100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why I Do Not Like The Obamas | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
thats cool, the piece is mostly hogwash that he CONDEMNS and hates the obamas and revers Reagan is telling given his alledged reasons to condemn obama one by one 1. "They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous" that is contemptable huh but this from Raegan 'She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.' perpetuating an alleged 'welfare queen' that has yet to be proven to have ever existed,, made people feel 'good about themself? HOGWASH 2. I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America . 'code speak' could this be 'code speak' too,,,? "Reagan arrived in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Speaking at the Neshoba County Fair, just a few miles from the earthen dam where the bodies of the three civil rights activists had been buried in 1964, Reagan reassured an enthusiastic audience of 10,000 people that "I believe in states' rights."33 Reagan promised, if elected, to "restore to states and local governments the power that belongs to them."34 During the 1950s and '60s, "States' rights" had been the mantra of southern segregationists who insisted the federal government had no right to intervene to force them to stop discriminating against black people. And "the power that belongs to local governments" had been used in Neshoba County to protect the murderers of civil rights activists. " but Raegan was much more in love with AMERICA (all americans?) huh? HOGWASH 3. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family . He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum. lying bothers him, but he admires Raegan?,,,lol ,, see above MORE HOGWASH 4. His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare. he hates them for 'showing off',, why? do they come to his house and personally boast to him,, or is the medias choice of coverage now somehow the personal choice of those they decide to give coverage too,, INCLUDING the first family? HOGWASH 5. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority. seriously? who is 'our' people exactly and how do they disrespect them? (like calling them chimpanzees for instance as the AUTHOR has repeatedly done to the CIC) disregard for congressonal authority? really, Is that why this president has issued TWO vetoes in four years against congress while REAGAN Issued 78 in eight years? but he reveres Reegan and holds contempt for OBama HOGWASH 6. As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president , but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies , intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America ’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11) yes, never in his life has he witnessed it because he hasnt been looking so hard as he has since 'the first person of color' was elected,,,, but the rest of us have seen plenty of these same allegations of 'contemptable' behaviors in presidents before, including his Revered Raegan ,,,I really dont like writing such long pieces, but since asked to discuss what was written,,, there you have it,,, Ok you point several parts of the piece and then come up with responses about the Reagan's and call it hogwash? It makes ABSOLUTLY no sense in regards to what you picked out. The things about the Reagans you put in had nothing to do with the post. Do you know if he agrees with the few things you posted about the Reagans? Now all you're doing is discreaditing the Reagans in your own opinion. I always find it funny when those who are in the bag for Obama will change the subject to try and defend Obama. Instead of proving what was written wrong. Obama did a good job of teaching distraction tactics. Look over there a squirrel. the author holds the REAGANS up as a postive example 'President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish.' yet everything he charges the OBamas with to support his feelings against them, can be equally applied/alleged against the Raegans whom he obviously regards with esteem see the hypocrisy/double standard/relevance now? No I don't. He used one example in one part about Reagans as an example. "I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs? Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility. " In your responses you are taking what he said out of context. It's not about the Reagans. It's about Obama. Show where he's wrong about what he writes about his reasons. Not your reasoning to try and discredit the author. I addressed his 'reasons', the alleged reasons that are supposedly supporting his condemnation of one person dont apparently stop him from REVERING another it is difficult to prove opinions 'right' or 'wrong' but its easier to point out hypocrisy and inconsistency in those opinions,,, Where in the article did it say he "REVERES" the Reagans? You assume that. You put in your own allegations of the Reagans. If you want his opinions on what you accuse, ask him. When you get the answers please post them. Again you show your ignorance and blind faith in Obama by changing the subject and not being able to defend the reasons he uses for his dislike as be stated in the article. The OP is about why Mychal Massie dislikes Obama. Not why he so call "REVERES" the Reagans as you assume he does. The article was in response to a question someone asked him about why he doesn't like Obama not how he feels about Reagan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is a good example of how strawmmen is used to deflect criticism from Obama. It is used a lot.
From Wiki: A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Contents 1 Origin 2 Reasoning 3 Examples 4 See also 5 References 6 External links Origin The origins of the term are unclear. The usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw which is easily knocked down or destroyed, such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy.[3] The rhetorical technique is sometimes called an Aunt Sally in the UK, with reference to a traditional fairground game in which objects are thrown at a fixed target. One common folk etymology is that it refers to men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness.[4] Reasoning The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument: Person 1 has position X. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including: Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2] Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1] Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position. Examples A: Sunny days are good. B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. In this case B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A believes only sunny days are good and B has argued against that assertion. A actually asserted that sunny days are good and in fact said nothing about rainy days. C: We should give children ice cream after every school day. D: That would be rather bad for their health. C: Do you want our children to starve!? C says that children should be given ice cream after every school day. D replies to that statement assuming that children would be getting this in addition to their regular meals, and states that this would be unhealthy. C replies with the unreasonable suggestion that if children were not given ice cream, they would starve. Person C does this because it is harder for D to argue that children should starve than to argue that children should not be unhealthy. In this case the use of Reagan is used to deflect and create a strawman. Bringing in another quote from another site to distract and change the subject by attacking the credibility of the author, instead of discussing what the author has written. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats cool, the piece is mostly hogwash that he CONDEMNS and hates the obamas and revers Reagan is telling given his alledged reasons to condemn obama one by one 1. "They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous" that is contemptable huh but this from Raegan 'She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.' perpetuating an alleged 'welfare queen' that has yet to be proven to have ever existed,, made people feel 'good about themself? HOGWASH 2. I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America . 'code speak' could this be 'code speak' too,,,? "Reagan arrived in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Speaking at the Neshoba County Fair, just a few miles from the earthen dam where the bodies of the three civil rights activists had been buried in 1964, Reagan reassured an enthusiastic audience of 10,000 people that "I believe in states' rights."33 Reagan promised, if elected, to "restore to states and local governments the power that belongs to them."34 During the 1950s and '60s, "States' rights" had been the mantra of southern segregationists who insisted the federal government had no right to intervene to force them to stop discriminating against black people. And "the power that belongs to local governments" had been used in Neshoba County to protect the murderers of civil rights activists. " but Raegan was much more in love with AMERICA (all americans?) huh? HOGWASH 3. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family . He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum. lying bothers him, but he admires Raegan?,,,lol ,, see above MORE HOGWASH 4. His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare. he hates them for 'showing off',, why? do they come to his house and personally boast to him,, or is the medias choice of coverage now somehow the personal choice of those they decide to give coverage too,, INCLUDING the first family? HOGWASH 5. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority. seriously? who is 'our' people exactly and how do they disrespect them? (like calling them chimpanzees for instance as the AUTHOR has repeatedly done to the CIC) disregard for congressonal authority? really, Is that why this president has issued TWO vetoes in four years against congress while REAGAN Issued 78 in eight years? but he reveres Reegan and holds contempt for OBama HOGWASH 6. As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president , but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies , intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America ’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11) yes, never in his life has he witnessed it because he hasnt been looking so hard as he has since 'the first person of color' was elected,,,, but the rest of us have seen plenty of these same allegations of 'contemptable' behaviors in presidents before, including his Revered Raegan ,,,I really dont like writing such long pieces, but since asked to discuss what was written,,, there you have it,,, Ok you point several parts of the piece and then come up with responses about the Reagan's and call it hogwash? It makes ABSOLUTLY no sense in regards to what you picked out. The things about the Reagans you put in had nothing to do with the post. Do you know if he agrees with the few things you posted about the Reagans? Now all you're doing is discreaditing the Reagans in your own opinion. I always find it funny when those who are in the bag for Obama will change the subject to try and defend Obama. Instead of proving what was written wrong. Obama did a good job of teaching distraction tactics. Look over there a squirrel. the author holds the REAGANS up as a postive example 'President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish.' yet everything he charges the OBamas with to support his feelings against them, can be equally applied/alleged against the Raegans whom he obviously regards with esteem see the hypocrisy/double standard/relevance now? No I don't. He used one example in one part about Reagans as an example. "I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs? Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility. " In your responses you are taking what he said out of context. It's not about the Reagans. It's about Obama. Show where he's wrong about what he writes about his reasons. Not your reasoning to try and discredit the author. I addressed his 'reasons', the alleged reasons that are supposedly supporting his condemnation of one person dont apparently stop him from REVERING another it is difficult to prove opinions 'right' or 'wrong' but its easier to point out hypocrisy and inconsistency in those opinions,,, Where in the article did it say he "REVERES" the Reagans? You assume that. You put in your own allegations of the Reagans. If you want his opinions on what you accuse, ask him. When you get the answers please post them. Again you show your ignorance and blind faith in Obama by changing the subject and not being able to defend the reasons he uses for his dislike as be stated in the article. The OP is about why Mychal Massie dislikes Obama. Not why he so call "REVERES" the Reagans as you assume he does. The article was in response to a question someone asked him about why he doesn't like Obama not how he feels about Reagan. this 'President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish' implies that the Raegans are more of an example of how a first family SHOULD be,, does it not? Again, I did address his 'reasons', so a 'change of subject defense' is irrelevant my poing is not to refute whether or not he should like the OBAMAS< as I said before he states alot of OPINION words with little actual fact to explain those opinions the details he does give for not liking one president are details that could be leveled at ANY president including the one he claims to feel showed UNPARALLELED love for the country therefore, instead of quibbling over whether he has valid reaons to 'not like' OBAMA I am pointing out the double standard involveed based upon the reasons he GAVE, reasons that also can be given for another President he holds up as an example,,,, my 'faith' in the Obamas is a personal opinion, my liking them is a personal opinion as is the OPS and I certainly dont feel intimidated into keeping my mouth shut in a public opinion forum about my OPINION regarding the hogwash reasons someone gives for disliking a President when they are not consistent reasons and NOTHING THat can be proven but everything that has been leveled at presidents before,,, If I say someone asked me why I dont like lettuce and I answer that I Dont like it because its green but then go on to speak about how lettuce should be more like asparagus,,, Id expect the inconsistency to be noticed and (in an opinion forum) addressed,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is a good example of how strawmmen is used to deflect criticism from Obama. It is used a lot. From Wiki: A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Contents 1 Origin 2 Reasoning 3 Examples 4 See also 5 References 6 External links Origin The origins of the term are unclear. The usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw which is easily knocked down or destroyed, such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy.[3] The rhetorical technique is sometimes called an Aunt Sally in the UK, with reference to a traditional fairground game in which objects are thrown at a fixed target. One common folk etymology is that it refers to men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness.[4] Reasoning The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument: Person 1 has position X. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including: Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2] Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1] Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position. Examples A: Sunny days are good. B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. In this case B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A believes only sunny days are good and B has argued against that assertion. A actually asserted that sunny days are good and in fact said nothing about rainy days. C: We should give children ice cream after every school day. D: That would be rather bad for their health. C: Do you want our children to starve!? C says that children should be given ice cream after every school day. D replies to that statement assuming that children would be getting this in addition to their regular meals, and states that this would be unhealthy. C replies with the unreasonable suggestion that if children were not given ice cream, they would starve. Person C does this because it is harder for D to argue that children should starve than to argue that children should not be unhealthy. In this case the use of Reagan is used to deflect and create a strawman. Bringing in another quote from another site to distract and change the subject by attacking the credibility of the author, instead of discussing what the author has written. wow, not gonna let that go huh? I addressed (and numbered) what the author claims he dislikes I didnt deflect with the use of REAGAN , I addressed an inconstency in the OPS reasoning for DISLIKING the Obamas THE OP used Raagan as an example of what he prefers,,,,there was no strawman argument |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Mon 10/01/12 07:42 AM
|
|
Watch. Some jackwad will cal the burning flag a racist act.
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, cute
and certainly not 'hijacking' or being 'off topic'...Im sure good thing everyone is entitled to an opinion, and to opinions about opinions too,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I start a thread and share my opinions or quote someone else's views I know that everyone won't agree with me...Some people might try to discredit me or raise some questions about the person I've quoted..This is the way it goes. Basically we come here to have debates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I start a thread and share my opinions or quote someone else's views I know that everyone won't agree with me...Some people might try to discredit me or raise some questions about the person I've quoted..This is the way it goes. Basically we come here to have debates. what?  we arent here to pat each others backs and smile and agree with everything? smh,,,,,I have to rethink my participation here,,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I start a thread and share my opinions or quote someone else's views I know that everyone won't agree with me...Some people might try to discredit me or raise some questions about the person I've quoted..This is the way it goes. Basically we come here to have debates. what? we arent here to pat each others backs and smile and agree with everything? smh,,,,,I have to rethink my participation here,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what? we arent here to pat each others backs and smile and agree with everything? smh,,,,,I have to rethink my participation here,,,, Thanks.  I am one of the few that have been training her.   Even with 4 years, o'Bummer is still not qualified to manage our country. Hell, he can't even do a speech without his video player on or without the permission of Soros. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I start a thread and share my opinions or quote someone else's views I know that everyone won't agree with me...Some people might try to discredit me or raise some questions about the person I've quoted..This is the way it goes. Basically we come here to have debates. what? we arent here to pat each others backs and smile and agree with everything? smh,,,,,I have to rethink my participation here,,,, I have nothing wrong with debating the topic. The author of the topic reference the Reagans in only one portion of it. If the debate would have stayed on that one portion then fine. But when one puts in other assumptions of the Reagans about other parts of the piece that is off topic. Like I said before, if you're going to add something ask the author what he thinks of those assumptions about the Reagans. You can't add something that wasn't in the OP and assume that the author of the piece "REVERES" the Reagans on what was added. Debate what he said not what you assume. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I start a thread and share my opinions or quote someone else's views I know that everyone won't agree with me...Some people might try to discredit me or raise some questions about the person I've quoted..This is the way it goes. Basically we come here to have debates. what? we arent here to pat each others backs and smile and agree with everything? smh,,,,,I have to rethink my participation here,,,, lately, IM agreeing with everything you post,,,including this,,, and I Admire your balls too,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its well written he sounds like a real crab ( ya know, hating to see others like him rise beyond him so much that he has to tear them down,,,,) another perspective, from someone who doesnt take Massie seriously,,,, http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2012/massieobama.html ,,,everyone is entitled to their opinion So you do the same by calling him a crab  and posting a link that has nothing to do with the piece in the OP. the piece cites an author,, my post gives more information about the credibility of the author and yes, I do realize and appreciate my entitlement to an opinion,,, LOL so you use a blog to give info of the credibility of an opinion piece. You posted an opinion piece. You should expect others' opinions on that piece and on the author. Not everyone is going to agree with you or the author of the opinion piece you posted. I don't see that as being off topic, as she did post something about the author. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I start a thread and share my opinions or quote someone else's views I know that everyone won't agree with me...Some people might try to discredit me or raise some questions about the person I've quoted..This is the way it goes. Basically we come here to have debates. what? we arent here to pat each others backs and smile and agree with everything? smh,,,,,I have to rethink my participation here,,,, I have nothing wrong with debating the topic. The author of the topic reference the Reagans in only one portion of it. If the debate would have stayed on that one portion then fine. But when one puts in other assumptions of the Reagans about other parts of the piece that is off topic. Like I said before, if you're going to add something ask the author what he thinks of those assumptions about the Reagans. You can't add something that wasn't in the OP and assume that the author of the piece "REVERES" the Reagans on what was added. Debate what he said not what you assume. all he said was opinion his opinion was 'I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish' he predicated his reference to the Reagans with 'I Demand respect.... and love' and then he stated that the Raegans had unparalleled love that is a fairly obvious link of two things, implying he demands leadership like Reagan than he lists all the opinions he has about what OBama does or doesnt do and none of them can not also be claimed of Raegan therefore his STANDARDS for disliking the president are inconsistent,, there was no change of topic, there was calling out an inconsistent standard by which to decide whether to 'like' a president or not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally we all want to be in control...And when we enter debates we want to get our points across and even feel like a "winner" etc...But most of the time we're going to have "attacks" coming at us from all sides and tons and tons of disagreement!...Personally I don't consider msharmony's posts off-topic. (Maybe a mod can step-in to settle this dispute if possible.)..The whole premise of this thread is an attack against the Obamas based on subjective opinions...Naturally some posters may disagree. This is a "given." And this whole section is open to debates and "differing opinions."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attacking the author is just a distraction.
If you believe there are inconsistencies with the assumptions you post about the Reagans and as to his thoughts as to what he thinks about what you posted about the Reagans ask him. You are assuming that he supports your claims about the Reagans. If you want to debate why he dislikes the Obamas then show where he is wrong in what he says about the Obamas. Like you've said in other threads not eveyone is going to agree with everything a president does or wants to do. He stated the reasons why he dislikes the Obamas. He didn't say he agrees with everything the Reagans did or wanted to do did he? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attacking the author is just a distraction. If you believe there are inconsistencies with the assumptions you post about the Reagans and as to his thoughts as to what he thinks about what you posted about the Reagans ask him. You are assuming that he supports your claims about the Reagans. If you want to debate why he dislikes the Obamas then show where he is wrong in what he says about the Obamas. Like you've said in other threads not eveyone is going to agree with everything a president does or wants to do. He stated the reasons why he dislikes the Obamas. He didn't say he agrees with everything the Reagans did or wanted to do did he? I dont have to show where he is wrong to dislike the Obamas, that is not something that is right or wrong,, dislike is PERSONAL I can only show where he is inconsistent in his standards. if the reasons he gave are actually the reasons why he dislikes the OBamas if he was merely making a statement about disliking what they DID, that would be slightly different but when a person posts that they DISLIKE a person, which is a PERSONAL ATTACK, they are fair game to have that attack turned against them,,,personally,, as well |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what you added
"'She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.' perpetuating an alleged 'welfare queen' that has yet to be proven to have ever existed,, made people feel 'good about themself? HOGWASH 2. I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America . 'code speak' could this be 'code speak' too,,,? "Reagan arrived in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Speaking at the Neshoba County Fair, just a few miles from the earthen dam where the bodies of the three civil rights activists had been buried in 1964, Reagan reassured an enthusiastic audience of 10,000 people that "I believe in states' rights."33 Reagan promised, if elected, to "restore to states and local governments the power that belongs to them."34 During the 1950s and '60s, "States' rights" had been the mantra of southern segregationists who insisted the federal government had no right to intervene to force them to stop discriminating against black people. And "the power that belongs to local governments" had been used in Neshoba County to protect the murderers of civil rights activists. " but Raegan was much more in love with AMERICA (all americans?) huh?" You are assuming that he agrees with what you added about the Reagans correct? Do you know that he agrees with this for a fact? No you don't. So how can you call him a hypocrite then? By your reasoning then I can say that because Obama believes in redistribution of wealth and wants single payer healthcare that Obama is a socialist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nancy Reagan got a lot of "flack" when she was First Lady for her extensive wardrobe and for consulting with astrologers on a regular basis. And later she was accused of plotting to conceal the fact that her husband had developed Alzheimers while still serving out his years in office...Any couple who sits in the White House is subject to criticism. (Especially from those in the "opposing party.") This is just a "given.".. Ann Romney has received some negative press lately in the media and on the Internet (and in other forums) for some of her recent remarks...We all have our own thoughts and feelings and views about anyone who sits in office... Any one of us could sit down and write a blog or article and express our views. And feel "right" and 100 percent "correct" when it comes to our personal views and "take" on everything...Of course the person sitting next to us might have totally opposite views and still feel "right" and 100 percent "correct" too!
|
|
|
|
|
