• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why I refuse to vote for Obama

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me Obama isn't a Muslim Kenyan Marxist communist fascist bent on controlling every aspect of our lives but simultaneously somehow also is a whiny pansy liberal who wont stand up to anyone? I'm shocked. Shocked I say. I mean, it sounds to me like you're suggesting Obama is just a center-left corporatist not substantially different than any president in the last several decades.

That's just crazy talk, sir. :D

This is the "overboard" mocking approach virtually ALL liberals take against criticism of Obama. Any time someone brings up very logical reasons not to vote for Obama, they get accused of being "birthers" who believe Obama is a Kenyan Communist "hell bent" on taking over America and turning it into a Communist country.

This is the epitomy of straw men arguments, which lead me to believe one of two things about liberals. Either A) they don't even understand the Progressive movement and it's history, or B) They are utilizing sarcasm and mockery to cover up the Progressive movement and it's history.

There is a stark difference in ideology between liberals and progressives, and I happen to believe that Progressives reside in BOTH parties. Regardless of the sarcasm and mockery, the Progressive movement has a defined and historical record. They have philosophies that clash with traditional American values. That's not necessarily a slam, it's simply the truth. Any reasonable person who has studied the Progressive movement from the 1920s to present day, can clearly identify philosophies that contradict traditional American values.

I mean, Saul Alinsky was A REAL person. He was also very influential among the scholarly left. He wasn't a Communist, but he was a Marxist organizer. The roots of Progressive ideology are steeped in Marxism. The leaders of the Progressive movement were either self-proclaimed Marxists, or spent their entire lives working with Marxists. The Progressive movement is supported by Marxist organizations. The founder of Planned Parenthood, one of the left's golden calves, was founded by a self-proclaimed Marxist, Margaret Sanger, who had a mission to abort more black babies, install legal Euthanasia of old people, and the mentally disabled. The common link between progressive ideology, and the ideologies of Adolf Hitler? One great connection is Darwinian Evolution. Another great connection is the utilization of the working class (proletariat), as an organizing force for revolution. These are direct ideologies of Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, Saul Alinsky, and ironically, men like Van Jones, who are ON RECORD saying virtually the exact same things Hitler would say in his lengthy speeches.

The difference in Progressive Ideology and Hitler's ideology, is the "means". Van Jones describes it as "trading the radical POSE for the radical ENDS", whereas Hitler believed in bringing about change through military power. The Progressive Marxists in America knew they couldn't "violently" overthrow the government. They tried that in the 1960s. The hippies of the 1960s became the yuppies of the 1990s. They cut their hair, washed their arm pits, went to Ivy League schools, and put on a business suit. They ascertained enormous influence in the Universities, where they still dominate philosophical thought. They traded their "radical pose", and adopted a different pose. That pose is "politician", "professor", "organizer", "labor union", "journalist", even "pastor". But the radical "ends" haven't changed. Don't believe that? Just read Van Jones. Read Bill Ayers. Read Elena Kagan before she became a Supreme Court Justice. Read Barak Obama. Read Cloward and Piven. Read Jeremiah Wright. Read James Cone.

There's no doubt that the number of Progressive Marxists have grown in size in America since the 1920s. But this is an ideology that should also trouble even liberals! I remember when liberals were more like Libertarians. They just wanted personal freedoms. Not at the enormous cost of trillions and trillions of dollars in government spending though. Not at the cost of condemning the freedom of speech and expression. That's why I ask, "where are all the liberals" when Obama and his administration were condemning the Muhammed YouTube video just as harshly as they were condemning the killing of 4 American citizens? Are there any honest liberals left that will actually agree that the video was just as reprehensible as the killings? Because to me, they aren't even in the same catagory, not even close. Offending someone, or even a large group of people, is not the same as the taking of innocent life. They are not equal, and therefore should not be equally condemned.

The world has lost "reason", and the left has lost it's sense of personal freedom. Today, personal freedom is only applied to a couple of issues, like abortion and contraception, or smoking pot. Liberals do not apply the philosophy of personal freedom to gun ownership, making money, drinking 52 ounce cokes in NYC, owning health insurance, school choice, taxes, or making YouTube videos. It's easy for me to tolerate "liberals", but the left has changed. Today, the left is dominated by big government Progressive Marxists, and the party is led entirely by them. For me to call Obama a Marxist isn't a slam, he is what he is. But the left says "you just don't know what a Marxist is". lol...ok.

I know what a Marxist is, and I fully understand the philosophies of Marxism, and how they aren't always "in your face", but more times than not, they are disquised and watered down a bit. Hitler didn't storm Germany with an army to begin with. The reeducation philosophy of Hitler wasn't "kill jews, kill jews". His philosophies took time to be taught through the schools and universities. The Nazi Movement didn't happen overnight. It "progressed" ever so slightly. Then, on the heels of an ECONOMIC collapse, he seized the opportunity. The comparisons I draw between Hitler and Progressives here in America, isn't a comparison that has anything to do with the killing of Jews. In that way, no, Progressives aren't like Hitler. Hitler took his philosophies to a completely different level. However, many of the same philosophies of Hitler are shared within the Progressive Marxist movement in America, dating back all the way to the 1920s. Read Mein Kampf. There are striking resemblences to the American Progressive Movement.

Just a coincidence? Or is there something more to it than sheer coincidence? I know the answer......and I don't think very many "liberals" do.....
 
No, Obama never supported a complete ban on handguns, as he has stated several times. Obama has had four years to do something about guns, if he wanted to, and all he has done is support a Bush-era lawsuit expanding the rights of gun owners to carry in national parks. In contrast, Romney banned "assualt weapons" when he had the chance, and he quadrupled the cost of gun licenses.

Hmmmm....Obama's stance on guns seems to be letting them "walk" into Mexico, get into the hands of drug lords, where they kill 16 Mexican teens, along with an American agent. Then he lies about it. And for what? So they could turn around, use the evidence against the 2nd Ammendment, and install stricter gun laws.

By the way, Washington DC and Chicago have the most strict gun laws.....how's it working out in those cities?
 
No, Obama never supported a complete ban on handguns, as he has stated several times. Obama has had four years to do something about guns, if he wanted to, and all he has done is support a Bush-era lawsuit expanding the rights of gun owners to carry in national parks. In contrast, Romney banned "assualt weapons" when he had the chance, and he quadrupled the cost of gun licenses.

Yeah, Obama has had four years to accomplish a lot of things he wants to but hasnt... including fixing the economy... that's not a reason to vote for him, that's further proof he's an ineffective leader, and in line with the OP, a reason not to vote for Obama...
 
Oh wow, I didn't see this nonsense earlier, wish I had responded to it then...

So it's the "No true Scotsman" logic fallacy? In your world Obama is an Islamist and the 9/11 hijackers weren't really Muslims?

LMFAO... no, that's you trying to move the goalposts... You said Obama can't be an islamist because he drinks alcohol, and that no muslim would drink alcohol... I said actually the 9/11 hijackers drank alcohol regularly... you said it didn't happen... I provided numerous sources showing it did... Now you're trying to make it about the 9/11 hijackers beliefs...

The whole point is that Obama has a soft spot for the arab world, and his own arab upbringing, from the madrasa to his muslim family in kenya... he won't put his foot down to prevent the violence spreading, for that reason...

So when you're done trying to run away from being wrong... maybe you could realize why it is that we are continually attacked in the arab world and theres' been nothing done to stop it...


So as a bank teller your came up short regularly. I'd let you go too.

LMFAO... cute... You'd have to be a grade above Beavis and Butthead on the worthwhile scale to actually do that... I actually audited the major investment companies... but w/e you want to think...

Let me guess, Obama care is "Big government" and Romney care was a cut to the size of government?

Well... that wasn't what I was refering to, but if you want to go there...

by the math...

Obama Care adds $110B to healthcare spending per year... at current estimates, which are bound to go up... as both increases in costs of healthcare do, and the baby boomer retirement occurs...

Romney Care, as constituted by the bill he signed, dropped healthcare spending in MA from $714M ($300M of which comes from the federal govt) to $415M ($300M of which comes from the federal govt)... so Romney dropped the cost of healthcare in MA by $300M or by 40% (or by 72% if you count just MA's expense alone)... Democrats altered the bill, adding numerous other coverages, and then massive layoffs which increased the costs from what Romney's plan was... but even with the increases to the plan healthcare spending in MA is still within 1-1.25% of the MA overall budget... where it always has been...

That's the real beauty of his plan... the only of its kind in the world, which increased coverage, without increasing government expenditures...


You might also want to check the list of 6 figure executives who had their patronage positions eliminated by Romney... and the results of departmental consolidation which occured as the result of Romney the size of the workforce and operating costs of governance went down... not to mention how many times Romney made cuts from the MA budget...
 
Back
Top Bottom