Obama talks a good talk sometimes, particularly when he is campaigning and all eyes are upon him. See THIS.Of course, the information in the graphic is accurate.
At least Clinton was honest about it, saying that he loathed the military...
Just doing everything I can here to emphasize the objectionable aspects of Barack Obama and try to persuade those who may still be "in the fence" that he should never have been put in his current position.I, personally, think he's a Mountebank -- a Bounder -- a Charlatan -- a Trojan Horse -- as well as vain, pretentious, arrogant, puffed up ass -- and a near-perfect example of demagoguery run amok.I also believe he is more Muslim than Christian -- in spirit --if not in actual fact. And that he is most certainly a MARXIST.The left just loves to claim that no one is a Marxist who does not fall within the very narrow confines of complex, academic definitions that leftist intellectuals have conjured up to throw us ordinary mortals off the scent, but it doesn't fool THIS ordinary mortal one iota.If something found on the ground, the sidewalk, in the street, on the floor or the carpet is brown, lumpy, and stinks to high heaven, you know it is not a bouquet of flowers, a treasure chest filled with gold and jewels or the victim of violent assault in desperate need of assistance. There's no need to say what the stinking brown lumps actually are. We all KNOW.OBAMA is a COMMUNIST -- in spirit if not in actual fact -- meaning that he may not officially identify himself as a Communist, may never have been a registered member of the Communist Party, but his damnable aims and bogus ideals are in perfect harmony with The Communist Manifesto and the Leninist-Stalinist Constitution of the former USSR.The Democratic Party today has to all intents and purposes become the American COMMUNIST Party.And folks, there is NO appreciable difference between Communism and Socialism since both work relentlessly toward virtually identical roles.Unionism, Liberalism and Progressivism are just names conjured up to DISGUISE their Marxian origins.~ FreeThinke
Not sure this is accurate, guys.http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/dday.aspSee W. Bush's schedule on the following D-Days:http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/06/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/06/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/06/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/06/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/06/
Snopes has an avowedly leftist perspective, and does everything possible to disparage and discourage conservatives and conservatism.Besides, the floating of scurrilous canards, slanted reportage, bigoted opinion and party-line propaganda is a time-honored tradition in American politics. I imagine it's the same in Britain as well.Politics is never about Truth but always about Perception.If your lies are more attractive to the public than my lies, you win. It's as simple -- and as sad -- as that."An honest politician" is an oxymoron -- a self-contradictory term.So is "a trustworthy politician."This may be regrettable, but it is the way it is.As someone who loathes and despise Marxism in all it's hydra-headed forms, I believe it is appropriate to use any and all mean available to vanquish the bastard."Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.""Moderation in war is imbecilty."I would add "especially ideological warfare" to that.~ FT
As for the George W. Bush references (which I admit I did not read), I will copy and past what I just said to Ms. Shaw Kenawe over at SilverFiddle's place. They apply to Jez as well:Ms. Shaw,You are much too intelligent and well read to imagine that the past blunders and ineptitude of members of an opposition party provide an excuse -- or worse a justification -- of the egregious errors of a member of your own.I defy you to find a single example that would support the notion that the asininity of "A" automatically provides "B" with virtue or credibility.It's a stupid argument, and you are not a stupid person. I know you can do better.Instead of trying to deflect attention towards the foolishness or possible wickedness of past administrations, why don't you present solid evidence that shows your man is the better choice?I doubt if you can, frankly, but this exchange of insults and scurrilous "opinionation" we routinely indulge in is not only unworthy, it's a huge waste of time.Affectionately,~ FreeThinke
IN THE INTERESTS of FAIRNESS HERE'S WHAT SNOPES SAID:Claim: Barack Obama is the only president who has failed to visit the D-Day Monument on D-Day. ￼￼FALSE￼Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2012] Since its construction, only 3 times have presidents failed to go to the D-Day Monument that honors the soldiers killed on D-Day. Those 3 Presidents were: 1. Barack Obama 2010 2. Barack Obama 2011 3. Barack Obama 2012 For the past 70 years, all presidents, except Obama, have paid tribute to the fallen soldiers killed on D-Day. This year, instead of honoring the soldiers, he made a campaign trip on Air Force 1 to California to raise funds for the upcoming election. Origins: This item claiming that President Barack Obama is the only U.S. President who has "failed to go to the D-Day Monument" on the anniversary of that event is a bit ambiguous, but by any reasonable interpretation it's far from accurate. If the term "D-Day Monument" references any of the various monuments, memorials, or cemeteries around the sites of the 6 June 1944 Allied landings on the Normandy coast of France, then such visits by U.S. presidents in commemoration of D-Day have been neither a long-established nor a regular occurrence — those visits are a fairly recent phenomenon, and no president has made more than one. The first president to travel to Normandy for D-Day was Ronald Reagan, who in 1984 attended commemorative ceremonies there for the 40th anniversary of the Allied landings. Bill Clinton attended D-Day memorial ceremonies in Normandy on the 50th anniversary of the landings in 1994, George W. Bush did so on the 60th anniversary of the landings in 2004, and Barack Obama did likewise on the 65th anniversary of the landings in 2009. (George W. Bush also delivered a commemorative address in Normandy in 2002, but that event was held in conjunction with Memorial Day, not the anniversary of the D-Day landings.) If the term "D-Day Monument" references the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia, U.S. presidents have no established tradition of regularly visiting that site, which didn't even open until 2001. President George W. Bush was on hand for the dedication of the memorial on 6 June 2001, but the site has not seen a presidential D-Day visit since then. If the term "D-Day Monument" refers to the National World War II Memorial, in Washington, D.C., that site didn't open until 2004 and has never hosted a presidential visit on D-Day. In fact, any public presidential activity paying tribute to fallen soldiers on the anniversary of D-Day has been an exception rather than the rule in recent years. Available White House presidential schedules for 6 June going back to the beginning of the Bush administration in 2001 list no public events connected to D-Day in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003, or 2002. Last updated: 8 July 2012 ________________________________All right so it is NOT true that "ALL OTHER US PRESIDENTS" have NEVER FAILED to visit one of these myriad monuments The Mickelssons have thrown out (probably to confuse the issue), and apparently Obama DID follow the precedent to commemorate D-Day in FRANCE set by Ronald Reagan in 1984.It might be interesting to discover what OBAMA actually SAID at that event.Give us time ...~FreeThinke
What, more falsehood about Obama?Well,St. Ronnie Raygun at least had the decency to lay a wreath on the graves of the Waffen SS at Bitburg
I don't know much about Obama, certainly not enough to campaign for him. Among the small set of things that I know about him, is that this claim is false. No insults or opinionation from me, just the facts ma'am -- the few of them that I have at my disposal."bigoted opinion and party-line propaganda is a time-honored tradition"Fuck it then. This is why I'm not impressed by conservatism -- traditions are frequently worthless.It is possible to disagree, discuss, even debate without ideological warfare breaking out. That would be nice, wouldn't it?Do you consider me a Marxist?
Jez,This is not about you at all, so please don't take anything I say personally. I am concerned to the point of being fearful for the future of my country -- and frankly for the financial and medical security of my few remaining years. Most of us who consider ourselves Conservative-Libertarian feel threatened by what-we-see-as advancing tyranny, and the very possibility that our money and property may suffer confiscation and redistribution to "the poor." We conservative-libertarians believe that what we have worked and sacrificed all our lives to accumulate and in my case at least to share with those we love -- and those in need whom we respect and admire -- is and should remain ours to use as we choose. The state has no legitimate claim on personal wealth to serve presumed "moral" purposes -- "moral" as defined by statists, of course. Do I consider you a Marxist? I don't know you well enough to say -- just as you don't know me well enough, even from all the remarks I post here and at other blogs, to pass any kind of accurate judgment on my character and disposition. I do get the impression that you may be more sympathetic to Marxism than I ever could be -- OR -- that you may labor under the misconception that Socialism is not a form or outgrowth of Marxism, and must, therefore, be benign because it has not had to be established and enforced in Britain or in Europe at the point of a gun. If the Europeans and citizens of the United Kingdom truly like the circumstances into which they've put themselves, God bless them. We Conservative-Libertarians just don't want a similar ethos and resultant set of economic strictures and restraints imposed on us by a group of willful egoists steeped in academic theory who dare to presume they know better than we what's good for us, and what our presumed "obligations" to the "world community" ought to be.I have no idea how contented you are with your lot in life, Jez, or how you relate to family and friends, what your dreams and aspirations might be, what your personal economic status might be, what you do for recreation, how physically fit and free from disease you are, what sort of dwelling space you occupy, what you like to eat, how fulfilling you find your work, etc.All I can say is I hope you are happy with the decisions you've made for yourself and are doing well and feeling good about your life.I have always loved your country, and regret that living there would be so unaffordable for someone in my circumstances that I would -- at least by American standards -- be reduced to penury in nothing flat. I have investigated the cost and quality of real estate in your country -- and in France and Italy -- and find it both daunting and depressing. That by the way is the very same reason I cannot live in New York City, which is my beloved home town, either.No one gets through this life without being continually forced to make compromises.~ FreeThinke
"bigoted opinion and party-line propaganda is a time-honored tradition"Fuck it then. This is why I'm not impressed by conservatism -- traditions are frequently worthless.Why resort to rude vulgarity in a supposedly polite exchange of opinion? It's hardly necessary, and does nothing to enhance your argument.But no matter, you failed to note that the tactics I described are not only time-honored but have been ardently practiced primarily by Radical-Anarchist-Marxist-Communist-Unionist-Socialist-Liberal-Progressive-Redistributionist-"Reparationist"-Historical Revisionists -- whatever you want to call the moral, intellectual and spiritual termites that continually munch away at the foundations of Liberty and Self-Determinaton.Antono Gramsci, the Frankfurt School (who stole Gramsci's virulent ideas, expanded them, and made them their own), a whole series of ill-natured, bigoted, foul-minded, loudmouthed radical activists and a particularly nasty little fellow named Saul Alinsky set the bitter, viciously iconoclastic, tone for what-amounted-to a Marxist Insurgency -- an all out assault on Western Civilization and everything that made it great.That we on the right are roundly and haughtily vilified and derided for daring to wake up -- at long last -- and begin, however feebly, to counteract the evil that has been perpetrated on us is stunningly ironic. One Way Rudeness has been the sole property and reserved privilege of the left for much too long. It's high time the tables were turned.We may be defeated, because the ruthlessness and superior bullying power of the left are immense, but WE will NOT go QUIETLY.~ FreeThinke
@FT - ... that you may labor under the misconception that Socialism is not a form or outgrowth of Marxism-------Socialism predates Marxism.More proof you are clueless and should do a little study.
FT,This is proof of what I've been saying for a while now:People of all races, creeds, and political leanings will say ANYTHING to get people mobilized for their cause.They will say any half-truth, misinformation, or bold-faced lie that will further their cause, because they know that 99% of the American people will not bother to fact check.Hopefully this serves as a lesson to everyone, Republican and Democrat alike. Democrats, don't think that everyone you idolize is immune to this shit.Democrats are no more saintly than Republicans.
THIS PRETTY WELL COVERS IT:"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." ~ Socrates (470-399 B. C. )
Fear is the motivation for most crimes.I don't think that your accumulated wealth is vulnerable to any tax changes that might realistically happen. For retired people, inflation is a realistic concern, but if tax rises happen, they tend to be on income or on discretionary spending.I think that state spending on moral causes can have some advantages over individual charitable donations. The spread of donations to charity does a bad job of reflecting the relative importance of different causes -- the wisdom of crowds would have us believe that donkey sancturies are among the top pressing concerns that we face. The crowd is not wise in this case. It would be better if we each had time to carry out our own detailed analysis to determine what to spend our charity money on. You and I don't have time to do it, so I welcome that someone has that job. It may upset your ideology, but the outcome is better: reliable income streams for less well known but none-the-less important causes."[Am I a marxist?] I don't know you well enough to say"Good. I did wonder if you were using the term as a catch-all for anyone who falls outside the capitalist orthodoxy; I'm glad you don't.I do think that postwar Socialism in Britain was both inspired by the Russian revolution, and mostly benign. Any ideology has at best mixed outcomes, there is no utopia, but there were many valuable outputs. So, yes I'm more sympathetic than you, but with your hard line I could hardly be less sympathetic. I am as unsympathetic as anyone towards dictatorship and totalitarianism.I don't think we do socialism any more in the UK. Blair was not a socialist. Brown might have been privately, but he didn't execute it.[continued]
I do wonder if you over-estimate our strictures and restraints, and under-estimate the extent to which domain experts might genuinely have a better idea about what is good for you. Expertise is not worthless.The world community includes you, and it is not impossible for you to do it (including you) harm. I think the "do no harm" principle lends some of the community's demands legitimacy."Why resort to rude vulgarity in a supposedly polite exchange of opinion?"You're not the only one who likes to be provocative, you know.As an expression of anger, the F- word is irreplacable.Whoever does it, lying in politics makes me angry. I get angry when the left does it, and just as angry when the right does it. I interpret it as an insult.Fuck partisans.I'm in no position to judge the Americans, but I don't immediately accept that the right historically does it less than the left. UK conservatives are certainly not, as you describe the Americans, only just waking up to the lying tactic. You only have to see how good they are at it (see the 2011 electoral reform referendum for example) to know that they've had plenty of practice.
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.We welcome ConversationBut without Vituperation.If your aim is Vilification ––Other forms of Denigration ––Unfounded Accusation --Determined Obfuscation ––Alienation with Self-Justification ––We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.IN ADDITIONGratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.