I do not like his Marxist politics. I do not know him.
Let's examine that statement for logical congruency, by reversing the order of the statement itself:
You do not know him. You do not like his Marxist politics.
Well, if you don't know the man, then you can't possibly know that he's a Marxist. Oh, but you say: Heck, I never knew Karl, either. But, I sure know that he was the father of "Marxism."
To that I would say: How do you know that for certain? Did you ever meet Karl, and ask him? Did you ever
study what Karl, proffered in the way of political ideology?
To that you would say: "Heck, yes! I studied Marxism in School, I full well know what Marxism looks like and Obama is a Marxist!
To that I would say: Prove it. Point to the Obama political ideology that pegs him as a card carrying Marxist?
To that you would say: "Obama Care! The Government take-over of Corporations! The Bank Bailouts! And, all those darn unnecessary Zcars! He's nailing us with more hidden taxes! He's blowing a hole through the deficit! All that government spending on stimulus! There's your proof right there that Obama is a Marxist."
To that I would say: When Ronald Reagan, was in office, did he bail-out the Savings & Loans? When Ronald Reagan, was in office, did he not start the deregulation phenomenon of the 80's that ultimately lead to the deregulation phenomenon of the 90's (drafted by three (3) Republicans and signed by Bill Clinton), which ultimately lead to the toxic assets and what Warren Buffet, called "Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction?" When Ronald Reagan, was in office, did the deficit grow by 300% by the time Bush 41 took office? When Bush 41, took office, did he not look the television camera straight in the eye and declare:
Read My Lips, No New Taxes and then go on to sign one of the biggest tax increases in American history at that time? When George W. Bush, took office, did the National Debt
rise to more than $11 Trillion before the end of his term as a direct result of two (2) unfunded wars and excessive spending? During the time Bush 43, was in office, did the United States see the worst GDP performance and the biggest loss of jobs, since the Great Depression? When Bush 43, was in office, did he send his Treasury Secretary to Capital Hill, to ask the Congress for the biggest single-shot hand-out ever in U.S. history, to both bail-out the banks and to stimulate the economy? When FDR, was in office, did he spend tax payer dollars on stimulus, where many economists now say that he
did not spend enough tax dollars?
So, does that make: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Barak Obama - all to a man, Marxists?
If not, then I question the logic of your underlying premise.
It's not fear mongering. Obama should have been booted so far from the race that he would have landed in the year 2024.
Ad hominem and hyperbolic rhetoric at best. Why? Explain precisely why his name should have been booted into the year 2024, when his competition included McCain and Palin. McCain, claiming that
"The fundamentals of the economy are strong." and that
"I don't know much about economics," while Palin, was asked to simply recite the "Bush Doctrine," and which rags she read to keep abreast of the current social and political events happening in the country and around the world, and she was flat-out unable to do either on national television. So, please explain why those performances would not see either McCain's or Palin's name booted into the year 2024.
Quayle uses an uncommon spelling for potato, and he's assailed.
He was well known for having the ability to connect the dots during open discussion, just as eloquently as George W. Bush, later become known for the same. The American People want to know that both the President and the Vice President are competent for the role, that's all. And, when you perpetually make the highlight reel on T.V.'s bloopers and practical jokes, some people get a little concerned - nothing more and nothing less. When you give wrong answers to questions that were never asked in a Presidential or Vice Presidential debate, or get your clock cleaned by your competitor, people might be interested in whether or not you can go the distance intellectually as either President or Vice President, that's all. Nothing personal.
Obama is raised by poison, hangs with terrorists and that is fear mongering? We should be fearful of such dolts.
George W. Bush, was on the bottle and smoking pot as an adult, should we have counted that against him? George W. Bush, was AWOL at the TANG, with not even his commanding officer knowing his whereabouts near the end of his duty period and to this date, nobody has ever collected the cash prize for locating and publishing his DD214, which would tell us (among other things) precisely what he was doing just before he was legally discharged. Shall we also hold that against him? George W. Bush, and George H.W. Bush, have numerous photos of both of them shaking hands with the Saudi Royals, from Saudi Arabia, where we know that terrorists have come from in the past. Shall we hold that against the Bush Family character? We all know that Osama Bin Laden, was a Saudi and we all know that on September 11th, 2001, when every single U.S. Citizen was grounded, that somebody allowed members of the Bin Laden Family to fly out of the country. Shall we play the game of
six degrees and conclude that because the Bush Family is plastered all over the World Wide Web, seen holding hands, shaking hands and kissing Saudi's, that somehow one of the Bush men were responsible for allowing
prime witnesses who might have had information about Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts, simply get on an aircraft and leave the country during a time when all U.S. flights had already been grounded?
George W. Bush, outright lied to the American People, the United States Congress and the United Nations about WMD that he knew was not in Iraq, and he either altered or had altered, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continued Weapons of Mass destruction, in order to sell the story that Saddam was a threat to U.S. national security and thus the only way to deal with Saddam, was to launch a preemptive military invasion of his country. All lies - 100% of them. Lies which cost countless innocent deaths in Iraq. Innocent Men, Women and
Children died because the Bush Administration decided that Oil PSA contracts to Transnationals, were worth more than human suffering it would take to get them. Now, shall we consider that type of character as flawed, too?
Should we likewise be equally as fearful of those types of "dolts.?"
Here is a good explanation of Wright and his Marxist Liberation Theology.
That's Wright. Which means that its "Wrong" to pretend that the man in the video is President Obama. My Pastor, has said things in the past that I don't agree with. Does that mean that I am dumbed down sufficiently to not be able to make distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad, health or unhealthy?
Furthermore, you play one video much the same way that Fox News plays the video - you fail to provide any context for the video, so you don't really know WHY Rev. Write is saying what he's saying, nor do you care to know and present the actual context of his words. You also play on video, as if the Pastor had been preaching on the
exact same topic for the past 20 years. That's called
pre-texting a conclusion not providing the actual context and then drawing a rational conclusion.
Farrakhan sounds like he is mouthing the Obama Doctrine of Foreign Relations with Despots. No preconditions.
And, this statement reads like its using the same talking points as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. All pretext, no substance, irrational, illogical, six degrees of separation premised and full of good ole fashion hyper-political partisanship.
Precisely what the United States needs more of today. :roll:
