Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    Regardless of whether you are for or against Obama, you have to admit that he is actively working to split the country along class lines.  This is the most devisive president ever, and he doesn't care who he hurts as long as he wins.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    I don't know Skeeter...I think they all attempt to split the country along class lines..class warfare will always exist in America..it's a fact of life and an unfortunate by product of our system of government. If you don't want class warfare..then the US is not the place for you.
    If you are implying in your post that the protests in NY and across the country are somehow coordinated by Obama...he stands more to lose than anyone over these protests. The protestors are not exactly singing his praises in the street..right..?
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]Regardless of whether you are for or against Obama, you have to admit that he is actively working to split the country along class lines.  This is the most devisive president ever, and he doesn't care who he hurts as long as he wins.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    There's no evidence to support this...

    ...except for the fact that class struggle has always been issue in this country.

    The difference between then and now is the public's ability to see and hear it instantaneously and in greater volumes, thereby encouraging cognitive bias on both sides.


    To which point I would ask you: are the political parties also divided "along class lines"...??
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : There's no evidence to support this... ...except for the fact that class struggle has always been issue in this country. The difference between then and now is the public's ability to see and hear it instantaneously and in greater volumes, thereby encouraging cognitive bias on both sides. To which point I would ask you: are the political parties also divided "along class lines"...??
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    I think the political parties are absolutely divided along "class lines":

    The dems are trying to sell the "your govt needs to take better care of you and provide for you" which plays well to those who have a culture of dependency as well as those that want something for nothing.

    The republicans want to promote free enterprise which includes gioving more to the wealthy in hopes they will expand their wealth through enterprise and through that crerate more opportunities for all. This will inevitably create wealth for some who will not incorporate it into a beter life for many around them.

    We need more moderates; help those that can't (not wont) but, can't help themselves (medically, mentally or physically impaired) and create a path of opportunity through free markets and enterprize for those who want to work hard to pursue the dream!

    But, if, you are not impaired in any way then you get opportunity like everyone else not free handouts!!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : I think the political parties are absolutely divided along "class lines": The dems are trying to sell the "your govt needs to take better care of you and provide for you" which plays well to those who have a culture of dependency as well as those that want something for nothing. The republicans want to promote free enterprise which includes gioving more to the wealthy in hopes they will expand their wealth through enterprise and through that crerate more opportunities for all. This will inevitably create wealth for some who will not incorporate it into a beter life for many around them. We need more moderates; help those that can't (not wont) but, can't help themselves (medically, mentally or physically impaired) and create a path of opportunity through free markets and enterprize for those who want to work hard to pursue the dream! But, if, you are not impaired in any way then you get opportunity like everyone else not free handouts!!
    Posted by sk8ter2008[/QUOTE]

    Those aren't class divisions; they're platitudes.

    What I mean by my question is whether poor dems agree with poor repubs and rich dems agree with rich repubs, and if not then how they are tilted....

    Because, if the parties are truly a reflection of our electorate, then party designation should be generally class-neutral.

    And IF the parties don't reflect these realities, then they're not really accurately representing the electorate, are they...??

    If "we need more moderates", then it would seem to follow that one side is tipping the scales.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : There's no evidence to support this... ...except for the fact that class struggle has always been issue in this country. The difference between then and now is the public's ability to see and hear it instantaneously and in greater volumes, thereby encouraging cognitive bias on both sides. To which point I would ask you: are the political parties also divided "along class lines"...??
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    so, Obama is not railing against those who earn over $200,000, calling them rich?

    that's all the evidence you need.

    But, why stop there?

    Is Obama taking money from Wall St., while supporting the Occupiers?
    Is Obama "spreading the wealth" around?
    Has Obama increased the number of people who do not pay income tax?
    Has Obama hired several Class Warriors, like Van Jones, Liz Warren?

    Oh, I think the evidence is in.  Obama is splitting this country in two.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : so, Obama is not railing against those who earn over $200,000, calling them rich? that's all the evidence you need. But, why stop there? Is Obama taking money from Wall St., while supporting the Occupiers? Is Obama "spreading the wealth" around? Has Obama increased the number of people who do not pay income tax? Has Obama hired several Class Warriors, like Van Jones, Liz Warren? Oh, I think the evidence is in.  Obama is splitting this country in two.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    No, that's rhetorical.  Difference.

    You seem to forget that Obama is President of both the bankers AND the protesters, both the income tax payers AND non-income tax payers, the class warriors AND conscientious objecters.  Nevertheless, he is forced by dint of his office to take positions he thinks and believes to be the right ones.  This is NOT the same as splitting the country.

    The question was posed recently: do you believe ANY president really didn't think they had the country's best interests in mind??  Really??  That's just lunacy; it doesn't make any sense. 

    Look, you believe what you want, but your case is severely lacking in any logical or factual basis.  Of course, he wants everyone to get along and have 4% unemployment and no debt and no poverty and lots of opportunity, but just wanting it don't make it so.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    That is rich coming from a party who has a presidential candidate who coyly floated the idea that Texas could secede from the nation if things get going so poorly, that had othe major candidates for president and senator referencing 2nd amendment remedies and appeals to be armed and dangerous, whose rank and file protestors made actual threats that though they came unarmed today to protest they may not tomorrow, and of course there were those who went even a step further and actually brought guns to protests, and all of this was done while championing the revolutionary language of the founding fathers. 

    Switching to a populist stance is not divisive and if you think it is then I would suggest picking up a high school history book and brushing up on some actual events.  But before you do that make sure you take a look at the events of the last few years, where we have seen the right push limits of decorum to heights unseen for decades. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    What's going on is actually worse than just the usual class war rhetoric being employed by the left wing of the democrat party. They're ramping it up to a new level with their demonization of wall street and bankers. I'm afraid that the next step is violence.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama's civil war:  Of course, he wants everyone to get along and have 4% unemployment and no debt and no poverty and lots of opportunity, but just wanting it don't make it so.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    While I don't profess any intimate knowledge of what the president actually wants, I think repackaging previously failed and/or rejected policies as a solution to a problem those very policies created might suggest to the casual observer that he hasn't much of a clue as to how to get it.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : While I don't profess any intimate knowledge of what the president actually wants, I think repackaging previously failed and/or rejected policies as a solution to a problem those very policies created might suggest to the casual observer that he hasn't much of a clue as to how to get it.
    Posted by p-mike[/QUOTE]

    Funny, because that's exactly what the gop leadership is doing...recycling old Bush and neo-con nuggets which helped cause some of this mess we're in...

    ...that and saying, "No", as loud as they can to everything POTUS tries to enact.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]What's going on is actually worse than just the usual class war rhetoric being employed by the left wing of the democrat party. They're ramping it up to a new level with their demonization of wall street and bankers. I'm afraid that the next step is violence.
    Posted by StalkingButler[/QUOTE]

    There are people that believe the Tea Party is engaged in a demonization of the government.  Next step violence?  Of course not: these righties, just like the lefties you complain about, accept the basic principles of operating within our democratic traditons.  Get a grip.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]Regardless of whether you are for or against Obama, you have to admit that he is actively working to split the country along class lines.  This is the most devisive president ever, and he doesn't care who he hurts as long as he wins.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    No that's not true at all.  So I wont admit any of it. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : There are people that believe the Tea Party is engaged in a demonization of the government.  Next step violence?  Of course not: these righties, just like the lefties you complain about, accept the basic principles of operating within our democratic traditons.  Get a grip.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Reuben, we have had some spirited debates in the past, but I really think you are way out on this one.  TEA party violence never happened, despite the claims it would.  Violence has already happened with the Occupy, some number were arrested.

    Besides, TEA party pulled permits, met and spoke, cleaned up, then went home.

    The Occupiers have squatted, are making a mess, and are unable to articulate a coherent message.

    All this and the president and vice president are backing them.  I smell a rat.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : No that's not true at all.  So I wont admit any of it. 
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Well, I didn't expect that you would, because you want this division.  you want to tear down the rich, as if they have unfairly earned what is theirs.  You mention wall street:  I'm with you.  But to not admit this president is playing the class card, just too much.  So, you don't want to raise taxes on those who earn over $200K then?  you don't think that all rich people are bad?  You buy into the Buffet rule, which is factually wrong?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]I don't know Skeeter...I think they all attempt to split the country along class lines..class warfare will always exist in America..it's a fact of life and an unfortunate by product of our system of government. If you don't want class warfare..then the US is not the place for you. If you are implying in your post that the protests in NY and across the country are somehow coordinated by Obama...he stands more to lose than anyone over these protests. The protestors are not exactly singing his praises in the street..right..?
    Posted by miscricket[/QUOTE]

    You may be right, but then again, I'm not with the liberal republicans on this.

    But, I am astounded that you think class warfare is part of the solution, part of the fabric, to the point that you say if I don't like it, scram?  How cynical you have become.  What happened to the American dream?  Has it become a dream that is focused on success, or failure?  Seems like you are suggesting the latter.

    BTW:  The protesters are all in Obama's camp.  Don't try to tell me they are not.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]That is rich coming from a party who has a presidential candidate who coyly floated the idea that Texas could secede from the nation if things get going so poorly, that had othe major candidates for president and senator referencing 2nd amendment remedies and appeals to be armed and dangerous, whose rank and file protestors made actual threats that though they came unarmed today to protest they may not tomorrow, and of course there were those who went even a step further and actually brought guns to protests, and all of this was done while championing the revolutionary language of the founding fathers.  Switching to a populist stance is not divisive and if you think it is then I would suggest picking up a high school history book and brushing up on some actual events.  But before you do that make sure you take a look at the events of the last few years, where we have seen the right push limits of decorum to heights unseen for decades. 
    Posted by DamainAllen[/QUOTE]

    I wish I had a choice other than the republicans or the democrats, believe me.  none of you believe me when I say Bush is more liberal than you think, McCain was undoubtedly more liberal, and we are likely to get a liberal republican, Romney, at the top of the ticket this time.  so, don't go framing the republicans as all being knuckledraggers like me.  I didn't like Bush, I voted for him, but I got drunk first.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobc33. Show bobc33's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]What's going on is actually worse than just the usual class war rhetoric being employed by the left wing of the democrat party. They're ramping it up to a new level with their demonization of wall street and bankers. I'm afraid that the next step is violence.
    Posted by StalkingButler[/QUOTE]

    I hope you are wrong Stalking, but recently at an event with a lot of old friends, Democrats one and all, I was amazed when the conversation turned to obtaining a concealed weapon license and 3 or 4 of said they were applying for one.  Then the talk of "this is going to become violent" went on for a while.

    I'm not sold on Romney, but in one sense if he is elected the radical left won't go as berserk as they probably will over Perry, Bachmann, Santorum...... so he I think has the best chance of somewhat calming this divisiveness.  If obama is re-elected all bets are off as he is easily the most divisive President we've ever had.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : Well, I didn't expect that you would, because you want this division.  you want to tear down the rich, as if they have unfairly earned what is theirs.  You mention wall street:  I'm with you.  But to not admit this president is playing the class card, just too much.  So, you don't want to raise taxes on those who earn over $200K then?  you don't think that all rich people are bad?  You buy into the Buffet rule, which is factually wrong?
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    No Skeeter, I don't want to "tear down the rich".  I just don't want the warped vision of the U.S. that you desire.  I don't want to roll back all the progress we have made in the last hundred odd years,  progress that you snear at. And yes, the rich need to pay their fair share.  That is not class warfare, just plain equity: they got rich because of the country, it is fair for them to pay back for that opportunity and the largesse that resulted.  And if you haven't noticed: the middle class is in a crunch: they are the people that buy in this consumer economy and keep it moving, they need a break so they can get the economy moving again.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : I hope you are wrong Stalking, but recently at an event with a lot of old friends, Democrats one and all, I was amazed when the conversation turned to obtaining a concealed weapon license and 3 or 4 of said they were applying for one.  Then the talk of "this is going to become violent" went on for a while. I'm not sold on Romney, but in one sense if he is elected the radical left won't go as berserk as they probably will over Perry, Bachmann, Santorum...... so he I think has the best chance of somewhat calming this divisiveness.  If obama is re-elected all bets are off as he is easily the most divisive President we've ever had.
    Posted by bobc33[/QUOTE]

    I hope that I'm wrong too but, then again, I've had these irrational fears ever since I lost my grip. I haven't seen an administration this paranoid and combative since Nixon. Let's hope that it ends better that one did.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]Regardless of whether you are for or against Obama, you have to admit that he is actively working to split the country along class lines.  This is the most devisive president ever, and he doesn't care who he hurts as long as he wins.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    What a idiotic thing to say. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency

    In Response to Re: Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Obama's civil war: split the country in order to win the PResidency : What a idiotic thing to say. 
    Posted by beKool[/QUOTE]

    And yet in his world you have to admit it is true. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share