Mitt, Winning Friends & Influencing Allies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Right.[/quote]

It is “RIGHT” He had the most liberal voting record of any US Senator during the two years he actively served.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that he’s a liberal?

What’s the big deal?

Is it a dirty word?[/quote]

Communist is more appropriate. Obama’s mentor from the age of 9, Frank Marshall Davis(Communist Party number: 47544) joined the CPUSA during WWII and published Stalinist/Soviet propaganda and disinformation for decades. His FBI files reveal that he was considered one of the main assets of the KGB Rezident in Washington during the 50’s and 60’s. Davis was put on a list of people that the government could arrest automatically in the event of a war with the Soviet Union.[/quote]He has been surrounded and influenced by radical communist anti American operatives his entire life including his recent past. Like yesterday. I for one KNEW what he meant when he kept telling us he was going to transform America. People like him despise the United Sates as founded. They view her as foundationally unjust and oppressive, but most of all, they view her celebration of individual/family liberty and responsibility as an intolerable impediment to GLOBAL equality. Personal liberty stands nose to nose with their utopian vision of a paradisaical communist planet earth with them at the helm. The diametric opposite of what this nation was designed to be. Any person who doesn’t recognize that is simply in denial. Or stupid. Or ignorant. I don’t know that I’ve met any truly stupid people during my now rather extended stay on this site and in these forums.

Listen folks. “Transformation” is the fundamental (a word he used constantly during the last campaign) change of what something presently is into something it has never been. He TOLD US he was going to do this. You take a 10 minute look into where he came from and therefore what he is and interpret that statement accordingly. I don’t how many people have told me how brilliant it was that I predicted this. (not just here) I beat my head on the wall. IT"S NOT BRILLIANT. It’s only slightly harder to see than 2+2 equaling 4 unless, as I say, one is either in denial, stupid or ignorant.

When a publicly known communist with a communist history filed with communist people on every side applies for the job of president. Why is it so tough to believe that what you are going to get IS communism. ESPECIALLY when said known communist TELLS you he’s going to transform your country? You don’t love a country you’ve made it your life’s mission to transform into the image of her enemies she fought a cold war with for 60 years. I guess this really does still need to be spelled out.[/quote]

Sorry, Comrade Tiribulis for my short reply…

But I’ve got to get to work in the Labor Camps.

(And get off your computer! The KGB is watching you!)

Mufasa

62

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Right.[/quote]

It is “RIGHT” He had the most liberal voting record of any US Senator during the two years he actively served.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that he’s a liberal?

What’s the big deal?

Is it a dirty word?[/quote]

The issue raised was NOT the President’s Political leanings…

What I disagree with is any suggestion that he hates both business and America.

Mufasa[/quote]

Maybe “hate” is the wrong word. How about this, Obama doesn’t understand business. If he did he wouldn’t want to raise taxes 5% on the many small businesses that are “S” and “LLC” corps. Nor would he talk about how the small business person “didn’t build it alone.” Okay, let’s say that it was taken out of context but what was the inherent message in that speech he gave? It is a stripping away of the individual’s talents in favor of the societies support. And where is that from? Where is that sort of though process in our American heritage?

As for him hating America, I think he hates a large part of it. As his wife said when Obama first won the White House “This is the first time that I’ve been proud to be an American.”

Nothing in her 45 years on this planet ever made her proud to be an American prior to her husband winning the election?

WOW!

All I can say is if that were Laura Bush or any other republican first lady that would have made front page news…But of course Obama and company get a pass from the MSLM.

But it was a telling comment Mufasa.

And how do you spend 20 years in a Church where the Pastor OBVIOUSLY hates America if you don’t share at least some of those same feelings?

If you look at his past, who his mentors were, what he did as a youth. And then follow him right up to his voting record in the Senate (as I previously pointed out) you will come to the same conclusion. He is a left wing ideologue.

He does not care for, or understand business

and…

he wants to change a good part of America and he doesn’t like the parts he’s trying to change.

63

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Oh Zeb , you silly boy , Obama is where most Republicans were 15 years ago. Eye roll :)[/quote]

I am kinda a young buck in general, and certainly when it comes to politics.

15 years ago I was chasing girls and getting drunk. So I have no idea where you are going with this.

Can you epxlain what you mean?

64

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Oh Zeb , you silly boy , Obama is where most Republicans were 15 years ago. Eye roll :)[/quote]

I am kinda a young buck in general, and certainly when it comes to politics.

15 years ago I was chasing girls and getting drunk. So I have no idea where you are going with this.

Can you epxlain what you mean?[/quote]

CB:

I’ll let Pitt and Zeb have at it in answering this question…but keep in mind that many people believe that the Gipper himself (Ronald Reagan) probably wouldn’t make it through a GOP Primary today, much less gain the GOP nomination.

Mufasa

65

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Oh Zeb , you silly boy , Obama is where most Republicans were 15 years ago. Eye roll :)[/quote]

I am kinda a young buck in general, and certainly when it comes to politics.

15 years ago I was chasing girls and getting drunk. So I have no idea where you are going with this.

Can you epxlain what you mean?[/quote]

CB:

I’ll let Pitt and Zeb have at it in answering this question…but keep in mind that many people believe that the Gipper himself (Ronald Reagan) probably wouldn’t make it through a GOP Primary today, much less gain the GOP nomination.

Mufasa [/quote]

You’re wrong again Mufasa. I think you should stay off the topic of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama because you don’t seem to know much about either man.

Ronald Reagan was a conservative, far more so than Mitt Romney. He would have captured the nomination easily and gone on to destroy Obama showing him for the leftist that he is.

:wink:

Edit: But I do like the way you are trying to portray the Tea Party as being far right and out of touch. When in reality it’s the main stream liberal media and Obama that are out of touch.

66

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Oh Zeb , you silly boy , Obama is where most Republicans were 15 years ago. Eye roll :)[/quote]

I am kinda a young buck in general, and certainly when it comes to politics.

15 years ago I was chasing girls and getting drunk. So I have no idea where you are going with this.

Can you epxlain what you mean?[/quote]

CB:

I’ll let Pitt and Zeb have at it in answering this question…but keep in mind that many people believe that the Gipper himself (Ronald Reagan) probably wouldn’t make it through a GOP Primary today, much less gain the GOP nomination.

Mufasa [/quote]

You’re wrong again Mufasa. I think you should stay off the topic of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama because you don’t seem to know much about either man.

Ronald Reagan was a conservative, far more so than Mitt Romney. He would have captured the nomination easily and gone on to destroy Obama showing him for the leftist that he is.

:wink:

Edit: But I do like the way you are trying to portray the Tea Party as being far right and out of touch. When in reality it’s the main stream liberal media and Obama that are out of touch.[/quote]

If Reagan being conservative was enough to get him the nomination then why was the least conservative guy nominated this time? By that logic anyone but Romney should have won.

67

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

If Reagan being conservative was enough to get him the nomination then why was the least conservative guy nominated this time? By that logic anyone but Romney should have won.[/quote]

A lot fo people are middle, and the more mud that gets slung and the more stupid shit congress does, the more people that don’t want to identify with a certain party.

I’m pretty right when it comes to fiscal matters, and pretty left on social matters, for the most part.

So I imagine after seeing Obama win, they figured a moderate conservative, that won Governer of the one of the most blue states in the nation, stood the best chance of winning.

IDK though, I’m just guessing here.

68

I never, EVER have said that the Tea Party was “out-of-touch”…they are very MUCH in touch with a large segment of America…and have pulled the GOP further right.

Put into today’s GOP Primary the divorced Governor of California, with a) Hollywood connections and b) a “change in position” on abortion…and see what happens, okay?

(And Zeb…I’ll stop talking about the two men when you do…)

Mufasa

69

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Oh Zeb , you silly boy , Obama is where most Republicans were 15 years ago. Eye roll :)[/quote]

I am kinda a young buck in general, and certainly when it comes to politics.

15 years ago I was chasing girls and getting drunk. So I have no idea where you are going with this.

Can you epxlain what you mean?[/quote]

CB:

I’ll let Pitt and Zeb have at it in answering this question…but keep in mind that many people believe that the Gipper himself (Ronald Reagan) probably wouldn’t make it through a GOP Primary today, much less gain the GOP nomination.

Mufasa [/quote]

You’re wrong again Mufasa. I think you should stay off the topic of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama because you don’t seem to know much about either man.

Ronald Reagan was a conservative, far more so than Mitt Romney. He would have captured the nomination easily and gone on to destroy Obama showing him for the leftist that he is.

:wink:

Edit: But I do like the way you are trying to portray the Tea Party as being far right and out of touch. When in reality it’s the main stream liberal media and Obama that are out of touch.[/quote]

If Reagan being conservative was enough to get him the nomination then why was the least conservative guy nominated this time? By that logic anyone but Romney should have won.[/quote]

You are not paying attention. If you continue to not pay attention I will put you on ignore and I’ve not done that with anyone yet. But you’re stupidity is annoying.

70

Of course the Olympics is a success. Lord Boyer Coe says the stadiums are packed to the gunwales. So it must be true.

The truth is that the British are very far to the left. So much so that even the Tories are much closer ideologically to Obama than they are to Romney. So of course they are going to try and make an ass out of him.

But with security such a shambles that they had to deploy more soldiers than they have in Afghanistan and bring soldiers back from Afghanistan Romney had a point. Now that the issue of empty stadiums has come up Romney is looking prophetic in his assessment.

Make no mistake the British conservatives have shown who they want to win and it isn’t Romney. In the end they are the ones who are going to look real stupid trying to deal with a president Romney in six months.

71

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I never, EVER have said that the Tea Party was “out-of-touch”…they are very MUCH in touch with a large segment of America…and have pulled the GOP further right.[/quote]

That statement alone is trying to show the Tea Party as being out of touch. What they are trying to do is pull the republican party back to where it was when Ronald Reagan was President.

He was accepted back in 1980 as the nominee. Are you now trying to tell me that with relaxed positions on divorce etc. that he would not be accepted today?

Think again Mufasa you are as far from being right on this point as you have ever been.

[quote](And Zeb…I’ll stop talking about the two men when you do…)

Mufasa [/quote]

No one wants you to stop talking about them, just be correct on occasion.

72

Kind of a funny story here…

Both Mitt and Bambi visited Newport Beach campaigning for money and votes. When the city presented each of them with the bills for the costs of police protection, Mitt paid it, and Bambi refuses to.

The Republican pays the bill on time, the Dem says “hell no, someone else can pay…” I think it’s very telling of how the two look at money, spending, and economics.

73

Fair, enough, Zeb.

But you’ve REALLY got to help me with this one:

“…What they (The TeaPublicans) are trying to do is pull the republican party back to where it was when Ronald Reagan was President…”

WUH???

Mufasa

74

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Fair, enough, Zeb.

But you’ve REALLY got to help me with this one:

“…What they (The TeaPublicans) are trying to do is pull the republican party back to where it was when Ronald Reagan was President…”

WUH???

Mufasa

[/quote]

What sort of help do you need? I’m sure that you realize that the republican party has gotten more liberal through the years. The Tea Party is trying to pull it back to its roots.

Simple.

One more important point, how come no one is talking about how the democratic party has grown more liberal through the years? So much so that if John Kennedy were alive today he would have to be a republican as most of his positions would be rebuked by the democratic party.

But for some reason we don’t hear anything about that in the media. What we do here is how Baaaaad the Tea Party is and how farrrrr right they want to pull the republican party.

That is basically crap.

I just gave you the real deal, but can you deal with it?

75

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Fair, enough, Zeb.

But you’ve REALLY got to help me with this one:

“…What they (The TeaPublicans) are trying to do is pull the republican party back to where it was when Ronald Reagan was President…”

WUH???

Mufasa

[/quote]

What sort of help do you need? I’m sure that you realize that the republican party has gotten more liberal through the years. The Tea Party is trying to pull it back to its roots.

Simple.

One more important point, how come no one is talking about how the democratic party has grown more liberal through the years? So much so that if John Kennedy were alive today he would have to be a republican as most of his positions would be rebuked by the democratic party.

But for some reason we don’t hear anything about that in the media. What we do here is how Baaaaad the Tea Party is and how farrrrr right they want to pull the republican party.

That is basically crap.

I just gave you the real deal, but can you deal with it?

[/quote]

Always tricky to take an individual out of context of his/her times and use that to relate to current day positions of other people…

For both sides.

76

JFK would even weep if he were to see what has happened to his party. The Dems have veered so left so quickly I’m surprised they didn’t flip over. The GOP is probably a bit to the left (overall) of where the Democrats were when JFK took office.

77

[quote]Mufasa wrote:<<< Sorry, Comrade Tiribulis for my short reply…

But I’ve got to get to work in the Labor Camps.

(And get off your computer! The KGB is watching you!)

Mufasa[/quote]I must’ve missed it. Which part was it you were disputing with facts?

78

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Right.[/quote]

It is “RIGHT” He had the most liberal voting record of any US Senator during the two years he actively served.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that he’s a liberal?

What’s the big deal?

Is it a dirty word?[/quote]

Communist is more appropriate. Obama’s mentor from the age of 9, Frank Marshall Davis(Communist Party number: 47544) joined the CPUSA during WWII and published Stalinist/Soviet propaganda and disinformation for decades. His FBI files reveal that he was considered one of the main assets of the KGB Rezident in Washington during the 50’s and 60’s. Davis was put on a list of people that the government could arrest automatically in the event of a war with the Soviet Union.[/quote]He has been surrounded and influenced by radical communist anti American operatives his entire life including his recent past. Like yesterday. I for one KNEW what he meant when he kept telling us he was going to transform America. People like him despise the United Sates as founded. They view her as foundationally unjust and oppressive, but most of all, they view her celebration of individual/family liberty and responsibility as an intolerable impediment to GLOBAL equality. Personal liberty stands nose to nose with their utopian vision of a paradisaical communist planet earth with them at the helm. The diametric opposite of what this nation was designed to be. Any person who doesn’t recognize that is simply in denial. Or stupid. Or ignorant. I don’t know that I’ve met any truly stupid people during my now rather extended stay on this site and in these forums.

Listen folks. “Transformation” is the fundamental (a word he used constantly during the last campaign) change of what something presently is into something it has never been. He TOLD US he was going to do this. You take a 10 minute look into where he came from and therefore what he is and interpret that statement accordingly. I don’t how many people have told me how brilliant it was that I predicted this. (not just here) I beat my head on the wall. IT"S NOT BRILLIANT. It’s only slightly harder to see than 2+2 equaling 4 unless, as I say, one is either in denial, stupid or ignorant.

When a publicly known communist with a communist history filed with communist people on every side applies for the job of president. Why is it so tough to believe that what you are going to get IS communism. ESPECIALLY when said known communist TELLS you he’s going to transform your country? You don’t love a country you’ve made it your life’s mission to transform into the image of her enemies she fought a cold war with for 60 years. I guess this really does still need to be spelled out.[/quote]

You can’t tell the cult of personality victims anything though. To them Red Barry is still the greatest.

79

I’ll respond because it’s this type of crap that has me hating ALL sides of our current political system.

If Ayers was his Vice President…and this Frank Marshall Davis guy was his Secretary of State…they COULD not…WOULD not…and would never have the ability to even REMOTELY change the United States into a Communist State.

THOSE are the facts.

Mufasa

80

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’ll respond because it’s this type of crap that has me hating ALL sides of our current political system.

If Ayers was his Vice President…and this Frank Marshall Davis guy was his Secretary of State…they COULD not…WOULD not…and would never have the ability to even REMOTELY change the United States into a Communist State.

THOSE are the facts.

Mufasa[/quote]

I don’t think that’s the point that they’re trying to make.

Here is the point that they’re trying to make. Out of all of the people that a young intelligent up and coming liberal political star could associate with (clears throat) WHY THE HELL DID HE HANG WITH SOCIALIST?

And of course the obvious question, how much did they shape his current thinking?