Only in the Obama White House will you find a Christmas ornament of Chairman Mao, yes…….Chairman Mao.
I’m sure Obama didn’t personally decorate the tree, but what is disturbing that the White House has affiliations with so-called community groups that would do this. I mean really, who in their right mind would put Chairman Mao on a Christmas Ornament? Only left-wing radicals and commies would.
~~~“Sometimes, like in the case of Black rights, the government must - through the actions of the people - take charge and finally say, enough is enough. We are a nation where ALL people are supposed to be equal under the law.”---AJ~~~
Agreed, to a point. Again, however, gays already have the same rights as anyone else.
~~~“Such is the political reality RW; in fact, your own right wing, christians, neocons, and so on - use the exact same tactics as others do. As I call it, the concept of "Mine or I will whine," is not just a liberal modus operandi, it's a people one. Ex: Conservative doesn't like an atheist conducting a business deal and expressing themselves? (i.e. putting up a billboard that claims there is not god, or whatever) They whine and complain, and claim that their rights are infringed. They use the system we have to take it down.
Uh, what gives?
Likewise, liberals have done it as well. Both sides do.
People don't think of others, they think of themselves, period. That is largely why I identify as a liberal (albeit, perhaps an old fashioned one), because at its core - it is about living and let live, respecting each others to live life, however we want to. Christians, athiests, homosexuals, and straight people included.”---AJ~~~
As to “living and let live”, that sounds great; in fact, it’s a very conservative notion.
However, how often, really, do you hear of conservatives actually going to court, and firing the first volley, in such cases? Usually, it’s the intolerant Left, which initially opens the court dockets for some petty nonsense, such as a Nativity within 1500 miles of a school, and the Right which must, in turn, defend itself.
~~“It does seem funny that some of his core beliefs (communist as you say), Americans also agreed with. Hmm, go figure.”---AJ~~~
There were also Americans who agreed with Nixon, too; twice. And Reagan, twice. And Bush 43 “The Reviled”, twice. And those guys didn't have the media blatantly on their side, salivating over their very existence. Hmmm, go figure.
Of course, as the sheen wears off, and the hype is shown to be just that, Obama seems to be losing that edge, too. All style and no substance works great for winning elections. Actually governing is another kettle of fish. You'll notice also, that the radical Muslims seem to be getting more and more emboldened, now, too.
He got the Nobel Prize simply for not being Bush; the terrorists realize he's not Bush, too.
~~~"
1. "Our"? I'm sure you mean your own personal beliefs, because frankly, you don't have any right to intervene in what anyone else celebrates, even if it is - as you say - undermining to "our" beliefs and tradition. You sure as hell do not speak for me.”---AJ~~~
Nor would I attempt to speak for you. However, my personal beliefs were, for many, many years, the statistical and cultural norm. Polls indicate that they actually still are, despite what the ACLU may say. See, I really couldn’t care less if you and/or your friends celebrate Christmas or not. That’s your loss, if you don’t.
The radical Left, however, seems to try it’s damnedest to make it more and more difficult for me and mine to do so.
You and your comrades take issue, stamp your feet, and cry and complain, about what I and my fellows do as a matter of course; I resent what you’re side is doing simply because they don’t like it, and to be contrary, and in grudging defiance, of what I do.
Just leave us alone; quit being so ridiculously thin-skinned. You’re supposed to be the tolerant, open-minded, free-thinkers. We’re the closed-minded, short-sighted, Neanderthal “haters“, remember?
But every time your side files a lawsuit against some small, one-horse town which had the audacity to place a cross or a depiction of the Ten Commandments on public property or too close to a courthouse, you show the absolute reverse to be true.
Look at that cross in the Mojave desert; placed there---in the middle nowhere---in 1931 by WWI vets to honor their dead. The ACLU wants it taken down because it’s on public land. It’s been there almost 80 years. They’ve had to cover it in a plywood box since the suit was first opened, in 2001. Does the following sound tolerant to you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/blind-faith-supreme-court_b_314017.html
~~~“Such is our nation, god love it; people can do, say, and believe damn near anything they want.”---AJ~~~
Thanks to left-wing, alphabet soup organizations like the ACLU PETA, ACORN, GLSEN and GLAAD and many others with many and varying agendas, that’s becoming a tough statement to choke out. The most active intolerance, the most petty oppression and repression, comes from the overly-litigious, lawsuit-happy Left, not the Right. You really can’t see it, can you? I’m not surprised. They do this, because they know that their views are not really in the majority, no matter how they propagandize, and the only way they can get people to see thinsg their way is to impose it upon them, through the courts and activist judges legislating from the bench.
I repeat, from above:
‘As to “living and let live”, that sounds great; in fact, it’s a very conservative notion.
However, how often, really, do you hear of conservatives actually going to court, and firing the first volley, in such cases? Usually, it’s the intolerant Left, which initially opens the court dockets for some petty nonsense, such as a Nativity within 1500 miles of a school, and the Right which must, in turn, defend itself.’
“2. This is entirely your opinion, but thankfully, it doesn't make it fact, or law. Yeah, you may not agree with it, and it may conjure up nightmares of some manchurian candidate in your mind, but you know...oh well. You have no real proof other than your bias.”---AJ~~~
Sure I do; I have open eyes and a curious mind, which is more than you and your comrade have exhibited. I’ll use the birth certificate issue to illustrate that point; would you be so accepting if it had been a Republican who won? I doubt it; you’d be up in arms, hysterical; screeching. Even moreso than us “tea baggers” are, demanding that it be addressed. Yet, you all simply accept it, because he's your guy.
Your side calls us ideologues, but would you hold that mirror up to yourselves?
~~~“I think this whole ornament deal is overblown honestly.”---AJ~~~
Perhaps; but I still think it’s a minor symptom of a larger, more dangerous, and insidious, problem.
~~~“I mean come on, it was brought to light be one of the more biased, anti-obama, we-hate-progressives/liberals-and-will-do-anything-to-destroy-them "news" sites (biggovernment). Really? You're willing to buy their pulitzer prize winning journalism?
If so, then you deserve what you get - vitrol, hate, venom, lies, etc. NOT - critical, investigative, unbiased (as possible), fact based news.”----AJ~~~
Does that make it any less accurate? Even the sleazy tabloids get hold of a good story once in a great while; it just depends how they run with it. Reminds me…..
Years ago, I posted on here, a story about Iran providing guns for insurgents in Iraq. It was taken from ABCNEWS.com; someone (a leftie poster) posted that they were surprised, having expected it to be from Rush Limbaugh’s site or something, but felt they could believe it, knowing where it came from. It was completely true and accurate, but if Limbaugh had said it, they wouldn’t have believed it. Why? Because we all have our biases.
When I hear the MSM news, I automatically assume they’re omitting something, or spinning it somehow, which, of course, both sides do. But at least the conservative media has the balls to admit, even flaunt, their bias, and not hide behind false “objectivity”.
~~~“Why not try pbs, eh?”---AJ~~~
PBS is one of the worst of a bad lot. NPR is up there, too.
~~~“Yet you and others consistantly do so. I can't remember even one event where you have praised him, or hell - given him 1 out of five stars. I don't remmember if it was you or another person, but someone once told me that while I may think that my country is great, that my words and constant critcism (albeit intended as a means to hold it accountable in a good way) show, contrary to my intentions.”---AJ~~~
Criticism is one thing, simple bitching is another. There’s nothing wrong with open criticism, as long as it‘s constructive. For most of the last eight years, the Left bitched unceasingly about Bush; turns out, shockingly, a lot of what Bush did was okay, even correct. Obama, in fact, has continued on some of the same paths, extending some of the Bush policies he and his liberal cohorts, for years, criticized.
If we’ve “shown” you, why do you fight us on it? Does that mean you see what we mean, and now agree?
He’s stacked his cabinet and staff with far-leftist ideologues and radicals of all stripes, at least one of which, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, publicly expressed a personal admiration for Mao. Richard Holbrooke is an anti-gun zealot, strongly pro-abortion, and favors drug legalization. Kevin Jennings is a radical gay, who favors sexualizing children and (ahem) inserting pro-gay, anti-hetero propaganda into curriculum. Just go here:
http://www.rense.com/general88/czars.htm
At any rate, he’s certainly gone a good distance toward stocking the pond with the right kinds of people to undermine and take down the system they work under, and the country along with it.
~~~“Btw, Iran-Contra and Reagan. Normally, yes, the president is always advised and expected to be aware of all that goes on, but like anyone - even the archangel Reagan - they are human and sometimes they trust people with tasks or positions, and those people abuse them.”---AJ~~~
Good point. Very true; but if that’s the case, then virtually every single one of the ideologues Obama trusted is abusing his faith in them. I think that’s highly unlikely, myself. I mean, if that's the case, what does that say about his judgement of people and character? He can't even trust the people who decorated his freakin' Christmas tree?
Kudos, AJ….you are one of the only of your kind I’ve ever encountered, who is willing to say Reagan wasn’t at fault for Iran-Contra.
~~~“Yeah well sometimes the majority sucks - badly. I find it interesting though, that all this comes down to is intention, albeit "good" intentions. (Ironic? Perhaps. Hilarious? Indeed)
And that says it all....Christmas is not political, yet folks like yourself insist on either turning it into a political statement or worse yet looking the other way. Quite self serving.
Neither is religion, yet it is made such by those pushing their beliefs onto those who don't agree with them. The religious right is just as responsible for politicizing christmas (and other subjects) as the left is, perhaps even more since they're so passionate.”---AJ~~~
“(F)olks like yourself”….when was the last time I sued someone for having a position contrary to my own, in an attempt to coerce them into seeing things my way? Never….and very seldom does that happen from the general direction in which my politics reside. From the other side, however…..well, happens all the time.
Christmas gets politicized because leftist political pressure and advocacy groups make it political. I’d be overjoyed to just let Joseph, Mary, Baby Jesus and Santa have the whole season to themselves. Your side just can’t let that happen.
“Chains shall He break, for the slave is our brother;
And in His name, all oppression shall cease.”---“O Holy Night”
Oppression isn’t in His name; it’s in names like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Chavez and, increasingly…..Obama.
Yes, there are; but again, my side seldom uses the courts to impose its will on those others. Neither does it have the advantage of having virtually the whole of the media, in all its myraid facets, at its disposal. Your side does, and uses it.
Exactly.
Your traditions are only relevant to your kind, not any of those who hold other traditions. If someone doesn't want to follow what you believe, then so be it. The problem is though, is that that view isn't held by all. (Either side) In the case of your people, they have consistantly pushed. Take KFC for example. God love her, she's a great woman, but in my opinion, he is misguided and fooled by the chain of the bible and human foible. She has consistantly said that she supports the amendments and laws that have implied clearly, "Homosexuals cannot marry." That isn't living her life, and letting others live theirs.
The constitution guarantees:
Mmm, until I can see the mind of said people, I remain unconvinced by your alleged stories.
They are the main stream media RW, they are it. Take it from a communications major who has had to read many books on the topic, it doesn't matter what the news channel - all serve to sell, whether it is via one slant or another. They are first and foremost corporations (which = capitalism, which = profit), and secondly they are corporations that provide entertainment.
Your point fails because at the time, no one (until '45, had that means either; Still though, Hitler had a gigantic war machine that, as history has shown, was vast and unwavering. Weapons are as powerful as the people that use them. Besides, how do you know that RW? Do you really trust the government and its intelligence?
First off...for the love of all that is good...get it through your head - it is not about sex. Homosexuality doesn't mean you're any more or less of a horndog than your average hetero. It merely means that you are attracted, not just physically but in every other way, to someone who is of the same sex.
That said, Like with every movement, there are those who out of spite, anger, and (largely) resentment at treatment - intentionally provoke others. Are you really going to judge an entire movement by the actions of a few?
That's the thing RW. You and others like you just don't seem to understand. The founders were not aware of homosexuality, as such they didn't have the foresight to include it verbatum. That said - in the constitution - it explicitly states that all people are to be equal under the law (under their own terms). So, if the entire world was hetero - then there would be no problem, and people could marry. However, because not all people are hetero - thusly they cannot be seen equal under the law.
Equality doesn't mean that they are necessarily bound by the SAME law, but that the law systems treats them equally, through the laws. The laws are meant to make it so that each person, no matter what their case (black, white, hindu, french, hetero or gay...) are equal under law - as such that demands that in the case of homosexuals, that it is acknowledged that for them to be treated equally and to pursue their happiness (life/liberty, etc.) - they must have the access to marriage - under their own terms. (i.e. hetero people can marry, because the law states that they are allowed to marry who they want...another person of the same sex) Because marriage is being defined as man/woman, homosexuals are not being treated equitably under the law because they are not hetero.
"...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
There is a right for every american citizen to be seen as an equal among all others in the court and in the legal system; Laws, cannot by principle, be discriminatory - majority rule or not. That is the law RW, period. It isn't happening because homosexuals are not given the same due access given others. Can heterosexuals pursue their happines, by way of marring WHO THEY CHOOSE (with free will, liberity, life, etc.) and raise a family? Yes.
Can homosexuals? No. They are unable (in the majority of the US), to marry the persont he want.
Example: Your religion is not biological, it is a choice. As such, by your logic, does that mean you deserve any special consideration? No. In fact, by your logic, the part of the first amendment that covers the free exercise of religion would be special rights. Again, by your logic.
However, given what the constitution implies/means - it is accepted that religion is a part of life. It is in of itself, the concept and/or awe of the supernatural and subsequent explination of it (in basic terms), natural (so stated by the constitution).
Another example/attempt:
Heterosexual peoples' access to the law (marrioage) is granted to them because through their circumstances and nature they are straight. Homosexuals however, are not; Thus, it is paramount that the government give them equal access under the law (as well as view them equally).
Additionally - the actions of Doma and other laws - subsequently violate the first amendment, culture or not. The first amendment, it seems I need to remind you, states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
That means quite clearly that the congress shall not give favor or exclusive anything toward ANY particular religion. Unfortunately, there is a failure in that area when it comes to the concept of homosexuality being wrong. Namely, because of the arguments that it is: 1) Deviant (according to the bible = religion) 2) unethical (bible = religion) 3) Sodomy (Religion) (The list goes on.
As such, the government is allowing (even by the will of the people), the favoring of religion (in this case, it seems damn near all). That is unconstitutional. Also, the states are bound, by laws and contract, to follow federal law. (Hence, the constitution)
DOMA, the grand piece of shit it is, grossly violates the constitution because it slaps the first amendment in the face. So, do we go with the constitution...or do we go with DOMA? Constitution - our founding document - OR - Doma, federal law.
For me...the constitution.
Additionally:
Even if homosexuality is, as you say, a private thing between two individuals in their bedrooms- it violats the right to privacy, which you've mentioned as supportign. Thusly, it would behoove you to support such an intrusion into the private lives of individuals because, as you say...the cumulative effect. By your logic, if we let the government intrude too many times - it will be too late.
It's always been an issue RW, don't be naive.
It affects us because your beliefs cause you to act in a way that affects us, our beliefs, our lives, our happines, our piece of the American dream. You know the phrase, "Don't tread on me"? Well damn it, don't tread on us. By all means, you live your life, but don't fucking tell us what is right and wrong with ours. If everyone just lived their lives and stopped insisting (through the perversion of our system that was meant to see everyone as equal)
Bullshit, prove it.
I'm not equating christmas with the holocaust - I'm talking about a separate but pertinent issue, the idea that majority rules, and is (always) right. That just isn't the case, and the founding fathers knew that. They understood that the pendulum of populism swings back and forth.
Actually, there have been scientific studies that have show that it is innate and unable to be changed (consciously), only repressed. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that not only is it biological, but that the mechanism that controls it is in fact biological.
That said, I'm going to be fair...and simply ask you to prove to me, with facts...how Gays supposibly are treated equally and have the same rights, because...it's funny...if gays had the same rights...don'tcha think that they would be able to marry whom they love? They could carry on their lives and not be told they are evil and wicked...
~AJ
Great, then go tell conservatives, especially those conservatives who have used our election system to make sure that others cannot pursue their happines, as their free will dictates.
Geesh.
You may have open eyes RW, I'll concede that - but why don't you use them? Why have I never seen you hold FoxNews accountable, or Bush accountable? Why is it that you always are the right wing apologist, and liberal basher? Good ideas are not exclusive to one side or another.
I wouldn't have any problem with people who are conservative (or religious, etc - or - liberal, etc. ) , to be honest, if they were open minded, tolerant, dealt with their own life (not others), championed others' rights to live their own lives, and were reasonable/rational. That is what ultimately ticks me off - they never are. I could respect them a little more. As it is, I don't know what to think of them frankly...they're all nuts (left and right).
Yes, I would have been just as concerned and I did my research and came to the best conclusion I could about both conspiracy theories (McCain and Obama); I feel both were/are legit. The only problem with the birther deal is that people want his original birth certificate, which according to my understanding, you cannot get in the state of Hawaii. You can get the certified copy, which many people did get. That is the closest you can get legally, period. The issue, as far as I was concerned, was never about whether he was born in Hawaii. Frankly, it was yet another political attack, one of many (l and r) in the election.
I have more of an open mind and open eyes than you think RW, just ask around. Don't buy the kool aid man, it's bad for ya.
Yes it does, because journalism is about being true to the facts - not the spin. BG has proudly shown its overt and bias, and as such can't be trusted as a credible source. How can anyone trust them for news?
Limbaugh is a joke...an utter joke...waste of time on the radio in my opinion. To each their own though, even if they like being spoon fed lies. Some people are just happy with their own little world.
1. Bingo! Tell me, where is your criticism of Obama constructive? I have yet, in the (almost) year that he has been in office, to hear you offer an opnion, suggest that conservatives and liberals sit together and work things out. You (both you, as in you, and you as in rhetorically) continually bash him, just as moronically. Criticize, yes; hold accountable, yes; but if that is what you're only going to do...and not offer any alternatives...you're just blowing hot air without much meaning. You sound like just another talking head. Put some thought into it. (This goes for liberals as well)
2. Oh really? It was legal? Prove it, because I can't help but call bullshit.
How many people would you trust with your life? Now put that into politics. While I agree that his judgement of people is suspect, it's politics and more often than not - the altruists are outnumbered by the self interested.
Yeah well RW, many liberals, if you give them credit as opposed to simply labeling them, are due more credit than they get. Adittionally, I may find myself on the left side of politics, but that doesn't mean that I'm the full text of your (or most conservatives/republicans) misconception of liberals/liberalism.
A large part of why I identify with liberalism is that it actively seeks to make sure things are fair and balanced - true to our constitution, unlike conservatism which has - no pun intendeded - traditionally sought to maintain the status quo as history has shown. If conservatism had won in the American revolution, we would possibly be British. It was liberal (enlightenment) principles that drove it.
It all depends on perspective RW - I don't buy the tripe about it only being the left, the right wing has its own little crusade; good old fashion religion at the helm, no less.
1.Ten commandments on federal grounds (unconstitutional - as per 1st amendment, SCOTUS, etc.), ten commandments in courtroom, etc. Christmas is politicized by people like the hacks at FoxNews, or the various reverends and religious who insist on others celebrating. Additionally, when people insist the government recognize a religious figure/monument (i.e. commandments). There is no live and let live, period. Yes, I agree, this doesn't exclusively belong to the right wing or the left, but really...will it really serve anyone, this pointing of fingers? Bottom line is that it happens, and it needs to stop. Why point and blame RW? What does it serve? How does it fix anything?
Oh sure, it strokes egos and shifts the blame...but...that's childish, when it's in a "They do it, so why not us!" way.
2. It's ironic RW, that you say that "in his name...", but in his name...oppression HAS happened. You can't deny facts. Well, you can, people do it all the time, but...you're being a fool and a dumbass if you do.
Oh, so they can marry whomever they choose, right? Just like heterosexuals can? Gee, what was I thinking, assuming that the intention of the rights given was that so american citizens could pursue their happines and live life and enjoy liberties. Oh, quick fix! Homosexuals just have to turn straight!
Silly me, it only works if you can actually pursue your happines which includes - in some cases - marrying who you love!
See? Simple concept...yet millions don't get it. (Intelligent Design my ass...)
You know AJ, if you spent a little less time being so defensive and more time being a bit more open and considerate you would realize that you can actually disagree with something without taking away a person right to express their beliefs and what makes them happy.
I have yet to get from you that you thought the Ornament itself was wrong. All you have done is defend the right of the person who put it there to put it up. You also ignored the fact that the small things really do count, isn't that what they say about relationships? Here's a couple for ya:
The recent attack at the military base by a Muslim who was a Major at that base could have been stopped had they given more importance to the smaller things but instead chose to ignore them to avoid being racist.
The recent terrorist caught on an airline from Amsterdam to the US was able to get thru 2 airports before he was caught because our security system chose to ignore the small details. They were lucky to catch him before he was able to set off the bomb.
One more. Obama himself could have been kept from becoming President had the small details about him been taking into consideration and serious.
This ornament thing? Not a big deal, just an ornament right? The kid who kills many at Columbine started off with small things. But then so do LEGO blocks. The end result of small things coming together however is usually one big thing. They it's the small things that matter and I agree.
Also AJ, stop being so sensitive. If you can't handle a little criticism then I suggest you avoid the political section of this site. But then with your constant name change you can't avoid this site period. You must have been abused as a child and seem to miss that abuse.
RW, I believe you're probably wasting your time and effort. You're writing a lot trying to convince someone that can't be convinced. It doesn't take a genius to understand that particular ornament goes against the very fiber of what the US is. Obama's fault lies in the fact that he let an element into the WH that would do such a thing. Imagine if FDR had a swastika ornament on his tree, Lincoln a confederate flag, or Washington one of King George. Some people are just drawn to controversy, they what to make a statement, the more shocking the better. I would say a large portion of these idiots don't even understand that they would have no right to express their opinions or worse, a display of homosexuality, in public under such a regime. Yet, they are quick to pick up the mantle of the uber-intolerant just to stick it it in the eye of their perceived political and moral enemies here. I seriously doubt many of them would enjoy living under the systems they blindly promote actively or by simple indifference.
He has not changed in any of his re-manifestations. He is still a child, and the reason I dont bother reading his posts. I have 4 children of my own, and if I want childish discourse, I can talk to them (although in their defense, they do appear to communicate on a more mature level).
He is still only in it for the attention.
Good comparisons! The only reason Mao is reviled less than hitler is that Mao confined his murderous ways to Chinese (just as Stalin confined his to Russians).
That only stands to reason Doc... US Liberals only want to persecute other US citizens. Doctrine is doctrine under the guise of one size fits all, as long as they are picking out the suit.
In the end it's just really sad that one would allow politics to dictate ones beliefs. That just because it's a Democrat who did it, it's somehow OK but had it been a Republican in the White House, the Democrats would have been raising more hell than this.
I think you're probably right; exceot for the fact that I don't think he "can't be convinced"....it's that he won't.
Yet by saying the man should not put it up - goes against the very stiches that hold the fabric of our country together: the freedom of expression and dissent.
[quote]Obama's fault lies in the fact that he let an element into the WH that would do such a thing. Imagine if FDR had a swastika ornament on his tree, Lincoln a confederate flag, or Washington one of King George. Some people are just drawn to controversy, they what to make a statement, the more shocking the better. [/quote
Why is it that you claim to accept that people should live their lives as they see fit, yet you jump and go after every damn thing that you view as counter to your view of America? How is that supporting our principles? How is it supporting the freedom of speech/expression? The damning of such, even "unamerican" things, seems counter American.
A thought worth pursuing - Maybe the enemy of America isn't merely one thing or another, maybe they are those who would have the country conform to only their views - i.e conservative who damns every non conforming thing; the christian who pushes the legal system (laws, referendum, etc.) to conform the law to their own views, the liberal, communist, or whatever - who do the same. Maybe it is intolerance of differen views. Ya think?
You've clearly show yourself to be intolerant in this matter.
Do you ever listen to what I say? Apparently not...good grief.
Which you've done yourself. Cast the plank from your own eye kettle.
Like those who use it to drive up ratings, or those who choose to use it as another club to bash someone? Indeed, I agree.
Like?
There's a difference between a child who showed signs of problems and a friggin' tree ornament and the decorator who decided to put it on the tree. Again, I'm not saying to not be awake and aware - just pick and choose the battles, so to speak.
Actually, I would have to say the bigger problem was the failure of the international intelleigence/security community as a whole to watch him, since he went from Nigeria to Amsterdam and then to the US. The US did fail, from what I have read, to communicate - but if the guy really was such a threat - wouldn't other countries have had their eye on them too? Makes sense.
Charles, I've been open minded; in fact, you and a couple other people on here have changed my mind on some things, so don't go using that as an excuse. My aim isn't to say that others cannot express themselves, but that so often people express themselves in knee jerk reactions that don't put much - if any - thought into it. Example: OMG, the ornament is another little thing that prove Obama is a closet communist!
Woah, hold on a second. Does it really prove that? Yes, it is interesting that this happened - given what has happened before, but it isn't conclusive. Could it be that perhaps, as the various news outlets have stated, some organization out in the united states somewhere wanted to decorate it that way? Sure, maybe.
All I'm saying is why jump to conclusions, when clearly, not all of the information is available. We don't know if he was aware of the ornament; we don't kow if he knew about the decorator; we don't know about a lot of what goes on. All that can be "known" (more like assumed), is what we can gather from what info we have.
Get it straight Charles: I would never say that someone cannot express their views, even if they're boneheaded or knee jerk. In fact, one of my favorite quotes is a composite normally attributed to Voltaire, it goes, ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " I may not agree with it, and I may think it is mind boggling - but I would fight for your right.
Like I said, I'm just saying - give it thought, research, maybe even a little benefit of the doubt. For the most part what I've seen on this site (and elsewhere) is merely knee jerk opinions that are, more often than not, based on rumors, assumptions and bias. What gives?
Quite frankly, I do not believe that this ornament - by itself - is a big deal. Doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore anything like it, but I just am not concerned over this. I'm more concerned about other actions of his, like helping push through the health care bill.
And yes, the small things do count in relationships, but this doesn't have to do with relationships, but bias and events and the way people take them - sometimes the small things happen by mere chance/coincidence. If Y happens, that doesn't necessitate that the cause is X.
The whole ornament deal could easily have been coincidence/decorator's choice, as much as it could have been some piece of a conspiracy by a closet communist president. How come you cannot admit that chance?
So...who's being open minded?
Yes, perhaps it could have been, but I can't speak on it since I don't know much about what went on behind closed doors.
Tell me....How is it that I "can't be convinced," when I have been convinced on various issues discussed on here; have conceded that I'm open to being convinced (On the first page of this discussion in fact); have consistantly said that I am open to discussion, but being skeptical to things that sound like conspiracy theories, I'm going to need harder evidence.
How again...is that my not being able to be convinced?
~A
You know, I disagree with your assumption of liberals - but I can agree with the second sentence (Oh my god...was I just convinced? )
Pot meet kettle, good grief.
Charles, where are you drawing that conclusion from? I mean really - dude, keep whatever you're on away from me! I don't care if it had been a democrat in office; I would the same what. My stubborn sketpcism is drawn from the fact that I just don't buy such grandiose claims. I'm a "I will believe it when I see it" type of person - hence, unless someone lays out a case for something with solid evidence - I won't likely won't bite. (Referencing the saying: hook, line and sinker)
None of it has to do with the political party. Hell, if I had my kicks, political parties would be found in the comedy (and tragedy) section of the local Borders.
You know...my first, knee jerk reaction, was to just ignore you while calling you a name, but I'm going to try to be the better man here and simply ask you a question.
Since you think that I haven't changed and that I'm still the immature youth that I was years ago (which I have not denied, and have accepted full responsibility for...), what is it that makes you think that I'm still that way. You obviously have a strong opinion, and I am open to hearing it. I apparently do not see how I am being immature, but I'm open to learning. Maybe I can change, or show you that I have changed (in my opinion), and perhaps we can reach an accord of sorts.
Are you willing to work with me?
None are so blind as those what will not see.
I don't believe pedophilia is right either. There are some things that should not be done, in the name of free expression or otherwise. They violate much more than just American values. I don't expect you to understand.
Yes I'm clearly intolerant of honoring murderous dictators on the WH Christmas tree, a symbol of love and peace. Great analysis Einstein.
Oh brother. Channeling the fore fathers now are we?
Is Mao in your America view? What an asinine response. I'll go out on a limb and suggest most American's don't share Maoist values, other than you of course. When you visit someones house what prevents you from taking a crap on their sofa? You'd just be expressing yourself, right? Or maybe it's a sense of right and wrong, a concept you can't seem to grasp on this particular issue.
Well then you should have no problem giving the good people an example of a dictator or ideology, hell any intolerant regime, that I've sided with just to upset the left. I'll help, there isn't one. You have demonstrated yourself to be a petty liar that likes to create an explanation and twist it to suit you needs. The DNC would be proud.
Yes, the DNC counts on sheep. But then all children are petty and liars at times. They only know they want, but not what, and not how to get it.
As I said, you waste your time arguing with a child. A spoiled child at that. You cant convince the obstinate. Or the stupid. Ignorance may be curable, but stupidity is chronic.
What grand claim? Obama has surrounded himself with communists almost his whole life. This is fact.
I meant gradiose claims as any claim that is conspiracy theory-esque; anything grand, sweeping, nearly absurd, etc. Again, as I will repeat for the billionth time here - I'm not dismissing Obama's ties, merely saying that this ornament fiasco is absurd.
No one has yet to prove that Obama intentionally picked the decorator to intentionally put the ornament. Not-withstanding the fact that he would have had to told the organizations to do what he wants to. To me, once you start looking at the cards in this card house - no matter how much the overal house is relevant and important - it starts to fall apart.
Intolerant, like the religous right regime that uses our system to push their personal views? Sure.
My points never dealt with my personally liking what Mao did, but with american citizens' rights to agree with whatever they want to, AND, their freedom to express themselves. My beliefs dictate that I fight for ANY person who wishes to say what they want to say, no matter what it is. For example, the quote from Voltaire.
Oh whatever...
The only assinine responses are the ones you have given me Nitro. I've done my best to be respectful, yet you have time and again, been vitrolic and dishonest intellectually. It strikes me now, due to a meory, that I've been a fool. I just cannot debate/discuss with you because you do not want to debate, you are unable to deal with different opinions and beliefs, not to mention reasoning. You, like many across america, are happy with your narrow view of the world; you're content to live in your own little, albeit delusional and novacane based, bubbles where liberals/democrats/communists (etc) are all spawns of satan.
I can pretty much sum your view up in a sentence: Anything that isn't agreeable with me is wrong and crazy.
Fine, so be it. It's not my life.
On the contrary, merely drawing conclusions from the reading and research that I've done, being a huge fan of history, biographies, etc. That said, it would stand to reason that what I mentioned is a likely case. Not *the* case, but a plausible one at that.
Great job twisting the meaning of my words Wordsworth.
Neither do I, but that is beside the point because Pedophilia isn't covered under our constitution or law system and we're discussing the freedom of speech/expression and the concept of believing whatever one wishes - which is in our constitution.
Additionally, on the point of pedophilia, children cannot give any legal consent - as such its a moot point. Secondly, pedophilia and freedom of expression/speech have nothing to do with each other. At the basis of our argument is whether or not expression or speech that is communist/socialist-esque, is covered under the f
Finally, it doesn't matter really what you or I think, so much as what the law, and/or, our constitution states/allows. That said, the constitution states, "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
According to the supreme law of the land, our constitution, every citizen can say what they want. Now, of course, that doesn't mean that everything that is said is wise, intelligent, or drawn from the full use of their cognitive skills - but hey - they can say it.
Anyways, besides that, pedophilia has been shown to be a mental disorder and in the constitution it's assumed that a person who seeks to pursue life, liberty and happines is of sound mind and body - so they can pursue such. If not, then they are dealt with.
I find that unfortunate, because it shows me that you don't truly believe utmost in our nation's principles - it seems that it is only okay when it suits you or your beliefs. Still, to each their own.
pretty interesting since "he says" he's a Christian.
You are against proponents of Pedophilia because it exploits and abuses people without their consent. You support proponents of Communism, that exploits and abuses people without their consent, in the name of free speech. The only difference is I see two evils you only see one. Be a hypocrite if you like....see how tolerant I am? Now if you'll excuse me, this conversation is making me ill comrade.
He uses "I" a lot too, but then he cannot be all that he says he is. Not even the original messiah was all that.
If I need to explain this than you are definitely not worth debating or arguing with. Your question is actually quite insulting to say the least. You make it seem as if Obama is clean and I can only point to silly or small errors that everyone is allowed to make as humans.
You really don't get it do you? It's scary to think people like you actually get to be part of voting for the leaders of this nation. I'm gald there's enough people in this country to avoid a win by a single vote. Obviously, Mr Genius, there are differences but I was focusing on the similarities, something you chose to ignore, as usual. It's rare to find a person in history or life for that matter who did not show some sign that they might be more dangerous than anyone would ever consider yet more often than not these signs were ignored for fear of stereotyping, racism and denial. I am not sure what you mean by pick and chose your battles, this article was not trully intended to form some kind of legal argument against Obama but more of a poke at those who think Obama is a Saint, a guy who's not as bad as the Right portrays him, a great leader.
I doubt ID had any intentions of ending Obama's Presidency with this article, but it is interesting to note these kinds of stupid things in case some day in the future Obama (or any other person in the same position) turned out to be more of a surprise to us than we wanted to believe.
So now you're saying we should depend on other countries? I'm curious, aren't you one of those who thinks we should not be sticking our noses in other countries problems? How come now you expect them to do the same for us? I, personally, don't care about the international community at this point. Our people, US official, were warned by the father of this man and they did nothing. The people on that plane are thanking God more than the US Gov't for this persons sheer stupidity that make him a failure. But I'm curious, why did you ignore the other terrorist attack I posted with this one? Kinda funny how you could not blame the International Community for a guy who made it as far as Major in our own military and with many reasons to be watched yet you chose to ignore the fact that stereotyping was the excuse in that one.
Open minded? Yea right. You bicker about the smallest things while at the same time saying how unimportant they are because they are small. On top of that you have the balls to say it's not that important to you yet here you are writing long replies or replying at all.
Does this prove Obama is a "closet communist"? Duh, of course it doesn't. Doesn't take a genius to know this. But combined with many other "small things" it does show how little respect this Administration has for this country. How some idiot thought, because it's his right, that somehow it was OK to put an image of a murderer like Mao on something that's suppose to symbolizes peace and happiness, something you believe everyone in this country should be given.
People don't put pictures of killers on their walls unless they somehow agree and condone such people. Do you? BTW, whether it's your right or not, putting something like this on a "Gov't" tree is not a single persons right when the tree is for everyone. I would like to see how you would feel if someone put a picture of someone who killed someone you cared about on a Christmas tree. I seriously doubt you would be all "freedom of expression" with them. Let's be realistic here, even freedom has it's limits.
AJ, I'm curious; you say the Founding Fathers weren't aware of homosexuality; so, there were no homosexuals in 1776, then? I kind of thought it had more or less always been around; I mean, there are references to it in Bible, after all. Wow; silly me.
Just when did homosexuality start, and when did it become an issue? Also:
~~~"Neither do I, but that is beside the point because Pedophilia isn't covered under our constitution or law system and we're discussing the freedom of speech/expression and the concept of believing whatever one wishes - which is in our constitution.
Additionally, on the point of pedophilia, children cannot give any legal consent - as such its a moot point. Secondly, pedophilia and freedom of expression/speech have nothing to do with each other. At the basis of our argument is whether or not expression or speech that is communist/socialist-esque, is covered..."---AJ~~~
But see, that's one big thing you and the masses you claim to represent here don't seem to grasp: there are advocacy groups and such which work, propagandize and sue toward negating these points. they work to remove the stigma and soften resistance, by muddying the waters with PC issues and moral relativity/equivalency. NAMBLA, for example, is just one higher-profile group of many. They say things like, more or less,
"Well, you might not like screwing little boys in the ass, mister, but does that REALLY give you the right to say someone else shouldn't, if they want? Maybe they like it....why should your likes and dislikes prevent them from enjoying their life?" And that's how it works.
These types of groups and organizations are at work all the time, politicizing and litigating various agendas and issues which not many people, really would normally support. They're are all on your side of the line, AJ, yet you and your kind seem to purposely blind yourselves to their machinations and general effects.
Now, please...begin the rationalization, as you always do.
In the words of Inigo Montoya to Obama, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
