Quit trashing President Obama's accomplishments!

[WTJ]

You forgot first president to be brave and confident enough in his own longevity to put Joe Biden a heart beat away from the most powerful position on earth (IMO).

No one else was stupid enough to take the job and deal with His Nibs.

 

[ez bake]

Hold on Xperties... I will stand behind my statement. If you or anyone else think he did a good job in his first term then you need to share your intellect with the rest of us. Because I see NOTHING he had done to help your average American out. Welfare, Free Phones, Acorn, Rev. Wright, and Government mandated Health care didn’t help the Middle class at all. Tell me what has he done?

I cant wait to hear this....

The greater question is - how is Romney any different than Obama?

 

[Wheel Gun]

The greater question is - how is Romney any different than Obama?

There's no reason to believe that Romney's a Marxist.

(He may be some other bad things, but I'm betting that Communism is not one of them.)

 

[ez bake]

There's no reason to believe that Romney's a Marxist.

(He may be some other bad things, but I'm betting that Communism is not one of them.)

uh... RomneyCare...

 

[Stephen Cue]

Which one, Romney or Obama, resembles these characteristics?

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and“terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

 

[WTJ]

Which one, Romney or Obama, resembles these characteristics?

This is applicable to both partahs equally. The difficulty lies in deciphering the Newspeak and constantly changing terminology used by the left, their fellow travelers and useful idiots.

Big O is a known failure. Give someone else an opportunity.

 

[OkieMoe]

BTW, free phones didn't start with Obama. That's a perfect illustration of my point.

Free LANDLINE didn't... Correct...



FREE CELL PHONES.. DID start with Soetoro.......

 

[Glocktogo]

Nothing in my statement suggest I think he did a good job. My statement was very clear. The problem is the negative name calling or outing others who may disagree with you or anyone else. Having been in Oklahoma for a year and half I see it daily. Remember You, I and others who may have different political beliefs, all want what's best for our country and we are all Americans.

While typing this I recall such a video that might shed some light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQJ2ULuhb8

I feel the need to disagree. I see a significant portion of our nation simply voting for whomever they personally identify with, or the one that will give them the most .gov money. This crosses political lines and both sides are guilty. I rarely see anyone with the foresight to put the overall health of our nation first.

Simply put, what's in the best interest of America right now is not necessarily in the best interests of the individual voter. If you're voting for Obama because he'll give you an Obamaphone or Romney because he'll subsidize your particular field or investments, you're part of the problem.

I can't say that anyone voting purely on self interests is an idiot, but they're definitely an *******! Sometimes this wussified PC world we live in simply isn't up to the task at hand. If a man is smiling at you while his hand is digging into your pocket, you don't respond with platitudes and niceness, you knock the crap out of him!

 

[cmhbob]

Free LANDLINE didn't... Correct...



FREE CELL PHONES.. DID start with Soetoro.......

Try Clinton and Bush.

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

Did Obama start the free phones program?

The cell phone distribution program did begin in 2008, the year Obama was elected president, but that is a coincidence. Let’s look more closely at the facts.

Notice that earlier we said Link-Up helps fund “installation.” What installation does a cell phone have? None. So why is installation part of Link-Up, which is under the Lifeline program umbrella? Because, the whole thing began back in 1996 when the Federal Communications Commission authorized the programs for landline phones. At that time it provided discounts on landline phones only, for obvious reasons.

To this day the government provides discounts on landline phones for financially disadvantaged people in the United States and U.S. territories. The Link-Up portion helps with the installation and the Lifeline Assistance part helps with the monthly bills, to the tune of roughly ten dollars a month.

So, the subsidization of phones began under President Clinton, and has continued under Presidents Bush and Obama.

Over that time, the usage of cell phones rose and the costs came down. Assuming one believes in the Lifeline program in the first place, and remembering that the FCC has mandated the program, it only makes sense to expand the phone assistance program to include cell phones. So, in 2008 the first application of this program for mobile phones began when a company called Tracfone started their Safelink Wireless service in Tennessee.
Aha, some say, that’s the same year Obama was elected! Well, that’s true. But the service in Tennessee was launched three months prior to Obama being elected. And that means the discussion and approval of the extension of the program occurred under President Bush’s watch.

The Bush Phone, anyone?

 

[MLRyan]

He never said change for good...