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

[neighborboy]

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).

If it's not about his blackness it's clearly about his Muslimness for you, or else you wouldn't be so obsessed with his middle name.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

I don't want to name call but your post reflects a complete ignorance of financial matters in the United States. George W. Bush inherited a surplus from his predecessor which he turned into the largest deficit in American history. As a result of his policies, including a rash deregulation of the finacial sector, the economy entered a near catastrophic phase. In the final days of his disasterous Presidency, Bush approved TARP, a .75 trillion dollar attempt to forestall disaster on Wall Street and beyond. Because stocks and home values tumbled, much wealth was dissolved in the crisis. Whether or not his financial policies will ensure long term success, most non-Rush Limbaugh advocates would give President Obama credit for staving off ultimate financial disaster. The fact that Obama has not been bold by increasing spending to combat recessionary trends -- which FDR would have done had he been in office right now -- has resulted in a slowed recovery.

Basically, anything Rush Limbaugh says is moronic and should not be repeated by anyone, including his bimbo wife. Listening to Rush Limbaugh on radio will indeed cause brain damage.

It's all a question of who you choose to believe. You may believe that anything Rush Limbaugh says is moronic, but I could say the same thing about the New York Times, or any other liberal hack out there.

You say that "most non-Rush Limbaugh advocates would give President Obama credit for staving off ultimate financial disaster." Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the polls don't seem to agree with this. Unless you believe that 60% of the country listens to Rush Limbaugh, how do you explain the president's 40% approval rating? Based on the polls, 60% of the country does not see Barrack Hussein Obama as the country's economic savior like you seem to.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

If it's not about his blackness it's clearly about his Muslimness for you, or else you wouldn't be so obsessed with his middle name.

When was the last time a black person hijacked a 747? I have no problem whatsoever with black people. What I do have a problem with are people who hate America and give their lives in an attempt to destroy the country in the name of their religion.

 

[BBGRob]

Seriously, I think there needs to be some amazing change in our country. Our parties are just sucking each other's dicks and getting nothing accomplished! I don't think the U.S. will last another 100 years. At this rate, we're going down

Politically I'm just left of center a bit ...

I totally agree with this. Nobody talks to solve problems. They only talk to get their news bites on their favorite cable or radio show.

 

[BBGRob]

If Obama was Lenin or Stalin, there would be no Tea Party. They all will be slaughtered instantly. All opposition to the president would be crushed. Is that occurring right now?

Well said!

 

[Hot Mega]

It's all a question of who you choose to believe. You may believe that anything Rush Limbaugh says is moronic, but I could say the same thing about the New York Times, or any other liberal hack out there.

You say that "most non-Rush Limbaugh advocates would give President Obama credit for staving off ultimate financial disaster." Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the polls don't seem to agree with this. Unless you believe that 60% of the country listens to Rush Limbaugh, how do you explain the president's 40% approval rating? Based on the polls, 60% of the country does not see Barrack Hussein Obama as the country's economic savior like you seem to.

Couldn't you simply look at the policies and budgets yourself? For an analysis of the US' current budget and fiscal data there are a million objective sources out there...why go by any pundit???

Obama is doing poorly in the polls because he's failing to lead, he doesn't put the country's circumstance in perspective and there aren't very many successes to point to yet.

Like I asked you before...how long did it take for the country to turn around under Reagan when he inherited less of a crisis??

When you find out that answer, it should put our current situation in some reasonable perspective....assuming you would be reasonably objective about it.

 

[Rey C.]

Considering that the various Tea Parties are still struggling to be taken seriously by mainstream voters, relying on "X = Hitler" doesn't really help them in that mission, IMO.

I thought the same when people used similar tactics against W. Bush. Even if I agree that the person in question is a fuck up, once you go on a hyperbolic, nonsensical Hitler rant (mixing and matching national socialism with communism and socialism), I'll have to treat you just as I did those street corner preachers that I used to see in D.C. and Baltimore: I'm going to keep walking, and as long as you don't follow me and get in "my space", no one gets punched. Fair enough? Yeah, fair enough. :hatsoff:

 

[neighborboy]

It's all a question of who you choose to believe. You may believe that anything Rush Limbaugh says is moronic, but I could say the same thing about the New York Times, or any other liberal hack out there.

Ah the mark of a true cynic. There is no "truth" and Rush Limbaugh and the New York Times lie with equal propensity. Of course, this tactic is appealing to you because it saves you the trouble of actually looking into the numbers for yourself.

 

[jjo_is4]

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).

The hair styles have changed but the views far too many hold inside their heads sure haven't. It's just not politically correct to say what you really think in 2010. Ask Mel Gibson. :wave2:

 

[neighborboy]

When was the last time a black person hijacked a 747?

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

 

[Rey C.]

The hair styles have changed but the views far too many hold inside their heads sure haven't. It's just not politically correct to say what you really think in 2010. Ask Mel Gibson. :wave2:

Perhaps you could name the date or time period when expressing your wishes for your ex-girlfriend to be gang raped was politically correct.

I'm fairly well versed on the late Republic/early Empire period of Rome (do the best I can anyway) - and it wasn't then. Maybe during the Dark Ages? Possibly some time more recent (that I'm not aware of), or would we have to go back to when the average guy wore animal skins and got dates by clubbing slow moving females on the head and dragging them in his cave? :dunno:

 

[jjo_is4]

Perhaps you could name the date or time period when expressing your wishes for your ex-girlfriend to be gang raped was politically correct.

I'm fairly well versed on the late Republic/early Empire period of Rome (do the best I can anyway) - and it wasn't then. Maybe during the Dark Ages? Possibly some time more recent (that I'm not aware of), or would we have to go back to when the average guy wore animal skins and got dates by clubbing slow moving females on the head and dragging them in his cave? :dunno:

I stand corrected as that particular news story is not a good example to have used to make the point that expressing racist views in public is not generally accepted as it was in the 60s. :thumbsup:

 

[Trident1]

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

Dec. 11th 2000 BA flight 2069. A Kenyan almost killed 398 passengers and crew.

 

[bodie54]

Dec. 11th 2000 BA flight 2069. A Kenyan almost killed 398 passengers and crew.

Would he be willing to testify he was present for Obama's birth?

If so please have him contact Orly Taitz at ihavenofunctioningbraincells.net

 

[Trident1]

Would he be willing to testify he was present for Obama's birth?

If so please have him contact Orly Taitz at ihavenofunctioningbraincells.net

I don't speak Swahili.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Perhaps you could name the date or time period when expressing your wishes for your ex-girlfriend to be gang raped was politically correct.

I'm fairly well versed on the late Republic/early Empire period of Rome (do the best I can anyway) - and it wasn't then. Maybe during the Dark Ages? Possibly some time more recent (that I'm not aware of), or would we have to go back to when the average guy wore animal skins and got dates by clubbing slow moving females on the head and dragging them in his cave? :dunno:

It's not so much the time as it is the place. It's perfectly acceptable right now - if you happen to be living in the Muslim world.

 

[CunningStunts]

"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?


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

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

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.


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.

He promised many things on the campaign, none so loudly as "transparency" and open government. He has been the worst about making decision behind closed doors according to several government watchdog groups. Notable edicts have been the appointment of more than two dozen "czars" and the blatant payoff deals to ram a healthcare bill through Congress that the people did not support. And last week, the financial "reform" bill gives broad powers to Washington and particularly to the Fed to "regulate" as they see fit. These are people not elected and not answerable to to the citizens who have broad power to do anything they wish, answering to no one but the President. Again, this is a troubling trend my friend.

Every point in his agenda and his political philosophy is based on an underlying premise: The Federal government can and should make decisions for the good of the "people". Does this remind you of anything from history? Does this sound like someone who cares about the individual citizens, or the "collective"?

And according to the Constitution he swore to uphold, his concerns DO stop at our shores. It may be unpopular to say in this era of undefined and forced "altruism," but I don't give a damn what other countries do. The US was made great by individuals, not by it's government. We need to hold true to what made the US different, not emulate others.

And yes, the "racist" this has gotten old. Logically, if you look at most people and organizations who routinely play the race card on any issue are more "racist" than anyone they denounce (see NAACP). How about the fact that over 90% of blacks in the US support the President at this time as his overall numbers plummet? If that isn't blatant racial bias, I don't know is. People need to stop thinking in groups and evolve a little bit to look at things rationally and individually. Groups and mindsets such as this only promote discontent and separatism by advocating special treatment, going completely against what true civil rights leaders such as Dr. King espoused, namely to be treated as individuals equally.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

He promised many things on the campaign, none so loudly as "transparency" and open government. He has been the worst about making decision behind closed doors according to several government watchdog groups. Notable edicts have been the appointment of more than two dozen "czars" and the blatant payoff deals to ram a healthcare bill through Congress that the people did not support. And last week, the financial "reform" bill gives broad powers to Washington and particularly to the Fed to "regulate" as they see fit. These are people not elected and not answerable to to the citizens who have broad power to do anything they wish, answering to no one but the President. Again, this is a troubling trend my friend.

Every point in his agenda and his political philosophy is based on an underlying premise: The Federal government can and should make decisions for the good of the "people". Does this remind you of anything from history? Does this sound like someone who cares about the individual citizens, or the "collective"?

And according to the Constitution he swore to uphold, his concerns DO stop at our shores. It may be unpopular to say in this era of undefined and forced "altruism," but I don't give a damn what other countries do. The US was made great by individuals, not by it's government. We need to hold true to what made the US different, not emulate others.

And yes, the "racist" this has gotten old. Logically, if you look at most people and organizations who routinely play the race card on any issue are more "racist" than anyone they denounce (see NAACP). How about the fact that over 90% of blacks in the US support the President at this time as his overall numbers plummet? If that isn't blatant racial bias, I don't know is. People need to stop thinking in groups and evolve a little bit to look at things rationally and individually. Groups and mindsets such as this only promote discontent and separatism by advocating special treatment, going completely against what true civil rights leaders such as Dr. King espoused, namely to be treated as individuals equally.

One of the most sensible, intelligent posts I've read around here in a long, long time. Bravo! (I'd give you rep if I could, but I have to spread some around first.)

 

[Facial_King]

Holy shit, this thread has just gone off the fucking rails.

What's with the Mel Gibson b.s. - oh now he's some kind of hero for being "politically incorrect" (if one defines that as being a sadistic, hate-filled scumbag) ?? I'm sure there's a frighteningly large chunk of people who got big grins when they heard Mel referring to "pack of n****rs" getting his girlfriend because she dressed like a "whore" or whatever... Always interesting when vitriolic racism meets puritanical prudishness.

yikes....

 

[Hot Mega]

He promised many things on the campaign, none so loudly as "transparency" and open government. He has been the worst about making decision behind closed doors according to several government watchdog groups. Notable edicts have been the appointment of more than two dozen "czars" and the blatant payoff deals to ram a healthcare bill through Congress that the people did not support. And last week, the financial "reform" bill gives broad powers to Washington and particularly to the Fed to "regulate" as they see fit. These are people not elected and not answerable to to the citizens who have broad power to do anything they wish, answering to no one but the President. Again, this is a troubling trend my friend.

You're still hung in this czar shit farce?? Talk about a one track mind. Who got paid off (specifically) since it was so blatant?? The financial reform bill?? Well DUHHHH, USUALLY what happens in the aftermath of abuse is more laws that govern. It's the whole..the more irresponsible you are, the more laws there will be handed down to govern thing.

You seem to have some fetish for the notion that elected means more accountable or hold more integrity. It plainly doesn't. Jeezzz..that is why for example many judges are appointed and all Justices are. Because in some cases in g'ment you need people in functions who's positions aren't subject to whims of a fickle electorate and those individuals are presumably free to make the right decisions as opposed to politically seasonal ones.

In all these cases these individuals are confirmed by another branch of our g'ment anyway...so again...what's your point??

Every point in his agenda and his political philosophy is based on an underlying premise: The Federal government can and should make decisions for the good of the "people". Does this remind you of anything from history? Does this sound like someone who cares about the individual citizens, or the "collective"?

WTF? "for the good of the people"???:eek::eek: WHO THE FUCK ELSE SHOULD A G'MENT BE MAKING DECISIONS FOR THE GOOD OF??????????

What were you on when you made this reply??

And according to the Constitution he swore to uphold, his concerns DO stop at our shores. It may be unpopular to say in this era of undefined and forced "altruism," but I don't give a damn what other countries do. The US was made great by individuals, not by it's government. We need to hold true to what made the US different, not emulate others.

Whatever this means. Uh...okay.

And yes, the "racist" this has gotten old. Logically, if you look at most people and organizations who routinely play the race card on any issue are more "racist" than anyone they denounce (see NAACP). How about the fact that over 90% of blacks in the US support the President at this time as his overall numbers plummet? If that isn't blatant racial bias, I don't know is. People need to stop thinking in groups and evolve a little bit to look at things rationally and individually. Groups and mindsets such as this only promote discontent and separatism by advocating special treatment, going completely against what true civil rights leaders such as Dr. King espoused, namely to be treated as individuals equally.

Would the black support for another Demo president regardless of race be any lower?

Now who's playing the race card where an alternative theory is just as practical?

I agree with you..the race baiting has gotten old.