Turnabout Is Fair Play

[dtmfs]

Barack stammers a bit, no big deal, but even rebulicans HAVE to know Obama is far more itelligent. and he's fucking cool, I don't agree with some of his policies and I thought it was cool when he basically bitch slapped the GOP last week.

But man the two of these guys honestly can't be compared, it's like comparing bob dylan and LFO in the lyrical department, Obama is so much smarter than bush it's not even funny. they all have gaffes who the fuck wouldn't?

[Drunk Kennedy]

you gotta admit it is more than kinda awkward for a the commander in chief to refer to someone as a corpse-man.

[VinnieKulick]

As a prior corpsman, I take great offense!

Just kidding. I guess they need to spell everything in phonetics on his teleprompter from now on.

[Ugmo]

"Corpse man..." Ouch!

[dtmfs]

i'm gonna have to watch the link, I ssumed it was something i've seen before like the lettermen bit.

[Ugmo]

Just kidding. I guess they need to spell everything in phonetics on his teleprompter from now on.

The TOTUS in need of phonetics. That's pretty sad if that's necessary...especially with the level of education he has.

This recent example begs the question -- Can't he adjust his speech extemporaneously with what he sees on the teleprompter?

Others have pointed this out in other venues, but what is he now -- Ron Burgundy?

LINK

I don't get the whole teleprompter criticism. Is that the best his detractors have? If you want to see him speaking without a teleprompter, watch his Q&A with the House Republicans from last week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuG2TdgMn0

He does just fine without a teleprompter, and he knows his shit. Can you picture Dubya this at ease fielding questions from House Democrats?

[Ugmo]

You don't get the teleprompter criticism because he's very reliant upon it. His extemporaneous speaking is not as good as you imagine it to be.

And puhlease. Give it a rest already talking about Bush. He's out of office.

Can you picture Obama actually having to debate Newt Gingrich without notes and without a teleprompter?

Is this a joke? Of course I can.

Did you watch him owning the GOP in that Q&A without a teleprompter?

[Ugmo]

No, the reality is your defense of him is joke. The only thing Obama owns is a copy of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, nut-swinger. He's full of Leftist/Marist talking points and devoid of critical thinking.

Okay... another right-wing nutjob who has no idea what Marxism means. It's going to be fun poking holes in all your talking points for the next few weeks.

You won't even admit that Obama owned and bashed the GOP at their own retreat, to the extent that they were saying afterwards it was a "mistake" to let the cameras film it.

[Hames Jetfield]

You don't get the teleprompter criticism because he's very reliant upon it. His extemporaneous speaking is not as good as you imagine it to be.

And puhlease. Give it a rest already talking about Bush. He's out of office.

Can you picture Obama actually having to debate Newt Gingrich without notes and without a teleprompter?

Is this a joke? Of course I can.

Did you watch him owning the GOP in that Q&A without a teleprompter?

No, the reality is your defense of him is joke. The only thing Obama owns is a copy of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, nut-swinger. He's full of Leftist/Marist talking points and devoid of critical thinking.

He has a majority in the Senate and the House and he can't get anything done. What's his excuse? There is no excuse.

Give him sixty minutes with Newt Gingrich in full out debate of ideas, and you'll see your president walk away with his tail between his legs and looking like the political neophyte that he is.

Watch and learn...

LINK

Marist? Do you idiots understand anything about Marxism and Communism? Or are you just a right-wing talking point espousing idiot? Even if you disagree with him you would be an idiot not see that this president's oratory ability is miles better than his predecessor. He may not be Cicero but he isn't Bush II or Warren Harding.

[Ugmo]

I think "Marxism" is the right-wing's version of Godwinning a thread. Whenever a right-winger describes Obama as a Marxist, that should be considered an admission that the lights are on but nobody's home and should be accepted as automatic capitulation in any debate.

[Ugmo]

Tee Hee!

Obama is surrounded by avowed Marxist and Communists. That's good shit Eanax.

Why do I get the feeling you aren't going to be taken seriously here by either the lefties or the righties if you keep this up?

[Hames Jetfield]

No, the reality is your defense of him is joke. The only thing Obama owns is a copy of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, nut-swinger. He's full of Leftist/Marist talking points and devoid of critical thinking.

Okay... another right-wing nutjob who has no idea what Marxism means. It's going to be fun poking holes in all your talking points for the next few weeks.

You won't even admit that Obama owned and bashed the GOP at their own retreat, to the extent that they were saying afterwards it was a "mistake" to let the cameras film it.

The funniest thing that Obama said in that "retreat" is that he's not an ideologue. ROTFLMFAO! That's rich, really.

Obama has surrounded himself with people who are known as radical Leftists -- among them avowed Marxists and Communists. Where's Van Jones now after his rantings were exposed? Where is Anita Dunn now after praising Chairman Mao? And these are just but a few. His cabinet and staff are full of like-minded ideologues.

All right pal, so you listed two people that said stupid things and are now gone. And I'm sure you found out about them from Glenn Beck since he was the one who went after Dunn and played the Mao clip. You've already exposed yourself as an idiot. So, other than those two, who are the others? I am really interested as an American to know--enlighten me. There’s plenty to attack Obama on, but when you whip out words like “Marxist” or ‘Leftist” it just shows how much Kool-Aid you drink..

[Ugmo]

I've yet to see you put forth a cogent argument defending your position or your Dear Leader. The facts reveal who Obama has surrounded himself with in his cabinet and with his Czars.

You're the nutjob who just claimed the President of the United States is a Marxist. Please explain which of his policies make him a Marxist. The burden of proof is on you, since you are making the loony accusations.

Don't like it when your president is ridiculed for not know how to pronounce 'corpsman'?

Wrong. I don't care. In fact I laughed when I saw the video and responded as such on this thread. The guy was the President of the Harvard Law Review and presumably has an IQ about three times as high as yours. Indeed, you don't even have the slightest idea what Marxism is. As such, I'm going to enjoy ridiculing you over the next few weeks unless you stop posting moronic drivel.

Again, this is a man who holds a B.A. from Columbia University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, and is supposedly the most articulate president we've ever had, and he said: "corpse-man." Not once but three times during that speech. Sad.

Yeah, well so what. If this is all the lunatic right-wing fringe has to offer, you are going to get steamrolled by him again in 2012 when you run Sarah Palin against him. That's going to be glorious.

[Hames Jetfield]

Marist? Do you idiots understand anything about Marxism and Communism? Or are you just a right-wing talking point espousing idiot? Even if you disagree with him you would be an idiot not see that this president's oratory ability is miles better than his predecessor. He may not be Cicero but he isn't Bush II or Warren Harding.

Of course I know plenty of what Marxism and Communism is. Let Lech Walesa or Václav Havel tell you how great communism was.

I think it's funny that you guys constantly want to go back to Bush. That's fine. It's easy for you. You're comfortable there. But God forbid ANYONE dare log any criticism of your Dear Leader.

It's also interesting that all that's important to you is Obama's oratory skills. What does that have to do with the man's ability to make good decisions or think through problems? Those are also highly important skills necessary for a president.

And once again do you understand Marxism and Communism? Not just the abysmal ways that they have been implemented? I never said I thought either was great but I'm sure I have a better understanding of Marxist philosophy than you; you, instead, just use the words as talking points against this president.

OMG Obama is a Marxist-dictator who is inept and can't pass any legislation. He is an iron-fisted failure that will bring America to its knees even though he can barely get anything done.

[Hames Jetfield]

All right pal, so you listed two people that said stupid things and are now gone. And I'm sure you found out about them from Glenn Beck since he was the one who went after Dunn and played the Mao clip. You've already exposed yourself as an idiot. So, other than those two, who are the others? I am really interested as an American to know--enlighten me. There’s plenty to attack Obama on, but when you whip out words like “Marxist” or ‘Leftist” it just shows how much Kool-Aid you drink..

Hmm. Ad hominem attacks are unleashed because F-A-C-T-S are causing you problems. Typical.

Anita Dunn is a Communist. She showed her true colors. Van Jones is a Communist. He showed his true colors.

I do NOT care who exposes these people for who they really are and what they espouse. The questions are why were they associated with the White House in the first place, and if they are so proud of their beliefs, why did they resign after being exposed?

I know the answer to the later -- damage control and the reality of their beliefs and, ultimately, their agenda must be kept under wraps.

Where are the facts? Show me where Obama is a Marxist? Until then quit attacking him with such unfounded labels. If you find evidence please let me know. You can disagree with him on the issues but once you start throwing the red meat you aren't going to be taken seriously be anyone other than your usual circle.

[Hames Jetfield]

are also highly important skills necessary for a president.And once again do you understand Marxism and Communism? Not just the abysmal ways that they have been implemented? I never said I thought either was great but I'm sure I have a better understanding of Marxist philosophy than you; you, instead, just use the words as talking points against this president.

Oh, that's the problem -- the "abysmal ways that they have been implemented." Cite examples where communism has been implemented and is a rousing success.

So, what you're left with is your love of a political philosophy. Theory and implementation/reality are two different things. What you believe in is all a fantasy. Why? Because people have free will and they want to do what they want to do.

Communism/Marxism ignores man's basic desires. As Frank Zappa famously quipped (paraphrasing): "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Man you're stupid! I never said it should implemented, and, it's been a disaster wherever it has been. However, in order to understand these failures and to know how to tell what is Marxism and what isn't, you should understand the Philosophy. I don't believe in communism.

[Hames Jetfield]

Man you're stupid! I never said it should implemented, and, it's been a disaster wherever it has been. However, in order to understand these failures and to know how to tell what is Marxism and what isn't, you should understand the Philosophy. I don't believe in communism.

Strawman.

I said show me (us) where it has been implemented and is a success. It's a simple request.

Exlax

I never said it should have been implemented or that it was ever a success. However, before you go spouting off that someone, or something, is Marxist you should first understand the philosophy itself.

[tin00can]

For the people in this thread complaining about "going back to Bush": wasn't this thread started to compare Obama to Bush? I think that at least in this case, it is justified.

[Ugmo]

For the people in this thread complaining about "going back to Bush": wasn't this thread started to compare Obama to Bush? I think that at least in this case, it is justified.

Well said. With your permission I would now like to compare Bush to Hitler.

[Ugmo]

Well said. With your permission I would now like to compare Bush to Hitler.

I'm sure this won't be a big leap for you since it had been your pastime for the past several years, MattBro. Like riding a bike, huh?

If I ever compared Bush to Hitler it was in jest (come on, everyone is familiar with Godwin's Law). Whereas you just stated apparently with a straight face that you consider Obama to be a Marxist, but can't seem to back up that ludicrous allegation with any kind of example of Marxist policy on his part.

Please tell me that was meant to be humor on your part.

[Ugmo]

Example 1: Higher taxes on those that produce wealth. This is also known as "redistribution of wealth." Redistribution of wealth is the key to "social justice," which Dear Leader and Leftists/Progressives/Etc. are a strong proponents of. Additionally, this redistribution of monies allows for some very advantageous vote buying. A state project for you, a local government program for her, more educational grants for him. And on and on.

This process is another baby-step to push the country closer to socialism and with the eventual arrival at communism. That's the Marxist way. Now, this entire process takes a long time to implement and has to be done slowly and methodically. People who have freedom (or what's left of it) aren't real keen on letting that liberty go so easily.

So, this form of social class political warfare is perfectly in line with Marxist thought.

No you dunce, it's known as a progressive income tax, and by your definition it makes every president since Woodrow Wilson a Marxist.

Progressive income tax = not Marxism.

Example 2: Universal Health Care. You know, under communism, and even the earlier stage, socialism, the "Government" takes care of you. You are absolved of a major responsibility in your life -- taking care of yourself. It will become a different form of slavery. A slavery that will begin to mandate how you should live your life. Everybody will have the same health care -- crappy and mediocre is what it will become, but everybody will have it. Who needs freedom, right?

Universal health care = not Marxism.

Universal health care in fact has jack shit to do with Marxism. I was right, you have no idea what Marxism or communism are.

Jesus, maybe you Tea Party morons should change the channel sometime. Fox News is killing your braincells.

[tin00can]

If I ever compared Bush to Hitler it was in jest (come on, everyone is familiar with Godwin's Law). Whereas you just stated apparently with a straight face that you consider Obama to be a Marxist, but can't seem to back up that ludicrous allegation with any kind of example of Marxist policy on his part.

Example 1: Higher taxes on those that produce wealth. This is also known as "redistribution of wealth." Redistribution of wealth is the key to "social justice," which Dear Leader and Leftists/Progressives/Etc. are a strong proponents of. Additionally, this redistribution of monies allows for some very advantageous vote buying. A state project for you, a local government program for her, more educational grants for him. And on and on.

This process is another baby-step to push the country closer to socialism with the final destination being communism. That's the Marxist way. Now, this entire process takes a long time to implement and has to be done slowly and methodically. People who have freedom (or what's left of it) aren't real keen on letting that liberty go so easily.

So, this form of social class political warfare is perfectly in line with Marxist thought.

Example 2: Universal Health Care. You know, under communism, and even the earlier stage, socialism, the "Government" takes care of you. You are absolved of a major responsibility in your life -- taking care of yourself. It will become a different form of slavery. A slavery that will begin to mandate how you should live your life. Everybody will have the same health care -- crappy and mediocre is what it will become, but everybody will have it. Who needs freedom, right?

So are we supposed to increase taxes on those who don't produce wealth? How is that supposed to work? I thought the middle-class was already taxed to the limit; how can we tax them/us more? And just how drastic is this "redistribution of wealth" you are talking about? Of course, you qualify it by saying that it is gradual and takes a lot of time, thus making it easy to say it is a slippery slope that we're mounted on top of. Doesn't this paranoia assume that the democrats will be in power for a long time? Otherwise, I'm not sure how such a sinister, gradual plan could be implemented. It seems to me that power shifts fairly frequently between the two parties, both in the executive and legislative branches. If your argument is correct, doesn't that mean both parties are working toward this goal?

That said, I'm not advocating huge tax increases on the rich; that would indeed look like punishment for success. However, I do believe everybody should pay an equal share, which I why I favor a flat tax and consumption tax.

Also, a point: when you throw in snide stuff like "Dear Leader" it greatly weakens your argument. Well, it does for me, at the least.

I'm amazed at how quickly you were able to equate universal health care with slavery and the government "taking care of you." Doesn't health insurance, no matter where it comes from, "take care of you?" Are you trying to argue that people are healthy now and will just get slovenly if the government takes over health care?

Your arguments have more leaps than a cirque de soliel marathon.

[Ugmo]

More ad hominems. Typical.

The key term you're missing there, Skippy, is Progressive. It comes from Progressives' ideas from the turn of the 19th/20th centuries.

In the progressive tax system, the more you make; the more they take. Soak those that are actually productive. Doing so creates a disincentive to better yourself and simultaneously creates an ever-growing group of people dependent on government. Those folks will look to and vote for those politicians who propose the government solution to their problems. These types of policies/programs/ideas are the very early stages of socialism.

You really are ideologically blind, Mattbro. You can't see the forest for the trees.

Dude, you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. A progressive income tax does not equal Marxism, communism, socialism or whatever other batshit crazy term you want to throw around. It just doesn't. The United States has had a progressive income tax since the Woodrow Wilson presidency in 1913. Are you seriously claiming that every single U.S. president since 1913 was a socialist?

The top earners during the Eisenhower presidency had to give 90 percent of their income to the government. Dwight Fucking Eisenhower! The guy that stood up to Kruschev to prevent the Communist domino effect, was a socialist?

You might not be in favor of a progressive income tax, and you have every right to that opinion, but it has jack shit to do with socialism.

Universal health care: every single first-world country besides the United States has universal health care coverage. Are you seriously claiming that they are all Marxist countries?

This is just an epic fail on your part. I don't know where you are getting this faulty information from, but if it's Fox News then you clearly need to watch less of it.

[Ugmo]

Seems as if the President of the United States and the leader of the communist party are playing for the same team.

Barack Obama has a pet dog. You know who else had a pet dog?


Hitler.

[Ugmo]

That one rules!

[tin00can]

It's cool how eanax has to keep reminding everybody that ugmo is mattbro.

Dude, we know. Really, we do. But hey, feel free to throw it in every post you quote him from.

[tin00can]

Remember when the terrorists were telling us we'd have hell to pay if we elected Obama?

So I guess that means they side with the republicans. Therefore, in the last election our choice was between a terrorist and a communist.

[Hames Jetfield]

Dude, you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. A progressive income tax does not equal Marxism, communism, socialism or whatever other batshit crazy term you want to throw around. It just doesn't. The United States has had a progressive income tax since the Woodrow Wilson presidency in 1913. Are you seriously claiming that every single U.S. president since 1913 was a socialist?

All of them were far more Progressive/Socialist-oriented than they were Federalists -- in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, who would not have supported a Federal income tax.

The top earners during the Eisenhower presidency had to give 90 percent of their income to the government. Dwight Fucking Eisenhower! The guy that stood up to Kruschev to prevent the Communist domino effect, was a socialist?

That level of taxation was insane. And JFK, who would have been a fiscal conservative by today's standards, dropped that level to 70%. His famous phrase was "a rising tide lifts all boats." And he was right.

You might not be in favor of a progressive income tax, and you have every right to that opinion, but it has jack shit to do with socialism.

You're right, I am not in favor of a progressive income tax system. And, you're wrong because a progressive income tax has everything to do with getting to Socialism. It's soaking the rich and redistributing the proceeds to those whose votes can be bought. Soak the rich and create a disincentive to make money. Thus, eventually and effectively, tightening the tourniquet on capitalism. It's a different path to get to Socialism, but it's still effective.

Universal health care: every single first-world country besides the United States has universal health care coverage. Are you seriously claiming that they are all Marxist countries?

And they are all Socialist countries. Socialism is just one step from Communism -- the supposed ideal. You should know that. Seeing how you claim to know so much about Marxist philosophical thought.

And just because every other "first-world country" has it does not mean the U.S. should. Applying your logic in another scenario, just because all of your friends jumped out of the second floor window and didn't get hurt, doesn't mean you should do the same thing thinking you won't get injured.

You should read America Alone by Mark Steyn. He points out why Socialist states in Europe will eventually fall into ruin.

This is just an epic fail on your part. I don't know where you are getting this faulty information from, but if it's Fox News then you clearly need to watch less of it.

Your hyperbolic claims of victory ring hollow and show an immaturity rivaled by an 8th grader. The difference is an 8th grader sometimes listens.

What proof do you have that the founding fathers wouldn't support an income tax today if they were alive? If you do I’d like to see it. It makes laugh when people think they know what the founding fathers would do today. Madison chartered the second National bank, something he shouldn't have done as a true "Jeffersonian."

Your whole argument of Obama being a Marxist is a straw man because there is nothing saying that any of his specific policies would lead to Socialism, nor is there any concrete proof that Socialism / Communism / Marxism is his goal—it’s what you have inferred from your “information.” Fine, but it doesn’t make it true. Obama saying we need comprehensive medical reform doesn’t mean that that proposition, even if passed, will lead to a communist state. In summation you’re an idiot. And I’m done with this thread.

[HeavyMetalZombie666]

A mere coincidence.

Except I consider him more on the level of socialism. Not fascism. But both political directions are not healthy anyways. I do think with Scott Brown's win that Obama is now scared that he will lose and has to try and placate Republicans.

[thejuggernaut]

No you dunce, it's known as a progressive income tax, and by your definition it makes every president since Woodrow Wilson a Marxist.

Progressive income tax = not Marxism.

More ad hominems. Typical.

The key term you're missing there, Skippy, is Progressive. It comes from Progressives' ideas from the turn of the 19th/20th centuries.

In the progressive tax system, the more you make; the more they take. Soak those that are actually productive. Doing so creates a disincentive to better yourself and simultaneously creates an ever-growing group of people dependent on government. Those folks will look to and vote for those politicians who propose the government solution to their problems. These types of policies/programs/ideas are the very early stages of socialism.

You really are ideologically blind, Mattbro. You can't see the forest for the trees.

Whoa.

Ugmo is Mattbro ?