Obama painting

[Corp]

That's because most Europeans believe any country less socialist than England has a laissez faire economy. Since when is socialism relative, Corp? I thought it had an objective definition.

It does, though there's varying degrees of socialism in a government context. When you hear American politicans wail about how socialist Obama is what they're really doing to trying to paint him as a communist out to destroy the American way of life. To tap in to some of that Cold War fear. This of course makes other countries, who are quite happy with their socialist policies and have seen their culture remain intact, give these people odd looks. Just one of those oddities in American political language. Liberal and socialism equals Soviet communist.

[Cassea]

In all honesty, that Jesus picture outright scares me.

Me too.

[Fluffybunny]

I recall not many years ago on this very forum, posting an image of the then president bush in an unflattering light got a person pinned as a hater of America, Offering aid and support to terrorist, being "against" the country(If you are not with us...) and that the presidency deserves the respect of civilized discussion, not inflammatory images.

So funny how times change.

[Leonardo]

The American's need to polarise things, more so than any other "Western nation's" people do (or so it appears to me), mystifies me - especially in light of their Constitution which is idolised and supposed to represent the American ideals of equality, fairness and inclusiveness.

Why, in America's world, is everything so black and white? Why is everything either idolised, or demonised?

Edited March 22, 2012 by Leonardo

[F3SS]

Liberal and socialism equals Soviet communist.

Call it what you want. Equate it how you will. See it how you like. Call it paranoia as you so often do. We don't give a hoot how happy another country is. The point of frustration lies in the fact that those views and policies are180 degrees opposite of the principles our country was founded on. We don't want a little bit of this or a little bit of that mixed in. We want restoration. We want what made the greatest, freest, most powerful country the world has ever known to exist. Nothing more and nothing less.

Liberals don't want that. Socialist don't want that. Communist don't want that. Marxist don't want that. They want us to bend over, get neutered and pay for our sin of superbness and live in the world they prescribe for us yet never live by it. Only then do they think everybody will be equal. Only then do they think the world will love us.

It ain't happening. Not without a fight. Freedom will prevail.

[Fluffybunny]

The American need to polarise things, more so than any other "Western nations" people do, mystifies me - especially in light of their Constitution which is supposed to inculcate a sense of equality.

Why, in America's world, is everything so black and white?

I think it is something that is generated by those in power in order to keep the country divided and keep the infighting to as highest a level as possible so that people no longer bother to see things that might be wrong in the big picture.

Half the country thinks that the other half of the country are the enemy, which is stunning to me, and against everything this country works so hard to create. Piddly little arguments rule the day, yet corruption is at the highest level ever and people don't even see it as they are too worried about what womens birth control is doing to our nation...It is sad.

I don't see it getting any better either. Too many people are falling for the divisiveness, which is being used like a magicians hands to draw the eye away from the real trick that is being pulled on everyone.

We appear to be a country of simpletons, attention drawn to some shiny object while our wallets get pulled out of our pockets.

[F3SS]

I recall not many years ago on this very forum, posting an image of the then president bush in an unflattering light got a person pinned as a hater of America, Offering aid and support to terrorist, being "against" the country(If you are not with us...) and that the presidency deserves the respect of civilized discussion, not inflammatory images.

So funny how times change.

The difference here must be that this image represents the president as a hater of America. It is no more inflammatory than the very words used here everyday that say the same thing as the painting.

Plus this image just resonates with more people, like it or not. It's not so offensive when viewed as true.

And I'd like to add that this conversation has been quite civilized so far.

[Leonardo]

I think it is something that is generated by those in power in order to keep the country divided and keep the infighting to as highest a level as possible so that people no longer bother to see things that might be wrong in the big picture.

Half the country thinks that the other half of the country are the enemy, which is stunning to me, and against everything this country works so hard to create. Piddly little arguments rule the day, yet corruption is at the highest level ever and people don't even see it as they are too worried about what womens birth control is doing to our nation...It is sad.

I don't see it getting any better either. Too many people are falling for the divisiveness, which is being used like a magicians hands to draw the eye away from the real trick that is being pulled on everyone.

We appear to be a country of simpletons, attention drawn to some shiny object while our wallets get pulled out of our pockets.

Politics does lend itself naturally to condition people into a "them vs us" mentality, and I can see the UK (as one example) of this becoming more like the American model. Don't get me wrong, our Parliament over here has always played that game to some degree, but I can't recall it being as noticeable as it has become over the past couple of decades.

I do see this trend as symptomatic of a problem with the people, rather than the politicians, however. Maybe it is an inevitable consequence of the consumer-society taken a bit too far, as I suspect has happened in the US and is happening a little more slowly in other nations?

[Fluffybunny]

@ is it real: Bottom line is that if the picture was an image of bush, it would never have been tolerated, and anyone agree with it would be considered on the same level as those who flew the planes into the towers on 9-11. The office of the president was supposed to be respected at all costs, and images like that were considered "offering comfort and aid to the enemy" and many other similar comments.

It is hilarious to be how people justify things one way, and then do the opposite later, only to offer the same justification.

Just a lot of people who never seem to see the big picture.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Fluffybunny
clarification

[F3SS]

Bottom line is that if the picture was an image of bush, it would never have been tolerated, and anyone agree with it would be considered on the same level as those who flew the planes into the towers on 9-11. The office of the president was supposed to be respected at all costs, and images like that were considered "offering comfort and aid to the enemy" and many other similar comments.

I know this is a stretch but the only answers to that must be that Bush garnered far more respect or was viewed as more of a freedom fighter than a freedom taker.

I would like to thank all you moderators for allowing this thread even though I know you mostly don't agree with it. I had a fleeting feeling that you all would have yanked it.

[Leonardo]

Call it what you want. Equate it how you will. See it how you like. Call it paranoia as you so often do. We don't give a hoot how happy another country is. The point of frustration lies in the fact that those views and policies are180 degrees opposite of the principles our country was founded on.

This doesn't make sense at all.

If you see another nation where the society is essentially more socialist than the USA, and the general population are happier, why not conclude from that their form of governance is 'better' than your own? Why stick to something which brings less overall 'happiness' to your populace, just because it represents your past?

I understand conservatism, but conservatism does not have to be a byword for stagnation.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Leonardo

[Fluffybunny]

Politics does lend itself naturally to condition people into a "them vs us" mentality, and I can see the UK (as one example) of this becoming more like the American model. Don't get me wrong, our Parliament over here has always played that game to some degree, but I can't recall it being as noticeable as it has become over the past couple of decades.

I do see this trend as symptomatic of a problem with the people, rather than the politicians, however. Maybe it is an inevitable consequence of the consumer-society taken a bit too far, as I suspect has happened in the US and is happening a little more slowly in other nations?

I absolutely agree with the fact that there is always an us vs. them mentality, but if you do a search for "talking points" for each respective party(these talking points are given out to members of the party that are on tv or radio in order to give everyone a similar message regardless of what they may be talking about) you will see that over time each party has gone out of its way to create this division, and heat up what "us vs. them" mentality that was naturally there. With every party representative and member having the same talking points, you can take interviews from that day from any number of new shows only to see each person offering the same exact speech, and spitting out the party line word for word, regardless of the truth.

Personally I see it being generated from people in power, with very specific goals of keeping people as riled up as possible...and the average joe that never bothers to research things generally falls for it, and will parrot what they hear.

In a country that is supposed be based on freedom of expression, having half the country consider the other half of the country "enemies" simply for having a different opinion is criminal in my opinion.

[Leonardo]

I absolutely agree with the fact that there is always an us vs. them mentality, but if you do a search for "talking points" for each respective party(these talking points are given out to members of the party that are on tv or radio in order to give everyone a similar message regardless of what they may be talking about) you will see that over time each party has gone out of its way to create this division, and heat up what "us vs. them" mentality that was naturally there. With every party representative and member having the same talking points, you can take interviews from that day from any number of new shows only to see each person offering the same exact speech, and spitting out the party line word for word, regardless of the truth.

Personally I see it being generated from people in power, with very specific goals of keeping people as riled up as possible...and the average joe that never bothers to research things generally falls for it, and will parrot what they hear.

In a country that is supposed be based on freedom of expression, having half the country consider the other half of the country "enemies" simply for having a different opinion is criminal in my opinion.

I understand this, Fluffy, but the people have to buy into the rhetoric to start with - before the politicians can take advantage. Without making baseless and inflammatory accusations about "people being stupid", it would make sense that the people are easier led if they are distracted. The simplest method of acheiving that is to bombard them with too much information, which is something the consumer-society is very good at doing with it's constant 'innovation' and marketing.

[questionmark]

This doesn't make sense at all.

If you see another nation where the society is essentially more socialist than the USA, and the general population are happier, why not conclude from that their form of governance is 'better' than your own? Why stick to something which brings less overall 'happiness' to your populace, just because it represents your past?

I understand conservatism, but conservatism does not have to be a byword for stagnation.

Where with the reactionary tendencies of the so called "conservatives" it will end up in regression.

Edited March 22, 2012 by questionmark

[F3SS]

This doesn't make sense at all.

If you see another nation where the society is essentially more socialist than the USA, and the general population are happier, why not conclude from that their form of governance is 'better' than your own? Why stick to something which brings less overall 'happiness' to your populace, just because it represents your past?

I understand conservatism, but conservatism does not have to be a byword for stagnation.

Well I've said before that socialism may be ok for a less culturally diverse, less populated country. Especially one that is used to those types of governing. But in our cultural melting pot of

300+M people I believe in being created equal. Remaining equal just isn't going to work here. I believe my hard work and earning should lead to a better life, if I so choose. The guy who chooses to do the least yet expects to have or live like me just doesn't make sense. I don't expect to have or live like a millionaire, nor do I think it's unfair. I'm doing what I do while realizing that I probably could be or have done better if I yearn to achieve that. My opportunities are there I'm sure and I'd like to keep it that way. It's up to me to choose a greater or lesser path. It's not up to me to make sure my neighbor does. And please don't equate that to me being uncaring about anyone but myself. I like helping people. That should be my choice, not the governments or my neighbors choice. People tend not to give others who denounce socialism enough credit for being kind and helpful towards others. I'm a decent guy but we all must look out for ourselves and those close to us before we can look out for the general population. Yes there a greedy self entered b******* out there but I'm sure they exist in your socialist utopia too. That's life. It'll never be "fair."

[questionmark]

Well I've said before that socialism may be ok for a less culturally diverse, less populated country. Especially one that is used to those types of governing. But in our cultural melting pot of

300+M people I believe in being created equal. Remaining equal just isn't going to work here. I believe my hard work and earning should lead to a better life, if I so choose. The guy who chooses to do the least yet expects to have or live like me just doesn't make sense. I don't expect to have or live like a millionaire, nor do I think it's unfair. I'm doing what I do while realizing that I probably could be or have done better if I yearn to achieve that. My opportunities are there I'm sure and I'd like to keep it that way. It's up to me to choose a greater or lesser path. It's not up to me to make sure my neighbor does. And please don't equate that to me being uncaring about anyone but myself. I like helping people. That should be my choice, not the governments or my neighbors choice. People tend not to give others who denounce socialism enough credit for being kind and helpful towards others. I'm a decent guy but we all must look out for ourselves and those close to us before we can look out for the general population. Yes there a greedy self entered b******* out there but I'm sure they exist in your socialist utopia too. That's life. It'll never be "fair."

I know no place in the world, socialistic or not, where hard work does not better your life. What I do know is some places where you are precluded from bettering yourself because the avarice of a few making hard work useless.

[conspiracybeliever]

I know this is a stretch but the only answers to that must be that Bush garnered far more respect or was viewed as more of a freedom fighter than a freedom taker.

I would like to thank all you moderators for allowing this thread even though I know you mostly don't agree with it. I had a fleeting feeling that you all would have yanked it.

Ahhh.... NO. Thdefinitelynately your opinion. Mine is the opposite. Dubya a freedom fighter!? Never heard that one before. As far as I know all Dubya did was fight for freedom for the rich to steal from the poor and use thier children to make even more money for the rich. Is that the freedom you were referring to?

[questionmark]

Ahhh.... NO. Thdefinitelynately your opinion. Mine is the opposite. Dubya a freedom fighter!? Never heard that one before. As far as I know all Dubya did was fight for freedom for the rich to steal from the poor and use thier children to make even more money for the rich. Is that the freedom you were referring to?

Sure, Dubya was fighting for Haliburton's freedom from taxes.ain't that no freedom fighter?

[F3SS]

I know no place in the world, socialistic or not, where hard work does not better your life. What I do know is some places where you are precluded from bettering yourself because the avarice of a few making hard work useless.

Ok let's rephrase. How about we call the path we are heading down an Entitlement society. We can all live how we want here right now. We can all choose our own paths. The problem we are facing is a whole bunch of people think they are entitled to something from someone else regardless of what they put into this pool of free things. They call it free stuff when of course nothing is free. They, some, don't think it comes from someone else. They think free stuff should just be there for them when they want. To hell with how it gets to them so long as they get it. That is selfish, distorted and destructive to society. Maybe it's not socialism. I said earlier call it what you want, I don't care. Whatever it is, it's not how this country is supposed to be. You may say our freedom system doesn't work but it does. The problem is a bunch of power grabbing elite a-holes have been trying to break the system. They sell it as to our advantage. Some people have bought into. Others, like myself, have seen through it. Whatever is happening isn't about helping the citizens and keeping them happy. It's about controlling the citizens and keeping them, oh I don't know, let's say content, or just living. So we can argue all day about the technicalities of governmental systems. I'm far from an expert in that department. All I know is we are being sold false hope and receiving radical change. Tell me all day how great socialism is. The fact is most of this country doesn't want it, a form of it or anything that isn't what our constitution set us up to be. Unfortunately, so many people don't know what the heck they are voting for when the pull the levers. I'll bet if they did we'd be on a straighter, freer path right now.

[F3SS]

Ahhh.... NO. Thdefinitelynately your opinion. Mine is the opposite. Dubya a freedom fighter!? Never heard that one before. As far as I know all Dubya did was fight for freedom for the rich to steal from the poor and use thier children to make even more money for the rich. Is that the freedom you were referring to?

All I said is that those must be the drawn conclusions to the statement I was replying to. Not necessarily that those where my views. During most of GW's time in office I had yet to get interested in politics. So I tend not to argue much for or against GW. Since then I have formed views. I know what my views are and how I feel. Also, since Obama I have had much interest in politics. So that's why you'll see me invoke his name into a lot of conversatns. Not to mention he has been the pres for three years now. Invoking GW into everything today is the job of the left. Anyway, this is all off topic but I wanted to clear that up about me and GW with two of my biggest opponents on this forum. Although conspiracy, I have to say we have been quite civil with each other recently. I think you've calmed down a lot.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Is it for real

[Corp]

Call it what you want. Equate it how you will. See it how you like. Call it paranoia as you so often do. We don't give a hoot how happy another country is. The point of frustration lies in the fact that those views and policies are180 degrees opposite of the principles our country was founded on. We don't want a little bit of this or a little bit of that mixed in. We want restoration. We want what made the greatest, freest, most powerful country the world has ever known to exist. Nothing more and nothing less.

Liberals don't want that. Socialist don't want that. Communist don't want that. Marxist don't want that. They want us to bend over, get neutered and pay for our sin of superbness and live in the world they prescribe for us yet never live by it. Only then do they think everybody will be equal. Only then do they think the world will love us.

It ain't happening. Not without a fight. Freedom will prevail.

I think if you actually talked to people with liberal leanings you'll find they don't want to destroy your country and do whatever minorities tell them. Just as if the hard left talked to conservatives they'd find they aren't about worshiping the rich and killing foreign people.

This whole outlook that those who don't share your political view point are out to destroy the country is only going to result in another civil war.

[Leonardo]

They think free stuff should just be there for them when they want. To hell with how it gets to them so long as they get it. That is selfish, distorted and destructive to society.

I realise I've taken only a sample of your post, but I want to point out that what you have stated is incorrect.

People believing they "can just have stuff" is not "destructive to society". It is, however, destructive to an economy. If you want to equate economy to society then by all means, do so. But that is merely a symptom of perhaps the greatest issue in our modern societies - money.

[F3SS]

I think if you actually talked to people with liberal leanings you'll find they don't want to destroy your country and do whatever minorities tell them. Just as if the hard left talked to conservatives they'd find they aren't about worshiping the rich and killing foreign people.

This whole outlook that those who don't share your political view point are out to destroy the country is only going to result in another civil war.

Fair enough. I agree with that. I do vent my frustrations towards the extreme far left. And that's the problem. Our whitehouse is run by extremist. Put it this way, if the policies and rhetoric of this administration just weren't that bad then why is the country dividing. I'd rather not be so p***sed but the things that are going on are just to far in one direction not to get worked up. Obama is out to divide us and I must choose my side. The one thing I'll give him credit for is getting so much more of the country to pay attention to politics, yet for all the wrong reasons. Yes I know I can get along with liberals. I'm sure I've known more than I realize. Heck, I've been finding out more and more lately that one of my best friends for almost 25 years is way more to the left then I ever knew. Before recently we never talked or cared about politics. But we get along just fine.

[F3SS]

I realise I've taken only a sample of your post, but I want to point out that what you have stated is incorrect.

People believing they "can just have stuff" is not "destructive to society". It is, however, destructive to an economy. If you want to equate economy to society then by all means, do so. But that is merely a symptom of perhaps the greatest issue in our modern societies - money.

Yes but it's a big major symptom. A destructive one. We have possibly close to half of the country wanting free stuff. The other half doesn't want to and shouldn't have to labor and earn to carry that weight. The working class cant sustain the loafers and thats why it's ultimately destructive. While we break our backs working so many others are sitting around on their asses getting hemoroids then demanding someone else pay for their proctologist.

I suspect the takers are far less than half but it's tough to figure out.

[ninjadude]

Ok let's rephrase. How about we call the path we are heading down an Entitlement society.

And where do you get this misinformation? Certainly there are some who feel that way but not most. The fact that you use the word "entitlements" means you don't understand what you're talking about. Social Security is paid into thru working. Medicare is a paid insurance program. There are programs that provide free services for the poor. As a society we consider taking care of the poor and sick to be in our vested interest. There are more poor during bad economic times. We are just now emerging from one of the worst in US history.