Obama: Food Stamp Disgrace

sufiandy · April 22, 2012, 8:10pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
^I’m not sure about that. He felt the states should be free to ban them, but without Federal influence. His 2005 book about Catholic values was not exactly appealing to 2/3 of American women with full-time jobs. I admit, the guy had some big hairy balls to publish stuff like that in the 21st century, and I respect him for his views. But I do not trust that he wouldn’t wield his power as president to force those views on us.

There are some seriously extreme right-wing bible-beaters who would love that. Not enough for him to get elected, but the fact that he made it as far as he did really worried me. Quite frankly, I would consider keeping Obama in office (and paying outrageous taxes) than seeing a nut like Santorum accept communion on Capitol Hill. He doesn’t like that I have sex with women for pleasure? Sorry dude, but don’t care to hear him talking about that at a political rally.[/quote]

Agreed 100%. I was trying to think of a hypothetical person to run as a democrat that right wingers would dislike as much as we do Santorum but for opposite reasons, but nothing comes to mind. Any ideas? And no its not Obama, it would have to be some Atheist with a clear anti-Christian agenda.[/quote]

Yes, actually it is Obama. Check his voting record, he is actually more liberal than Santorum is conservative!

But, the media forgot to vett him and his “hope and change” campaign was brilliant, so we got stuck with him. Obama is THE most liberal President to ever be elected.
[/quote]

Its not the conservatism that scares people so if that is your response then Obama is the wrong answer.

zecarlo · April 22, 2012, 10:41pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I agree the states should be able to ban A, B, and C … [/quote]

Only if it doesn’t violate Constitutional rights. Just as you can go too far with federal power, you can go too far with state power. I agree that Santorum saying he has personal beliefs but wants to leave it to the states is just a form of doublespeak. [/quote]

Sort of like a liberal claiming to be against abortion personally but he must support a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby.

Gotta love that…[/quote]
Not exactly as Santorum is talking about making things illegal whereas the lib, in your example, is simply allowing what is legal to remain thus. There is also the difference between one guy wanting to have his beliefs (religious based) imposed while the other doesn’t.

pittbulll · April 22, 2012, 10:48pm

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Do you think that the increase in those requiring food stamps could be in anyway related to a rise in unemployment and a economic slump?[/quote]

No you F–king LIBERAL that would make too much sense

pittbulll · April 22, 2012, 10:51pm

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

Obama’s deportation numbers are that high because Bush’s policies are still in place from his presidency. It’s not like Obama has done anything different.

CS
[/quote]

There has been a significant increase in funding/activity under the Obama administration. Bush was just working with Clinton’s policies, and so on. There has been no real work done on immigration for about thirty years. Keep in mind Bush did only enough to claim he was trying both as President and as Governor of Texas. The business community desires access to those workers and have the ability to influence law/policy at the federal level. Do not look for any real change any time soon. [/quote]

Really the last President to do welfare reform was Slick Willie , that is why all the career wealfare recipients are going after Social Security

pittbulll · April 22, 2012, 10:55pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.
[/quote]

While I might not agree it has reached the point of drooling, I do recognize the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when I see it and think the manner in which much of the media ‘angles’ the news is total bullshit. Although there has always been opinion news, I am old enough to remember a time when ‘objective’ reporting was respected. It has been quit a while since we have had a successful President. IMO Obama is not going to change the trend. I could make a pretty good arguement that there isn’t any substantial difference between Obama & Romney, but I know you are a ‘lesser of two evils’ guy, a position I take no issue with. [/quote]

There really isn’t a substantial difference between Obama and Romney. Both support big government and that’s all-around not cool with me.[/quote]

He’s promised to end Obamacare and there’s no reason that he won’t do that as well. No upside for him in keeping it he needs the conservative base in 2016.

[/quote]

LOL , thanks for the laugh , you are always good for one

SexMachine · April 23, 2012, 1:56am

[quote]Bambi wrote:

So liberal that he deferred to the Pakistanis and Osama Bin Laden is still safe to wreak havoc through Al-Qaeda.

Obama’s foreign policy is little different from a Republican presidency.

[/quote]

You’re way off base Bambi. And it’s not about Democrats or Republicans. No other president(except maybe Jimmy Carter) would’ve handed Tunisia, Egypt and Libya to the Sunni Islamists and allowed the Iranians free reign. No other president would’ve played the ‘reset button’ game with Putin and footsies with Kim Jong Il. Don’t you get it? Obama is a radical. Or more specifically, an Alinskyite. It’s not a wing nut conspiracy it’s fact.

[T]he president is an Alinskyite, so steeped in the ideology of the seminal community organizer that he became a top instructor in Alsinkyite tactics for other up-and-coming radicals.

…Alinskyites are fifth-column radicals. They have, in substance, the same goals as open revolutionaries: overthrowing the existing free-market republic and replacing it with a radical’s utopia. That’s why Obama could befriend such unrepentant former terrorists as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and take inspiration from Jeremiah Wright, a black-liberation theologist. But Alinskyites are more sophisticated, patient, and practical. They bore in, hollowing out the system from within, approating the appearance and argot of mainstream society. Their single, animating ambition is to overthrow the capitalist social order, which they claim to see as racist, corrupt, exploitative, imperialistic, etc. Apart from that goal, everything else - from the public opinion to Afghanistan - is negotiable: They reserve the right to take any position on any matter, to say anything at any time, based on the ebb and flow of popular opinion. That keeps them politically viable while they radically transform society. Transform it into what, they haven’t worked out in great detail - except that it will be perfect, communal, equal, and just. - Andrew C. McCarthy III, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.

'The Alinsky Model, words that are important to keep in mind whether you are viewing these extremists from an historical perspective or in connection with the radical goals they hope to achieve via the Obama presidency:

Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything(and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.’ - David Horowitz, who was a “red diaper baby” - a child of old left parents(Communist Party USA) - and a former member of Students for a Democratic Society - the Weatherman terrorist group was an offshoot of SDS

Bambi · April 23, 2012, 8:06am

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
^I’m not sure about that. He felt the states should be free to ban them, but without Federal influence. His 2005 book about Catholic values was not exactly appealing to 2/3 of American women with full-time jobs. I admit, the guy had some big hairy balls to publish stuff like that in the 21st century, and I respect him for his views. But I do not trust that he wouldn’t wield his power as president to force those views on us.

There are some seriously extreme right-wing bible-beaters who would love that. Not enough for him to get elected, but the fact that he made it as far as he did really worried me. Quite frankly, I would consider keeping Obama in office (and paying outrageous taxes) than seeing a nut like Santorum accept communion on Capitol Hill. He doesn’t like that I have sex with women for pleasure? Sorry dude, but don’t care to hear him talking about that at a political rally.[/quote]

Agreed 100%. I was trying to think of a hypothetical person to run as a democrat that right wingers would dislike as much as we do Santorum but for opposite reasons, but nothing comes to mind. Any ideas? And no its not Obama, it would have to be some Atheist with a clear anti-Christian agenda.[/quote]

Yes, actually it is Obama. Check his voting record, he is actually more liberal than Santorum is conservative!

But, the media forgot to vett him and his “hope and change” campaign was brilliant, so we got stuck with him. Obama is THE most liberal President to ever be elected.

[/quote]

So liberal that he deferred to the Pakistanis and Osama Bin Laden is still safe to wreak havoc through Al-Qaeda.

Obama’s foreign policy is little different from a Republican presidency.

Why he got the idiotic ‘Peace Prize’ I will never know.
[/quote]

You’re not thinking Bambi. My comments were about how liberal he was and still got elected. Just as others attack Santorum for being conservative. I was comparing the two. When someone is elected to the Presidency the first thing that we notice is that foreign policy wise they tend to drift toward the middle.

As for Obama being liberal he did push through the most gigantic government take over of individual rights in the history of the country–National Health Care. And as for running up the debt the 4 trillion he’s added in only 3 1/2 years is more than the past three republican Presidents COMBINED!

So yeah he’s still quite liberal and that’s why the country is in the mess it is in. Liberalism does not work. And this can be checked by the number of liberal Governors that any particular state has had over a period of time. For example two states that are in huge trouble california and New York have had more liberal Governors than most any other state.

Coincidence? I think not. In the process of raising taxes and driving business out of their states they get into huge fiscal trouble-- Can you imagine that?

Why anyone would ever vote for a liberal at this stage of the game is for other reasons than they think that he’ll be good for the country.

And that is why the democratic base is now made up of mostly special interest groups.

Liberalism has failed everywhere it’t been tried.

One more point, if you think I’m wrong all you have to do is split up the US by red vs. blue states. The blue states can literally not survive without feeding off the red states.

The jury is in and liberalism has failed!

This is something that your liberal professors failed to tell you. And why? Because they have a lip lock on the public nipple because they are just one more special interest group.

Simple stuff Bambi…
[/quote]

I’m talking about foreign policy. On which Obama has been indistinguishable from George W Bush

Bambi · April 23, 2012, 8:11am

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

So liberal that he deferred to the Pakistanis and Osama Bin Laden is still safe to wreak havoc through Al-Qaeda.

Obama’s foreign policy is little different from a Republican presidency.

[/quote]

You’re way off base Bambi. And it’s not about Democrats or Republicans. No other president(except maybe Jimmy Carter) would’ve handed Tunisia, Egypt and Libya to the Sunni Islamists and allowed the Iranians free reign. No other president would’ve played the ‘reset button’ game with Putin and footsies with Kim Jong Il. Don’t you get it? Obama is a radical. Or more specifically, an Alinskyite. It’s not a wing nut conspiracy it’s fact.

[T]he president is an Alinskyite, so steeped in the ideology of the seminal community organizer that he became a top instructor in Alsinkyite tactics for other up-and-coming radicals.

…Alinskyites are fifth-column radicals. They have, in substance, the same goals as open revolutionaries: overthrowing the existing free-market republic and replacing it with a radical’s utopia. That’s why Obama could befriend such unrepentant former terrorists as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and take inspiration from Jeremiah Wright, a black-liberation theologist. But Alinskyites are more sophisticated, patient, and practical. They bore in, hollowing out the system from within, approating the appearance and argot of mainstream society. Their single, animating ambition is to overthrow the capitalist social order, which they claim to see as racist, corrupt, exploitative, imperialistic, etc. Apart from that goal, everything else - from the public opinion to Afghanistan - is negotiable: They reserve the right to take any position on any matter, to say anything at any time, based on the ebb and flow of popular opinion. That keeps them politically viable while they radically transform society. Transform it into what, they haven’t worked out in great detail - except that it will be perfect, communal, equal, and just. - Andrew C. McCarthy III, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.

'The Alinsky Model, words that are important to keep in mind whether you are viewing these extremists from an historical perspective or in connection with the radical goals they hope to achieve via the Obama presidency:

Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything(and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.’ - David Horowitz, who was a “red diaper baby” - a child of old left parents(Communist Party USA) - and a former member of Students for a Democratic Society - the Weatherman terrorist group was an offshoot of SDS[/quote]

I’m sorry, do you expect me to take that extract seriously? 5th column radical? LOL

Obama resisted opposing Mubarak until enough popular support against the man convinced him it was a good idea. Look at Biden’s first comments on Mubarak when the uprising started. At best, he was a pragmatist. Tunisia as far as I’m aware is not yet in Islamist hands, and Muslim Brotherhood candidates have been forbidden from standing at Egyptian elections. It’s not pretty there, and an Islamist takeover is possible, but not yet for definite

Libya is a clusterfuck.

As for Russia, smoke and mirrors. There will still be missiles in Poland, and NATO bases in the Ukraine. When Obama kisses putin like Mondale does in that American Dad episode let me know

SexMachine · April 23, 2012, 10:49am

[quote]Bambi wrote:

I’m sorry, do you expect me to take that extract seriously? 5th column radical? LOL

[/quote]

Frankly no. You don’t know anything about Saul Alinsky or Obama so I wouldn’t expect you to believe it.

How would you know?

Reuters, Jan 2011 - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-egypt-israel-usa-idUSTRE70U53720110131

“What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying…The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy?” - Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post

In late 2010, foreign policy professionals on both sides of the aisle in Washington got together and formed a group called the Working Group for Egypt. This group, with members as seemingly diverse as Elliott Abrams from the Bush administration and the Council on Foreign Relations, and Brian Katulis from the Center for American Progress, chose to completely ignore the fact that the populist forces in Egypt are overwhelmingly jihadist. They lobbied for Mubarak’s overthrow in the name of “democracy” in January and February. Today they demand that Obama side with the rioters in Tahrir Square against the military. And just as he did in January and February, Obama is likely to follow their “bipartisan” advice.

Biden is a complete idiot. He’s such an idiot that bin Laden was planning to kill Obama to inflict Biden on America. Did you know that? The man is a half-wit. Nay, considerably less than half. Here’s what he said within days of his “supportive” comments on Mubarak:

“We have said from the beginning, that future of Egypt will be determined by Egyptian people.” Biden added that the U.S. stands for “a set of core principles,” that the “transition must be an irreversible change…toward democracy.”

Biden said he “had planned on speaking more,” but will wait for the president to give his remarks before saying more.

That’s because he didn’t want to make another blunder.

Last month:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/25/us-tunisia-salafis-protest-idUSBRE82O0D120120325

This month:

Reuters: “…The Muslim Brotherhood’s new presidential candidate, pitched into the race after its first choice was disqualified…Mohamed Mursi, 59, the head of the Brotherhood’s political party, said he would seek the votes of ultra-conservative Muslims after a popular hardline Salafi candidate was barred too.”

ZEB · April 23, 2012, 1:30pm

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I agree the states should be able to ban A, B, and C … [/quote]

Only if it doesn’t violate Constitutional rights. Just as you can go too far with federal power, you can go too far with state power. I agree that Santorum saying he has personal beliefs but wants to leave it to the states is just a form of doublespeak. [/quote]

Sort of like a liberal claiming to be against abortion personally but he must support a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby.

Gotta love that…[/quote]
Not exactly as Santorum is talking about making things illegal whereas the lib, in your example, is simply allowing what is legal to remain thus. There is also the difference between one guy wanting to have his beliefs (religious based) imposed while the other doesn’t. [/quote]

It’s still a form of “doublespeak” and that’s what YOU were talking about.

ZEB · April 23, 2012, 1:34pm

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
^I’m not sure about that. He felt the states should be free to ban them, but without Federal influence. His 2005 book about Catholic values was not exactly appealing to 2/3 of American women with full-time jobs. I admit, the guy had some big hairy balls to publish stuff like that in the 21st century, and I respect him for his views. But I do not trust that he wouldn’t wield his power as president to force those views on us.

There are some seriously extreme right-wing bible-beaters who would love that. Not enough for him to get elected, but the fact that he made it as far as he did really worried me. Quite frankly, I would consider keeping Obama in office (and paying outrageous taxes) than seeing a nut like Santorum accept communion on Capitol Hill. He doesn’t like that I have sex with women for pleasure? Sorry dude, but don’t care to hear him talking about that at a political rally.[/quote]

Agreed 100%. I was trying to think of a hypothetical person to run as a democrat that right wingers would dislike as much as we do Santorum but for opposite reasons, but nothing comes to mind. Any ideas? And no its not Obama, it would have to be some Atheist with a clear anti-Christian agenda.[/quote]

Yes, actually it is Obama. Check his voting record, he is actually more liberal than Santorum is conservative!

But, the media forgot to vett him and his “hope and change” campaign was brilliant, so we got stuck with him. Obama is THE most liberal President to ever be elected.
[/quote]

Its not the conservatism that scares people so if that is your response then Obama is the wrong answer.[/quote]

You said [quote]I was trying to think of a hypothetical person to run as a democrat that right wingers would dislike as much as we do Santorum [/quote]

If you think for a second that the right wing does not despise Obama at least as much as people on the left dislike Santorum you are in a seriously self delusional state!

ZEB · April 23, 2012, 1:38pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Do you think that the increase in those requiring food stamps could be in anyway related to a rise in unemployment and a economic slump?[/quote]

No you F–king LIBERAL that would make too much sense
[/quote]

Wrong answer again Pitt!

Of course it’s related to the economy.

And who is President?

When Bush was President it was his fault.

Now that Obama is President…who can the left blame??

Corporations?

LOL

PUUUULEASE!

ZEB · April 23, 2012, 1:40pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.
[/quote]

While I might not agree it has reached the point of drooling, I do recognize the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when I see it and think the manner in which much of the media ‘angles’ the news is total bullshit. Although there has always been opinion news, I am old enough to remember a time when ‘objective’ reporting was respected. It has been quit a while since we have had a successful President. IMO Obama is not going to change the trend. I could make a pretty good arguement that there isn’t any substantial difference between Obama & Romney, but I know you are a ‘lesser of two evils’ guy, a position I take no issue with. [/quote]

There really isn’t a substantial difference between Obama and Romney. Both support big government and that’s all-around not cool with me.[/quote]

He’s promised to end Obamacare and there’s no reason that he won’t do that as well. No upside for him in keeping it he needs the conservative base in 2016.

[/quote]

LOL , thanks for the laugh , you are always good for one
[/quote]

Nothing funny about that. Romney is a politician and a good one. The conservative base does not want Obamacare. If he has a chance to end it why wouldn’t he? Because in liberal Massachusetts he passed a state wide health care plan?

And why did he do that? Because his base in MA wanted it.

So you’re saying he’s an idiot right?

Think again Pitt.

ZEB · April 23, 2012, 1:43pm