The "Truth" About Obama

Hugh Freaking Dillon

*phew*

whygohome wrote:

I would just like to mention that my post was pure sarcasm. The Conservapedia entry is real....unfortunately. My comments were meant as jokes, pure sarcasm.

g under p

Paul David wrote:

*phew*

whygohome wrote:

I would just like to mention that my post was pure sarcasm. The Conservapedia entry is real....unfortunately. My comments were meant as jokes, pure sarcasm.

Man you couldn't tell that was the idea. Oh on the Hannity site it's probably over 70 replies by now. They love what's being fed to them by this site.

Peace

g under p

This from Conservapedia on JFK....

Was Kennedy a liberal or a conservative?

Kennedy was basically a conservative, but he had to appeal to a primarily liberal base, so he offered symbols for the liberals while following a conservative course in foreign and domestic policy. After his death Kennedy's legacy was picked up by liberals, and there is a vague notion to the effect that Kennedy was a liberal. He was actually more of a conservative..[8]

To be a liberal in the days when Kennedy was in politics, 1946-63, meant supporting the programs of the New Deal, following in the footsteps of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and upholding the New Deal Coalition. Support for labor unions was important; support for civil rights was a minor issue (and one more associated with the Republican Party). Hostility to the Catholic Church was common among liberals. In foreign policy liberals had turned away from Roosevelt's détente with the Soviets and had adopted the containment policy. Liberals rejected rollback, that is efforts to remove Communists regimes from power. Verbal support for the United Nations was standard rhetoric, although in practice it meant little. The symbolically most important issue of them all for liberals was opposition to Joe McCarthy and his style of aggressive anti-Communism.

On most of these points Kennedy was largely on the conservative side. He refused to call himself a liberal, but he had a base in Massachusetts with many strong liberals in academe and labor unions that had to be appeased, so he never attacked liberalism too loudly. He solved the state problem by a close alliance with the Democratic party organizations in the cities, controlled mostly by Irish politicians. JFK's campaign manager and chief confidante was his brother Bobby, a devout Catholic who was in close touch with the Catholic establishment as well as the local machines. JFK thus maintained very close ties to the Catholic establishment; he carefully followed the required public rituals such as Mass on Sunday and no meat on Friday. It was a major achievement by Kennedy in 1960 to resolve the religious issue and bring Catholics into the mainstream of American life and to the top ranks of national leadership.[9]

Peace

Newch91

g under p wrote:

This from Conservapedia on JFK....

Was Kennedy a liberal or a conservative?

Kennedy was basically a conservative, but he had to appeal to a primarily liberal base, so he offered symbols for the liberals while following a conservative course in foreign and domestic policy. After his death Kennedy's legacy was picked up by liberals, and there is a vague notion to the effect that Kennedy was a liberal. He was actually more of a conservative..[8]

To be a liberal in the days when Kennedy was in politics, 1946-63, meant supporting the programs of the New Deal, following in the footsteps of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and upholding the New Deal Coalition. Support for labor unions was important; support for civil rights was a minor issue (and one more associated with the Republican Party). Hostility to the Catholic Church was common among liberals. In foreign policy liberals had turned away from Roosevelt's détente with the Soviets and had adopted the containment policy. Liberals rejected rollback, that is efforts to remove Communists regimes from power. Verbal support for the United Nations was standard rhetoric, although in practice it meant little. The symbolically most important issue of them all for liberals was opposition to Joe McCarthy and his style of aggressive anti-Communism.

On most of these points Kennedy was largely on the conservative side. He refused to call himself a liberal, but he had a base in Massachusetts with many strong liberals in academe and labor unions that had to be appeased, so he never attacked liberalism too loudly. He solved the state problem by a close alliance with the Democratic party organizations in the cities, controlled mostly by Irish politicians. JFK's campaign manager and chief confidante was his brother Bobby, a devout Catholic who was in close touch with the Catholic establishment as well as the local machines. JFK thus maintained very close ties to the Catholic establishment; he carefully followed the required public rituals such as Mass on Sunday and no meat on Friday. It was a major achievement by Kennedy in 1960 to resolve the religious issue and bring Catholics into the mainstream of American life and to the top ranks of national leadership.[9]

Peace

Wasn't Civil Rights one of his major issues?

Byrnzie

aerial wrote:

can you tell me what part is B.S.?

That part between the first word and the last word.

KDH12

Newch91 wrote:

g under p wrote:

This from Conservapedia on JFK....

Was Kennedy a liberal or a conservative?

Kennedy was basically a conservative, but he had to appeal to a primarily liberal base, so he offered symbols for the liberals while following a conservative course in foreign and domestic policy. After his death Kennedy's legacy was picked up by liberals, and there is a vague notion to the effect that Kennedy was a liberal. He was actually more of a conservative..[8]

To be a liberal in the days when Kennedy was in politics, 1946-63, meant supporting the programs of the New Deal, following in the footsteps of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and upholding the New Deal Coalition. Support for labor unions was important; support for civil rights was a minor issue (and one more associated with the Republican Party). Hostility to the Catholic Church was common among liberals. In foreign policy liberals had turned away from Roosevelt's détente with the Soviets and had adopted the containment policy. Liberals rejected rollback, that is efforts to remove Communists regimes from power. Verbal support for the United Nations was standard rhetoric, although in practice it meant little. The symbolically most important issue of them all for liberals was opposition to Joe McCarthy and his style of aggressive anti-Communism.

On most of these points Kennedy was largely on the conservative side. He refused to call himself a liberal, but he had a base in Massachusetts with many strong liberals in academe and labor unions that had to be appeased, so he never attacked liberalism too loudly. He solved the state problem by a close alliance with the Democratic party organizations in the cities, controlled mostly by Irish politicians. JFK's campaign manager and chief confidante was his brother Bobby, a devout Catholic who was in close touch with the Catholic establishment as well as the local machines. JFK thus maintained very close ties to the Catholic establishment; he carefully followed the required public rituals such as Mass on Sunday and no meat on Friday. It was a major achievement by Kennedy in 1960 to resolve the religious issue and bring Catholics into the mainstream of American life and to the top ranks of national leadership.[9]

Peace

Wasn't Civil Rights one of his major issues?

I guess all the Kennedy's were conservatives

Pepe Silvia

keeponrockin wrote:

Why are you so sure god is white..? If Jesus lived, he almost certainly would've been middle-eastern looking.

but if god is everything then god can't be a certain color or even sex, riiiiiiiiight??

Pepe Silvia

Byrnzie wrote:

aerial wrote:

can you tell me what part is B.S.?

That part between the first word and the last word.

Pepe Silvia

aerial wrote:

can you tell me what part is B.S.?

i found this contradiction in the very first of its sources i checked:

from the conservapedia article:
"While 'turning the page' on the War on Terror the rate of terrorist attacks in the United States has gone from zero under President George W. Bush's[16] to at least four per year[17], [18], [19], [20]

from one of the sources for the claim

"The Mexican and British consulates and the Times Square military recruiting station have been rattled by pre-dawn explosions in recent years, all occurring between 3:30 and 4:30 a.m. No one has been arrested in those blasts."

not to mention that article is about a small homemade bomb that did nothing but shatter a starbucks window placed there by 2 teenagers :roll:

so why is this a case of terrorism under obama but as the article states this has been happening for a few years but during those years it wasn't terrorism???? how does that work!?


it also says
"Well into his second year 500,000 Americans per week continued to lose their jobs. The U.S Unemployment Rate stagnated in the 10% range [12]"

while failing to mention as of sept the unemployment rate was 9.6% but when he took office it was at 7.6%


ALSO from one of the sources conservapedia cherry picks from to prove how bad poverty and unemployment are because of obama:

""The good news is there's less bad news than we thought," says Sheldon Danziger of the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan.

He says the federal stimulus law appears to have boosted income more than expected by, for example, providing extended unemployment benefits and a $250 bonus for Social Security reciipients. Census Bureau division chief David Johnson says unemployment benefits kept 3.3 million people out of poverty in 2009."

it also says
"Median household income was $49,777 in 2009, down 0.7% from a year earlier, a change that was not statistically different from 2008, the agency said."

0.7% isn't a whole lot of blame to pin on a guy, especially when the economy was in the shitter when he took over

so, i guess now that they blocked the extension for unemployment it will now go up and they will blame obama for it despite it being because of their vote

unsung

keeponrockin wrote:

Conservapedia.... I wonder if it's a biased site?

And I dare you guys to run Palin/Gingrich in 2012.

It's just as biased as wikipedia.

g under p

unsung wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

Conservapedia.... I wonder if it's a biased site?

And I dare you guys to run Palin/Gingrich in 2012.

It's just as biased as wikipedia.

Do you have any evidence of such bias? I find that hard to believe when some people's comments think of Conservapedia like this....

Originally Posted by old guy
making a claim about Obama and truth and using conservapedia as "proof" show the poster has no idea what hes talking about

Facts be damned.

WE MUST HATE OBAMA AND CITE ANY RIDICULOURS SOURCE POSSIBLE TO DO SO.

.....so looking past the truth is much more important at sites like Consrevapedia.

Peace

Godfather.

g under p wrote:

unsung wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

Conservapedia.... I wonder if it's a biased site?

And I dare you guys to run Palin/Gingrich in 2012.

It's just as biased as wikipedia.

Do you have any evidence of such bias? I find that hard to believe when some people's comments think of Conservapedia like this....

Originally Posted by old guy
making a claim about Obama and truth and using conservapedia as "proof" show the poster has no idea what hes talking about

Facts be damned.

WE MUST HATE OBAMA AND CITE ANY RIDICULOURS SOURCE POSSIBLE TO DO SO.

.....so looking past the truth is much more important at sites like Consrevapedia.

Peace

OK this is just too fun, can anybody post some stuff to disprove the article ? not that means a hill of beans to me one way or the other but this is turning to some great entertainment.

Godfather.

unsung

g under p wrote:

Do you have any evidence of such bias?

Well I was banned because I quoted the 2nd Amendment when I edited a page. The banning person was from Finland. I was banned for vandalism.

Seems a little biased to me.

WaveCameCrashin

My thoughts are this. Many of you on here don't want to know the truth about Obama and his past or you just don't care and IMO you be would just as content living under an authoritarian dictatorship. I think some of you do know the truth and don't want to admit it at least not here.So of course anything that comes out on Obama that paints him in a negative light is going to ge from a conservative or right leaning source. Before you write it off do your research. You think Media matters,Huffington Post, Or any other left leaning source is going to give you all the facts about his past ? :roll:


Go read Stanley Kurtz new Book if you want facts.
Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism

http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Chief-Bar ... 1439155089

In his controversial new book, veteran journalist Stanley Kurtz culls together two years of investigations from archives and never-before-tapped sources to present an exhaustively-researched exposÉ of President Obama’s biggest secret—the socialist convictions and tactical ruthlessness he has long swept under the rug.

A personable figure, a thoughtful politician, and an inspiring orator, Obama has hidden his core political beliefs from the American people—sometimes by directly misrepresenting his past and sometimes by omitting or parceling out damaging information to disguise its real importance. The president presents himself as a post-ideological pragmatist, yet his current policies grow directly from the nexus of socialist associates and theories that has shaped him throughout his adult life.

Kurtz makes an in-depth exploration of the president’s connections to radical groups such as ACORN, UNO of Chicago, the Midwest Academy, and the Socialist Scholars Conferences. He explains what modern “stealth” socialism is, how it has changed, and how it continues to influence the Democratic Party. He sheds light on what the New York Times called a “lost chapter” of the president’s life—his years at Columbia—and proves that Obama’s youthful infatuation with socialism was not just a phase. Those ideas have shaped his political views and set the groundwork for the long-term strategy of his administration.

It could be argued that Obama’s past no longer matters, but, in a sense, it matters more than the present. Obama has adopted the gradualist socialist strategy of his mentors, seeking to combine comprehensive government regulation of private businesses with a steadily enlarging public sector. Eventually, in his hands, capitalist America could resemble a socialist-inspired Scandinavian welfare state.

The gap between inner conviction and public relations in Obama’s case is vastly wider than for most American politicians. If Americans understood in 2008 the facts Kurtz reveals in this shocking political biography, Obama would not be president today. The fears of his harshest critics are justified: our Commander-in- Chief is a Radical-in-Chief.

About the Author
STANLEY KURTZ is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, as well as a contributing editor for National Review Online. He has also written for National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, Policy Review, and Commentary.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kurtz

Gern Blansten

prfctlefts wrote:

My thoughts are this. Many of you on here don't want to know the truth about Obama and his past or you just don't care and IMO you be would just as content living under an authoritarian dictatorship. I think some of you do know the truth and don't want to admit it at least not here.So of course anything that comes out on Obama that paints him in a negative light is going to ge from a conservative or right leaning source. Before you write it off do your research. You think Media matters,Huffington Post, Or any other left leaning source is going to give you all the facts about his past ? :roll:


Go read Stanley Kurtz new Book if you want facts.
Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism

http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Chief-Bar ... 1439155089

In his controversial new book, veteran journalist Stanley Kurtz culls together two years of investigations from archives and never-before-tapped sources to present an exhaustively-researched exposÉ of President Obama’s biggest secret—the socialist convictions and tactical ruthlessness he has long swept under the rug.

A personable figure, a thoughtful politician, and an inspiring orator, Obama has hidden his core political beliefs from the American people—sometimes by directly misrepresenting his past and sometimes by omitting or parceling out damaging information to disguise its real importance. The president presents himself as a post-ideological pragmatist, yet his current policies grow directly from the nexus of socialist associates and theories that has shaped him throughout his adult life.

Kurtz makes an in-depth exploration of the president’s connections to radical groups such as ACORN, UNO of Chicago, the Midwest Academy, and the Socialist Scholars Conferences. He explains what modern “stealth” socialism is, how it has changed, and how it continues to influence the Democratic Party. He sheds light on what the New York Times called a “lost chapter” of the president’s life—his years at Columbia—and proves that Obama’s youthful infatuation with socialism was not just a phase. Those ideas have shaped his political views and set the groundwork for the long-term strategy of his administration.

It could be argued that Obama’s past no longer matters, but, in a sense, it matters more than the present. Obama has adopted the gradualist socialist strategy of his mentors, seeking to combine comprehensive government regulation of private businesses with a steadily enlarging public sector. Eventually, in his hands, capitalist America could resemble a socialist-inspired Scandinavian welfare state.

The gap between inner conviction and public relations in Obama’s case is vastly wider than for most American politicians. If Americans understood in 2008 the facts Kurtz reveals in this shocking political biography, Obama would not be president today. The fears of his harshest critics are justified: our Commander-in- Chief is a Radical-in-Chief.

About the Author
STANLEY KURTZ is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, as well as a contributing editor for National Review Online. He has also written for National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, Policy Review, and Commentary.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kurtz

By calling Obama a socialist you are labeling your own ignorance. He won, get over it.

If he had any type of unpopular agenda he would have used his first two years in a much more active way don't you think?

WaveCameCrashin

Ignorant ? yeah whatever :roll: Im over the fact that he won. Im focused on him not being re elected. And I didn't call him a full blown socialist becuase there are different types of socialist just like there are different types of conservatives. Why don't you go and read the book and maybe you might actually learn a thing or two before you start calling people ignorant.


Here's another one for you and all the rest of the Obama drones..

Crimes Against Liberty By David Limbaugh



http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTur ... page/full/



“Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” and that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” That, of course, was Barack Obama upon securing his party’s nomination for president.

It didn’t take generations but only a couple of years for a majority of Americans to begin to realize that instead of messianic healing, Barack Obama is inflicting unprecedented injuries on America and the liberties of its citizens. Now there is a book that documents this alarming news in a very comprehensive yet readable way. My friend David Limbaugh’s Crimes Against Liberty is the one book all Americans should read before November.

Before you dismiss Crimes Against Liberty because it is written by a Limbaugh (after all, you’re not a bigot, right?), realize that people can present evidence objectively even if they personally are not neutral. First, neutral people rarely have the interest or expertise to write books! But more importantly, you can’t dismiss what Limbaugh says simply because he might have a conservative agenda. That’s a fallacy that cuts both ways—you’d have to dismiss everything Obama says because he has a liberal agenda. The truth is, everyone has an agenda. The issue is not the agenda, but the evidence one presents!

Like the good attorney he is, Limbaugh presents a wealth of irrefutable evidence for his thesis quoting several liberals along the way. His meticulously researched indictment of Barack Obama and his Administration lays out fact after fact that will educate even political junkies who mistakenly thought they knew it all. I follow politics closely, but I didn’t know the extent to which those currently in power are dismantling our liberties and security until I read this book.

Since Crimes Against Liberty is over 500 pages (including nearly 100 pages of endnotes), I can only summarize a small number of facts that Limbaugh presents about the Obama Administration. You need to get the book to appreciate the breadth of the problem—a problem that most in the major media have failed to report.

Limbaugh documents that Obama usurps rights and laws. For example:

• Obama admitted that he doesn’t care about the lawmaking process just the result. David Axelrod also expressed this same sentiment, which strikes the heart of the American system—the process does matter. We are a nation of laws not men.

• Obama decided to give $140 billion to the IMF without Congressional approval. Even Congressional liberals objected to this.

• His EPA classified carbon dioxide as a toxic air pollutant and then claimed authority to set emissions standards without Congressional approval. (A toxic pollutant? It’s plant food!)

• Obama’s Department of Justice dismissed a case against the new Black Panther party that had clear video evidence of voter intimidation. Todd Graziano, Member of US Commission on Civil Rights, says there is a culture in the DOJ where they “don’t believe the voting rights laws should ever be enforced against blacks and other minorities.” So much for “equal protection” guaranteed by the Constitution.

• Obama threatened legal action against some companies (such as Humana) for informing their customers about the potential problems with Obamacare. That is the government seeking to criminalize free speech!

• The Obama Administration asked Americans to report their friends for circulating emails critical of ObamaCare. Can you say Big Brother?

• Obama also sent unsolicited emails to federal workers urging them to support ObamaCare. Some workers complained privately about the partisan emails but they feared retribution if they went public.

• Obama has been pushing for “Net Neutrality Rules” to seize control of, or to shut down, portions of the Internet.

Limbaugh shows that Obama often leads by slander and intimidation. For example:

• Tom Lauria, an attorney in the Chrysler bailout negotiations, claimed, “One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and, in essence, compelled to withdraw his opposition to the deal under the threat of the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.” Why was Lauria’s client opposing the deal? Because Obama offered his UAW buddies 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debt while offering Lauria’s client only 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debt. This is contrary to fundamental bankruptcy laws. Limbaugh observes, “Here was the President of the United States, again, attacking the reputation and integrity of a private firm merely for asserting its rights in the negotiation…. Obama picks winners and losers based on political allegiance and cronyism—the rule of law be damned.” Even mild-mannered Michael Barone called this “Gangster Government.”

• Obama used civil rights language (“discrimination”) to slander insurance companies for lawfully excluding people with pre-existing conditions. He later inadvertently admitted that’s necessary otherwise patients could game the system and get insurance only after getting sick.

• As if it was his money, Obama threatened to withhold stimulus money from Arizona because Senator Kyl said on TV that the stimulus wasn’t helping the economy.

• Obama abruptly fired Americorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin—who was tasked to ferret out government corruption and to protect whistleblowers—as Walpin was uncovering misuse of a federal grant by an Obama crony. Limbaugh writes of the cover up by the White House after the firing. (It’s alarming that the man tasked to protect government whistleblowers needs whistleblower protection himself from the President of the United States!)

• Obama and others in his Administration have characterized states rights people, pro-lifers, and war veterans as rightwing “extremists” and potential terrorists. (This from a man who in Illinois twice voted against protecting live babies who survived abortion, and who refuses to call real terrorists, like the Fort Hood shooter, what they are.)

• Tea Party people are “tea baggers” and “anti-government” “extremists.” (What a unifier our President is!)

• People who object to homosexual behavior possess “worn arguments and old attitudes.” (Yes, Mr. President, the truth is very old indeed; it’s impervious to hope and change.)

• Doctors are unethical because they do unnecessary surgery to make money. (Obama avoids mentioning unethical behavior by the Democrat-contributing trial lawyers who dramatically drive up health care costs through bogus malpractice lawsuits.)

• Business people are “fat cats” making “immoral” and “obscene” profits (while Obama rakes in $2.5 million in book royalties and pays the Government Motors CEO $9 million).

Limbaugh also documents how Obama:

• Is creating unimaginable debt, and that the average debt under Democrat Congresses is ten times that of Republican Congresses.

• Cooked the books and hid data about the true exploding cost of ObamaCare just a week before the vote.

• Struck a deal that with pharmaceutical companies that lined their pockets but disadvantaged consumers.

• Signed bills that make bailouts and reckless lending more likely.

• Has given nearly a billion dollars to Hamas-ruled Gaza while undermining our ally Israel at almost every turn.

• Continues to weaken our national security by signaling appeasement to Iran and by refusing to acknowledge or confront threats from radical Islam.

• Broke his promises to be transparent and avoided public scrutiny by burying unpopular provisions in other legislation. This includes the reversal of the enormously successful welfare reform and the establishment a super medical bureaucratic board (in effect a “death panel”).

Barack Obama is not the President we’ve been waiting for, but Crimes Against Liberty is the book we’ve been waiting for. If you love America, get the book, read it, and tell your friends before November.

Gern Blansten

oh yes the internet gives you plenty of garbage to post here

This garbage exists when a Repub is in office and it exists when a Dem is in office. Learn to seek the actual truth and make something out of yourself.

unsung

Amazing how left leaning people have no problems with what is being done now. You all bitched about Bush and the PATRIOT Act but Obama is now the one who keeps it as law.

But it's so quiet you can hear a pin drop.

Meanwhile your wife is being groped by some uneducated goon (man or woman) at the airport in the sake of security and no one here says a thing.

Hypocrites.

Gern Blansten

unsung wrote:

Amazing how left leaning people have no problems with what is being done now. You all bitched about Bush and the PATRIOT Act but Obama is now the one who keeps it as law.

But it's so quiet you can hear a pin drop.

Meanwhile your wife is being groped by some uneducated goon (man or woman) at the airport in the sake of security and no one here says a thing.

Hypocrites.

did Obama run on overturning the Patriot Act? I don't think so.

gimmesometruth27

obama can't win. if he eases the patriot act and eases the tsa screenings and we get hit again then you cons would have a field day blaming him. now you are saying that the screenings are an invasion of privacy and your liberty is being taken away and yada yada....you can not have it both ways....will you make up your minds please? it is the cons who are always "national security this and national security that" and yet now you complain, after 6 years of patriot act and tsa screenings under bush, you complain NOW. only because it is not your guy in office. things were great for you all under bush no doubt, am i right? i love how transparent people can be sometimes...