• 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!

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

Misterveritis said:
Marxist is more accurate.
He claims he is not Muslim although the morning call to prayer is the sweetest sound according to him.
I do believe he accepts and embraces Black Liberation theology. In my opinion that theology is evil.
Manchurian candidate? He, like other tyrants before him have told us what he intended to do. He is a devious, lying politician. I cannot tell if another nation set him up as a sleeper or a mole.

I will stay with my formulation.
Click to expand...

The longer name you can give him, the more sane you will appear!
 
Republicans are so willingly blind.

Manservitis can tell that Obomber is a NeoCon fascist, and otherwise admit the GOP is fascist as well, so he has to falsely say Obomber is a Marxist .
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
How do you think they should be interpreted?

Do you feel BHO didn't express himself clearly enough?
Click to expand...

The problem isn't with him, but the silly notions many have about what is what, as if words only meant what they wanted them to mean. He's no Marxist. :coffeepap
 
Karl said:
Out of curiosity, and suspecting I'd find shennanigans, I researched your quote. You wrote:



The entire quote is:


The introductory clause, in bold, would seem to be operative in understanding the actions described in that paragraph. Furthermore, I would see it as intellectually stimulating to seek out the types of people he mentioned, to discuss various ideas and ideologies while testing and measuring your own. However, for, say, a straight-jacketed xenophobe educated on a steady diet of propaganda, I can see where such associations would cause irrational fear.
Click to expand...

Context. I wish more understood how important that is. But that brick wall never budges. :coffeepap
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Do you say George Walker Bush? Do you say William Jefferson Clinton? Probably not.

You use his full name almost as a ploy to somehow discredit him because it sounds Muslim. News flash, Mister, you can be Muslim AND be President. Shocking I know! There's no restriction on religion to be President! Imagine that.
Click to expand...

Oh really, you don't think people care that Romney is a Mormon?
 
Karl said:
The entire quote is:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed necolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated. But this strategy alone couldn’t provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerated. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.
Click to expand...

Of course I could have included the entire quote, it's quite well known and certainly no secret, but what's the point?

Do you feel that grinding his cigarettes out on the carpet gives him some sympathy? Do you suppose he's doing this in the White House?

The introductory clause, in bold, would seem to be operative in understanding the actions described in that paragraph. Furthermore, I would see it as intellectually stimulating to seek out the types of people he mentioned, to discuss various ideas and ideologies while testing and measuring your own. However, for, say, a straight-jacketed xenophobe educated on a steady diet of propaganda, I can see where such associations would cause irrational fear.
Click to expand...

"Intellectually stimulating" when his his admitted raison d'être is to avoid being seen as a "sellout"?

The guys a punk, and it shows.
Click to expand...
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Do you say George Walker Bush? Do you say William Jefferson Clinton? Probably not.

You use his full name almost as a ploy to somehow discredit him because it sounds Muslim. News flash, Mister, you can be Muslim AND be President. Shocking I know! There's no restriction on religion to be President! Imagine that.
Click to expand...

Of course you can be Muslim and be President, or a Marxist and be president. No one is debating that.

Barack H. Obama used his middle name at his inauguration. If he's not sensitive about it you shouldn't be either.
 
Grant said:
Of course I could have included the entire quote, it's quite well known and certainly no secret, but what's the point?

Do you feel that grinding his cigarettes out on the carpet gives him some sympathy? Do you suppose he's doing this in the White House?

"Intellectually stimulating" when his his admitted raison d'être is to avoid being seen as a "sellout"?

The guys a punk, and it shows.
Click to expand...
You go looking for intellectual stimulation, and you get this.
 
Karl said:
You go looking for intellectual stimulation, and you get this.
Click to expand...

Where did Barack Obama say he was looking for "intellectual stimulation"?

In fact he gave the reason for his involvement with Marxists, etc. Nowhere did he mention intellectual stimulation at all. That's your invention, and way off the mark.
 
Born Free said:
Oh really, you don't think people care that Romney is a Mormon?
Click to expand...

People care. In the same sense people care if Obama is Muslim. There is no restriction on it, however.
 
Grant said:
Of course you can be Muslim and be President, or a Marxist and be president. No one is debating that.

Barack H. Obama used his middle name at his inauguration. If he's not sensitive about it you shouldn't be either.
Click to expand...

I'm not sensitive about it. I just don't support it being used in a malicious, subconscious maneuver attempting to discredit the opposition.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm not sensitive about it. I just don't support it being used in a malicious, subconscious maneuver attempting to discredit the opposition.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a heightened sensitivity towards the very vulnerable Barack Hussein Obama that was never there for George Walker Bush. There was, and still is, no lack of maliciousness directed at him. There shouldn't be any double standards.
 
Grant said:
There seems to be a heightened sensitivity towards the very vulnerable Barack Hussein Obama that was never there for George Walker Bush. There was, and still is, no lack of maliciousness directed at him. There shouldn't be any double standards.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about attacks against Obama - it's clearly BS, falsified attacks that I'm against.

Have I said don't attack Obama? Have I said it's ok to attack Bush? No. Nice try.
 
Grant said:
There seems to be a heightened sensitivity towards the very vulnerable Barack Hussein Obama that was never there for George Walker Bush. There was, and still is, no lack of maliciousness directed at him. There shouldn't be any double standards.
Click to expand...
The people attacking George Walker Bush were not racists.
 
Grant said:
How do you think they should be interpreted?

Do you feel BHO didn't express himself clearly enough?
Click to expand...

With some intelligence? :shrug:

Seriously, some honesty and intelligence. He isn't remotely Marxist.
 
Karl said:
Out of curiosity, and suspecting I'd find shennanigans, I researched your quote. You wrote:



The entire quote is:


The introductory clause, in bold, would seem to be operative in understanding the actions described in that paragraph. Furthermore, I would see it as intellectually stimulating to seek out the types of people he mentioned, to discuss various ideas and ideologies while testing and measuring your own. However, for, say, a straight-jacketed xenophobe educated on a steady diet of propaganda, I can see where such associations would cause irrational fear.
Click to expand...

Grant, you should revisit this post #248. Karl has more patience for dealing with the same silliness than I do. Your link even admits it has not time for context. However, meaning is found in context. Only an idoit avoids looking at things in context.

So, like I said, interpret with honesty and intellect, and you'll do much better.
 
Boo Radley said:
Grant, you should revisit this post #248. Karl has more patience for dealing with the same silliness than I do. Your link even admits it has not time for context. However, meaning is found in context. Only an idoit avoids looking at things in context.

So, like I said, interpret with honesty and intellect, and you'll do much better.
Click to expand...


Ok, so Obama is not a Marxist, but he hangs out with them, for intellectual stimulation. He surrounds himself with radical ideas, and radical people, all because it is only what? the fascination? Come on, and you say that others are not being honest? Really? :shock:

Look, if any republican, or conservative were to have kicked off their career in the home of David Duke, and were bringing in and taking money from staunch union busting forces, and saying and doing things to fundamentally transform america in the opposite direction, you'd be in here saying the exact opposite things concerning the leanings in the political spectrum, and ideology of that President.

You take unnecessary jabs at former republican Presidents, much of which you get wildly wrong, and make silly inflammatory statements designed to flame your debate opponents here, use mockery, and vagueness of expressed thought purposely as a tactic, then laughably assert honesty as a virtue that you are holding? Don't make me sick so early in the morning.

j-mac
 
Karl said:
The people attacking George Walker Bush were not racists.
Click to expand...

But the people attacking Barrack Hussein Obama are racists?

Do you have anything to support this claim, or is it another one of your guesses?
 
Boo Radley said:
With some intelligence? :shrug:

Seriously, some honesty and intelligence. He isn't remotely Marxist.
Click to expand...

And your claim for this is what? He renounced Marxism? Denounced Marxism? He lashed out against big government and threw his support behind free enterprise?

What we know is what he has said and what he has done. You're making claims which cannot be proven. And not only that, you're making claims that anyone who questions this dull witted career bureaucrat is dangerous.

The real danger lies with this President who does not understand economics and has a political philosophy based on his experiences as a student. There is nothing which indicates he has changed in any way. You're just hoping he has, or at least want any discussion of the idea to be stopped because it's "dangerous".

Dangerous for whom?
 
Boo Radley said:
Grant, you should revisit this post #248. Karl has more patience for dealing with the same silliness than I do. Your link even admits it has not time for context. However, meaning is found in context. Only an idoit avoids looking at things in context.

So, like I said, interpret with honesty and intellect, and you'll do much better.
Click to expand...

I've read that entire paragraph before and see the "context". What do you see in this context that changes anything?

Karl invented a motive for BHO that simply wasn't there while Obama quite clearly explained why he was at these meetings, as well as pointed out his other anti social behavior.
 
Karl said:
First, let's examine the logic of that. If someone thinks the morning call to prayer is the sweetest sound, that means they are a Muslim. As opposed to, say, being appreciative of fine arts, such as music. Oookay.

Second, let's examine the accuracy of that. The real quote is: " Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” " (source). One of. Not the. But really, other than exposing the usual right wing hyperbole and unfamiliarity with accuracy, who cares?

Looks like fail on three counts: 1) Logic, 2) accuracy, and 3) Why would anyone give a ****?
Click to expand...

I see you are in the tank for the one term Marxist. Understood.

Who but an Islamist believes the call to prayer is the sweetest sound? Slightly qualifying it by saying "one of" does not change the context or the point.

Think of this as one more data point. Vote for anybody but Obama based on his policies and their effect.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Do you say George Walker Bush? Do you say William Jefferson Clinton? Probably not.

You use his full name almost as a ploy to somehow discredit him because it sounds Muslim. News flash, Mister, you can be Muslim AND be President. Shocking I know! There's no restriction on religion to be President! Imagine that.
Click to expand...
There is one president who matters, only who who can continue to damage the nation. You know who he is. The others are no longer relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom