• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Times Online Sunday Editorial (UK)

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan should get together some time and debate whether American's fears of Fascism is only parnoia or beginning to become reality.

Maybe they could even invite Pelosi, so she can let them know that Fascism does not equate to Nazism

the Italian author you posted last week should also attend this meeting. Maybe he can let them all know how Fascism was a movement from the right of the political spectrum and not a "progressive" movement like most understand.

Their horror at what they called a fascist and a communist president requires no racial subtext

His movement includes urban politicians, academics, Hollywood donors and information-age professionals. In his first few months, he has fused federal power with Wall Street, the auto industry, the health care industries and the energy sector.
 

burnt

Well-known member
Know what r2? When I walk past a manure pile I usually don't stand there and wonder what is in it.

I just keep going and say "Now that's a pile of $#17".
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"and a protest march by about 70,000 conservative activists in Washington" After the author missed this figure by a factor of 15, why should I think he has any other facts in order?
 

burnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
burnt, David Brooks' article was in no way a pile of manure. Why don't you bother finding out who he is and what he thinks?

I forget now - did you post the Brooks column about the reason for Obama's slide? Seems it said something about how unhealthy he has been for the USA.

Maybe you just skipped that one.

r2, did you read it? It predated the one you posted.

Find it and read it and post it if you have the guts.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I read this article. I think the author had his mind made up and then searched for "facts" to support it.

The race stirring is coming from the left, not the right. You people refuse to let it calm down with this constant crying of "Wolf". People don't like this guy because he's a g-damn socialsit, a g-damn typical slime-ball from the Chicago Democratic machine, and a g-damn narcisstic compulsive liar. Can you hear us now?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I asked if you read the David Brooks article which says it is NOT race.

In fact this article is about the same thing as the David Brooks article, although Sullivan's agenda gets in the way.

Read the Brooks article and then comment since the reason I posted both articles was because I thought the point they had in common was one that you all would want to discuss.

I'll do that. Where is it?
 

burnt

Well-known member
burnt said:
reader (the Second) said:
burnt, David Brooks' article was in no way a pile of manure. Why don't you bother finding out who he is and what he thinks?

I forget now - did you post the Brooks column about the reason for Obama's slide? Seems it said something about how unhealthy he has been for the USA.

Maybe you just skipped that one.

r2, did you read it? It predated the one you posted.

Find it and read it and post it if you have the guts.

I meant to bump this, not edit it. :roll:
 

burnt

Well-known member
I do not drink and you are not my buddy.

It seems strange that you find the ones you like and don't post the Brooks columns that paint your hero in a less than admirable light.

But, naturally, it's what we expect form you.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Now see, "expect" and labeling people will get you into trouble every time.

Perhaps I happened to be reading the newspaper online and fascinated and horrified by the polarization in the U.S. found Brooks' excellent commentary. Thought it was even handed and would serve as a way to dialogue here.

Posted it.

And until I finally got Sandhusker to read it, only WW actually read it and saw the point.

And that lack of willingness to dialogue, to hear the other sides's points is a problem here, on both sides.

and you know this how? it might be more accurate to say that not many besides WW commented on it, and then Sandhusker after you badgered him to.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I've had conversations recently with friends who disagree with me on most political issues, and it's often brought up by them that politics seem nastier today.

I always disagree.

If anyone will take the time to look at the history of politics in the US, they'll have to quickly admit that it's always been ugly, something of a blood-sport as I like to call it. Some of today's antics seem tame to what has transpired in past political campaigns.

Anyway, I think the problem Obama is experiencing has very little to do with race and everything to do with Obama the man.

Yeah, race is an issue, he's African-American....perhaps more African-American than many US blacks in that his dad was actually born in Africa. For me though, I think there's an overriding distrust of Obama within this group. Many people believe that he's like Bill Clinton, an exceptionally good liar, and are therefore suspicious of his actual agenda.

Issues like the Van Jones affair, that didn't seem of any consequence to the White House or to important news media like the NYT, etc, were of great consequence to those who already had a deep distrust of the man. An avowed communist as the 'green jobs czar'? That sort of thing frightens the heck out of some folks.

Wright, Ayers, and many other 'mentors' of Obama's all add to the mix, and his often tepid or dismissive response to whatever effect they might have had on his life further builds that distrust. I don't think things are likely to change for the better any time soon.

It's Obama's job to convince Americans that he knows what he's doing and will lead the country in the right direction. So far, it appears it's not working at the level he needs to accomplish his goals.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
I disagree that Obama's appointees or associations are the issue Whitewing. I agree with you that he needs to proven himself and that the jury's out.

My view of Clinton is that he was a good president and a good ol' boy charm and lie my way out of things. Nixon was a liar. Reagan was acting most of the time. Cheney is Machiavellian. Bush was being "handled" by his advisers. Not much to recommend any of them but some will turn out to have been good presidents despite their personal flaws and some will not.

Most people besides the people who watch Glenn Beck could care less about Van Jones and do not worry about those who call Obama a socialist, despite the sound and the fury.


It was naive to appoint Van Jones as it was easy to find dirt to hang him with, as was the case. As I have said before, this is a hallmark of a new administration, naivete.

The real issue is whether Obama will be effective given the huge number of critical issues facing the country and the dissenters both on the left and on the right.

Politics may not have been nastier but the information age and Internet have changed the intensity and the rapid spread of nastiness.


Lets not leave out the spread of real truth r2 its only nasty when it hits to close to home for yall. Lets not forget what the libs did to joe the plumber or to SARAH PALIN. YEA IF ONE REPORTER WHO INVESTIGATED Palin had invested as much time investigating obama he would not be President today. Remember your libearal pastel news media attacked her by the hundreds. Obama is only being investigated by talk shows.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
That pulling the "race" card is getting old. He's a muslim Hitler. People of the US are sick and tired of the greedy wallstreet, central bankers and Corporatizing all large businesses so that small businesses are bought out by the larger ones or go out of business.. and its all at the expense of the middle class. How can you be considered racist when:

From AP:
Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions

By DEVLIN BARRETT (AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------

This was posted on Mish's economic blogspot as one of the reader comments .........the news media would rather stir it up pitting sides against each other than direct the people to the real culprits as both the Democrat/Republican parties are the same, pursuing the same agenda:

Mantaray says:

"I'm not a big Obama fan, but my point is, that Obama and Bush (and the rest of congress) are really part of the same problem - the corporate interest takeover of America at the expense of the middle class. It bothers me when I see heated anger against Obama, and nothing but silence (and a non-stated approval) when it comes to Bush/Cheney. Obama is playing with kid-gloves compared to what those guys were doing. Anyway, I thought Obama sunk himself with most "thinking" people once he let this bank bailout fiasco continue. I think they could have saved the financial system AND put these bankers out on their asses at the same time. That would have been the true American way. Once the moral hazard was sactioned, it was game over IMO for "change". Of course he just extended Bush policies. Now everyone else wants their handout top to bottom. I think a lot of the anger over the healthcare debate really stems from bank bailouts. I also know deep down, my brother in law is not really racist, he just doesn't have the tools (time, motivation) to understand what is really happening and where that anger should be "correctly" directed. That's where Murduch comes in - via NY Post, O'Reilly, whoever else... God forbid the public direct the anger at the true culprits (both parties)! It's the silver bullet that divides the populace, and it's been that way forever I guess...."

-----------------------------------

Reader2, what do you say about another black man who calls Obama a radical communist?????

See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg

Alan Keyes was a featured speaker at a fundraiser for the Triple A Crisis Pregnancy Center in Hastings, Nebraska, on February 19, 2009, where a reporter from KHAS-TV interviewed him about his thoughts on Obama. With conviction, Alan firmly stated that Obama is a radical communist (which he is) and a usurper (which he has done since he hasn't produced an original birth certificate). And that Obama supports infanticide--the killing of babies born alive after botched abortions.

The story was later picked up by Keith Olberman of MSNBC who spent time on the show calling Alan Keyes names in order to diminish the importance of what Alan said. Alan must have hit a nerve.
 
Top