question to all these folks bitching about "We want our country back"

[WHITE DEVIL]

I agree that it is wrong but pointing out Michael Steele is an example is like pointing to Britney Spears for an example of talented American musicians

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I agree that it is wrong but pointing out Michael Steele is an example is like pointing to Britney Spears for an example of talented American musicians

Well I would use her as an example if someone claimed that no white women can sell platinum records, regardless of how ridiculously untalented she because she in fact did make a platinum selling record.

In addition, IMO most people involved in national politics are suspect. I would have a hard time naming one that is respectable.

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

al franken just because lies & the lying liars was the funniest book ive ever read

off top

he could write a bill called the "clothe lobbyists in oil-spilled baby seal jackets while burning down the rainforest and bombing brazil act" and i'd still support him

 

[Dhadnot]

Still waiting for your reply Dhadnot

I was going to answer but I realize we'll just be arguing because I feel differently about the subject then you do on a fundamental basis. I don't view conquest, probably from how I have been taught, of aboriginals over other aboriginal tribes the same as foreign groups coming in and comandeering the land and people. I view the land automatically maintains a natural struggle between aboriginal groups but in a matter that does not exceed it's norms (destruction of whole peoples, etc.), and the invasion of foreigners throws the whole thing off. I understand your viewpoint as well, but I don't believe in it as of yet.

My main point stands by the way.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I was going to answer but I realize we'll just be arguing because I feel differently about the subject then you do on a fundamental basis. I don't view conquest, probably from how I have been taught, of aboriginals over other aboriginal tribes the same as foreign groups coming in and comandeering the land and people. I view the land automatically maintains a natural struggle between aboriginal groups but in a matter that does not exceed it's norms (destruction of whole peoples, etc.), and the invasion of foreigners throws the whole thing off. I understand your viewpoint as well, but I don't believe in it as of yet.

My main point stands by the way.

I agree. I don't view land conquest of aboriginal tribes over other aboriginal tribes the same as foreign groups commandeering land and people.

However, I think you would have a hard time classifying the Aztec empire as an aboriginal tribe.

 

[The Duke of Earl]

That's all Bill Clinton's fault.

That crazy asshole told people to spend and spend and spend on credit and they did but they couldn't pay for the shit they bought and that in turn killed all manufacturing jobs and that set off the domino effect.

You're right though, Bush didn't stop it and now were fucked.

Obama's stimulus package was really fucked up and that type of spending in one shot is inexcusable and unnecessary and frankly I don't understand what it was supposed to really accomplish. Thus far its nothing more then a payoff to his liberal ilk as far as I'm concerned.

NO IT'S JFK'S FAULT or Jimmy Carter

 

[The Duke of Earl]

if the RNC had their way hed be shuckin and jivin in a top hat to please the southern voters

he already is with that rap bullshit , white folks thinkin it's clever and hilarious

 

[RobVan]

al franken just because lies & the lying liars was the funniest book ive ever read

off top

he could write a bill called the "clothe lobbyists in oil-spilled baby seal jackets while burning down the rainforest and bombing brazil act" and i'd still support him

I remember reading that

 

[m.w.merlino]

Its not what we 'lost' its whats expanding and that's government. My ilk DOES NOT believe in large government or the notion that government is the answer.

Furthermore this administration wants equal outcome and NOT equal opportunity, which pretty much shows that Obama and his ilk are nothing short of Marxists/Socialists.

Thus far Obama has done nothing more then show he concurs with the Marxist/Socialist ideology and I am NOT nor do I believe Marxism or Socialism is the key to a perfect society.

Now, don't get me started on the stimulus package, Obama personally eating up the auto industry and this bullshit socialist health-care crap and were only 9 months into this whack jobs term.

Its either your a socialist or your a person who respects what this nation was founded on and thats NOT equal outcome.

People are totally founded in their dissent for Obama, because people like me don't subscribe to the socialist philosophy and thats exactly what Obama is, a socialist who IMO is trying to tank this economy so he can declare a crisis and implement martial law and declare him self president indefinitely in order to completely rebuild our economic identity as a nation.

Fair enough or are we all just racists like Jimmy Carter claims?

Do you even know what the fuck socialism is?

And if you do, can you explain how an elitist president of the greatest global capitalist power in the world is going to be the catalyst for a shift towards socialism?

Remember, that talking box in your living room isn't a substitute for books.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Do you even know what the fuck socialism is?

And if you do, can you explain how an elitist president of the greatest global capitalist power in the world is going to be the catalyst for a shift towards socialism?

Remember, that talking box in your living room isn't a substitute for books.

On a political spectrum he is closer to socialism then his predecessor, however far away from true socialism he may be. (Although Bush also did move closer himself with the Wall St bailouts). A move towards socialism is still a move towards socialism, regardless of the size of the move.

You don't change a sociopolitical culture in days let alone years. It would multiple years even decades. So in 100 years if the US is in fact a socialist society, historians at that time could very well look back and argue Obama was part of the catalyst of that change.

 

[RobVan]

Did it start with the New Deal?

 

[m.w.merlino]

On a political spectrum he is closer to socialism then his predecessor, however far away from true socialism he may be. (Although Bush also did move closer himself with the Wall St bailouts). A move towards socialism is still a move towards socialism, regardless of the size of the move.

You don't change a sociopolitical culture in days let alone years. It would multiple years even decades. So in 100 years if the US is in fact a socialist society, historians at that time could very well look back and argue Obama was part of the catalyst of that change.

Yes, technically their bailouts and some of their policy could be considered "socialist", but I don't think you could truly call it that if it is done to benefit the capitalists and bourgeoise.

 

[james blunt]

On a political spectrum he is closer to socialism then his predecessor, however far away from true socialism he may be. (Although Bush also did move closer himself with the Wall St bailouts). A move towards socialism is still a move towards socialism, regardless of the size of the move.

You don't change a sociopolitical culture in days let alone years. It would multiple years even decades. So in 100 years if the US is in fact a socialist society, historians at that time could very well look back and argue Obama was part of the catalyst of that change.

can you explain what redisributing wealth to wall street has to do with socialism? it would had been one thing if they had gone in and nationalized the banks then maby we could talk of some sort of socialism .the coretct term for this is the facsist coperate state .

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

can you explain what redisributing wealth to wall street has to do with socialism? it would had been one thing if they had gone in and nationalized the banks then maby we could talk of some sort of socialism .the coretct term for this is the facsist coperate state .

I never said redistributing wealth to Wall St had anything to do with socialism brah.


I said that on a political spectrum, redistributing wealth to Wall St is CLOSER to socialism than not redistributing wealth.