Thread: The Great 'I told you so" Thread

Originally Posted by smitchell333

Maybe I will.

What exactly is it in his teachings that you feel is so dangerous?

He's cracking under the deluge of reason and logic.

Originally Posted by Sir Jongalot

Do you need a tampon for your bleeding pussy ass mangina?

Didn't read thread, but found this question appropriate for 90% of threads in here, which just happens to be the % of threads started by Jer, Rubi, DB Train, and a few others. OSECS chimes in with a conservative viewpoint, but obviously doesn't have the bleeding "ohh my whole world is crashing because Obama won" attitude that you and the othe 90% thread starters have.

Rubi, do you promise not to delete thread like Tuckerman when you seem like an idiot for calling the game in the first 5 minutes of the first quarter.

Now look, I am very concerned for our national welfare as well. Debt is not a good thing.

BUT I UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE DECISIONS AND AM WILLING TO MONITOR OUR RESULTS AND ADJUST IF NECESSARY, NOT JUST SHIT ON ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T FOLLOW MY IDEALOGY.

I like this thread, don't delete. Make it the most important thread in PoliAsshat

Jer, I call you the King of Asshats, but you are a fraud.... A flaming gay fraud, you can't put a rational sentence together and your only comeback is full blow stupidiy. You disappoint.

Slowly but surely the Rubes will find out exactly who the Rubes really were.



THE OBAMA SURPRISE by Michael S. Malone
Be careful what you wish for.

No segment of American industry did more than high tech to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. The 2008 Obama campaign will go down in history as having made better use of digital technology than any before it. From a hugely powerful website to the reproduction of the “Hope” poster on thousands of Facebook pages to the President’s own ‘tweet’ on election night, Silicon Valley played a crucial role in the success of President Obama . . .and Silicon Valley naturally assumed that the new President would do the same in return.

It hasn’t quite turned out that way. . .

The first surprise to many Valleyites is how innately anti-entrepreneurial the new Administration has turned out to be. Candidate Obama looked like a high tech executive - smart, hip, a gadget freak - and he certainly talked pro-entrepreneur. But the reality of the last six months has been very different. One might have predicted that he would use the best tool in his economic arsenal - new company creation and the millions of new jobs those firms in turn create - to fight this recession. But President Obama has instead appeared to be almost exclusively interested in Big Business as the key to economy recovery.

By comparison, almost every move the new Administration has made regarding entrepreneurship seems to be targeting at destroying it in this country. It has left Sarbanes-Oxley intact, added ever-greater burdens on small business owners, called for increasing capital gains taxes, and is now preparing to pile on cap-and-trade, double taxation on offshore earnings, and a host of other new costs. Even Obamacare seems likely to land unfairly on small companies.

Entrepreneurship has been the single most important contributor to the economic health of this country for at least a century now - and if you were going to systematically destroy that vitality, you couldn’t come up with a better strategy than the one Washington has put in place over the last six months. Indeed, you can make the case that the sole contribution the Obama administration has made to entrepreneurship in America to date is to force all of those millions of unemployed people to desperately set up their own businesses in order to survive.

You might imagine that this would be upsetting to all of those Valley tycoons who played such an important role in underwriting, advising and legitimizing Candidate Obama. But you would be wrong.

What I think is most misunderstood by outsiders is that the electronics industry is not monolithic, and that its players do not all share the same interests. And nowhere is this divide greater than between start-up companies and the giant, well-known corporations - even though the latter, just a few years before, were start-ups themselves.

For example, you may think that the competitive challenge that big tech companies fear most is from other big tech companies. You know: Apple v. Microsoft, HP v. Dell, Cisco v. Juniper, MySpace v. Facebook. But in fact, that isn’t the case. Sure, those are dangerous competitors; but far more threatening is that clever new start-up that seems to appear out of nowhere. That’s the threat that wakes up Fortune 500 tech CEOs at 3 a.m. That little start-up not only competes with you, it can render your entire business - even your entire industry - obsolete and you don’t even see it coming. Think desktop publishing and the printing industry, the iPod and the music industry - and just look at the terror that Twitter seems to be creating at Google and Facebook these days.

Once you understand this dynamic, a lot of the paradoxical recent business behavior in high tech suddenly becomes explicable. For example, why did the big tech companies embrace such regulations as Sarbanes and stock options expensing - even though they would cost them billions of dollars with no obvious gain? And why would they support a Presidential candidate who seemed to have little understanding of, or sympathy for, market capitalism and business?

Because it was the best strategy to crush the start-ups.
And for the most part, that strategy has worked. High tech has only seen a handful of new companies go public in the last five years - compared to hundreds per year before that. Less noticed is that this means most hot new start-up companies, instead of enjoying an IPO and becoming rich enough to compete full-on against the big boys, now can only grow to a certain size then offer themselves up to be bought by the giants. What had once been hugely valuable competition has now been reduced to a farm system for acquisitive mature companies. [And a side benefit has been the near-destruction of the venture capital industry, which big business always described as ‘vulture' capital because it drew away their most talented employees.]

Now you see why the tech world joined the Obama team early on in the campaign. Not only did Senator Obama seem like their kind of guy, but each camp saw in him the President they wanted. The entrepreneurs thought they were getting a fellow entrepreneur, and big business thought they get a confederate in taking out the competition.

No company recognized the advantages to this strategy better than Google. Having just gone public, and seeing competitive threats coming from every direction - not just from established companies and start-ups, but also jealous overseas regulators (i.e., the EU) - it saw in Candidate Obama a potential ally and protector. It’s no coincidence that Senator Obama’s first important Silicon Valley campaign appearance was at Google headquarters, or that Google was a major player at the Democratic Convention. There was even talk that CEO Eric Schmidt would be joining the Obama Administration in some key role.

But that was in November. It’s June now, and while the big companies have largely gotten their wish when it comes to new start-ups - as I’ve said, entrepreneurship is under assault in the U.S. like we have not seen in our lifetimes - the tech giants are now discovering they may have made a devil’s bargain. The Administration’s brute force handling of the Chrysler and GM take-overs, seemingly violating contract law in the process; its mutterings about managing executive bonuses; its creation of industry czars without the need for Congressional approval; and the prospect of endless debt, economic stagnation and runaway inflation waiting in the wings - all have to be making the same CEOs pretty darn nervous these days . . . and asking themselves if they’ve made a terrible mistake.

And that’s only the start. Intel, already getting hammered by a billion dollar-plus fine by the EU, is now facing a similar punishment from the U.S. Justice Department. And poor suck-up Google, which tried to be the President’s BFF, now finds itself facing multiple Federal probes regarding its recruiting policies and its book database settlement - not to mention a Justice Department that appears to be opposing it on net neutrality.

And you’ve got to figure that’s only the beginning. No doubt right now somebody in the White House is looking at the low levels of union membership in high tech and vowing to do something about it. And don’t forget anti-trust. And woe be it to any shareholders or creditors of a big tech company that finds itself in financial trouble as this recession drags on - you saw what happened to Chrysler’s shareholders and creditors.

High tech CEOs are supposed to be the smartest people you’ve ever met. And most of them are. But when it comes to politics and dealing inside the Beltway, experience has taught me that these men and women are fools, dupes and rubes - and too arrogant to realize it. They thought they were electing one of them, and someone pliable enough to help them succeed while at the same time crushing their competition.

It hasn’t worked out that way. President Obama has proven to be not only shrewder than these tech execs thought, but also far more dogmatic and old-fashioned in his world-view than they ever imagined. If, somehow - and almost everything I know about economics argues against it - the Obama economic plan works, these executives will emerge at the head of battered, compromised, but victorious corporations. But if it fails, these same execs deserve a sizable share of the blame. That’s what you call a lose-lose scenario - and they’ve brought it on themselves

Originally Posted by DropCliffsNotBombs

Just calling it like I see it! Have you read any conservative websites lately? They are getting more and more paranoid by the day!

wingnut + weapon = daily news!

Did you read any left wing websites when BUSH was President? WHAT A PARTISAN LOSER!!!!

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

I like Vodka and pickled mushrooms more than fire and brimstone

comeon over and I can introduce you to the Aussie who rants about Hillary Clinton conspiring to drop the twin towers on 7/11

Why? Does Hillary hate Slurpees?

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Did you read any left wing websites when BUSH was President?

I did. It was entertaining.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

That is the problem with people constantly crying "WOLF" at the drop of a hat. If a wolf ever does show up nobody will take you seriously

Have you been working long on this little gem?

Watch OUT! You keep reading this you might learn something...
And the funny thing is Bush actually didn't LIE about WMDs, but that was the heart of the anti-Bush crowd argument. Obama on the other hand.


Just Make Stuff Up
President Obama’s war on the truth.

By Victor Davis Hanson

In the first six months of the Obama administration, we have witnessed an assault on the truth of a magnitude not seen since the Nixon Watergate years. The prevarication is ironic given the Obama campaign’s accusations that the Bush years were not transparent and that Hillary Clinton, like her husband, was a chronic fabricator. Remember Obama’s own assertions that he was a “student of history” and that “words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up.”

Yet Obama’s war against veracity is multifaceted.

Trotskyization. Sometimes the past is simply airbrushed away. Barack Obama has a disturbing habit of contradicting his past declarations as if spoken words did not mean much at all. The problem is not just that once-memorable statements about everything from NAFTA to public campaign financing were contradicted by his subsequent actions. Rather, these pronouncements simply were ignored to the point of making it seem they were never really uttered at all.

What is stunning about Obama’s hostile demagoguery about Bush’s War on Terror is not that he has now contradicted himself on one or two particulars. Instead, he has reversed himself on every major issue — renditions, military tribunals, intercepts, wiretaps, Predator drone attacks, the release of interrogation photos, Iraq (and, I think, soon Guantanamo Bay) — and yet never acknowledged these reversals.

Are we supposed to think that Obama was never against these protocols at all? Or that he still remains opposed to them even as he keeps them in place? Meanwhile, his attorney general, Eric Holder, is as voluble on the excesses of the Bush War on Terror as he is silent about his own earlier declarations that detainees in this war were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

Politicians often go back on earlier promises, and they often exaggerate (remember Obama’s “10,000” who died in a Kansas tornado [12 perished], or his belief that properly inflating tires saves as much energy as offshore drilling can produce?). But the extent of Obama’s distortions suggests that he has complete confidence that observers in the media do not care — or at least do not care enough to inform the public.

The “Big Lie.” Team Obama says that Judge Sotomayor misspoke when she asserted that Latinas were inherently better judges than white males. Yet the people around Obama knew before Sotomayor was nominated that she has reiterated such racialist sentiments repeatedly over many years.

Obama complained that his deficits were largely inherited — even though his newly projected annual deficit and aggregate increase in the national debt may well, if they are not circumvented, equal all the deficit spending compiled by all previous administrations combined.

The president lectures Congress on its financial excesses. He advocates “pay as you go” budgeting. But he remains silent about the unfunded liabilities involved in his own proposals for cap-and-trade, universal health care, and education reform, which will in aggregate require well over a trillion dollars in new spending on top of existing deficits — but without any “pay as you go” proposals to fund them.

By the same token, his promise that 95 percent of Americans will receive an Obama “tax cut” is impossible. Remember, almost 40 percent of households currently pay no income taxes at all — and the $1.7-trillion annual deficit will necessitate a broad array of taxes well beyond those assessed on incomes above $250,000.

Obama talks about cutting federal outlays by eliminating $17 billion in expenditures — one-half of one percent of a $3.4-trillion budget. Here the gap between rhetoric and reality is already so wide that it simply makes no difference whether one goes completely beyond the limits of belief. Why would a liberal “budget hawk” go through the trouble of trying to cut 10 or 20 percent of the budget when he might as well celebrate a 0.5 percent cut and receive the same amount of credit or disdain? If one is going to distort, one might as well distort whole-hog.

Outright historical dissimulation. On matters of history, we now know that much of what President Obama says is either not factual or at least misleading. He predictably errs on the side of political correctness. During the campaign, there was his inaccurate account of his great-uncle’s role in liberating Auschwitz. In Berlin, he asserted that the world — rather than the American and British air forces — came together to pull off the Berlin Airlift.

In the Cairo speech, nearly every historical allusion was nonfactual or inexact: the fraudulent claims that Muslims were responsible for European, Chinese, and Hindu discoveries; the notion that a Christian Córdoba was an example of Islamic tolerance during the Inquisition; the politically correct canard that the Renaissance and Enlightenment were fueled by Arab learning; the idea that abolition and civil rights in the United States were accomplished without violence — as if 600,000 did not die in the Civil War, or entire swaths of Detroit, Gary, Newark, and Los Angeles did not go up in flames in the 1960s.

Here we see the omnipotent influence of Obama’s multicultural creed: Western civilization is unexceptional in comparison with other cultures, and history must be the story of an ecumenical, global shared brotherhood.

The half-, and less-than-half, truth. At other times, Obama throws out historical references that are deliberately incomplete. To placate critical hosts, he evokes the American dropping of the bomb. But he is silent about the impossible choices for the Allies — after Japanese atrocities in Manchuria, Korea, the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa — facing the necessity of stopping a Japanese imperial killing machine, determined to fight to the death.

He lectures about equivalent culpability between Muslims and Americans without mentioning American largess to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians. He mostly ignores American military efforts to save Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Somalia — and American criticism of Russia’s and China’s treatment of their own persecuted Muslim minorities.

When Obama contextualizes the United States’ treatment of Muslims, does he do so in comparison to the Chinese treatment of the Uighurs, the Russians in Chechnya and Afghanistan, or the European colonial experience in North Africa?

When he cites European colonialism’s pernicious role in the Middle East, does he mention nearly 400 years of Ottoman Muslim colonial rule in the Arab-speaking world? Or the Muslim world’s own role in sending several million sub-Saharan Africans to the Middle East as slaves? By no stretch of the imagination is purported Western bias against Islam commensurate with the Islamic threats that have been issued to Danish cartoonists, British novelists, the pope, or German opera producers.

Obama surely knows that a mosque is acceptable in America and Europe in a way that a church is not in most of the Gulf States, or that Muslims freely voice their beliefs in Rotterdam and Dearborn in a way Westerners dare not in Tehran, Damascus, or Riyadh.

Here we see the classic notion of the “noble lie,” or the assumption that facts are to be cited or ignored in accordance with the intended aim: Interfaith reconciliation means downplaying Muslim excesses, or treating Islamic felonies as equivalent with Western misdemeanors.

Why has President Obama developed a general disregard for the truth, in a manner far beyond typical politicians who run one way and govern another, or hide failures and broadcast successes?

First, he has confidence that the media will not be censorious and will simply accept his fiction as fact. A satirist, after all, could not make up anything to match the obsequious journalists who bow to their president, proclaim him a god, and receive sexual-like tingles up their appendages.

Second, Obama is a postmodernist. He believes that all truth is relative, and that assertions gain or lose credibility depending on the race, class, and gender of the speaker. In Obama’s case, his misleading narrative is intended for higher purposes. Thus it is truthful in a way that accurate facts offered by someone of a different, more privileged class and race might not be.

Third, Obama talks more than almost any prior president, weighing in on issues from Stephen Colbert’s haircut, to Sean Hannity’s hostility, to the need to wash our hands. In Obama’s way of thinking, his receptive youthful audiences are proof of his righteousness and wisdom — and empower him to pontificate on matters he knows nothing about.

Finally, our president is a product of a multicultural education: Facts either cannot be ascertained or do not matter, given that the overriding concern is to promote an equality of result among various contending groups. That is best done by inflating the aspirations of those without power, and deflating the “dominant narratives” of those with it.

The problem in the next four years will be not just that the president of the United States serially does not tell the truth. Instead, the real crisis in our brave new relativist world will be that those who demonstrate that he is untruthful will themselves be accused of lying.

Originally Posted by carpathian

Watch OUT! You keep reading this you might learn something...
And the funny thing is Bush actually didn't LIE about WMDs, but that was the heart of the anti-Bush crowd argument. Obama on the other hand.


Just Make Stuff Up
President Obama’s war on the truth.

By Victor Davis Hanson

In the first six months of the Obama administration, we have witnessed an assault on the truth of a magnitude not seen since the Nixon Watergate years. The prevarication is ironic given the Obama campaign’s accusations that the Bush years were not transparent and that Hillary Clinton, like her husband, was a chronic fabricator. Remember Obama’s own assertions that he was a “student of history” and that “words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up.”

Yet Obama’s war against veracity is multifaceted.

Trotskyization. Sometimes the past is simply airbrushed away. Barack Obama has a disturbing habit of contradicting his past declarations as if spoken words did not mean much at all. The problem is not just that once-memorable statements about everything from NAFTA to public campaign financing were contradicted by his subsequent actions. Rather, these pronouncements simply were ignored to the point of making it seem they were never really uttered at all.

What is stunning about Obama’s hostile demagoguery about Bush’s War on Terror is not that he has now contradicted himself on one or two particulars. Instead, he has reversed himself on every major issue — renditions, military tribunals, intercepts, wiretaps, Predator drone attacks, the release of interrogation photos, Iraq (and, I think, soon Guantanamo Bay) — and yet never acknowledged these reversals.

Are we supposed to think that Obama was never against these protocols at all? Or that he still remains opposed to them even as he keeps them in place? Meanwhile, his attorney general, Eric Holder, is as voluble on the excesses of the Bush War on Terror as he is silent about his own earlier declarations that detainees in this war were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

Politicians often go back on earlier promises, and they often exaggerate (remember Obama’s “10,000” who died in a Kansas tornado [12 perished], or his belief that properly inflating tires saves as much energy as offshore drilling can produce?). But the extent of Obama’s distortions suggests that he has complete confidence that observers in the media do not care — or at least do not care enough to inform the public.

The “Big Lie.” Team Obama says that Judge Sotomayor misspoke when she asserted that Latinas were inherently better judges than white males. Yet the people around Obama knew before Sotomayor was nominated that she has reiterated such racialist sentiments repeatedly over many years.

Obama complained that his deficits were largely inherited — even though his newly projected annual deficit and aggregate increase in the national debt may well, if they are not circumvented, equal all the deficit spending compiled by all previous administrations combined.

The president lectures Congress on its financial excesses. He advocates “pay as you go” budgeting. But he remains silent about the unfunded liabilities involved in his own proposals for cap-and-trade, universal health care, and education reform, which will in aggregate require well over a trillion dollars in new spending on top of existing deficits — but without any “pay as you go” proposals to fund them.

By the same token, his promise that 95 percent of Americans will receive an Obama “tax cut” is impossible. Remember, almost 40 percent of households currently pay no income taxes at all — and the $1.7-trillion annual deficit will necessitate a broad array of taxes well beyond those assessed on incomes above $250,000.

Obama talks about cutting federal outlays by eliminating $17 billion in expenditures — one-half of one percent of a $3.4-trillion budget. Here the gap between rhetoric and reality is already so wide that it simply makes no difference whether one goes completely beyond the limits of belief. Why would a liberal “budget hawk” go through the trouble of trying to cut 10 or 20 percent of the budget when he might as well celebrate a 0.5 percent cut and receive the same amount of credit or disdain? If one is going to distort, one might as well distort whole-hog.

Outright historical dissimulation. On matters of history, we now know that much of what President Obama says is either not factual or at least misleading. He predictably errs on the side of political correctness. During the campaign, there was his inaccurate account of his great-uncle’s role in liberating Auschwitz. In Berlin, he asserted that the world — rather than the American and British air forces — came together to pull off the Berlin Airlift.

In the Cairo speech, nearly every historical allusion was nonfactual or inexact: the fraudulent claims that Muslims were responsible for European, Chinese, and Hindu discoveries; the notion that a Christian Córdoba was an example of Islamic tolerance during the Inquisition; the politically correct canard that the Renaissance and Enlightenment were fueled by Arab learning; the idea that abolition and civil rights in the United States were accomplished without violence — as if 600,000 did not die in the Civil War, or entire swaths of Detroit, Gary, Newark, and Los Angeles did not go up in flames in the 1960s.

Here we see the omnipotent influence of Obama’s multicultural creed: Western civilization is unexceptional in comparison with other cultures, and history must be the story of an ecumenical, global shared brotherhood.

The half-, and less-than-half, truth. At other times, Obama throws out historical references that are deliberately incomplete. To placate critical hosts, he evokes the American dropping of the bomb. But he is silent about the impossible choices for the Allies — after Japanese atrocities in Manchuria, Korea, the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa — facing the necessity of stopping a Japanese imperial killing machine, determined to fight to the death.

He lectures about equivalent culpability between Muslims and Americans without mentioning American largess to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians. He mostly ignores American military efforts to save Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Somalia — and American criticism of Russia’s and China’s treatment of their own persecuted Muslim minorities.

When Obama contextualizes the United States’ treatment of Muslims, does he do so in comparison to the Chinese treatment of the Uighurs, the Russians in Chechnya and Afghanistan, or the European colonial experience in North Africa?

When he cites European colonialism’s pernicious role in the Middle East, does he mention nearly 400 years of Ottoman Muslim colonial rule in the Arab-speaking world? Or the Muslim world’s own role in sending several million sub-Saharan Africans to the Middle East as slaves? By no stretch of the imagination is purported Western bias against Islam commensurate with the Islamic threats that have been issued to Danish cartoonists, British novelists, the pope, or German opera producers.

Obama surely knows that a mosque is acceptable in America and Europe in a way that a church is not in most of the Gulf States, or that Muslims freely voice their beliefs in Rotterdam and Dearborn in a way Westerners dare not in Tehran, Damascus, or Riyadh.

Here we see the classic notion of the “noble lie,” or the assumption that facts are to be cited or ignored in accordance with the intended aim: Interfaith reconciliation means downplaying Muslim excesses, or treating Islamic felonies as equivalent with Western misdemeanors.

Why has President Obama developed a general disregard for the truth, in a manner far beyond typical politicians who run one way and govern another, or hide failures and broadcast successes?

First, he has confidence that the media will not be censorious and will simply accept his fiction as fact. A satirist, after all, could not make up anything to match the obsequious journalists who bow to their president, proclaim him a god, and receive sexual-like tingles up their appendages.

Second, Obama is a postmodernist. He believes that all truth is relative, and that assertions gain or lose credibility depending on the race, class, and gender of the speaker. In Obama’s case, his misleading narrative is intended for higher purposes. Thus it is truthful in a way that accurate facts offered by someone of a different, more privileged class and race might not be.

Third, Obama talks more than almost any prior president, weighing in on issues from Stephen Colbert’s haircut, to Sean Hannity’s hostility, to the need to wash our hands. In Obama’s way of thinking, his receptive youthful audiences are proof of his righteousness and wisdom — and empower him to pontificate on matters he knows nothing about.

Finally, our president is a product of a multicultural education: Facts either cannot be ascertained or do not matter, given that the overriding concern is to promote an equality of result among various contending groups. That is best done by inflating the aspirations of those without power, and deflating the “dominant narratives” of those with it.

The problem in the next four years will be not just that the president of the United States serially does not tell the truth. Instead, the real crisis in our brave new relativist world will be that those who demonstrate that he is untruthful will themselves be accused of lying.

While this article is 100% true and VERY concerning, it was clearly written by a Right Wing person and not approved by the Obamazombies therefore it should be rejected in it's entirety.

I love how the candidate of "hope and change", the thinking man's candidate, the one is actually a symbol of exactly how apathetic our society is. As long as it sounds good the truth behind what a politician is irrelevant. It's like Dan Rather's defense in 2004 when he used forged documents in his report falsely accusing Bush's "derilection of duty" in the national guard. For Bush haters "Not factual, but true" is absolutely true. Now the same people are completely in the bag for Obama.


not exactly surprising.

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

I love how the candidate of "hope and change", the thinking man's candidate, the one is actually a symbol of exactly how apathetic our society is. As long as it sounds good the truth behind what a politician is irrelevant. It's like Dan Rather's defense in 2004 when he used forged documents in his report falsely accusing Bush's "derilection of duty" in the national guard. For Bush haters "Not factual, but true" is absolutely true. Now the same people are completely in the bag for Obama.


not exactly surprising.

Then this won't matter either....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/...pector_general

Obama fires investigator of "Community Organizer" pals.

Originally Posted by smitchell333

Maybe I will.

What exactly is it in his teachings that you feel is so dangerous?

Nothing. The teachings themselves are just ideas(and pretty good ones at that). The problem is that Obama is putting them into action. Fully 90% of the person we see in Obama is the fleshing out of Alinsky's teachings; from the unassailable confidence to the rhetoric, to the agenda he is advancing and the way he is going about it.

Alinsky's ideology was rooted in Marxism with some Eastern philosophy mixed in. He realized that one of the problem with orthodox Marxism is that it could not be imposed on a people with the existing power structure in place. So what he did was figure out how to subvert an existing power structure and bring about a Marxist style revolution from the inside, and Obama is attempting it.

I'm not under any illusion that we will become a Marxist country if Obama gets his way. I don't believe that the American people want a Marxist country, in any form, watered down or not. But that won't keep Obama from wreaking havoc on our economic system and destroying our prosperity and way of life in his attempt to shape the country into what he thinks it should be. You know, 'spreading the wealth around'.

Obama is an ideologue inspired by the lofty ideas of Alinsky and he has no clue of the real world consequences of his actions.

Here is something I posted in another thread:

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Most Americans revile socialism, yet Barack Obama's poll numbers remain competitive. One explanation: He's a longtime disciple of a man whose mission was to teach radicals to disguise their ideology.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's choice of the word "change" as his campaign's central slogan is not the product of focus-group studies, or the brainstorming sessions of his political consultants.

One of Obama's main inspirations was a man dedicated to revolutionary change that he was convinced "must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."
Saul Alinsky, circa 1946: Like Obama, he wanted "change."

Saul Alinsky, circa 1946: Like Obama, he wanted "change."

Sen. Obama was trained by Chicago's Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by the radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In the 1980s, Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky's strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, Acorn and Project Vote.

On the Obama campaign Web site can be found a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom with "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" written on the blackboard — key terms utilized in the Alinsky method.

The far-left Alinsky had no time for liberalism or liberals, declaring that "a liberal is (someone) who puts his foot down firmly on thin air." He wanted nothing less than transformational radicalism. "America was begun by its radicals," he wrote. "America was built by its radicals. The hope and future of America lies with its radicals." And so, "This is the job for today's radical — to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say, '. . . let us change it together!' "

Alinsky students ranged "from militant Indians to Chicanos to Puerto Ricans to blacks from all parts of the black power spectrum, from Panthers to radical philosophers, from a variety of campus activists, S.D.S. and others, to a priest who was joining a revolutionary party in South America."

Capitalism always was considered the enemy. "America's corporations are a spiritual slum," he wrote, "and their arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society." Is it surprising that an Alinsky disciple such as Obama can promise so blithely to increase taxes on CEOs?

Obama calls his years as an Alinskyesque community organizer in Chicago "the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith." But as radicalism expert Richard Lawrence Poe has noted, "Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. In organizing coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer."

Indeed, Alinsky believed in sacrificing ethics and morals for the great cause. "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times," Alinsky wrote in his last book, "Rules for Radicals," adding that "all values are relative in a world of political relativity."

Published a year before Alinsky's death in 1972, "Rules for Radicals" includes a dedication in which he gives "an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

Alinsky's writings even explain what often seems like Obama's oversized ego. In New Hampshire in January, for example, the senator told an audience that "a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany . . . and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama."

It was a bizarre spectacle, but consider that Alinsky believed that "anyone who is working against the haves is always facing odds, and in many cases heavy odds. If he or she does not have that complete self-confidence (or call it ego) that he can win, then the battle is lost before it is even begun."

According to Alinsky, "Ego must be so all-pervading that the personality of the organizer is contagious, that it converts the people from despair to defiance, creating a mass ego."

Alinsky also readily admitted that he didn't trust the people themselves. "It is the schizophrenia of a free society that we outwardly espouse faith in the people but inwardly have strong doubts whether the people can be trusted," he wrote. "Seeking some meaning in life," the middle class, according to Alinsky, "turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the 'American' faith."

This is evocative of Obama's remark during the primaries that small-town Americans are "bitter" and "cling to guns or religion."

Obama is also following Alinsky's instructions to the hard left for attaining power in America. In the last chapter of "Rules for Radicals," titled "The Way Ahead," is found this declaration: "Activists and radicals, on and off our college campuses — people who are committed to change — must make a complete turnabout."

Alinsky noted that "our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt."

According to Alinsky, "They are right," but he cautioned his comrades that "the power and the people are in the big middle-class majority." Therefore, an effective radical activist "discards the rhetoric that always says 'pig' " in reference to police officers, plus other forms of disguise, "to radicalize parts of the middle class."

Obama's rhetorical window-dressing is easily recognizable as Alinskyesque camouflage. New annual spending of more than $340 billion, as estimated by the National Taxpayers Union, is merely a wish to "recast" the safety net woven by FDR and LBJ, as Obama describes it in his writings. The free market is disparaged as a "winner-take-all" economy. Big tax increases masquerade as "restoring fairness to the economy."

Barack Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" is simply socialism — imposed by stratagem because Americans have never believed in Marxist economics. Saul Alinsky understood this, and his ghost is alive and well — and threatening to haunt the White House.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...03605575673142

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Have you been working long on this little gem?

I spent hours on that one. At one point I got writers block and had to consult the retard in the corner, after that it all just fell together.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Rubi, do you promise not to delete thread like Tuckerman when you seem like an idiot for calling the game in the first 5 minutes of the first quarter.

Once somebody else has posted in it, I won't delete a thread. If you need a promise to keep you from worrying about it, sorry, you'll just have to suffer through.


If you get a new neighbor and invite him over for dinner one night and he walks into your house, shoves you out of the way and immediately begins groping your wife; are you going to think to yourself "You know, he just got here and I don't know him very well yet. I think I'll wait and see how things play out"?

Obama has already done enough during his time in office that I don't need to see any more to know that he is trouble and is going to be bad for the country.

So now you're buttressing your thesis with an editorial by a neo-con classics professor from Cal State Fresno who's most known for being a relentless cheerleader for invading Iraq and pre-emptively attacking Iran? That op/ed is as worthless as the source--a bunch of out of context quotes and vague smears. You might as well publish a critique from Karl Rove. Except I think he would try a smarter tactic than red-baiting.

And for what it's worth, like it or not, most Americans right now wouldn't find statements like, "America's corporations are a spiritual slum," terribly radical--remember Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Merrill, AIG?

Some other "long time disciples" of Alinsky: Martin Luther King and Caesar Chavez. Who, again, like it or not, a very large piece of the electorate considers Great Americans.You could just as easily accuse the previous administration of deviously utilizing Alinsky's method to further their radical agenda, or point out the canny way that the Founding Fathers organized a grass-roots radical movement that also wanted "change".

Originally Posted by H-wood

So now you're buttressing your thesis with an editorial by a neo-con classics professor from Cal State Fresno who's most known for being a relentless cheerleader for invading Iraq and pre-emptively attacking Iran? That op/ed is as worthless as the source--a bunch of out of context quotes and vague smears. You might as well publish a critique from Karl Rove. Except I think he would try a smarter tactic than red-baiting.

And for what it's worth, like it or not, most Americans right now wouldn't find statements like, "America's corporations are a spiritual slum," terribly radical--remember Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Merrill, AIG?

Some other "long time disciples" of Alinsky: Martin Luther King and Caesar Chavez. Who, again, like it or not, a very large piece of the electorate considers Great Americans.You could just as easily accuse the previous administration of deviously utilizing Alinsky's method to further their radical agenda, or point out the canny way that the Founding Fathers organized a grass-roots radical movement that also wanted "change".

He made the classic error of posting from a source not pre-approved by the Obama-Nazi's. All non approved liturature must be disregarded in it's entirety!!

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Didn't read thread, but found this question appropriate for 90% of threads in here, which just happens to be the % of threads started by Jer, Rubi, DB Train, and a few others. OSECS chimes in with a conservative viewpoint, but obviously doesn't have the bleeding "ohh my whole world is crashing because Obama won" attitude that you and the othe 90% thread starters have.

Yeah - those threads about Pink Floyd, Rush, LPD and Manson Girls are all just manifestations of my paranoia over the world crashing down because Obama won.

Did your Ma have any kids that lived?

edit: Actually - you lamenting over all the "world is crashing" threads exposes you for the hurt mangina you actually are. You do realise the diplibs here wailed about the world crashing down for 8 fucking years, don't you?

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

He made the classic error of posting from a source not pre-approved by the Obama-Nazi's. All non approved liturature must be disregarded in it's entirety!!

Kind of like biology textbooks that mention evolution, huh?

Just pointing out that the best "source" Rubicon can produce to support his theory that Obama is groping the country's metaphorical (and white, presumably) breasts is a red-baiting opinion piece from a classics professor in Fresno who most people would consider even more radical than Scary Saul Alinsky.

Originally Posted by H-wood

So now you're buttressing your thesis with an editorial by a neo-con classics professor from Cal State Fresno who's most known for being a relentless cheerleader for invading Iraq and pre-emptively attacking Iran? That op/ed is as worthless as the source--a bunch of out of context quotes and vague smears. You might as well publish a critique from Karl Rove. Except I think he would try a smarter tactic than red-baiting.

Have you read Rules for Radicals?

Some other "long time disciples" of Alinsky: Martin Luther King and Caesar Chavez. Who, again, like it or not, a very large piece of the electorate considers Great Americans.

You must have missed this in one of me previous posts.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Nothing. The teachings themselves are just ideas(and pretty good ones at that). The problem is that Obama is putting them into action. Fully 90% of the person we see in Obama is the fleshing out of Alinsky's teachings; from the unassailable confidence to the rhetoric, to the agenda he is advancing and the way he is going about it.

^^^Martin Luther King and Caesar Chavez didn't do this^^^

or point out the canny way that the Founding Fathers organized a grass-roots radical movement that also wanted "change".

Not true. The Founding Fathers weren't interested in "change". They were interested in protecting and preserving the freedoms and liberties they had come to value in the New World that were in danger of disappearing as England began to impose it's will on them to a greater degree.

So, enough with the equivocation.

Originally Posted by H-wood

Just pointing out that the best "source" Rubicon can produce to support his theory that Obama is groping the country's metaphorical (and white, presumably) breasts is a red-baiting opinion piece from a classics professor in Fresno who most people would consider even more radical than Scary Saul Alinsky.

Reading this post reminds me of the media during this last campaign when they kept announcing that McCain had chosen for his running mate a 'mayor from a small town in Alaska'.

I guess honest discourse has become too much to ask from many on the Left, you and the media included.

I guess honest discourse has become too much to ask from many on the Left, you and the media included.

The conspiracy has spread so far that 60% of the country is in on it. I can't believe people aren't convinced by wingnuts muttering darkly about radicalism!

Perhaps there's a professor at Bakersfield Community College that might have some trenchant observations.

Originally Posted by H-wood

The conspiracy has spread so far that 60% of the country is in on it. I can't believe people aren't convinced by wingnuts muttering darkly about radicalism!

Perhaps there's a professor at Bakersfield Community College that might have some trenchant observations.

Answer the question. Have you read Rules for Radicals? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Reading this post reminds me of the media during this last campaign when they kept announcing that McCain had chosen for his running mate a 'mayor from a small town in Alaska'.

I guess honest discourse has become too much to ask from many on the Left, you and the media included.

That's as big a joke as anything you've posted here. The right specializes in untrue smear campaigns--sometimes against their own (if they're not crazy right-wing enough, as John McCain and his numerous illegitimate dark-skinned children can tell you--gotta scare that white Republican, southern base, as Lee Atwater will attest to).

Swiftboat Veterans for 'Truth' (fictional truth, but WTF, once you put it out there no one knows the difference).

Obama as a close associate of Bill Ayers (went to a fundraiser at his house once, but that makes Obama a terrorist supporter--now if he had embraced SAddam Hussein he'd have been an American hero eligible for Bush admin. posting).

Obama pretending to be a citizen (which one of you guys here tried to further propagate that lie? And you were so sure of it, too. Never mind that there was never any evidence for this, just throw all the lies at the wall and see what sticks. Fox 'News' strategy.).

Obama as a secret Muslim/terrorist/anti-American.

Obama the socialist (still trying to get that one to stick--probably plays OK among Americans who don't know what socialism is).

Rebublican claims that the CBO issued a report that stimulus money wouldn't be spent until after 2010, when no such report was ever made (again, just make shit up regardless of the truth).

Obama wanted to teach kindergartners about sex (more making shit up).

Palin rejected money for that AK bridge (same as above).

This could go on for pages, and since Palin HAD been a small town mayor before her brief time as governor (of a state with a population smaller than that of Cleveland or Detroit--hey, I bet both those guys are ready to be president!--which I guess impresses people like you) and the media almost unfailingly mentioned both jobs, you have no point. Again. But please keep posting drivel--I know you will. Part of the right-wing M.O. to just repeat lies until they seem true...

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Part of the left-wing M.O. to just repeat lies until they seem true...

Why can't we just all get along?

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Rebublican claims that the CBO issued a report that stimulus money wouldn't be spent until after 2010, when no such report was ever made (again, just make shit up regardless of the truth).

"A Congressional Budget Office analysis of President Barack Obama’s plan found that most of the approximately $355 billion in proposed discretionary spending on highways, renewable energy and other initiatives wouldn’t be spent before 2011. The government would spend about $26 billion of the money this year and $110 billion more next year, the report said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aJAoR5GECKWo

I'll get to the rest of your post later. This one just jumped out at me.



H-Wood, no answer?