Jump to content

Crazy Political Status Updates from my Facebook news feed...


Ness
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

Good Afternoon,

 

The statement below has been Correctly Attributed to Wayne Allyn Root by Snopes.com.

 

If Obama is re-elected in 2012, the U.S. is finished. The following is in simple language that everyone can understand, not the gibberish that our government keeps telling people.

 

Please read this carefully and make sure you keep this message going. This needs to be emailed to everyone in the USA ...

 

Barack Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. On the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos “ thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. Barack Hussein Obama was my college classmate. ( Columbia University , class of '83).

 

He is a devout Muslim; do not be fooled. Look at his czars... Anti-business anti-American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussein Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University... they outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

 

Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a Socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival... And can be counted on to always vote for even bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

 

Universal Health Care: The Health Care bill has very little to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and healthcare workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free healthcare to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

 

Cap and Trade: Like healthcare legislation having nothing to do with healthcare, Cap and Trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obamas biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama spread the wealth around.

 

Making Puerto Rico a state: Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers! But this has been Barack Hussein Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressmen and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government. (This will tip the balance of those living off the government to more than those who must pay for it; and we're done for.)

 

Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants: Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free healthcare alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. (see note above re: Puerto Rico )

 

Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).

 

All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful.

 

The ends justify the means. Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).

 

Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussein Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

 

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme “ all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussein Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

 

Last point: think about what this designed rule of the rabble will do to anyone successful and everyone receiving this is. What will your lives be like under communism? The time to fight this abomination is now¦ Do note fail to vote November 6th, 2012... your vote really matters.

 

I hope each of you will share this with as many as you can.

 

Jim VonSchounmacher, Ph.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all true.

 

I'm bummed, because two of the biggest loudmouths were silenced. One guy publicly swore he wouldn't talk about politics for at least the next 24 hours (which immediately got 12 likes), the other was more interested in watching baseball.

 

But there was an Obama hater active the entire debate, and she kept alternated between calling him weaker than Carter and an evil, all-powerful emperor. GOD JUST MAKE UP YOUR MIND LADY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have either you or Krawlie checked out Jill Stein, copper?

 

She's a commie and the green party is controlled by environmental/no harm zealots, but her platform might align with you guys more than Johnson's.

 

I mean, I'd prefer you vote for Johnson since I support him and want him to get as many votes as possible, but in all honesty, she might be more your cup of tea...

 

:eek:

 

Why can't there be a socialist who aligns with Johnson on every issue starting with "guns" down to the bottom of the list? It's always a toss-up between the progressives, who have the economic platform I like but with a bunch of meddlesome politically correct nonsense on domestic social issues, or the libertarians, who's idea of leaving people alone to manage their own affairs, which I agree with on social issues, also entails throwing us all to the corporate wolves where economic issues are concerned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, what Cerina posted is exactly why I say that the right wing is far more deranged over Obama than the liberals ever were over Bush. As stupid as the left acted with W, at least their derangement descended from blowing out of proportion things that Bush actually did, or that actually happened under his watch. The right wing, lives in a fantasy world, and the things they are deranged over concerning Obama, have no actual basis in reality (quite often contradicting it in fact), but exist purely in their own diseased little minds.

 

It also makes me want to see Obama win reelection, just to see them lose their minds even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the right wing is far more deranged over Obama than the liberals ever were over Bush.
I think it's a growing problem, rather than a right wing/left wing problem. Clinton derangement was bad, Bush derangement was worse, Obama derangement has taken it to a whole 'nother level.

 

If you want political craziness, you should hang out in Eugene or the north side of Portland for a few hours. I have it on good authority that Bush personally led the WTC attacks because he wanted to build death camps for brown people, women, and homosexuals. Does this make sense? It doesn't matter!

 

If Romney wins, it will be interesting to see what happens, since his persona is so ****ing boring. I'm the only person I know who isn't constantly plugged into liberal radio and the Huffington Post who has hated the guy, and at this point, I'm just too burned out to care. On the surface, it would seem like his milquetoastiness might spare him some of the crazy, and that the focus would be diverted toward Ryan -- kinda like how all the liberals tried to hate George H.W. Bush, but just couldn't muster the rage, so they instead focused on Quayle's semi-retardation. But you never know. I do think the hateful craziness will continue to grow, regardless of who's in office.

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say Bush Derangement was worse than that directed at Clinton. Bush, at least, was never accused of rape and murder (unlike Clinton. Remember the Vince Foster thing?) But, I do agree that it is a problem that plagues both sides, to differing degrees however, and that it's a problem that just keeps growing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush, at least, was never accused of rape and murder.
Yeah, only of committing (or at the very least, allowing) terrorist acts against the United States and of being a genocidal madman...

 

:p

 

Clinton got the same allegations from the right. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the fringe right was screaming that it was engineered by the Clintons to justify the implementation of martial law. And that's not even getting into the dirt slung at Hillary, who got it worse than any of the three Presidents did.

 

:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to live in a quad with a guy whose social circle was convinced that Newt Gingrich was in on a plot to assassinate Jerry Garcia. Man, was breakfast interesting after Garcia's heart attack! No, it had nothing to do with his weight problem, drug abuse, or sleep apnea. IT WAS NEWT!

 

I also have a few relatives who are convinced that Obama is a Marxist who wants to see America "taken down a peg" (similar to, but not quite as extreme as what Spam posted), and much like crazy quad-mate, there are no facts that can convince them otherwise. HE HATES THE VERY IDEA OF AMERICA!

 

 

Which basically makes my point for me. There are plenty of clueless nuts on both sides. Because of where I live, I'm far more often exposed to (and thus more quickly annoyed by) leftist nuts, but I have no doubt you are exposed to cletus-bloc psychopaths on a regular basis!

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, if Obama cares at all about his party winning any elections in the near future, he's not going to take anybody's guns away. It's paranoia, but good if you're a gun dealer. They're making a killing off of it.

 

I don't doubt that a lot of Democrats would like to take guns out of the hands of Americans, but they're not stupid.

 

Guns rule. Every kid should have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Letsgo_7_7

Ah, I see. So basically you think people should be able to do whatever they want, except when it comes to money, which you want to take because you're poor.

 

Ok, got it.

 

Kinda reminds me of the people on the Right who think government is always too big- except when it comes to gay marriage. Then government should be right in your business. Guess what Ev? That's you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, Letsgo, I think economic issues are fundamentally different than social and cultural issues that way. I always chuckle at the way libertarians look at the political spectrum, claiming that "liberals favor social freedom but oppose economic freedom" and that conservatives are opposite this. Progressives don't oppose "economic freedom", they merely don't define it as unbridled capitalism. They know full well that the conservative/libertarian view of "economic freedom" just ends up redistributing wealth upward, and a landless and moneyless proletariat has only the "freedom" to sell their labor to the upper crust, else suffer economic deprevation. They know this is not freedom, but rather a passive-aggressive form of oligarchy.

 

Progressive ideology fails on the social front because they apply their economic thinking to cultural and social divisions that the Marxist dialectic was never meant to be applied to: race, sex and so on. Thus we end up with "political correctness" that meddles in personal and cultural affairs seeking equality of outcomes. We've discussed this countless times now: this is a very poor substitute for the seeking of redressment of inequalities that are fundamentally economic in nature. Again, nobody knows this better than you.

 

Social egalitarianism cannot compensate for economic inequality. This is the progressive's failing. Social liberty cannot flourish alongside economic inequality. This is the libertarian failing. Now, if each could shore up the other's weak point, we just might have something that could work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Letsgo_7_7
Progressives don't oppose "economic freedom", they merely don't define it as unbridled capitalism.

 

I don't understand this. You're either for economic freedom or you're not. If you're impeding upon the free market, then you are impeding on economic freedom. This is a yes or no question. How exactly can you be for economic "freedom" while justifying government coercion (via taxes or what not)? Those are inconsistant positions.

 

Let me clarify here- I'm not saying you (and Ev's) positions are bad (I'm not making a value judgment). What I am saying though, is that you guys are being hypocritical. You are picking and choosing when you think government interference is OK, based on personal biases and (likely) your own economic wealth and position in society. So in that sense, you guys are no different than the Religious Right who wants laissez-faire in all aspects except the bible-thumping issues.

 

Contrast this to someone like, say, myself. I'm OK with government interference in all aspects- the rich and powerful should tell you what to do and should take as they please, assuming they are furthering a greater good (such as GDP growth). See how this is different? This is a consistant position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, Letsgo, many people on the 'left' understand that the 'free market' is a myth, and an impossibility. The government does business within the market, and as a rather major contributor to the market, it is inevitably going to have a substantial impact upon it, and therefore have a good deal of influence over how said market operates.

 

Given that, there is no inconsistency. As you cannot have a market free of government interference with a government that does business on the market, then supporting taxation and such is not a contradiction, but a natural outgrowth of that understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a simple flaw in the libertarian/economic conservatiive definition of freedom: mere absense of GOVERNMENT coersion. Absent the state, non-governmental institutions have a much free-er hand to tyranize over the general public. Not paying taxes sounds great until the Hell's Angels show up on your door step for protection money. A government, with a law enforcement service funded by tax dollars, stops this. And government, in a democratic society is, at least in theory, open to some level of citizen involvement and control.

 

Thus, a limited activist state better protects freedom, economic or otherwise, than a minimalist state or anarchy does because it accounts for the possibility of coersion from non governmental sources. Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are MANY flaws in libertarian thinking (I abandoned my brief fling with libertarianism when I realized that), but the big one is the overly naive world view. LIbertarianism depends on people being much more noble and ethical than they truly are. The idea that people will treat each other with respect, act ethically and morally at all times, WITHOUT being coerced into it via the threat of force, is just starry-eyed optimism that denies human nature. It's the same flaw that is at the core of those who support Communism as well, strangely enough. Both depend upon the existence of a perfect humanity that simply does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a simple flaw in the libertarian/economic conservatiive definition of freedom: mere absense of GOVERNMENT coersion. Absent the state, non-governmental institutions have a much free-er hand to tyranize over the general public. Not paying taxes sounds great until the Hell's Angels show up on your door step for protection money. A government, with a law enforcement service funded by tax dollars, stops this. And government, in a democratic society is, at least in theory, open to some level of citizen involvement and control.

 

Thus, a limited activist state better protects freedom, economic or otherwise, than a minimalist state or anarchy does because it accounts for the possibility of coersion from non governmental sources. Hope that helps.

 

I've noticed that non libertarians have trouble with this concept. In the scenario you presented, the Hell's Angels are by definition a state since they have a monopoly of violence in a certain area. Therefore, they differ in degree not in principle with the government in place now.

 

With everything else being equal (it isn't) it must be said that the scenario you presented is still preferable to the status quo. The Hell's Angels did not kill millions of people in two World Wars, they didn't lead anyone to the gas chamber, they didn't bomb innocent civilians and they don't have nuclear weapons. In short they're saints compared to the gang that's currently in charge of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.