That's right Obama blame the republicans

WaveCameCrashin

FiveB247x wrote:

Firstly, what does what a person's family member or friend beliefs and thoughts specifically mean in terms of another? Do you believe or think or agree with everything everyone of your friends, family or acquaintances do? Pretty silly to make such a leap.

It doesn't mean that you agree with them on everything but at some point you have to ask yourself why whould he associate with those types of people if they didnt share some of the same beliefs ?

FiveB247x wrote:

Secondly, I am very familiar with all the terms, definitions and people you're referring too which is why I find it ridiculous for many to make such comments and statements. The only "class welfare" or "scheme" we have in America is the Military Industrial Complex aka the Corporate agenda...in which money is filtered from the tax payers and citizens into big business and government. It is accomplished through many ways which include, bailouts, handouts, tax breaks, lobbying, government contracts and many others. This has all been going on since the 1960's to the present...and has very little to do with Obama - he's merely another name on the long, long list of participants of this system. If this is what you are referring to by class welfare, then yes, I agree, but if you somehow use the text book version of "marxism" or "socialism" or "class welfare" or "redistribution" which is what you have claimed, not only are you and others off base, you do not comprehend the practical and realistic meanings of these ideas and they are sorely misused and misappropriated.

when i said class warfare the context I was using it in was pitting people against one another as in the miidleclass or the poor against the wealthy. That's exactly what Obama was doing and he does it all the time.

FiveB247x

Simply because you're related to someone or know or are friends with someone, doesn't mean you automatically advocate everything the person says, does or think. That's a leap and far from reality.

People have been "pitted against one another" since the beginning of time.. it's why we have conflict and war. It's very naive to assume Obama is doing such simply because you disagree with him, especially since his predecessor was famously known by all as such a divisive figure at an extreme level.

prfctlefts wrote:

It doesn't mean that you agree with them on everything but at some point you have to ask yourself why whould he associate with those types of people if they didnt share some of the same beliefs


when i said class warfare the context I was using it in was pitting people against one another as in the miidleclass or the poor against the wealthy. That's exactly what Obama was doing and he does it all the time.

polaris_x

FiveB247x wrote:

I agree with both of your comments but isn't part of the problem the resentment that builds over the overstated and many times, out of touch opinions which are formed from these types of situations? I mean how many people are actually bucking the system compared to those in need for a variety of reasons? We'll always have both groups no matter how much we tweak it, but I think the worst part of any of it is the generalizations that the problems are a detriment to society because everyone or some particular group of people are sitting on their asses having the rest of us pay for them. It really is such a dismissive and simplistic cut and dry way to view the realities of our society.

i think most programs do not work because of the exploitive nature of people and society in general ... we are so hell bent on taking as much as we can that we lose sight of the greater purpose ... these unemployment benefits are a temporary measure to keep people afloat and contributing to the consumer-based economy that is established ... is it a shock to see people (from all sides of the political spectrum) take advantage of it? hardly ... is it only a few? ... i doubt it ... it may not be everyone but it doesn't take a lot of people to exploit a program to render it a failure ...

blackredyellow

prfctlefts wrote:

what horse shit ? please by all means show me what's not true about that. Like I said you and others cant accept the truth and don't want to know the truth.

Against my better judgmental, I'm going to waste my time with a few of these...

prfctlefts wrote:

Obama’s Father Wrote About Socialism – His father wrote a paper called “Problems With Our Socialism” that advocates 100% taxation of the rich, communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land. Source: Greg Ransom, PrestoPundit

His father who was barely in Obama's life? His non-existent fathers' political views are irrelevant even if this true.

prfctlefts wrote:

Obama’s Parents Met in a Russian Class(Back then it was the Communist USSR) – “His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (her farther always wanted a son), was white and just 18 when they met in a Russian class” Source: Sharon Cohen, St Louis Times

Gasp... they met in a college class? And the class was a Russian language class during the height of the cold war? I guess that means anyone who takes an arabic class these days is an Al-Qaeda supporter?

prfctlefts wrote:

Obama Attended Socialist Conference at Cooper Union – “He went to socialist conference at Cooper Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn and started lecturing his relatives until they worried he’d become “ one of those freaks you see on the street around here.” Source: H Kennedy, NY Daily News

Well, that settles it... nothing like hearsay family conversations that supposedly happened 30 years ago.

prfctlefts wrote:

Obama Endorsed Openly Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, “Sanders is the first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate.” Source: Wikipedia

Obama supported the de facto Democratic nominee for a US Senate seat that the DCCC was backing? Wow... I guess he should have campaigned for the Republican candidate.

prfctlefts wrote:

Many Obama Supporters Idolize Che Guevara – Obama Campaign Worker Seen With Communist Cuba Flag Depicting Marxist Che Guevara on it. Source: David Benzion, Lone Star times

One campaign volunteer out of thousands and thousands of volunteers around the country had a Che flag in his office... Yeah, I guess that means "Many Obama Supporters idolize Che Guevara"... Great logic there...

polaris_x

what is truly laughable is one only has to look at his record to see he is nothing close to being a socialist ... i mean - if he was, that would be a good thing to me and these accusations would actually be complimentary but the reality is that he is nothing close to being a socialist ... all one has to do to figure that out is to look at his record ... apparently tho, bloggers and op-ed pieces from conservative websites is where the real info is ...

whygohome

I see no problem with extending unemployment benefits as there are some hardworking, honest people out there going through some difficult times. I was unemployed for a 3 months, but chose not to collect, opting instead for odd jobs, depleting my savings, and financial aid once school began. (It would have been unethical, and illegal I think, to be a student while collecting unemployment).

I agree with what Polaris X is saying.
The problem with entitlement programs is that they are severely abused by a minority of the public who choose to collect them. People in our society pump out kids just to collect a larger welfare check. People would rather collect "free" money than work. This is a fact. We are a lazy nation. So how do we remedy this? Regulation.

My old neighbor was on unemployment after being fired from a job where she worked 20 + years. All she had to do every week was fill out a questionairre online - 5 questions - to collect. This is a joke and an invitation to scam the system. No meeting with a counselor, no proof that she was looking for a job. The system needs to be heavily regulated so people cannot take advantage of a good system. And, if the system is better regulated, this will demand more jobs to work for the regulation agency.

To me, this is all common sense

inmytree

prfctlefts wrote:

So Obama continues to blame the R. For not wanting to extend unemployment benefits and he continues to create class warfare by saying the upperclass are the only ones that got tax cuts under bush which is a lie.
The R just want Obama to get the money from somewhere else like maybe what's left of the stimulus money instead of adding to the deficit. Or here's an idea why doesn't he actually create some jobs instead of destroying them? I'm not here to stick up for the R's but I'm sick of all the lies and deciet that comes from Obama and how he's trying to pit people against one another. Geee I wonder where he got that from? Alinsky or Marx maybe?

this post is stupid...

Stone Is God

whygohome wrote:

My old neighbor was on unemployment after being fired from a job where she worked 20 + years. All she had to do every week was fill out a questionairre online - 5 questions - to collect. This is a joke and an invitation to scam the system. No meeting with a counselor, no proof that she was looking for a job. The system needs to be heavily regulated so people cannot take advantage of a good system. And, if the system is better regulated, this will demand more jobs to work for the regulation agency.

To me, this is all common sense

What you may not understand about this is that there are so many people unemployed there aren't enough DUA workers to check on what people are doing. The times that I have gone to the unemployment office I have found them to be less than helpful. I have done everything on my own. This includes paying for my own training programs that are government supported. The only time I have seen DUA workers check up on people is if they have got money through Section 30 to go back to school.

The job market is AWFUL. I feel lucky that it only took me 10 weeks to find a job after my training was completed at the end of April. I go back to work on Monday after 59 weeks of unemployment.

_

I couldn't give a rat's ass who's mother learned Russian or whether someone who chose Obama as her successor reported on a conference. None of that (if it's even true) is even the slightest bit relevant to anything. Do you really, truly believe that it is?? Do you believe that we should vote for our President based on who they hung out with when they were 14, something written by a father they barely even knew, or the long-ago activities of the person whose house was used by someone else who once held a fundraiser for them? :?

"Look at the kinds of people that Obama grew up and surrounded himself with. That should speak volumes of who he really is and his ideology"?

My parents are die-hard conservatives. My grandfather is racist. My uncle named his dog after Rush Limbaugh because he's such a fan. My brother ran for political office as a Republican. My cousins are anti-choice. My other grandfather hates - sorry, dislikes - Obama as much as you do. And I hang around on this message board with you. Does that mean I'm a Limbaugh-loving, Obama-hating, anti-choice, racist, conservative Republican who agrees with your politics? Absolutely not!

I tried to learn Korean and Arabic in college. Does that mean I agree with the politics of North Korea and Iran? Of course not!

I hung around all types of people who have had all types of trouble with the law when I was in high school. Does that mean I'm like them? No!

The conclusions you draw about Obama based on the supposed beliefs of people he has known are completely unfounded. And I think you're smart enough to know this. And everyone else is smart enough to know this. Yet you persist with this line of reasoning anyway, so as to come up with more bad things to say about Obama. My question is, what could possibly make a man hate (sorry, dislike) someone so much that they would abandon all sense of reason simply for the opportunity to condemn him further? Did he sleep with your mother, conning her out of all your family's money and causing your dad to kill your mother and himself? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to condemn Obama, but a campaign worker who he never even met owning a Che flag is not one of them.

_

Stone Is God wrote:

whygohome wrote:

My old neighbor was on unemployment after being fired from a job where she worked 20 + years. All she had to do every week was fill out a questionairre online - 5 questions - to collect. This is a joke and an invitation to scam the system. No meeting with a counselor, no proof that she was looking for a job. The system needs to be heavily regulated so people cannot take advantage of a good system. And, if the system is better regulated, this will demand more jobs to work for the regulation agency.

To me, this is all common sense

What you may not understand about this is that there are so many people unemployed there aren't enough DUA workers to check on what people are doing. The times that I have gone to the unemployment office I have found them to be less than helpful. I have done everything on my own. This includes paying for my own training programs that are government supported. The only time I have seen DUA workers check up on people is if they have got money through Section 30 to go back to school.

The job market is AWFUL. I feel lucky that it only took me 10 weeks to find a job after my training was completed at the end of April. I go back to work on Monday after 59 weeks of unemployment.

Congratulations on your new job! :thumbup:

Dirtie_Frank

scb wrote:

My cousins are anti-choice.

Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?

gimmesometruth27

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

scb wrote:

My cousins are anti-choice.

Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?

pro choice does not equal anti baby....they are for the woman having a right to decide what happens in their own body, and they are for the freedom from the zealots who would impose their will on them....at least that is what i believe...

Dirtie_Frank

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

scb wrote:

My cousins are anti-choice.

Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?

pro choice does not equal anti baby....they are for the woman having a right to decide what happens in their own body, and they are for the freedom from the zealots who would impose their will on them....at least that is what i believe...

Understandable, but being pro-life does not make you anti-choice. It means you believe the baby is a life and it should not be "killed".

gimmesometruth27

i am not turning this into an abortion debate. but i can blame the republicans for holding up voting on the healthcare bill due to these "pro-life" republicans and a few blue dog dems....

_

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?

pro choice does not equal anti baby....they are for the woman having a right to decide what happens in their own body, and they are for the freedom from the zealots who would impose their will on them....at least that is what i believe...

Understandable, but being pro-life does not make you anti-choice. It means you believe the baby is a life and it should not be "killed".

No, being pro-life doesn't make you anti-choice. Being anti-choice makes you anti-choice.

cincybearcat

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

scb wrote:

My cousins are anti-choice.

Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?

Of course not...it's their silly little way to try and belittle those that have a difference of opinion with them.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

scb wrote:

My cousins are anti-choice.

Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?

Of course not...it's their silly little way to try and belittle those that have a difference of opinion with them.

Dude - at the risk of briefly hijacking the thread, we need to get this settled once and for all. The term anti-choice is NOT belittling. To the contrary, it is precise.

Pro-life vs. anti-life is a DIFFERENT QUESTION than pro-choice vs. anti-choice. If someone asks the question, "Do you think any woman should ever have an abortion?" and you say no, you are pro-life. If someone asks, "Do you think all women should always have abortions?" and you say yes, you are anti-life (though I have never ever heard of a person who falls into this category). If you are asked, "Do you think women should be ALLOWED to make the CHOICE of whether or not to have an abortion?" and you say yes, you are pro-choice. And if you are asked the same question about choice and you say no, you are anti-choice. If you say you don't believe abortion is right but you think women should be able to decide for themselves, then you are pro-life AND pro-choice. If you say women should not be able to make their own choice about whether or not to have an abortion, but should all be required to have abortions, then you are anti-life and anti-choice.

People use the term anti-choice out of respect of the varying opinions of pro-life people. Don't accuse me of belittling people just because you can't understand what the fuck I'm talking about.

markin ball

prfctlefts wrote:

There's a difference between throwing someone a crumb and throwing them a loaf of bread and Obama is throwing crumbs. Ie no jobs
Why don't you read S Alinsky's rules for radicals and just maybe you might start to understand how Obama thinks.

FiveB247x wrote:

"Class warfare" - that's some funny shit.

When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist. - Archbishop Helder Camara

I'm quite sure those Founding Fathers of ours were considered radicals by many many.

whygohome

Stone Is God wrote:

whygohome wrote:

My old neighbor was on unemployment after being fired from a job where she worked 20 + years. All she had to do every week was fill out a questionairre online - 5 questions - to collect. This is a joke and an invitation to scam the system. No meeting with a counselor, no proof that she was looking for a job. The system needs to be heavily regulated so people cannot take advantage of a good system. And, if the system is better regulated, this will demand more jobs to work for the regulation agency.

To me, this is all common sense

What you may not understand about this is that there are so many people unemployed there aren't enough DUA workers to check on what people are doing. The times that I have gone to the unemployment office I have found them to be less than helpful. I have done everything on my own. This includes paying for my own training programs that are government supported. The only time I have seen DUA workers check up on people is if they have got money through Section 30 to go back to school.

The job market is AWFUL. I feel lucky that it only took me 10 weeks to find a job after my training was completed at the end of April. I go back to work on Monday after 59 weeks of unemployment.

I do understand. The system is what needs to be fixed and you supported that idea. Those abusing the system need to be punished, and those not doing their job need to be fired. The system needs to be fixed.

unsung

I read somewhere that this government is spending $11,000,000,000 a day.

These people who are off needs jobs. I wonder if they ever thought of buying things made in this country, because there would be some nice jobs for them building things. Of course the only things we make anymore are Big Macs and Whoppers.

We are fucked.