Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

obama isn't a liberal he is a mild conserveitive .

I'm a Briton, and Iooking over this thread, i'd like to know what the perceived problem with socialism and a socialized economy is? over here, the most humane and socially aware policies have been implemented by socialist governments, like the National Health Service and the Striker rights acts. What is the issue that the Right have?

At 10/2/09 06:34 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Seriously, for example, practically no one other than fox news reported the ACORN scandal.
Or any anti-liberal/anti-democrat, and especially anti-obama, story for that matter.

Easy, because Fox was the one that broke the story so the other networks had to varify claims and THEN pick up on the story.

Journalism 101.

Listen, I know you are upset everytime you read a post by me as you assume its coming from a liberal lean, but I think that's your problem. You try to see everything as a liberal attack or what you assume is right for America.

Let's not pretend that you are NOT a conservative young man or, at the very least, very loyal to the Republican party. Which is fine because there are some very outstanding Republican congressmen and woman in the US. However, the only problem is that you constantly want to put your spin in current situations and rebute anything that doesn't conform to your viewpoint rather than being actual news.

The crazies get more presstime most likely because the press love them. I thought I made that pretty clear, but at the same time that makes them dangerous because they get to be more vocal. Maybe, just maybe, they try to show us the insanity of these people so the intellegent American can scoff and go, "Exactly what country are YOU living in buddy?"

Now, in terms of 24 hour News channels I end up avoiding all of them like the plauge with the exception of CNN which I manage to watch on a marginal basis. I honstly think that all of them are destroying the intellegent debate and replace it with spin and ratings grab.

CNN is off in its own little world from time to time and (of course) has it commetators that I hate. I can't fucking stand Nancy Grace. She has no soul.

MSNBC is seen as the liberal spin to news and while I haven't seen too much of it the little I HAVE seen of it makes it pretty obvious. It's annoying and only panders to an audience that can watch it and go, "See I told you!"

FOX News is all over the fucking place with a dead on conservative slant. When the White House finally gets annoyed enough to rebute a lot of your claims that is on your network then you've got a fucking problem. FOX News is either really popular or really hated. No one lives in the middle ground here. Obviously, you enjoy this network because it conforms to your spin on things.

Congrats man, you bought into network hype and near brainwash.

But lets have a sum of the programming breakdown.

You have Bill O' Riley who is a dick. He's a bright man who is unashamed to change his mind on issues if he feels like he has all the facts. However, his abrasive and angry attack on his guests just make him annoying.

Sean Hannity should pretty much have a degree on being hateful and wrong all the time.

Then there is Glenn Beck who has become the apex of everything wrong with the network at the moment. What is even better is that despite the fact that advitisers pulled their commericals during his programming his viewing and ratings went through the roof. Out of all the commentary on this network that can fucking sadly call itself "News" Glenn Beck is the one man who literally brings nothing to the intellectual debate.

At least the other two above are educted.

Instead Glenn Beck is a fear mongering radio personality who got his own show. He gets the audience on his side by being too emotional on an issue, but not really saying much at all. To make matters worse he's gotten increadibly arrogent on a lot of things and that's due to his popularity. He CANNOT take any criticism whatsoever and tends to go apeshit on anyone strongly disagrees with him. Not only that but he's got such a huge following that he's managed to grab hold of the anger Americans are feeling at the moment and run wild with it.

At 10/2/09 09:59 AM, Stoicish wrote: Then there is Glenn Beck who has become the apex of everything wrong with the network at the moment. What is even better is that despite the fact that advitisers pulled their commericals during his programming his viewing and ratings went through the roof. Out of all the commentary on this network that can fucking sadly call itself "News" Glenn Beck is the one man who literally brings nothing to the intellectual debate.

* Advertiser pull advertisments at the first whiff of controversy. However, when the other side pushes back and/or the controversy dies down...they return. To use advertiser pulling their commercials/support from someone as a marker of how good/bad a commentator is...is not a good yardstick.
* One of the things I like about Glenn Beck is he does back up his rants. I work in a bookstore and have thumbed through Arguing with idiots. Everything in there is backed up with refrences to something in the "mainstream". I think that qualifies him to stand at the proverbial debate podium.

At least the other two above are educted.

What does education mean? I'm not really impressed by someone who has a JD or MD. They focus upon learning a trade (law or medicine) to the exclusion of history, business, the arts, etc. My ex-wife is a doctor and she voted as I voted becuase she doesn't watch the news or read the paper...but I do.

My point is educated people are not always the most informed and do not always bring things of substance to the intellectual debate.

Instead Glenn Beck is a fear mongering radio personality who got his own show. He gets the audience on his side by being too emotional on an issue, but not really saying much at all. To make matters worse he's gotten increadibly arrogent on a lot of things and that's due to his popularity. He CANNOT take any criticism whatsoever and tends to go apeshit on anyone strongly disagrees with him. Not only that but he's got such a huge following that he's managed to grab hold of the anger Americans are feeling at the moment and run wild with it.

* Politicians on the Right and Left are fear mongerers. Al Gore: the environment. Bush: terrorists. Obama: the economy and healthcare.

* Arrogance? What about Obama and his defender's calling opponents racists?

Finally what do you think your picture proves? I didn't see any swastikas. No Obama as Hitler/Stalin/The Joker/Darth Vader. They do have some red and white flags that could be signs of the radical right & racism...oh wait those are the state flags of Alabama.

You posting that picture does nothing but show a hyper-sensitivity and an indication of an out of touch bias.

And having a President with Too many Contridictions already isn't helping.

At 9/18/09 10:56 PM, Stoicish wrote: I have to be honest with you.

I've said my peace.

I just want to know your thoughts on these teabaggers now.

Wow, you are very brainwashed my friend. Thanks for the laugh, though!

At 10/6/09 09:23 PM, DuMarquisX wrote:
Wow, you are very brainwashed my friend. Thanks for the laugh, though!

Clarify "brainwashed".

OP:

You are more uniformed and biased than all the "teabaggers."

F*** off. Take some tolerance and diversity classes.

What's more embarrassing: People exercising their political rights, or the adoring masses who worship the President of the United States.

At 10/10/09 05:21 PM, CaptSC wrote: F*** off. Take some tolerance and diversity classes.

What does taking a class on civil tolerance and acceptance of different race, religions, culture or political groups have to do anything? Oh that's right! I oppose and opposition group, but me disliking them means I hate democracy.

Look, I'm tired of this fucking ass backward logic that a lot of people have on this situation.

I say something bad about the group and I hate Democracy and Free Speech. Which only circles itself around on your own hypocracy when you say, "Shut the fuck, we are right." or "leave them alone so they can have their right to protest."

I full believe in the right to protest, but I also believe in my right to disagree. So unless you are going to bring a new argument to the table that doesn't make you sound like a douche I'd drop this one.

By the way, if you are going to say "Fuck" at least have the balls to say it rather than censor yourself.

What's more embarrassing: People exercising their political rights, or the adoring masses who worship the President of the United States.

Depends more how people can skew a phrase of a situation like you just did with your own sentence.

"support" and "worship" are two different things, but I guess it depends on how the person looks at it.

Also, deriding fellow Americans using the certain sexual phrase shows where you get your news from.

Are there people who protested Obama because they are racist? No doubt.

But you ascribe the views of the minority to the majority. Such intellect resides in those such as Keith Olbermann.

Obama has done MUCH to provoke opposition.

Whether it is taking over Auto Companies and handing the keys of them over to Labor Unions, signing a BS stimulus bill, supporting the Cap n Trade, nominating a women to the Supreme Court who believes her race gives her an inherent advantage over white males, pledging to govern from the center, and supporting his party rushing huge pieces of legislation through Congress.

The Obama we elected is NOT the Obama we were promised.

At 10/2/09 09:16 AM, DiscipleofCthulhu wrote: I'm a Briton, and Iooking over this thread, i'd like to know what the perceived problem with socialism and a socialized economy is? over here, the most humane and socially aware policies have been implemented by socialist governments, like the National Health Service and the Striker rights acts. What is the issue that the Right have?

Here in America we embrace individualism and getting by all by your lonesome. That is, until the country wants something from you. Anything which requires people to help each other out, the goal of which isn't to make profit, is scorned to the point of believing it's the work of the devil.

Good God, this thread fails

At 10/10/09 05:54 PM, CaptSC wrote:

The Obama we elected is NOT the Obama we were promised.

I actually don't give a shit about all the politics and policies.

I think you missed the point of the topic.

I am making fun of these people because they tend to be batshit insane and dead wrong about things which annoy me to no end.

Good, you have an irk about what is going on. I really don't care and for some fucking reason you have it in you little insane head you have set in my in an atypical liberal place. As if I have said and mentioned anything about this shit.

Did I mention Cap and Trade? No, because as far as I'm concerned its a short sighted policy that doesn't actually fix a real problem.

You are putting too much emphasis on other discussions that weren't even being talked about here. Way to derail.

Bro, I was just confused. I thought you were saying that all of the "teabaggers" are racist/birther/terrorists when you are really just mad at a few nuts.

I knew a kind-hearted liberal would never ascribe collectivism in such a way.

Thank you for setting the record straight like a true brah.

At 10/2/09 08:25 AM, fatape wrote: obama isn't a liberal he is a mild conserveitive .

LOL wut?

At 10/11/09 06:40 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/2/09 08:25 AM, fatape wrote: obama isn't a liberal he is a mild conserveitive .

LOL wut?

Obama would not have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize if he was a conservative.

Nobel Prizes that are given to politicians are by-and-large given to liberals from liberals.

At 10/11/09 07:47 PM, CaptSC wrote:
Obama would not have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize if he was a conservative.

Nobel Prizes that are given to politicians are by-and-large given to liberals from liberals.

Wrong topic.

At 10/11/09 08:04 PM, Stoicish wrote:

At 10/11/09 07:47 PM, CaptSC wrote:
Obama would not have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize if he was a conservative.

Nobel Prizes that are given to politicians are by-and-large given to liberals from liberals.

Wrong topic.

Actually if you read the entire thing you'll see he's responding to someone placing Obama on the Conservative spectrum of politics.

He is using Obama's winning the NPP as proof he's liberal...especially when you consider the fact that the prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee with is selected by the Norwegian parliament. Not a bastion of Conservativism.

So no...not the wrong topic.

At 10/11/09 08:32 PM, TheMason wrote: is selected by the Norwegian parliament.

Is there anything in Norway NOT run by those guys (and/or gals)?

I'd support Obama more if he WERE a socialist.

At 10/11/09 08:32 PM, TheMason wrote:

He is using Obama's winning the NPP as proof he's liberal...especially when you consider the fact that the prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee with is selected by the Norwegian parliament. Not a bastion of Conservativism.

So no...not the wrong topic.

The Norwegian Parliament isn't liberal. It's socialist. Believe it or not, there's a difference.

The problem is the opinions that are being showcased. In America right now we have a few big problems going on that take a long term, well thought out solution in order to make things right. Instead of these long, thought out solutions we are getting the idiots on both sides talking to the extreme. As a result of these extreme views being conveyed to the public, we are seeing the followers on each side giving out views that have no meaning to them. On one side we have an absurd cry of socialism, while on the other side we see a claim that republicans are flat out stupid and don't deserve a voice in what goes on. With this nonsense going on we are forgetting what the real problems are and how they were caused. They weren't caused by Democrats or Republicans, but by greed of bank, insurance, and corporate big cats.

Instead of an educated and thoughtful process of solving our problems, I see a panicked uproar of "YOU DID IT!!"
"NO! IT'S YOUR FUALT!"
"NUH UHH!!!"

At 10/11/09 07:47 PM, CaptSC wrote: Obama would not have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize if he was a conservative.

Nobel Prizes that are given to politicians are by-and-large given to liberals from liberals.

This is truth. The whole "Noble Peace Prize" thing is bullshit, along with Obama fanatics claiming he's not a Socialist.

This is truth. The whole "Noble Peace Prize" thing is bullshit, along with Obama fanatics claiming he's not a Socialist.

Please explain how Obama is a socialist.

At 10/12/09 07:05 PM, Shy2Authentik wrote: Please explain how Obama is a socialist.

Where to start?

The whole Universal Healthcare proposal and "redistribute the wealth"(C'mon, man. How in the hell could you possibly not know the political ideology about that?).

Furthermore, when he was first running for Illinois Senator he was trying to get a backing from the New Party. If you do now know, the New Party pushes Socialist ideas. Other Socialist, if not full-fledged Communist, political ties lie with the U.S. Peace Council and the Committees of Correspondence(More commonly known as Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism). The latter group of cronies is a branch of the Communist Party USA.

Bernie Sanders, opposition to the privatization of Social Security, ACORN, "selected" members to so-called town hall meetings, General (Oh, excuse me, GOVERNMENT) Motors.

Enough said, get your head out of your ass.

Going by that logic, Banks, taxes, jobs, public schools, streets, buildings, state funded projects, state funded activities, state funded sports leagues are all Socialist. Whats the problem?

At 10/12/09 08:03 PM, Warforger wrote:Local

Going by that logic, Banks, taxes, jobs, public schools, streets, buildings, state funded projects, state funded activities, state funded sports leagues are all Socialist. Whats the problem?

You could say that, for an illogical way to represent what I just said.

All the state funded activities you speak of I disagree with. What is the point of your post?

At 10/12/09 07:48 PM, HooglyBoogly wrote:

At 10/12/09 07:05 PM, Shy2Authentik wrote: Please explain how Obama is a socialist.

Where to start?

The whole Universal Healthcare proposal and "redistribute the wealth"(C'mon, man. How in the hell could you possibly not know the political ideology about that?).

Furthermore, when he was first running for Illinois Senator he was trying to get a backing from the New Party. If you do now know, the New Party pushes Socialist ideas. Other Socialist, if not full-fledged Communist, political ties lie with the U.S. Peace Council and the Committees of Correspondence(More commonly known as Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism). The latter group of cronies is a branch of the Communist Party USA.

Bernie Sanders, opposition to the privatization of Social Security, ACORN, "selected" members to so-called town hall meetings, General (Oh, excuse me, GOVERNMENT) Motors.

Enough said, get your head out of your ass.

Universal Health-care - okay this whole healthcare thing has NOTHING to do with socialism. The government is trying to assure that EVERY body has SOME form of health-care. NOT the SAME healthcare. All it is proposing is a Public OPTION that allows you to pick whatever insurance you want. It is an OPTION not a forced insurance. You can have whatever insurance you alredy have or you can pick from a variety of plans that suit you. The OPTION is there to bring insurance companies back to a competitive drive. Once all is well the government is gonna step the hell back and let the health insurance companies remain competitive. This whole idea favors COMPETITION not a SOCIAL Healthcare.

Redistribute the wealth - This does not mean make every person's income the SAME. IT just means that all classes should be advancing at the same rate instead of the Business Execs receiving all the raises while all the ground workers receive a minimal raise every few years. The big cats can keep their millions of dollars but it is reasonable to at least give rewards to the people putting in the footwork for their company as well as everyone else up and down the ladder.

As far as all the other stuff I can't honestly say I know what your talking about but let me throw this out there. You probably have friends that are both liberal and conservative that would support you when you need it. Does that make you a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative? No, it just means people of different views support you for who you are.

At 10/12/09 08:25 PM, Shy2Authentik wrote: Universal Health-care - okay this whole healthcare thing has NOTHING to do with socialism. The government is trying to assure that EVERY body has SOME form of health-care.

There lies the issue. The government this, the government that. The government does NOT needs their measly hands in any of that business. How can you sit there and tell me that the government providing healthcare for people is not Socialist. What the hell is the point of Medicare and Medicaid, which are so grossly extorted already? They are there for one purpose alone, to GOVERN.

I, for one, do not want to pay for all these bums health care. The majority of people who are going to be relying on this nonsense are the same people who do not want to get jobs and contribute to society themselves.

Redistribute the wealth - This does not mean make every person's income the SAME. IT just means that all classes should be advancing at the same rate instead of the Business Execs receiving all the raises while all the ground workers receive a minimal raise every few years. The big cats can keep their millions of dollars but it is reasonable to at least give rewards to the people putting in the footwork for their company as well as everyone else up and down the ladder.

All classes do not need to be advancing at the same time. That is what makes up a population. Some people are more wealthy than others, and that is life. This has occurred since the greatest of civilizations. Even the Soviet Union had class separations. And almost everything in that country was controlled by the government.

As far as all the other stuff I can't honestly say I know what your talking about but let me throw this out there. You probably have friends that are both liberal and conservative that would support you when you need it. Does that make you a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative? No, it just means people of different views support you for who you are.

I think it is safe to say Obama has hardly and Right-wing supporters. Considering how he goes against their values so much.

At 10/12/09 08:43 PM, HooglyBoogly wrote:

At 10/12/09 08:25 PM, Shy2Authentik wrote: Universal Health-care - okay this whole healthcare thing has NOTHING to do with socialism. The government is trying to assure that EVERY body has SOME form of health-care.

There lies the issue. The government this, the government that. The government does NOT needs their measly hands in any of that business. How can you sit there and tell me that the government providing healthcare for people is not Socialist. What the hell is the point of Medicare and Medicaid, which are so grossly extorted already? They are there for one purpose alone, to GOVERN.

The government is in no way trying to take over health care though. They are just trying to make sure everyone has a fair access to the proper health care they want. The long term plan is that health care will be a fair competition instead of a monopoly type control over helpless customers.

I, for one, do not want to pay for all these bums health care. The majority of people who are going to be relying on this nonsense are the same people who do not want to get jobs and contribute to society themselves.

Whether you like it or not you ALREADY ARE PAYING FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE HEALTH CARE. When someone goes in and doesn't have health care the bill has to get paid somehow. That somehow is our tax dollars. The whole purpose in making sure everyone can buy their own health care is to bring down the tax me and you contribute to these people and use it on other things this nation needs.

All classes do not need to be advancing at the same time. That is what makes up a population. Some people are more wealthy than others, and that is life. This has occurred since the greatest of civilizations. Even the Soviet Union had class separations. And almost everything in that country was controlled by the government.

I agree with you. The whole point of what I was trying to say is to not make sure everyone gets paid the same but to make sure people who have jobs are able to reach ends meet.

As far as all the other stuff I can't honestly say I know what your talking about but let me throw this out there. You probably have friends that are both liberal and conservative that would support you when you need it. Does that make you a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative? No, it just means people of different views support you for who you are.