of his own enemies. The spectacle of the Shiites and Sunis clobering each other is part of a long, universal tradition.
They were creatures of their time, and I doubt if they were any worse morally than their modern equivalents, but surely, to regard them as models of moral or political probity requires us to wear very thick and very rosy spectacles.
And the sibilant, sussurating sound of my silken sheets is becoming too persuasive to resist. Tomorrow to fresh fields and pastures new!
And I especially appreciated the alliteration in your closure. Sibilant sussurating silken sheets?! Haha! Well played sir.
