See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama says attacking everything white is a successful strategy
Source:
Naked Emperor News
URL Source: http://www.nakedemperornews.com/
Published: May 19, 2008
Author: Naked Emperor News
Post Date: 2008-05-19 22:09:48 by RickyJ
Keywords: None
Views: 2061
Comments: 62
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-22) not displayed.
.
.
.
#23. To: Hayek Fan (#22)
Bushthink, which is a form of Stalinthink, is when you say: "if it's not blue, then it MUST be yellow (blue=good, yellow=bad).
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
My retirement plan is privately funded. Try again.
It appears to me that you are using the term to describe anyone who believes that federal central planning and income redistribution is highly inefficient and doomed to failure. By the way, unless you are talking about how the feds are using income redistribution to militarize law enforcement, valid local governmental services like law enforcement functions is apples and oranges with federal income redistribution and central planning. That dog don't hunt.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
This spat has been about the changing politics of the Os. They have tossed their principles to the curb in favor of a glimpse of their Saviour. All things considered, it's always best to know who people are. Leftists aren't to be trusted, on a political or personal basis.
You refuse to face reality, my friend. You were paid by the state (or the city) with money they took from others, usually without their consent. I call that redistribution. Your 'private' retirement fund was also funded with moneys taken from others. The source for your paycheck or retirement check is the same as that that funds a welfare queen's paycheck. Would you say that you support SOME forms of redistributions but not those that don't benefit you directly?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
'valid'? So you are saying that there is 'valid' redistribution but there's also redistribution that you don't like. The valid redistribution is okay and is conservative but the redistribution that you don't like is liberal. Have you heard of Thoreau? He's a famous dead American. He spent some time in jail for refusing to fund a certain 'valid' redistribution program at the time. He had some most interesting life experiences, including his attempt to completely remove himself from human society.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
What it appears to you, it appears. I am using the term to define inflexible, binary thinking where the desired conclusion is derived from false premises. Would you promise never to even smell alcohol or would you rather be a liver-diseased and brain-diseased alcoholic? Would you eat your veggies or would you rather starve to death?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
One requires a unit of production (city employees) while the other form of redistribution (Obama's model) rewards welfare queens for breathing. I'm not shocked you ascribe to Obama welfare model. Your still wrong on my pension. Sorry.
No, you are distorting the accepted definition of income redistribution in order to to justify your support of a man who wants to not only continue but vastly expand federal income redistribution. The only question is are you distorting out of ignorance or are you twisting words in order to further your pro big government agenda.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Really? What are city employees doing, other than polluting the air with their breathing? I remember when my Brooklyn (Bay Ridge) apartment was burglarized. One of my neighbors saw the perpetrators and he was willing and eager to provide the cops with a lot of information, including what they looked like, where they came from and where they went. The cops - 3 or 4 of them - came to my place, looked around, asked me what was missing and then left. They REFUSED to talk to my neighbor. That was tax money at work - redistribution at its worst. And, no, the perps were not negroes - if you are a New Yorker you know that there can be no negroes in Bay Ridge. You clearly support all kinds of redistributions but some of them, such as the LITTLE money that goes to help overweight welfare queens eat and breath, you oppose. You seem to be very confused and very biased but this is normal, given that you are yourself a small beneficiary of the government's redistributions.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Jeez.....sorry you had a bad experience with the NYPD. You aren't alone. It's never too late to head back to Bay Ridge and make a formal complaint. 68th Pct? Yeah, I think so..... What do city workers do, as opposed to the welfare queens that you insist remain fully funded with tax dollars? Sorry, I can't do stooooopid this early. Come back later, perhaps tonight after 8PM when Madam Hillary will have exposed Obama's White problem in KY. OK?
You know what the cops told me when I asked them why they refused to investigate and at least talk to my neighbor? They told me that the stuff stolen - I came home early and they escaped through the window while I was entering through the front door and they didn't have time to steal a lot - was not worth their investigation. Now, you tell me, would I prefer a welfare queen or a 3-4 city cops to work on this case? From a redistribution point of view, I'd take the welfare queen any time. Both 'teams' would do nothing or very little as far as catching the thieves but the welfare queen is a lot cheaper so there's less redistribution needed.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
So, why don't you clarify yourself? You seem to be for the 'good' redistribution but against the 'bad' redistribution. Yes?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Study up on production vs. non production and then come back to the argument armed with something more than a single digit IQ. Now scat!
Production? You still refuse to face the fact that you were and you continue to be paid with money taken BY FORCE from your fellow citizens who did not necessarily ask for and do not need your services. If you believe that the money that keeps coming into your bank account is given away by your fellow New Yorkers freely and voluntarily, I suggest that you do some research and see what happens to those who refuse to voluntarily finance your work. Maybe you arrested some of those yourself - which, indeed, is a most productive service to society. Therefore, let's hear. Are you for redistribution, are you for some redistribution or do you oppose all forms of redistribution via government? Your refusal to answer this important question - and I gave you 3 options, of which the one in the middle allows for an infinite number of degrees - will indicate your losing the argument and your admitting that, in fact, you are for redistribution, to the degree that it benefits you or to the degree that you 'like' it but that you firmly oppose the redistributions that don't benefit you or that you don't like.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
And you Opeople wonder why all that some have for you is utter mocking and disdain. Then all you L-O-S-E-R-S run off to the People's Place and chatter like 7th grade girls, thinking your intellectual dishonesty exhibits on FREEDOM4um were cute. Kill a Commie for Mommy
There is an accepted definition of what income redistribution is and you are being intellectually dishonest by attempting to make it something it isn't and never has been.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
What!!!!!!!! Produce said citizen, citizen, I DEMAND it! PS: Man, I loved the Hamilton House on 92st in the Ridge. I had a favorite window seat with a great view of the Verrazano Bridge. Their prime rib was like butter. They fed cops on the arm, as did Howe's Steak House, but you probably know that :P
I support him despite his leftism not because of his leftism. Big difference. It is a tactical issue. How do we best get from where we are now (the edge of a fascist night) to where we want to be (freedom)? Your answer is: Sit on our hands and wait for the perfect pro-freedom candidate to come along, even if, in the meantime, that allows the GOP to stay in power and complete its total Nazi-fication of America. My answer is: Vote for the least fascist mainstream candidate to prevent the hard core fascists from keeping power, frustrate the Nazi-fiers and buy time so that the nation is not plunged past a point of no return into total tyranny. That way, the forces of freedom at least have a chance of staging a come back. Our circumstance is too dire to allow ourselves to be paralyzed into inaction by the old false left-right divide. We must ju jitsu the establishment into making war on itself. If that means empowering the socialist left to make war on the fascist right, then so be it. It's better than the alternative.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Yes, in the name of defeating socialism, I think JT's pension should be given to Halliburton via some no-bid contract. I'm sure there are some white elephant security systems that NYC can install in lieu of redistributing money in such a socialist fashion to actual citizens. That's the GOP's mode of governance, after all, and JT (apparently) prefers that to Obama's socialism. So, it's time to live your creed, JT. What do ya say? Maybe you should send your pension check to Halliburton directly, and cut out the middleman. ;^)
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
did you listen to Tarpley? his opinion is that Obama and his team have their own brand of fascism that could be even more lethal for individual americans.
Of course, that's why ObamaCON was elevated in '04. And if you look at the People's Place, many are assuaging their WG and others believe his "Universal Health Care" model is 'better' than the alternate proposals. Now they're trying to sell this load. Sick. To think I've known some of these frauds for 10+ years and had no clue they were moles.
The “lesser” conundrum is a ruse designed by the Elite and offered to the electorate in hopes they continue to “choose.” They do. I see your participation as bread and circus, nothing more. For two months now I’ve studied Obama’s foreign policy (his domestic policy is a disaster, complete with a major gun grabbing push). On FP, his differs ever so slightly from Hillary’s, and differs with that of McCain only in that Obama will change battlefields, shifting our resources to Afghanistan and perhaps the Pakistan border to hunt for our CIA asset, bin Laden. Your “lesser” strategy touches a real frustration many Americans have with the two-party system. We're left to pick the lesser of two evils, which has partly led to a nasty case of voter apathy. I and others refuse to participate. How can just two parties reflect the political ideology of over 200 million voting-age Americans? Think about your own values and opinions. Your views about abortion and gay marriage might be "democrat," but "republican" on gun control and taxes. Or are these differences still germane? I tend to think they no longer are as as both wings of the national bird are needed for flight. There are other ways of doing selections, of course, where multiple parties represent multiple interests. For example, the Canadian government is composed of members from the majority Liberal Party, the opposition Conservative Party, the socialist New Democratic Party and the separatist Bloc Quebecois. At this point in our history, since nobody reflects my views, I’d be more than willing to try some form of mix and match. But it won’t happen because people like you continue to compromise your principles for promises of change. Thanks for nothing.
Since I contributed into it, and it's invested privately, feel free to come and get it. As Warren Zevon suggested, bring lawyers, guns and money.
All the money that made it into your paycheck, including the portion that went into your pension fund was money taken by the city or by the state from other people. The government took other people's money BY FORCE and some of that money was used to pay you and to fund your retirement. If that's not redistribution, then you tell me what redistribution is. By the way, while in Bay Ridge, I lived in a rent-controlled apartment. I was paying $270 for a 2-bedroom, utilities included, which was quite a bargain in the 80's. That was redistribution too and I loved it because it benefited me but, I suspect, the landlord did not like it one bit. Do you think I should have paid the landlord a little extra?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
He also won't face the fact that a cop who does not respect the rule of law (and he openly proclaims his contempt for it) is nothing other than a jackbooted thug.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Excuse me, Oxford. A few days back I proffered a list of crimes that I refused to arrest people for. Dig up the list and tell me the ones you believe I should have enforced.
There are two directions in which you can go and be a jackbooted thug. You can refuse to enforce laws when to refuse to do so is improper (and I am not saying unreasonable laws like the Sullivan Law have to be enforced.) Or you can do improper things to people when the law does not permit it. If a cop despises the rule of law, he can very well do the latter.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Why do you always assume that anyone and everyone who has a bad word to say about Saint Obama is a Bush or McCain supporter? I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004, and have no intention of voting for McCain either. Just because you've fallen into the "two party" trap of thinking that the only way to be against McCain is to support Obama, doesn't mean that everyone else has done the opposite.
Mr. Strawman, the Bushthink epithet was in relation with someone demanding that someone else declared himself immediately as either for or against the government redistributing wealth. We then spent some time debating whether that person wasn't himself a beneficiary of governmental redistributionism.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Oxford, please find such a person and pester h/she rather than I. (rather than I? is that good English?)
It's election day in this part of U.S. occupied Cascadia, and we are fired up! ;-D
Now that's funny! Only a fellow Irishman can appreciate sick, twisted stuff like this :P
Excuse me for not having confidence that you will observe the niceties of law in treating someone like a "muzzy" (as you term him in another current thread).
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Muzzy is a funny word, no? Why should I treat those whack jobs with more respect than I hold any other religious fanatics? Can you say Catholic pedophile priest? Black suited orthodox Jew nut-bar? How crazy is it to still attend mass, presided over by god knows who? Do you? Why? Gay perhaps? Not being judgemental, just curious.
Socialism and fascism are progressive diseases. Both will kill America. Even if one will kill it faster, dead is dead. It's like trying to pick which cancer you'd rather die from. Lung or Pancreatic?
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
Before you call James Yee a whack job or a religious fanatic, I suggest you read his book. He comes across as anything but. And I can say the same of almost all the Moslems I knew during the months I spent in Turkey.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The only Muzzies I know are a radical, smelly band of carpet salesmen who set up shop on Atlantic Ave. in Brooklyn. They aren't Americans and If I were king, I'd round them up, hog-tie their asses, load them on a ship and set it adrift w/o fuel. But that's me....
Says the retired cop who denies being a jackbooted thug.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Thanks for nothing. Hey, I've voted 3rd party in every election since 1992. If the GOP wasn't so abominable, I'd do it again. But, since it now mortally threatens our Republic with fascist tyranny, I can't abide them in power one more day and will do what I have to do to make sure their reign of error ends ASAP. You can join me or you can punt... ...just keep in mind that it very well be our nation's future you're kicking away in the process.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#24. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#21)
#25. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#23)
Bushthink, which is a form of Stalinthink, is when you say: "if it's not blue, then it MUST be yellow (blue=good, yellow=bad).
#26. To: Hayek Fan (#22)
I find it interesting that speaking out against central planning collectivism and income redistribution is now called bushthink, even though you and others have been here and on other forums speaking out against this very same thing since before baby bush even took office.
#27. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
My retirement plan is privately funded. Try again.
#28. To: Hayek Fan (#25)
valid local governmental services like law enforcement functions is apples and oranges with federal income redistribution and central planning.
#29. To: Hayek Fan (#25)
It appears to me that you are using the term to describe anyone who believes that federal central planning and income redistribution is highly inefficient and doomed to failure.
#30. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#27)
The source for your paycheck or retirement check is the same as that that funds a welfare queen's paycheck.
#31. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#28)
(Edited)
So you are saying that there is 'valid' redistribution but there's also redistribution that you don't like.
#32. To: Jethro Tull (#30)
(Edited)
One requires a unit of production (city employees) while the other form of redistribution (Obama's model) rewards welfare queens for breathing.
#33. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#32)
#34. To: Jethro Tull (#33)
#35. To: Jethro Tull (#33)
#36. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#35)
#37. To: Jethro Tull (#36)
(Edited)
#38. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Christine, Jethro Tull (#37)
#39. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Jethro Tull (#37)
Therefore, let's hear. Are you for redistribution, are you for some redistribution or do you oppose all forms of redistribution via government?
#40. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#37)
You still refuse to face the fact that you were and you continue to be paid with money taken BY FORCE from your fellow citizens who did not necessarily ask for and do not need your services
#41. To: Jethro Tull (#20)
(Edited)
There was a time when Arator would never have supported a person, who he admits is a big central government redistributionist. Now that he acknowledges he does, it's clear he has changed hard left, as have the others who fled for a more enjoyable experience.
#42. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Jethro Tull (#32)
(Edited)
#43. To: Arator (#41)
Vote for the least fascist mainstream candidate to prevent the hard core fascists from keeping power, frustrate the Nazi-fiers and buy time so that the nation
#44. To: christine (#43)
Obama and his team have their own brand of fascism that could be even more lethal for individual americans.
#45. To: Arator, stop the fraud, all (#41)
#46. To: Arator (#42)
Yes, in the name of defeating socialism, I think JT's pension should be given to Halliburton via some no-bid contract.
#47. To: Jethro Tull (#46)
#48. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Jethro Tull (#37)
You still refuse to face the fact that you were and you continue to be paid with money taken BY FORCE from your fellow citizens who did not necessarily ask for and do not need your services.
#49. To: aristeides (#48)
He also won't face the fact that a cop who does not respect the rule of law (and he openly proclaims his contempt for it) is nothing other than a jackbooted thug.
#50. To: Jethro Tull (#49)
#51. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#19)
(Edited)
Bushthink
#52. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#51)
#53. To: aristeides (#50)
If a cop despises the rule of law, he can very well do the latter.
#54. To: Jethro Tull (#53)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#55. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
#56. To: Jethro Tull (#53)
#57. To: aristeides (#56)
#58. To: Arator (#9)
We can defund Socialism later after it has destroyed the instrumentalities of Fascism
#59. To: Jethro Tull (#57)
Why should I treat those whack jobs with more respect than I hold any other religious fanatics?
#60. To: aristeides (#59)
And I can say the same of almost all the Moslems I knew during the months I spent in Turkey.
#61. To: Jethro Tull (#60)
But that's me....
#62. To: Jethro Tull (#45)
(Edited)
At this point in our history, since nobody reflects my views, I’d be more than willing to try some form of mix and match. But it won’t happen because people like you continue to compromise your principles for promises of change.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest