At Least We Now Know Who The Enemy Actually Is

Obama went on a mad spending binge that put America in financial crisis approaching that of southern Europe, and there's nothing to show for it. The recovery in America has been so weak it's not really a recovery, far worse than the Western countries that did NOT spend like mad, including yours. Obama has been the most divisively partisan president in modern American history. Since Republicans won the House in 2010, Obama has abandoned governing by the law and Constitution and begun ruling by decrees that violate the laws which are still in full legal force. This is unspeakablly dangerous. It is dictatorial behavior for which he should be impeached but won't be because the dishonest liberal media cover for him. And you want to tell us that if only he were white, we would not be wroth about these outrages? That's as honest as saying any male who sharply criticizes feminism or American women as compared to non-American women is a "misogynist." Crying "bigotry" is the last refuge of scoundrels in today's climate. (I'm not calling you a scoundrel, but I do indeed call the people you are imitating scoundrels.)

I was accused of racism since I am so anti-Obummer. Then the dopey liberals had egg or their faces when they found out I originally supported Herman Cain until he dropped out. Gumshoe is wrong.

I love it that if you criticize Obama, you must be a racist. That cracks me up! The only people one can criticize safely are white men, jeez.

It isn't so much the criticism or disagreement with his policies that bothers me, in fact I don't personally agree with all of his policies or beliefs myself. People have every right to critique their elected officials policies. What really bothers me is the blatant, mean and disrespect directed his way. He is the President of the most powerful nation in the world and his own people disrespect him. I find this unconscionable and extremely dangerous, not only for President Obama's personal safety but also for the sake of the nation and in the interest of peace.

CC, thank you for explaining some of it to me. As a Canadian I do acknowledge that there is much i do not know about American politics.

What an extraordinarily dumb thing to think and say.

Show some RESPECT for the President of the United States.
Racism is alive and well. Pathetic.

"Show some RESPECT for the President of the United States."

You say that after the way you speak about George W Bush, Jane?

Yes.
Bush is the reason why 2000 plus people perished in 9/11.
When Bush was Governor of Texas he executed more people than any other Governor ever.
He refused to convert Karla Fay Tuckers death sentence to a life sentence. Where was his compassion?
Bush has richly earned my disrespect.

Respect? For an illegal alien using the Social Security number of a dead guy from Connecticut? For a guy with a very badly done Photoshop forgery posted as a birth certificate? For a Muslim infiltrator who's University education was paid for by the Saudi royal family? For a communist who hides his university information and lies about his association with radical terrorist bombers? For a pathological liar who is still reciting the same lies and false promises he had no intention of keeping in 2008? For a black racist who spend 20 years as a close friend of a black racist preacher who spews anti-white hate mixed with his sermons? For a would be dictator who dreams of repeating the National Socialist Labor Party takeover of the 1930s? For a Chicago crime gang stooge who sells guns to international drug cartels? For the most corrupt anti-American fool ever to hold public office in the US? Is that who you mean?

No. Odumbo deserves no respect and gets no respect.

George W. Bush, a man who had been in office for just slightly more than six months, following eight years under President William Jefferson Clinton, was responsible for 9/11? You, madam gumshoejane, are a liberal moron with no understanding whatsoever for geopolitics..

Oh, really? You do not believe that Clinton's cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and elsewhere pissed off any terrorists? My oh my. Dumber and dumber.

And please -- share with us all your wisdom on exactly what dastardly deed George W Bush committed to so **** off Al Qaeda in only six months when Clinton's cruise missile attacks didn't even annoy the Islamist Jihaddists.

Amazing! There were terror attacks against the US in and prior to 1998? Must have been George W Bush's fault. Oh wait, he was not yest president. What do you mean the great Clinton attempted and failed to kill Osama Bin Laden? Hmmm, Clinton attempted to kill Bin Laden, and then, on September 11, 2001, Bin Laden successfully attacked the United States, took down the World Trade Center and murdered more than 3,000 people. Sure, it just HAD to be George W Bush's fault.

Your ARGUMENT becomes dumber and dumber every time you touch the keyboard.

Get off the racist bullshit. He is a worthless scumbag. His color has nothing to do with it. By the way, he is half white too, remember?

Wrong! Clinton is personally responsible for the events of 9/11. His inaction after several terrorist attacks (2 embassies, Khobar Towers, first WTC bombing, and the USS Cole attack) emboldened the terrorists. He should be tried for 3,000 counts of criminal negligence and manslaughter. Get your facts straight before you do anymore Bush bashing!

Haha, Odumbo. Funny AND smart.

You really need to leave the right-wing echo chamber once in a while and get some fresh air. It's nice outside.

What guidelines are those?
Is there one which suggests that nasty mindless nonsense should be unchallenged?

Read about it at http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Want-To-Improve-The-Experience-Project/2604203

Thank you for taking the time to respond and post the link.

With respect, it seems to me that your interpretation of the otherwise helpfully intentioned guideline "Please post ...... to the most appropriate group" operates to stifle discussion. Disagreement and debate do not equate with trolling.

There is, sad to say, some poisonous ill-intentioned and hate-fuelled verbiage that gets posted on EP. I believe we have a right to speak out against it where we find it.

Abusiveness is the problem to be dealt with - not disagreement.

Who in God's name are you to say that "Progressives don't love America"? What makes you the arbiter of who does and does not love America. If my mother is an alcoholic or a junkie and I want her to get help, does that mean I don't love my mother? If I see my father doing awful things and enable him by saying nothing to try and stop him, does that mean I don't love my father.

You, my friend, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "Progressives don't love America." Nonsense!

Many of the attacks and criticisms levelled against your president can only be effectively understood by hypothesising an element of racism in them.
Methinks you protest too much.

You know nothing about me except that I oppose President Obama. You can postulate all you want, but your assumptions themselves are racist in nature.

How kind of you to demonstrate absence of understanding so clearly.
Thank you.

Then perhaps you can expound clearly on your meaning.

I can only repeat my previous observation that "many of the attacks and criticisms levelled against your president can only be effectively understood by hypothesising an element of racism in them". I'm uncertain how I could make my meaning any more explicit, but certainly there was no finger-pointing levelled at Lickitysplit contained in it. On what basis do you then conclude that my own assumptions are consequently racist in nature?

When you can offer no effective argument, then repeat what you already have said...

Any postulation or hypothesis is based upon assumptions. I have no doubt that in some cases, opposition to President Obama is based on race because I have witnessed, even here on EP, what is clearly racial bias. That is anecdotal evidence. However, I know my own heart and I know far too many others who share my opposition to President Obama based on policy and politics with race playing no role whatsoever. Therefore, I know your assumptions are faulty as a generalization, which is what you are doing. You are drawing general conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.

I see I failed to specifically address your last question. I apologize. Your hypothesis is based on an assumption that opposition by white voters to President Obama's reelection is predominantly a result of racism. That in itself is a generalization based on race, which by definition is racism. Therefore, your statement is racist.

Dear Lickety,
You said "I have no doubt that in some cases, opposition to President Obama is based on race because I have witnessed, even here on EP, what is clearly racial bias."
What that tells me is that both you and I have no trouble being able to recognise racism when we see it. That gives me no grounds to consider you a racist - I know nothing about you other than you seem in a great hurry to misinterpret and misrepresent what I tried to say unambiguously, that "many of the attacks and criticisms levelled against your president can only be effectively understood by hypothesising an element of racism in them". I can say that because, like you, I have the wit to be able to recognise racism when I see it.
If that means my statement is racist, then it means that your honest statement about what you have witnessed must also be racist - which is obviously total nonsense. That's why I wanted you to read what I said once more so you could maybe understand it and drop the pretence of being offended by the completely inoffensive.
I am all for strenuous debate about policy and politics - my preference, though, and the reason for my interjection, is that this can be achieved without resort to juvenile name-calling like, for example "you must be on serious medication".
That is hardly a debate, is it? It's just an insulting put-down.
I hope that you can, in good faith, appreciate my honest observation in better light.

I am afraid that I disagree. What I was referring to was overtly racist statements focused on the president's race. Again, there are racists and some small part of the opposition to President Obama is based on his race. That is racist. However, opposition to President Obama based on his policies, his veracity, or his lack of competence cannot in any way be considered racist. Being on the conservative side of the political aisle here in the US, I have an insider's view of large numbers of people who strong oppose this president, and not one of those people opposed him based on racism. My argument is that the mainstream press in the US and UK seems to rush to generalize and make assumptions that opposition to Obama is racist when it is not. Concurrently, these same reporters and analysts do not consider it racist for Obama supporters to openly and clearly state that their primary reason for voting in favor of President Obama is that he is Black -- a clearly racist point of view and a terrible double standard.

I am sure you are right that I was "reactionary," in responding to you and for that I apologize. I accept that were not accusing me of being racist, although it certainly seemed that way. I do not, however believe you are correctly interpreting the motivation behind anti-Obama sentiment.

But I demonstrated no such rush to generalise in my honest and measured observation and, from what you have written, it seems a most unlikely point for you and I to find any disagreement about. I am only able to identify anti-Obama sentiment as racist when it is racist - just like you are clearly able to do. There is nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence - as long as it is clearly recognised as such - and I believe we would also be in agreement in sensibly questioning the extent to which we are able to generalise from it.

Admittedly, I have not exactly scoured EP in search of them, but I have yet found no debate focussing on actual policy. In terms of domestic policy, Obama's administration is even more authoritarian and intrusive than that of his predecessor. The erosion of civil liberties is a grave concern - and often (it seems to me) gravely overlooked. We might agree on that also. But the suggestion (from many) that these tendencies are anything other than right-wing is quite comedic. I also see accusatory epithets like 'revolutionary socialist' bandied around where it is clear the actual meaning escapes the user and it is just another form of vague labelling insult and more name-calling. Odd. And sad.

I feel reasonably confident we might find our disagreements in the area of economic and political philosophy - but we haven't got to those places yet. Free-market capitalism is far from being my favourite ideology, for example, but I can take comfort in sharing perspectives with Adam Smith on this. And I have genuine and reasoned fears about corporatism, which I see as demonstrably corrupting the abilities of governments to effectively serve their citizens.

I sincerely believe I am quite capable of correctly interpreting the motivations behind popular political sentiment in the US. And I am happy we are willing to engage on it without succumbing to abusiveness. It is a most pleasant change. Thank you.

(I wonder if we share the same meaning for the word "reactionary".)

Partly I suspect. I used the term in two ways concurrently -- "opposed to [P]rogressive social or political change," but also I used it in the unconventional sense to mean "reacting to statements or events," probably a misuse.

In American parlance, I am philosophically a libertarian (lower case "l") on most social issues while concurrently holding conservative or very conservative views on the size and power of the US Federal Government, Government expenditures, excessive deficit spending, and loose monetary policy that will ultimately lead to rampant inflation.

Constitutionally, I am a "Strict Constructionist" who believes that there is no room for the reinterpretation of the US Constitution to address changes in technology or culture because our framers provided the means within the constitution to revise and Amend the constitution to account for those changes. I personally believe that the US Government today operates far outside of the constraints of our founding legal document, exercising powers not granted to the Federal Government by the constitution or the amendments.

So, the progeny of genocidal Nazi feel they have the right to preach to Americans about who we should support for our president. How bizarrely ironic and absurd.

What did you say your father or grandfather was doing when the Jews were being gassed?

Hmmm, If I would be a Nazi,
I should vote for Romney, shouldn't I?

Because I can clearly remember
how Hitler refused to skake a Black Man's hand
Olympia 1936.

And by the way...

I don't have the right to preach
but the freedom of speech.

You are welcome!

What's the matter coward?
Tired of having your *** handed you in every conversation?
If there is no restriction on INDIVIDUAL PRAYER, there is no lack of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM in schools.
So why did you lie about lack of religious freedom?
Case closed!!

I'm not what you're talking about. You're behaving a bit like a crazy person. I wonder what it is about Conservatives that makes you feel so defensive..

I direct you to the expose of your false statements 3 posts down.
Are you a bigot? I don't know.
Are you intelligent?

Seems unlikely.

I haven't made any false statements, sir. I have only challenged those that were already made.

False dichotomy (Logical fallacy)
Lack of mandatory or organized or state sponsored prayer is not "Lack of religious freedom".
Freedom to practice automatically excludes any COERCION.
Therefore: Either you LIED about religious freedom for children in school, or you are much too UNintelligent to make a logical argument.
As to Trickle Down economics, I posit a single reply.
30 years post Raygun, where are the jobs?
You lose.

I did not say anything about mandatory or state sponsored prayer. I spoke directly to the matter of children who DO wish to pray being allowed to do so without fear of being penalized, scolded, or ostricized for it. And yes, that would enhance religious freedom. You would agree with me as well if you were a religious person. If you are not, of course you wouldn't want to enhance religious freedom. I don't think that makes you "right". :)

Then you agree that there IS NO LACK OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Case closed, you are arguing with yourself.

When children in schools are told that Jesus is one topic they are not allowed to write about or draw picture of, that is an infringement of religious freedom for which we can thank ACLU types like you, bl.

OLGP.. I suggest you start provisioning your 1950's bomb shelter in light of the 2012 elections a short 12 months ahead. The latest experiment on "social justice" will be a closed chapter. Bill in Va.

You are obviously a pot smoking, kook-aid drinking moron OLGP!

"Yawn"

"Take 'you' hand off it" what is that senselessness supposed to mean?

Of course you yawn, as a communist who must hide behind euphemisms like " Democratic Progressive" makes you a snake and a liar right out of the gate. But more importantly for this purpose are two items. First is you leftists cannot have a discussion. All you really know is monologues because you cannot support your laughable "analysis". Second is if you say too much you will reveal yourselves as the agitator, disinformation spreader and liar that you really are. Therefore your kind must rely on sound bites and emotional ploys and illogic at every step.