Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

GOP: beyond obstruction to treason?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#16    Jeremiah65

Jeremiah65

    Seeker of knowledge

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,078 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The mists at the edge of your dreams...

  • "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Posted 19 May 2013 - 02:50 PM

Both parties are insane....

Extremism does not represent the bulk of the American population.  Most "real" people are somewhat Centrists.  Some lean a little left and others lean a little right...but most understand that there are certain things we need as a society.  Things we chose to collectively pool our money to get done...this "pool" comes in the form of taxes.  We knew we needed to build transportation...so we agreed on paying for that collectively.  We knew we needed a national defense...so we agreed on paying for that collectively.

The problem comes when they take our collective pool of money and spend it on crap that we don't collectively agree on.  I am getting to the point that...though I know it is expensive to do....that there can be no major expense or creation of more Gov without a public referendum.  It's sad that we can no longer trust our Representatives to actually "represent" our interests and desires.  It is our money...we should have a voice in where it goes.  Thanks to the internet, I don't think a public referendum would be as expensive as they imply.  We could do this.

But anyway...The Repubs are no worse than the Dems....extremists....and just in case someone forgot my favorite memes on the topic of the two parties...

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Enjoy....

Edited by Jeremiah65, 19 May 2013 - 03:02 PM.

"Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."  George Bernard Shaw
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."  Thomas Jefferson

Posted Image

#17    Wickian

Wickian

    Doppelganger

  • Member
  • 3,898 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Save it for Queen Doppelpoppellus!

Posted 19 May 2013 - 04:18 PM

That second to last image is the best.


#18    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 19 May 2013 - 04:20 PM

View PostJeremiah65, on 19 May 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Both parties are insane....

Extremism does not represent the bulk of the American population.  Most "real" people are somewhat Centrists.  Some lean a little left and others lean a little right...but most understand that there are certain things we need as a society.  Things we chose to collectively pool our money to get done...this "pool" comes in the form of taxes.  We knew we needed to build transportation...so we agreed on paying for that collectively.  We knew we needed a national defense...so we agreed on paying for that collectively.

The problem comes when they take our collective pool of money and spend it on crap that we don't collectively agree on.  I am getting to the point that...though I know it is expensive to do....that there can be no major expense or creation of more Gov without a public referendum.  It's sad that we can no longer trust our Representatives to actually "represent" our interests and desires.  It is our money...we should have a voice in where it goes.  Thanks to the internet, I don't think a public referendum would be as expensive as they imply.  We could do this.

But anyway...The Repubs are no worse than the Dems....extremists....and just in case someone forgot my favorite memes on the topic of the two parties...

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Enjoy....

I wish I could give this 1,000 likes! :clap:


#19    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:28 PM

View PostKowalski, on 19 May 2013 - 02:05 AM, said:

Obama wants to destroy this country.

so you'd have to prove this outlandish assertion

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#20    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:29 PM

View Postand then, on 19 May 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Obama wants to fundamentally change America.

If you mean to fundamentally change it from the damage that George Bush caused then yes I agree.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#21    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:31 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 19 May 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

Its the whole unsustainable debt thing.

where was your outrage over the "unsustainable" debt in 2008? or the 8 years before that? Your real problems lie elsewhere.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#22    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:32 PM

View PostKowalski, on 19 May 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Obama is a corporate stooge, but I honestly think he hates America.

why? because he disagrees with Republicans? that's hardly "hating" America.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#23    pallidin

pallidin

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,316 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:05 PM

View PostWickian, on 19 May 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

I personally think anything done to impede this President will only help the country...

That, in itself, is a reprehenisible position.
In fact, if you ARE American, that borderlines on a treason/traitor mentality, though not illegal in thought, just action.


#24    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:23 PM

View Postninjadude, on 19 May 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

so you'd have to prove this outlandish assertion


View Postninjadude, on 19 May 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

why? because he disagrees with Republicans? that's hardly "hating" America.

2016: Obama's America ---


The documentary begins with D'Souza on screen describing his own experiences as anIndian immigrating to the United States, as a college student at Dartmouth College, and then as an editor at the conservative magazine Policy Review, pointing out the similarities between his life and Barack Obama's. The film changes location to Indonesia, where a young Barack Obama is being reared by his mother Ann Dunham and stepfather Lolo Soetoro. A psychologist discusses the detrimental effect of an absentee father on his children. D'Souza travels to Africa and interviews Obama's half brother George Obama.[11]
As Obama's parents' relationship becomes strained, Obama is sent to Hawaii to live with his grandparents and meets Frank Marshall Davis. Obama finishes his college studies at Columbia, where the film claims he is influenced by anti-colonialist figures. His progression into an intellectual is highlighted by a visit to Kenya. The film incorporates spoken words from Obama's audio book, Dreams from My Father.
D'Souza discusses Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., and what D'Souza describes as Obama Sr.'s anti-colonialist views of the British Empire. This, according to D'Souza, explains why Obama supposedly rejects American exceptionalism and why D'Souza believes he is attempting to "reshape America." D'Souza delves into what he terms the "founding fathers" from Obama's past, including Frank Marshall Davis, ReverendJeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Edward Said, and Roberto Unger. As a result, the film argues that President Obama wants to reduce significantly the U.S.'s influence within the world while increasing the influence of nations that he believes have suffered or been held back economically or militarily due to U.S. and Western domination. To argue his case, D’Souza interviews Shelby Steele, Paul Vitz,Alice Dewey, Paul Kengor, Willy Kauai, George Obama, Philip Ochieng, Joseph Ojiru, Daniel Pipes, David Walker, and Sarah Obama (off-screen).[12] The film warns that should Obama be elected to a second term, the ramifications will be far reaching. It ends by stating, "the future is in your hands."


D'Souza describes the film as "a vista" of Obama's earlier life, following his childhood from Hawaii to Indonesia and a visit to Kenya(Obama's father's birthplace).[15] Such an upbringing, D'Souza contends, has caused Obama to subscribe "to an ideology that sees America very differently."[15] D'Souza asserts that Obama's father’s Kenyan roots in particular have inspired the President "to shrink America’s footprint in the world because he thinks we’ve been stepping on the world."[15] The film further aims to show D'Souza's predictions about how the future of the United States might unfold should Obama be elected to a second term.
The film is the first documentary by producer Gerald R. Molen, who said he became involved with the film because he finds the debt issue "terrifying", and believes that the movie illuminates how Obama's experiences before the presidency impact his political ideology. Molen is also "concerned about the plans for the disarmament of the U.S." and feels that "Israel has been thrown underneath the bus by this administration". The registered Republican considers himself a fiscally conservative independent, indicating that he has previously voted for Democrats in addition to Republicans, priding himself on his evaluation of all the candidates.[16]
D'Souza formed Obama’s America Foundation (OAF) with Christopher Williams and Douglas Sain to raise funds for the film.[17] The film was funded by about "two dozen donors"; and although it was released shortly before the 2012 National Republican Presidential Convention, it was not funded by the Republican party.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia....a's_America

Obama is a student of the Cloward-Cliven Strategy:


The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward(1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in liberal[1] magazine The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]
The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income...”[2] There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national "solution" to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national "solution" to poverty)

Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of theUnited States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote: “ The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3]
Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[4]
Focus on Democrats [edit]

The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. "Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition," they wrote. "Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”

Taken from ---- http://en.wikipedia...."Piven_strategy



We do know that Richard Cloward taught at Columbia University from 1954 until his death in 2001 and we know that Obama attended Columbia University from 1981 through 1983.
But we may never know the answer to the question posed above because that period in Obama’s life remains shrouded in mystery and Obama has done just about everything in his power to keep it a secret.

Is a possible Obama connection to the mother and father of the radical left one of the reasons why Obama keeps this period of his life shrouded in secrecy?

Taken from:

http://www.clowardpi...ategyobama.html



Edited by Kowalski, 19 May 2013 - 09:35 PM.


#25    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:34 PM

View Postpallidin, on 19 May 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

That, in itself, is a reprehenisible position.
In fact, if you ARE American, that borderlines on a treason/traitor mentality, though not illegal in thought, just action.

Your kidding, right?
If you will look at the history of the Presidents, you will find that MANY a president has had to work with an unruly Congress. This is nothing new. Look at the election of John Quincy Adams.



Quote



When Election Day arrived, Andrew Jackson won, although narrowly, pluralities of the popular and electoral votes, but not the necessary majority of electoral votes.[33]

Under the terms of the Twelfth Amendment, the presidential election fell to the House of Representatives, which was to choose from the top three candidates: Jackson, Adams, and Crawford. Clay had come in fourth place and thus was not on the ballot, but he retained considerable power and influence as Speaker of the House.

Clay's personal dislike for Jackson and the similarity of his American System to Adams' position on tariffs and internal improvementscaused him to throw his support to Adams, who was elected by the House on February 9, 1825, on the first ballot. Adams' victory shocked Jackson, who had won the most electoral and popular votes and fully expected to be elected president. When Adams appointed Clay as Secretary of State—the position that Adams and his three predecessors had held before becoming president—Jacksonian Democrats were outraged, and claimed that Adams and Clay had struck a "corrupt bargain". This contention overshadowed Adams' term and greatly contributed to Adams' loss to Jackson four years later, in the 1828 election.


Taken from http://en.wikipedia....hn_Quincy_Adams


So, no, it's not treasonous or UN-american. It's just politics, and it's been going on for a long time....


#26    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,856 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:46 PM

Glenn Beck: "I'm a libertarian!"

Bill Maher: "I'm a libertarian."

Rand Paul:  "I'm not a libertarian."

Next BS political label that means whatever the bloody fudge is convenient for someone in 3...2...1....

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#27    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,450 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:31 AM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 19 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

I don't doubt any of that, but my point is was Mr. O entirely to blame for all this? Surely it started under the previous chap. And my question was, does anyone really think that Mr. Romney* would have the faintest idea of how to handle it any better, or whether he (since we know that the ones pulling the strings are all behind the scenes), would even have any power to do anything if he did have any idea?

* I remembered!
I don't think Romney would of been a bit better.  Sure there wouldn't of been the gun debate, which didn't pass anyway, but there would of just been a different set of issues.


#28    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:49 AM

View PostHilander, on 20 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

I don't think Romney would of been a bit better.  Sure there wouldn't of been the gun debate, which didn't pass anyway, but there would of just been a different set of issues.

I don't hold any illusions about Romney. One would have been just as bad as the other. Which is why I didn't vote for either of them.


#29    tapirmusic

tapirmusic

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 643 posts
  • Joined:24 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 May 2013 - 02:41 AM

View PostJeffertonturner, on 19 May 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:


Paranoid republican nonsense.



Well, I'm glad that the racist card is all used up.
Now we're on to playing the paranoid / conspiracy theorist / tin foil hat card.

That's better than being racist i guess.. :)


#30    darkmoonlady

darkmoonlady

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,294 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Medford Oregon

  • Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'-Shawshank Redemption/Life is a buffet and most poor suckers are starving to death-Auntie Mame

Posted 20 May 2013 - 05:02 AM

View PostHilander, on 20 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

I don't think Romney would of been a bit better.  Sure there wouldn't of been the gun debate, which didn't pass anyway, but there would of just been a different set of issues.
Even if Romney won it would not have prevented Sand Hook so there would have been a gun debate no matter what.

“The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance …or change... logic can be happily tossed out the window. Religious mania is one of the few infallible ways of responding to the worlds vagaries, because it totally eliminates pure accident. To the true religious maniac, it’s ALL on purpose” – Stephen King, The Stand




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users