Obama, Hitler Billboard "Not Disrespectful" Tea Party Leader Says

[Hot Mega]

The stimulus was a failure. Yes it is policy, but in this case it was a record earth shattering sum which did little in the end................................so to Robert Reich I say................you were wrong BOZO!!!!!!!

It was obvious all along that the economy was just an excuse to spend spend spend the night away........night being a synonym of future.
results? not much as far as i can see.
the people and the media asking questions? not much as far as i can see.

By all accounts the likes of this economic downturn is only eclipsed by the one in the '30s. Certainly that means then it is worse than the one Reagan inherited.

That being the case, where is the criticism for Reagan's spending then (which was historic)? Where was the criticism for Bush's spending (which is partly why this mess is so big)? More importantly, how long did it take for the economy to turn then when by all accounts the circumstance was not as bad as it is now?

"Fiscal Conservative"-Hypocritius Pachydermus-Species thought to be extinct but now know for long bouts of hibernation during GOPer spending sprees.

 

[D-rock]

The stimulus was a failure. Yes it is policy, but in this case it was a record earth shattering sum which did little in the end................................so to Robert Reich I say................you were wrong BOZO!!!!!!!

I'm not saying I necessarily like the stimulus, or at least how some of it was done. I think it was a good idea that was done half-assed. I also think the stimulus focused too much on things that are short term, too much on corporations in a broad economic sense, and too much on things on a high level financial level and not enough on long term jobs and things that effect individual people out there. It should have been a trickle up plan, and not the trickle down one it was. Those pretty much are always crap.

Just to play devils advocate though, for you to be right one would have to assume that without the stimulus plan that was put into place we wouldn't be in a dramatically worse situation than we are now. Do you have a logical well thought out reason to believe that would be the case? Did you think our economy didn’t have a good chance of going through a catastrophic collapse without it?

 

[Hot Mega]

It was obvious all along that the economy was just an excuse to spend spend spend the night away........night being a synonym of future.

You're using that as a metaphor not a "synonym".

But assuming the plan is to spend our future away, for what purpose or end would that be? Because they have nothing better to do or are they just clamoring for the ignominious distinction of being the people who did it?

 

[bodie54]

^ / ^^


Fine! :dunno: He still looks like a malcontented apparatchik . . . jackass!

Seriously, how much more irreverent could he be ? :1orglaugh
(His face reads: g'damn homey, this is the last place on earth I wanna be right now . . . awww, well, I'll just make the best of it I guess.)

:rofl:
Jesus H. Christ, this idiotic non-scandal made the rounds, was competently addressed then universally dismissed by rational thinking human beings two years ago.
You really need to climb out of the bunker a little more often, sir :ak47:

 

[z9102]

I heard them on Rush Limbaugh's program

Well there's the problem.

 

[Facial_King]

I wonder how the press would have handled this if it was Sarah Palin who wasn't putting her hand over her heart? Something tells me it would have been a VERY big issue then.

It's actually not a big issue to me, but it does show Barrack Hussein Obama's ignorance in this area.

Overall, I can't decide which is more disturbing: BHO's inability to show the flag some respect, or the incredibly bad rendition of the National Anthem that was being sung.

That's actually one of the very few Obama rumors that gets sent in e-mail forwards by everyone's FoxNews-watching aunts and uncles that has a bit of truth to it (but in the end, who gives a shit over such petty stuff?):
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

Seriously? That's quite something. I'll have to do some reading/research and get back to you. Seems improbable to me....

Cheers. :glugglug:

Yeah, definitely. See here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/28/ftn/main4688594.shtml

and:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/paul-krugman-stimulus-too_n_167721.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T6qf0Kdk1o&feature=player_embedded

 

[bodie54]

That's actually one of the very few Obama rumors that gets sent in e-mail forwards by everyone's FoxNews-watching aunts and uncles that has a bit of truth to it (but in the end, who gives a shit over such petty stuff?)

Unfortunately as this and so many other threads indicate, quite a number of people do.
As a fer instance the last poll I saw indicated 30% of Republican voters don't believe Obama's an american citizen. 30 fucking percent flylicker
that's just astonishing.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

That list is quite a testament to the tenacity of propagandists, ain't it?

 

[cooldude486]

The right-wing has an amazing propaganda machine. Right-wing emails are either totally or mostly false but they get forwarded to millions. Even worse, most of those millions rely upoon Rush, Hannity & FOX News for their information, so these lies become self-reinforcing.

 

[CunningStunts]

Looking at this objectively, the dictators he is compared to did have a similar approach to BHO, promising change and equity, hatred of individuality, and denouncing anyone who doesn't agreed with the "common good" as enemies... not to mention they all believed that a large government could solve the problems of mankind. That's fairly self evident to me.

But I do think that comparing someone to Hitler is retarded these days. I heard it almost daily during the Bush years, and it was stupid then and fairly stupid now. It's like calling someone a "racist" when they disagree with someone of a different color - it's been done so often it really doesn't have much meaning now.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Well there's the problem.

And as I stated, I was not giving the figures credit for being the absolute truth. I was VERY clear about this. I also stated that I'm not someone who mindlessly quotes Rush Limbaugh. I just happened to hear those numbers the day I posted my message.

We will never get the true numbers because both sides will try to make them look the way that will make their guys look good, but Limbaugh is probably going to be about as close as someone like Maher or Olberman on the left. All of these guys are shills for their respective parties. I made the mistake of assuming everyone pretty much knew that - before Facial King negative repped me for supposedly claiming that Limbaugh was a "financial expert".

 

[Hot Mega]

Looking at this objectively, the dictators he is compared to did have a similar approach to BHO, promising change and equity, hatred of individuality, and denouncing anyone who doesn't agreed with the "common good" as enemies... not to mention they all believed that a large government could solve the problems of mankind. That's fairly self evident to me.

But I do think that comparing someone to Hitler is retarded these days. I heard it almost daily during the Bush years, and it was stupid then and fairly stupid now. It's like calling someone a "racist" when they disagree with someone of a different color - it's been done so often it really doesn't have much meaning now.

Oh jeez C/S.....Although I have to hand it to ya. Very effective strategy! Say so many disjointed, inaccurate absurdities that a reasonable person just won't respond to it on the merits.:thumbsup:

 

[Hot Mega]

I also stated that I'm not someone who mindlessly quotes Rush Limbaugh. I just happened to hear those numbers the day I posted my message.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Lemme see if we got this straight C4TB..you're not a guy who mindlessly quotes Limbaugh...then you go on to mindlessly (without checking for yourself) quote him???:rofl:

Lord help us.:rofl:

We will never get the true numbers because both sides will try to make them look the way that will make their guys look good, but Limbaugh is probably going to be about as close as someone like Maher or Olberman on the left. All of these guys are shills for their respective parties. I made the mistake of assuming everyone pretty much knew that - before Facial King negative repped me for supposedly claiming that Limbaugh was a "financial expert".

Well...forget the numbers. It is a simple matter of consistency. My question is simply, why does the so called "Fiscal Conservative" species hibernate only during GOPer spending season?

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Lemme see if we got this straight C4TB..you're not a guy who mindlessly quotes Limbaugh...then you go on to mindlessly (without checking for yourself) quote him???:rofl:

Lord help us.:rofl:

Well...forget the numbers. It is a simple matter of consistency. My question is simply, why does the so called "Fiscal Conservative" species hibernate only during GOPer spending season?

Come on. You know what I meant. I'm not some "ditto-head" who takes everything he says as gospel truth. I was very clear in my post that the numbers were those of Rush Limbaugh and that "they may be skewed".

Who am I supposed to "check the numbers with"? CNN? Bill Maher? Keith Olberman? Give me a break. I said in my post "even if they (Limbaugh's numbers) are close". They may or may not be, but they are undoubtedly as close as any you get from Bill Maher or Keith Olberman.

In any case, I don't think anyone can argue that Barrack Hussein Obama's spending in just a year and a half has made all of his predecessors look like Ebenezer Scrooge in comparison.

As for the disappearance of fiscal conservatives, you're right. They do, and they shouldn't. I don't have a problem with Reagan's spending because there was a very good reason for it. In the case of W, he was anything but a fiscal conservative, and he has no excuse except the war, and we all know that shouldn't have taken place where it did, and shouldn't have been as big as it was.

As a Republican, I will be the first to admit that George W. Bush was a bad president.

 

[neighborboy]

In any case, I don't think anyone can argue that Barrack Hussein Obama's spending in just a year and a half has made all of his predecessors look like Ebenezer Scrooge in comparison

Did you bother to read the link I posted on the last page? Barrack "Hussein" Obama's contribution to the current $1,200 billion deficit is all of $200 billion (the current economic stimulus). Bush's contribution? $1,100 billion (from tax cuts, Medicare spending and Iraq). The rest of the drop from the $850 billion surplus in 2001 is all the economy, and can't be attributed to either president in any fairness.

 

[CadillacD]

It certainly is disrespectful! That was the intent. The words in the Declaration of Independence were intended to make a point even if it was disrespectful. I think the billboard is a bit juvenile and I wouldn't have put my money toward it, but I certainly would be more pissed if they were forced to take it down (which they probably will be).

 

[CunningStunts]

Oh jeez C/S.....Although I have to hand it to ya. Very effective strategy! Say so many disjointed, inaccurate absurdities that a reasonable person just won't respond to it on the merits.:thumbsup:

Really? Ok, I'm game... prove any or all of my statements demonstrably false.

 

[neighborboy]

Really? Ok, I'm game... prove any or all of my statements demonstrably false.

Where has he denounced those opposed to him as enemies? I'd be curious to see what quotes you think put him anywhere near the same ballpark as a dictatorship on that front, especially given Bush's "you're either with us or with the terrorists" talk.

 

[jjo_is4]

Unfortunately as this and so many other threads indicate, quite a number of people do.
As a fer instance the last poll I saw indicated 30% of Republican voters don't believe Obama's an american citizen. 30 fucking percent flylicker
that's just astonishing.



That list is quite a testament to the tenacity of propagandists, ain't it?

:glugglug:

The objective of it all is quite simple: make sure this black man (he's actually half black) doesn't get a second term in the white house 'by any means necessary.' :2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

Really? Ok, I'm game... prove any or all of my statements demonstrably false.

Looking at this objectively, the dictators he is compared to did have a similar approach to BHO,

"Objectively" Obama is not a dictator so there is no comparison between him and dictators. You could compare him to other leaders of other g'ments as he is one of those. But even then, his leadership isn't remotely close to that of an authoritarian or totalitarian. He has a majority of his party in both houses of congress yet still doesn't force all of his policies through. If he did, GiTMO (for example) would be closed. Does he have ideals he believes will help make his country better? Obviously the answer to that is "yes" but how do you get to be a leader of anything without conveying to those you hope to lead some vision of things being better under your leadership?

promising change and equity, hatred of individuality,

Where on earth does he promise or even promote "hatred" for individualism???

and denouncing anyone who doesn't agreed with the "common good" as enemies...

Uh, that was the guy before him who believed and espoused that.

not to mention they all believed that a large government could solve the problems of mankind. That's fairly self evident to me.

Mankind does not stop at the shores of the US' borders. Wake us when Obama is trying to establish a large enough g'ment to solve the problems of mankind. In the mean time I will settle for one which simply earns it's keep by engaging in reasonable policies which make the quality of life better in the place it governs.

It's like calling someone a "racist" when they disagree with someone of a different color - it's been done so often it really doesn't have much meaning now.

I'm not really familiar with the racist just because you don't agree with a black person thing. But it is more like saying the absurdity that someone is "against" you simply because they're not with you. Right?

Next time C/S just say you really dislike the guy instead of wasting time trying to convince us you have a reasonable reason to disagree with him.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

:glugglug:

The objective of it all is quite simple: make sure this black man (he's actually half black) doesn't get a second term in the white house 'by any means necessary.' :2 cents:

The sixties are over. It's not about Barrack Hussein Obama's "blackness". It's about his politics. Quit whining about "the man" trying to hold you down. Nowadays "the man" is black (or at least half black).