Does Obama have a fucking clue?

[wmw999 2,452]

I think it was a joke, saying that people who think there are conspiracies are in a conspiracy themselves.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

People who want to kill us will always want to kill us - it is in their breeding. There is no changing that.

I disagree. As far as I know, the vast majority of Germans, Italians, and Japanese do not currently want to kill us.
See also: The British

They all have one thing in common, they all got their asses kicked by us.

Our vanquished foes become our best allies it seems.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Run! Buy guns and ammo! Head for the hills or Obama will come and getcha and GRAB YOUR GUNS!

And he has a proven history of trying to do exactly that.

Quote

***
FactCheck: [B]Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban[/B]
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. [B]ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? *Yes.*[/B]
b. [B]ban assault weapons? *Yes*[/B].
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Quote

* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

And he has made comments saying he will do exactly that

Quote

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Quote

"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record [B]as opposing concealed carry[/B]"--Obama

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,998]

>And he has a proven history of trying to do exactly that.

Sounds like my characterization was fairly accurate, then.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

People who want to kill us will always want to kill us - it is in their breeding. There is no changing that.

I disagree. As far as I know, the vast majority of Germans, Italians, and Japanese do not currently want to kill us.
See also: The British

They all have one thing in common, they all got their asses kicked by us.

Our vanquished foes become our best allies it seems.

Quote

but I bet the liberals don't see it that way

[redlegphi 0]

The liberals study their history and know that there's more to gaining allies than kicking their ass in a previous war. The Marshall Plan comes to mind.
Also, I'd point out that the original statement starting this sub-thread, that the people who want to kill us will always want to kill us, remains untrue.

[bdazel 0]

Quote

Quote

I think it is naive to think there aren't portions of those populations who still want to kill us.

Which is why there have been so many British, German, Japanese, and Italian terrorist attacks on Americans recently?

And as bill pointed out, does this mean that you want to kill all of those people as well? After all, it's part of your breeding.

Huh? Are you serious? You are foolish to keep implying that thing are so black and white. i.e. because there have been no recent British, German, Japanese, or Italian terrorist attacks on Americans recently, there can be no hate or desire to kill, because all people act on their desires all of the time.

No, I don't want to kill those people. And no it was not part of my breeding, because I grew up in a nation and a family that valued objective thinking and free speech.

[billvon 2,998]

>because there have been no recent British, German, Japanese, or
>Italian terrorist attacks on Americans recently, there can be no hate or
>desire to kill, because all people act on their desires all of the time.

Agreed. But since we have not attacked Japan recently (nor they us) do you think that there is LESS hate or desire to kill each other nowadays?

[redlegphi 0]

You initially stated that people who wanted to kill us would always want to kill us because of their breeding, implying that there was no point in trying to increase our popularity among those people. That is obviously false, given that there are nations that were previously committed to killing us that are now allies. That is the entirety of my point. While there are no doubt people in those nations that may not like us and possibly a very small minority that would like to harm us, as far as I know, nobody from those countries has been a threat to the security of the United States for decades.
Therefore, it is in the interests of the safety and security of the people of the United States to increase our popularity on the world stage. Particularly among those who don't like us or might wish us harm. It's basically modern counterinsurgency strategy on a global scale.

[bdazel 0]

Quote

>Using the phrase "Run! Buy guns and ammo! Head for the hills or Obama will
>come and getcha and GRAB YOUR GUNS!" to characterize people who are very
>concerned (with good reason) about the damage that this man and his party are
>doing to our country: just silly and a gross mischaracterization.

I find it very funny that you agree with the socalist/communist slurs when applied to a political figure, but when a group of people is described as ammo-and-gun-hoarding (which has actually happened) wanting to leave (which some have said) and fearing a gun grab (which has been proven here by several posters) it's a "gross mischaracterization" - even though I have not claimed that those characteristics apply to any specific group.

But if you want a few specifics, here they are:

Stephen Baldwin said he would run away (leave the country) if Obama was elected. Many people on blogs across the US have echoed the sentiment.

There have been any number of pro-gun types talking about the "mass gun seizures" that Obama will implement. Indeed, at least two murderers have gone on shooting sprees fueled by their fears of Obama and/or gun seizures.

There has indeed been a run on guns and ammunition by fearful right-wingers who think such things will soon be illegal.

So that characterization is provably accurate for at least the extremists in the anti-Obama group.

You may, of course, decide to apply that description to any other group you choose. Your choice.

"[E]xtremists in the anti-Obama group" is the key phrase. They are out there, and I imagine some can be described as you mentioned. So often Obama supporters classify any non-Obama supporter as the above, presumably in order to discredit them. You jumped to that characterization in response to non-related anti-Obama responses in this thread. Where is the connection between the posts on this thread and the "group of people" you described?

Slurs? It is unfortunate indeed that Obama's beliefs and actions are disparaging to his character. But if you know of another term that is more politically correct, I'm happy to give it a try.

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

1.a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Those are the two most common definitions of communism. Please pick which of those you think the President fits and then please give examples of why. For example, show how the President has taken all property and made it communally-owned by the state. Or, describe how the President is the head of a totalitarian state that controls all economic and social activity.

See also: Socialism

Quote

1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

[bdazel 0]

Quote

You initially stated that people who wanted to kill us would always want to kill us because of their breeding, implying that there was no point in trying to increase our popularity among those people. That is obviously false, given that there are nations that were previously committed to killing us that are now allies. That is the entirety of my point. While there are no doubt people in those nations that may not like us and possibly a very small minority that would like to harm us, as far as I know, nobody from those countries has been a threat to the security of the United States for decades.
Therefore, it is in the interests of the safety and security of the people of the United States to increase our popularity on the world stage. Particularly among those who don't like us or might wish us harm. It's basically modern counterinsurgency strategy on a global scale.

I see what you are saying. The entirety of my point was that our popularity level with the rest of the world should by no means be a major focus of this administration. It could however, be a secondary consideration, if in fact it may help increase our national security. But I think it is a serious mistake to use popularity as a benchmark for national security. Other nations will do whatever advances their own interests. It is not a question of whether they like us or not.

[redlegphi 0]

In a counterinsurgency fight, our popularity among the people is the primary benchmark used to determine if we're "winning" or not. We can't win our War on Terror by just killing people who want to kill us. It's much more important that we build our popularity among the people who might want to kill us in the future and convince them that we're not such bad people and that their interests and ours aren't in conflict. That is what leads to increased safety for the American people. And that seems to be the path that Obama is following on foreign policy.

[Ron 10]

More like in your attempt at humor you actually were right on a topic by accident.

Seeing what he has done, and listening to what he says he wants to do does not make a person paranoid.

You are a smart guy... Find me some quotes from the founding fathers that claim citizens should NOT be granted the right to own weapons. And then compare their comments to Obamas.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[bdazel 0]

Quote

Quote

1.a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Those are the two most common definitions of communism. Please pick which of those you think the President fits and then please give examples of why. For example, show how the President has taken all property and made it communally-owned by the state. Or, describe how the President is the head of a totalitarian state that controls all economic and social activity.

See also: Socialism

Quote

1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Again with the black and white. Where did you pull those definitions, Webster? Have you read Karl Marx? If you can't make the connections on your own, then I fear we may simply have fundamentally polarized views of reality.

[bdazel 0]

Quote

In a counterinsurgency fight, our popularity among the people is the primary benchmark used to determine if we're "winning" or not. We can't win our War on Terror by just killing people who want to kill us. It's much more important that we build our popularity among the people who might want to kill us in the future and convince them that we're not such bad people and that their interests and ours aren't in conflict. That is what leads to increased safety for the American people. And that seems to be the path that Obama is following on foreign policy.

That sounds so nice. But I disagree. What you describe has merit as a long term solution (meaning many generations). But for now and into the near future the hatred (especially amongst terrorists) goes far too deep. And I stand by my statement that our popularity should not be used as a benchmark for our national security. I'm not arguing whether it IS or IS NOT, I'm arguing that is SHOULD NOT BE.

[billvon 2,998]

>So often Obama supporters classify any non-Obama supporter as
>the above, presumably in order to discredit them.

I am sure that they do - but that is no more accurate as classifying non-Bush supporters as anti-american. However, as responses to my post have demonstrated, some non-Obama supporters here do indeed believe portions of what I posted.

> Where is the connection between the posts on this thread and the
>"group of people" you described?

Well, since there are three people on this thread who agree with parts of that characterization, and given that there's another such thread going on right now ("Obama will TAX YOUR GUNS!") there is certainly some connection.

As to why they believe that - you can take that up with them. I am sure Ron, for example, will be happy to provide you with lots of links to prove his position.

[Andy9o8 2]

Yes, as WEndy noted, it was a joke. But since you're new here and don't really know me yet, I probably should have used the icon to make that clear. Sorry.

You should see what it's like in Bonfire. Here in SC, we just imply that each other is stupid. In Bonfire, they routinely call each other goat-fuckers.

[redlegphi 0]

Shockingly, I have actually read Marx. Since you apparently have also, it shouldn't be too hard for you to point out a couple of ways that the Obama government is acting in ways that fall under the definition of Marxist/Communist. I would love to hear those examples.
And as far as gaining popularity among our enemies (aka, winning hearts and minds), that is the current strategy we're using in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, it appears to be working, at least to some extent. Short-term or long-term, it's the only way to fight a war on a non-linear battlefield. If we can't get the population on our side, then all we're doing is playing defense, which is a sure way to lose.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Yes, as WEndy noted, it was a joke. But since you're new here and don't really know me yet, I probably should have used the icon to make that clear. Sorry.

You should see what it's like in Bonfire. Here in SC, we just imply that each other is stupid. In Bonfire, they routinely call each other goat-fuckers.

You have something against goats?

I guess you aren't of Greek descent.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Yes, as WEndy noted, it was a joke. But since you're new here and don't really know me yet, I probably should have used the icon to make that clear. Sorry.

You should see what it's like in Bonfire. Here in SC, we just imply that each other is stupid. In Bonfire, they routinely call each other goat-fuckers.

Bonfire is an evil place

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Dutton 0]

Well done!

Sailed right over my head...