Obama needs to STOP fucking BOWING to everyone.
- Thread starter invisible777
- Start date
Listen retard, if you're such a moron that you can't understand why Obama shouldn't be going around blowing murderous dictators while snubbing our allies, I really can't help you.
But maybe it should occur to your retarded brain that the man you so strenuously defend has more in common philosophically with the country you fled than the one that's actually given you an economic opportunity.
But somehow I doubt that will happen.
I seriously doubt you can help yourself, let alone anybody else.
As for the rest of your hyped up rant, I'm not defending Obama. I simply don't think that he is showing weakness by bowing. On top of that, the target audience of foreign relations is the rest of the world, not the American people. So in this instance, it matters more what others think about his actions than what (some of) the Americans think.
Anything else you think I said or meant to say regarding what's right and what's wrong is a figment of your inbred imagination.
Bcc, didn't you know, there is no thinking for yourself in America. So please, step back in line, choose one of the 4 mindsets and follow along.
OK, I'm game.
I'm against gun control. I'm for abortions. I'm against minimum wage laws. I'm against progressive income taxation. I'm for teaching evolution in schools. I'm for strong separation of church and state (that includes public education system). I'm against run-away welfare spending. I'm for public health care system.
Those are just the ones I could think of off top of my head.
Now, which of one do I join?
Looks like I need to start my own movement
NO DAMNIT!! THIS IS AMERICA!! Step the fuck back in line and follow along with the herd. I'm tired of people like you thinking they can be 'different'. NOT IN MY COUNTRY, BUDDY!!!
I'm curious. Please define, in your own words, 'Conservatism'.
This actually makes you look pretty bad. So you're Pro-Death just for the sake of being Pro-Death? Kind of, well umm..... 'thuggish' don't you think?
Maybe you're for 'Pro-Choice'?
Oh, I'm against suing doctors for the outcome of procedures that are known to have less that 100% success rates even with stellar execution.
And I'm most definitely against suing schools to dumb down the curriculum because "it's just too darn hard for my little Bubba."
And I'm most definitely against suing schools to dumb down the curriculum because "it's just too darn hard for my little Bubba."
In this thread, when I said conservatives, I mostly meant something along the lines: "loonatics like hellblazer". It's just shorter to call it being a conservative.
But if I really had to define it, I would say: conservative is what the conservatives say they stand for, but not what they actually do.
I think this is the best way to describe it from my perspective.
Not for the sake of it. But because I realize there are plenty of instances when abortion is a better alternative.
So you admit knowing absolutely nothing about Conservatism other than what you have been spoon fed by liberals to spew here against us Conservatives.
You might be surprised how much your beliefs may be in line with Conservatism if you have the humility to admit it.
According to American tradition, no man or woman should bow to any other. Rulers are no special case. They are just men or women like us. All are equal, and rulers are a farce. Our president is not a king or ruler. He's just a guy holding an office--he is just appointed to *preside* over his respective branch. It's a pragmatic position.
Of course there's a Japanese and Asian tradition of bowing to greet one another. Sure, an American president can do that, as long as it has nothing to do with royalty. If Obama ever bows to royalty, though, he is effectively condoning their rulership status over their own people, which is anti-American. Nobody has a RIGHT to rule others. China does support individual freedom nor have a real Constitution like ours. If you speak against them, they can and will kill you. They should never be acknowledged as rightful leaders.
If Obama thinks it's ok for an emperor or dictator to rule, what does that indicate about his own relationship to the American people? And indeed, he continually circumvents the laws that protect us from the power of our own government. He continually defies our Constitution and undermines our freedom, and lies to us. He's like Bush to the third power.
Also, even according to Japanese tradition, it's embarrassing that Obama bowed. It was so embarrassing that their TV stations avoided showing it.
I haven't read about this latest incident, yet, nor will I ever. I reject Obama. And it's not because I'm a racist. I just dislike incompetent individuals. He has continually destroyed his individual merit based entirely on his words and actions. Literally every single thing he has done so far is wrong and destructive to freedom, and protects the failing status quo, and forces--FORCES--innocent unwilling people like me to pay for it. He's shifting money from us to the extremely rich, giving us nothing in return but a bigger collapse of our economy that will give him and them even more power over us.
Of course there's a Japanese and Asian tradition of bowing to greet one another. Sure, an American president can do that, as long as it has nothing to do with royalty. If Obama ever bows to royalty, though, he is effectively condoning their rulership status over their own people, which is anti-American. Nobody has a RIGHT to rule others. China does support individual freedom nor have a real Constitution like ours. If you speak against them, they can and will kill you. They should never be acknowledged as rightful leaders.
If Obama thinks it's ok for an emperor or dictator to rule, what does that indicate about his own relationship to the American people? And indeed, he continually circumvents the laws that protect us from the power of our own government. He continually defies our Constitution and undermines our freedom, and lies to us. He's like Bush to the third power.
Also, even according to Japanese tradition, it's embarrassing that Obama bowed. It was so embarrassing that their TV stations avoided showing it.
I haven't read about this latest incident, yet, nor will I ever. I reject Obama. And it's not because I'm a racist. I just dislike incompetent individuals. He has continually destroyed his individual merit based entirely on his words and actions. Literally every single thing he has done so far is wrong and destructive to freedom, and protects the failing status quo, and forces--FORCES--innocent unwilling people like me to pay for it. He's shifting money from us to the extremely rich, giving us nothing in return but a bigger collapse of our economy that will give him and them even more power over us.
You think liberals kidnapped me when I crossed the border and placed me in some "new arrivals brainwashing center?"
I support a lot of what the conservatives stand for. But I don't think a lot of conservatives do. They pretend to, but don't actually act like it.
On domestic issues, aside from the "religious right", I pretty much side with the conservatives with some exceptions.
On foreign policy, they are wrong pretty much about everything. Not to say that liberals are right.
Staggering ignorance is one thing that defines Americans as a nation: white, black, left, right, whatever. Americans are amazingly ignorant.
Because of that, most of what Americans imagine about "out there" is wrong.
And this is where the difference between the conservatives and liberals kicks in.
Conservatives tent to compensate with tone and swiftness what they lack in knowledge and understanding. Liberals - not so much.
When you combine mistaken understanding or reality abroad with swift action, you get major fuck ups.
Actually Obama, Reid, et al are soon to start parading this under a more friendly name "Amnesty" but all it really means is they want to import more votes from other countries in exchange for our free shit.
Minus the foreign policy snafu above, you actually had me for much of it until this point where you're dead wrong.
Liberalism was originally a concept from the enlightenment era that meant to maximize individual rights. People realized that service to the government was simple but too corruptible, and that it's safer and smarter for a government to exists to serve and protect the individual. So the U.S. was the first new large government formed to integrate this philosophy.
But in the early 1900's the concept of LIBERALISM shifted to one of experimentation. Being liberal meant that you were willing to try new ideas, even if they violate individual rights. That was a terrible corruption. Liberal policies were enacted, and they have always failed. The experiments failed.
In a sense, conservatism said "Nah, don't try anything too fancy. Just keep protecting individual rights. There's a good reason things are this way. Don't let the genie out of the bottle."
Once we did, the concepts of BOTH liberal and conservative stopped meaning much. Both parties are for more government power, higher spending, more regulations. Republicans say they're against it. But Rockefeller Republicans like the Bushes, Schwarzenegger, and 99.x% of the Republicans in Congress are in favor of taxing less *for the sake of increased tax revenue*, which is in turn *for the sake of increased SPENDING*.
So both sides are wrong, and stupid. So if you pick a side, you're not doing yourself any justice. Be an American first. Protect the rights of your fellow man, whether we are American, Chinese, African, or anything. Do not let any government have power over you. Do not let them take your money and decide how to spend it for you. Money is not evil, it's power. They will use it for evil, when you at least might have a chance to do something good with it.
But in the early 1900's the concept of LIBERALISM shifted to one of experimentation. Being liberal meant that you were willing to try new ideas, even if they violate individual rights. That was a terrible corruption. Liberal policies were enacted, and they have always failed. The experiments failed.
In a sense, conservatism said "Nah, don't try anything too fancy. Just keep protecting individual rights. There's a good reason things are this way. Don't let the genie out of the bottle."
Once we did, the concepts of BOTH liberal and conservative stopped meaning much. Both parties are for more government power, higher spending, more regulations. Republicans say they're against it. But Rockefeller Republicans like the Bushes, Schwarzenegger, and 99.x% of the Republicans in Congress are in favor of taxing less *for the sake of increased tax revenue*, which is in turn *for the sake of increased SPENDING*.
So both sides are wrong, and stupid. So if you pick a side, you're not doing yourself any justice. Be an American first. Protect the rights of your fellow man, whether we are American, Chinese, African, or anything. Do not let any government have power over you. Do not let them take your money and decide how to spend it for you. Money is not evil, it's power. They will use it for evil, when you at least might have a chance to do something good with it.
Regarding:
I tend to see it the opposite of that. Liberals tend to make decisions based more on emotions. They always seem to believe they hold the patent on compassion when they parade around with civil rights leaders and hold protests for gay rights, etc but they do it without thinking the issue through before it's too late and then they end up having to deal with the 'unintended consequences' of their idiotic causes.
Case in point: It was the libs that caused the housing crisis by passing legislation forcing banks to give loans to unqualified applicants - and look where it got us.
"Whoops!" says Barney Frank (actually he probably only thought that since he would never openly admit it)
Emotion is a dangerous ingredient when dealing with decisions that effect millions of people. I find that letting the free market decide for us, the emotion element is removed (at a macro level anyway, you can't remove micro emotion since it is inherent to the individual).
Just one example of many really.
It was the "liberals" who formed the *basis* for the housing collapse. Why? They created laws that absolved both lenders and borrows from some amount of accountability. They used the power of the U.S. government (which is by the way ultimately sheer physical force) to guarantee loans. They used fake corporations like Fannie and Freddie to buy bad loans. Of course "Wall Street" was willing to go out and make loans, then sell bundles to the government. They were making money by taking their cut. But it wasn't a real market by any means. It was a market invented by nonsensical laws, backed by government force, ultimately.
For far-left liberals (socialists), that's a great idea because it undermines both our pricing systems and concept of individual ownership. It's a way to bring about economic justice by creating a collapse. Our Constitution can't stop them if our economic system collapses. Without economic freedom, we have no power to stop them.
But that's not all. Conservatives were responsible too! Our economic system became so inefficient because our central government, state governments, and even local governments, are spending way more than we can afford. Every time the government spends money, they **** up. How to get more money in government? Fail. The more you fail, the more money you get. Succeed at anything, and funding is cut. So all socialistic programs have an exaggerated rate of diminished returns. They always need more money. It's not enough that sales tax is already a percentage, or income tax, or whatever. Percentages automatically scale with inflation. But no, they have to keep increasing the percentages even!
Under this scenario, like I said, liberal and conservative are empty meaningless terms. They are both just authoritarians. Their power is so amplified now that it's a delicate balance between socialism and fascism. Wow, yay, pick one. Great choices there.
That central authority destroyed business here. It destroyed our capacity to produce goods and services. Instead we just started to borrow more to buy cheap labor from foreign countries with low taxes and/or slave labor, effectively. Cheap credit and a decreasing interest rate held the illusion that our economy was growing. Idiots like Bush and Obama just keep the money flowing, keep us borrowing. And if we can't afford to, they use government power to take even more money, and sink us deeper into the hole.
Bush is no conservative, no libertarian, and no Reagan even. He used his Keynesian-style large-scale social engineering over our people and economics to encourage people to buy houses by cutting regulations and increasing tax benefits, assuming property value would continue to increase. He just didn't want it to collapse while he was in office. That would keep his special interests in power, and not let Democrat's special interests take over. It doesn't much matter because they're 90% the same anyway.
For far-left liberals (socialists), that's a great idea because it undermines both our pricing systems and concept of individual ownership. It's a way to bring about economic justice by creating a collapse. Our Constitution can't stop them if our economic system collapses. Without economic freedom, we have no power to stop them.
But that's not all. Conservatives were responsible too! Our economic system became so inefficient because our central government, state governments, and even local governments, are spending way more than we can afford. Every time the government spends money, they **** up. How to get more money in government? Fail. The more you fail, the more money you get. Succeed at anything, and funding is cut. So all socialistic programs have an exaggerated rate of diminished returns. They always need more money. It's not enough that sales tax is already a percentage, or income tax, or whatever. Percentages automatically scale with inflation. But no, they have to keep increasing the percentages even!
Under this scenario, like I said, liberal and conservative are empty meaningless terms. They are both just authoritarians. Their power is so amplified now that it's a delicate balance between socialism and fascism. Wow, yay, pick one. Great choices there.
That central authority destroyed business here. It destroyed our capacity to produce goods and services. Instead we just started to borrow more to buy cheap labor from foreign countries with low taxes and/or slave labor, effectively. Cheap credit and a decreasing interest rate held the illusion that our economy was growing. Idiots like Bush and Obama just keep the money flowing, keep us borrowing. And if we can't afford to, they use government power to take even more money, and sink us deeper into the hole.
Bush is no conservative, no libertarian, and no Reagan even. He used his Keynesian-style large-scale social engineering over our people and economics to encourage people to buy houses by cutting regulations and increasing tax benefits, assuming property value would continue to increase. He just didn't want it to collapse while he was in office. That would keep his special interests in power, and not let Democrat's special interests take over. It doesn't much matter because they're 90% the same anyway.