Politics

[GoIrish41]

lets all thank Rudy for beginning to weed out the wacko potential candidates who have agreed with his stupid remarks. I'm looking at you bobby Jindal.

 

[connor_in]

Rudy Giuliani is a tool

Rudy is a tool for some reasons, but if he is a tool to you for his recent President Obama comment then you agree that Obama is a tool for saying basically the same thing about W when Obama was running for President, correct?

 

[phgreek]

Rudy is a tool for some reasons, but if he is a tool to you for his recent President Obama comment then you agree that Obama is a tool for saying basically the same thing about W when Obama was running for President, correct?

oh come now, Mr. Obama was right, and Rudy is wrong...It is OBVIOUS. [Insert carefully crafted tortured logic and condescending crap here].

 

[Corry]

Rudy is a tool for some reasons, but if he is a tool to you for his recent President Obama comment then you agree that Obama is a tool for saying basically the same thing about W when Obama was running for President, correct?

I think we're splitting hairs here, but I assume you're referring to a statement in 2008 when Obama said that adding 4 trillion in debt was "unpatriotic" not exactly like saying he doesn't love America. Again splitting hairs, neither comment helps the country. At the time though Obama was running for president, during one of the worst economic situations in a generation. All he had to do was blame Bush to win, he did, and he did.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Obama wasn't raised right, but Giuliani was. Giuliani's father was a good honest mob enforcer.

 

[DonnieNarco]

....fixed it. NBC news...Really?

Exactly... My mind melts over the idea that peps actually think they are getting news from nbc... At least those that watch fox are open and honest about the bias

TYL that MSNBC and NBC News are two different things.

 

[DonnieNarco]

lets all thank Rudy for beginning to weed out the wacko potential candidates who have agreed with his stupid remarks. I'm looking at you bobby Jindal.

Jindal already had his Muslim no-go zones or whatever to weed him out. Too bad some stupid remarks won't weed some candidates out.

 

[DonnieNarco]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-urges-audience-do-fact-check-we-oblig/

 

[phgreek]

TYL that MSNBC and NBC News are two different things.

yea...one is actually supposed to report news...the problem is all cable news and network news outlets edit and present to support a narrative such that the only difference between them is perception of trust...hows that going at NBC, since you chose them in particular to highlight????

Its not just that people who view events and report them have some predetermined bias (Cronkite Bias), its that the shit is edited and presented to support a narrative...(Monied Elite/Special Interest Bias), and it is offensive and dangerous, and should cause people to start taking it personally.

 

[phgreek]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-urges-audience-do-fact-check-we-oblig/

The Irony is beyond words...

The basis of "recovery" is beyond logic.

Yes there has been some improvement, no it wasn't great, no Job #s aren't better than before the recession based on numbers of people working, Incomes are less... 401ks are partially restored because the market is hugely overvalued...not to mention alot of what is going on with the Fed is stalling and Hoping for a real recovery...

I mean regardless of specific partisan rhetoric...this is NOT GOOD....just better than the worst....so calling attention to who was wrong about how bad reminds me of child logic.

 

[Corry]

The Irony is beyond words...

The basis of "recovery" is beyond logic.

Yes there has been some improvement, no it wasn't great, no Job #s aren't better than before the recession based on numbers of people working, Incomes are less... 401ks are partially restored because the market is hugely overvalued...not to mention alot of what is going on with the Fed is stalling and Hoping for a real recovery...

I mean regardless of specific partisan rhetoric...this is NOT GOOD....just better than the worst....so calling attention to who was wrong about how bad reminds me of child logic.

This reminds me of a famous Mark Tawin quote "it's more difficult to convince people that they've been fooled than it is to fool them."

 

[IRISHDODGER]

^^^

And he's a political commentator, not a journalist. Does anyone trust political commentators? Journalists must be trusted and should be held to a higher standard.

That's the rub. People love to lump the O'Reillys, Hannitys, Becks of the world w/ newscasters like Rather, Brokaw, Williams, Scheiffer, etc. The newscasters are paid to deliver the news w/o bias or opinion. Commentators like O'Reilly, Hannity, Maddow are personalities that are paid to speifically comment on the social & political events of the day. They all, right or left; are pretty clear where they stand on any given issue.

Now, if O'Reilly did what Williams did, he should & would be held accountable in the eyes of the public. Make no mistake, if he did what Williams did; the mainstream news will be all over this like stink on shit. They'd love nothing more than knock his pompous ass down a few notches.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

lets all thank Rudy for beginning to weed out the wacko potential candidates who have agreed with his stupid remarks. I'm looking at you bobby Jindal.

lol heavy kool aid Saturday for you huh? Anyone who has taken 1 hour of time to research Obama's past, influences in family and college, allegiances and "causes", and statements could easily make this argument and have plenty of ammo.

I could devote an entire thread to Obama's contempt for this country. The fact that he doesn't come out and proclaim, "I despise the US" doesn't mean he loves this country. Hell by this point I wish Obama were more like Clinton. That's how far the left wing has driven its party.

Speaking of "wacko" candidates, the Dems are going to pedal out a certified, self proclaimed socialist named Bernie Sanders. And that's for starters.

 

[pkt77242]

lol heavy kool aid Saturday for you huh? Anyone who has taken 1 hour of time to research Obama's past, influences in family and college, allegiances and "causes", and statements could easily make this argument and have plenty of ammo.

I could devote an entire thread to Obama's contempt for this country. The fact that he doesn't come out and proclaim, "I despise the US" doesn't mean he loves this country. Hell by this point I wish Obama were more like Clinton. That's how far the left wing has driven its party.

Speaking of "wacko" candidates, the Dems are going to pedal out a certified, self proclaimed socialist named Bernie Sanders. And that's for starters.

LOL. He might have a different vision for the US then you but to say that he has contempt for the country or hates it is just plain fucking laughable. Are there probably things that he dislikes about the US, sure but you can say the same thing about everyone. Every single American has things that they dislike or want to change about the US, so I think it is pretty fucking funny when people come on here (or go on television as Rudy did) and makes statements like that.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

LOL. He might have a different vision for the US then you but to say that he has contempt for the country or hates it is just plain fucking laughable. Are there probably things that he dislikes about the US, sure but you can say the same thing about everyone. Every single American has things that they dislike or want to change about the US, so I think it is pretty fucking funny when people come on here (or go on television as Rudy did) and makes statements like that.

Based on what? Do you listen to his speeches? Read his transcripts? Read his book? Look at his history/ past and who he surrounded himself with? Again I wish he talked more like Clinton.

I'm not in his head and I don't really know. All I said is that the case could be made and the question is fair. What is clear and inarguable is:

1) His background and his circle of friends includes AT LEAST one convicted terrorist (Ayers) and one racist (Wright).

2) He has a lot more criticism for the US than praise.

3) Primary objective is fundamental transformation. Sure we all have things we'd like to change in the country, but fundamental transformation? Don't think so, pal.

 

[Wild Bill]

Based on what? Do you listen to his speeches? Read his transcripts? Read his book? Look at his history/ past and who he surrounded himself with? Again I wish he talked more like Clinton.

I'm not in his head and I don't really know. All I said is that the case could be made and the question is fair. What is clear and inarguable is:

1) His background and his circle of friends includes AT LEAST one convicted terrorist (Ayers) and one racist (Wright).

2) He has a lot more criticism for the US than praise.

3) Primary objective is fundamental transformation. Sure we all have things we'd like to change in the country, but fundamental transformation? Don't think so, pal.

And a wife that's not proud of her own country.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Economist's libertarian blogger, Will Wilkinson, had this to say about Guiliani's recent comments:

RUDY GIULIANI, a former mayor of New York City and failed presidential candidate, has caused a little stir by questioning Barack Obama's love of country. "I do not believe—and I know this is a horrible thing to say—but I do not believe that the president loves America," he said on Wednesday, at a private dinner to promote the presidential prospects of Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin. "He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country."

The reaction to Mr Giuliani's comments have been swift and decisive. Pundits from the left have been quick to suggest that Mr Giuliani is making an elliptical comment about Mr Obama's race, alien paternity and/or Indonesian school days. Amy Davidson of the New Yorker asks, "[W]as Giuliani just suggesting to the audience that there was something different about Obama? And what might that be?" Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post speculates that Mr Giuliani is channeling the ideas of Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative polemicist who insists that Mr Obama, animated by his Kenyan father's anti-colonial politics, sees America as a malign neocolonial power. The gist of these comments is that it's simply outrageous to call Mr Obama's love of country into question—of course he loves his country!—and that Mr Giuiliani's urge to do so can only reflect some kind discomfort with Mr Obama's skin-tone and pedigree, or at least a demagogic willingness to exploit the racism and xenophobia latent in the dark conservative heart.

The reaction from the right is, predictably enough, rather different. Kevin Williamson of the National Review questions whether Mr Obama even likes America. Mr Williamson mentions Michelle Obama's admission that she was never "really proud" of her country until her husband was elected president, as well as Mr Obama's long-time association with Jeremiah Wright, a Chicago pastor best known for a rousing sermon noting the moral outrage of America's history of slavery, racial apartheid, brutality toward natives, and so on. Given the centrality of white supremacy, sexism and oligarchic capitalism in America's history, at least according to leftists, "there is very little that a man with Barack Obama’s views and proclivities should love about the country," writes Mr Williamson, "beyond the fact that its people are so vulnerable to insipid sentimentality that they twice elected him president."

One might observe in response that progressives, in addition to acknowledging the injustice and venality inherent in the American experience, tell a story of progress in the struggle against these evils. The hopeful narrative of the progressive realisation of America's founding ideals supplies left-leaning Americans with ample basis for patriotic affection. That said, Mr Williamson's tendentious comments seem to contain more insight about Mr Giuliani's controversial remarks than do the knee-jerk liberal accusations of race-baiting.

Mr Williamson's column usefully emphasises the fact that, for many conservatives, to love America is to insist on the sanitisation of historical fact. We see this attitude at work in the Oklahoma state legislator's recent proposal to nix Advanced Placement American history courses on the grounds that such courses, by teaching some actual history, tend to cast the country's past in a rather unflattering light. But plenty of facts about America just aren't very flattering. A few miles from my house one can find battlefields where men killed and died for the right to keep other men as slaves, as well as the place where many thousands of dispossessed captive Cherokee were forced to begin a genocidal march to Oklahoma. And that's just Chattanooga!

Now, Mr Obama's political worldview is pretty much what one would expect from a moderately left-leaning African-American law professor. This means that the president is indeed keenly aware of, among other blots on the national record, America's exceptionally savage history of slavery and white supremacy, and its ongoing legacy. This sort of awareness inevitably—and justifiably—complicates a relationship to one's country. Many of us have been ill-treated or abused in one way or another by our parents. We love them anyway, because they are ours, but we don't forget the abuse, and it tempers the quality of our devotion. Love of country is not so different.

The ardent and unclouded quality of love that Mr Giuliani and Mr Williamson find missing in Mr Obama is largely the privilege of those oblivious of and immune to America's history of injustice and abuse. Those least aware of historical oppression, those furthest from its living reality, will find it easiest to express their love of country in a hearty and uncomplicated way. The demand that American presidents emanate this sort of blithe nationalism therefore does have a racist and probably sexist upshot, even if there is no bigotry behind it.

Mr Obama's politically compulsory declarations of America's exceptionalism have always struck me as rote, a little less than heartfelt, even a bit grudging. Mr Giuliani, I think, has come away with a similar impression, as have many millions of conservatives. The difference is that where Mr Giuliani sees a half-hearted allegiance to the fatherland, some of us see instead evidence of education, intelligence, emotional complexity and a basic moral decency—evidence of a man not actually in the grip of myths about his country. A politician capable of projecting an earnest, simple, unstinting love of a spotless and superior America is either a treacherous rabble-rouser or so out of touch that he is not qualified to govern. So Barack Obama doesn't love America like a conservative. So what? His realism and restraint are among his greatest strengths.

 

[pkt77242]

Based on what? Do you listen to his speeches? Read his transcripts? Read his book? Look at his history/ past and who he surrounded himself with? Again I wish he talked more like Clinton.

I'm not in his head and I don't really know. All I said is that the case could be made and the question is fair. What is clear and inarguable is:

1) His background and his circle of friends includes AT LEAST one convicted terrorist (Ayers) and one racist (Wright).

2) He has a lot more criticism for the US than praise.

3) Primary objective is fundamental transformation. Sure we all have things we'd like to change in the country, but fundamental transformation? Don't think so, pal.

Yes, I listen to his speeches, I have read his book (it wasn't very good) and know a fair amount of his past.

1. He has a racist friend and there is no arguing that, how does that mean that he hates the US? I am going to go out on a limb that most of us have at least one friend or family member who is either racist, or discriminates based off of (faith, gender, age, sexuality, where someone went to school or their job). As for Ayers, that is a good point.

2. Nope. Completely untrue. His criticisms of the US just get more coverage. Does he say negative things about the US, yes, and then Fox News and every other conservative outlet jumps all over how Obama hates the US. When he says positive things, it isn't "news" so it doesn't get covered as much or at all. Though you will believe what you want to believe.

3. What now? I think you are overplaying the fundamentally changing the US part because you don't agree with his vision of the US, so it appears fundamental to you. Healthcare changes, no truly fundamental. A little more regulation of the banks and big insurers, not really fundamental either as some of the regulations were based off of ones that we previously had. Nothing that he has done or really even said that he wants to do are fundamental changes. Yes he will say things like we need to fundamentally change ______, but most politicians do especially when they are running against an incumbent or the position that they are running for was held by the opposite party. What are they going to say, I think that guy was doing a damn good job, but don't vote for him or the person from his party who is going to do the exact same thing, vote for me instead. What are you expecting? What things is he or did he fundamentally change or try to change?

 

[IrishinSyria]

some of us see instead evidence of education, intelligence, emotional complexity and a basic moral decency—evidence of a man not actually in the grip of myths about his country. A politician capable of projecting an earnest, simple, unstinting love of a spotless and superior America is either a treacherous rabble-rouser or so out of touch that he is not qualified to govern. So Barack Obama doesn't love America like a conservative. So what? His realism and restraint are among his greatest strengths.

Perfect.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Based on what? Do you listen to his speeches? Read his transcripts? Read his book? Look at his history/ past and who he surrounded himself with? Again I wish he talked more like Clinton.

Based on what? Have you looked around the last six years? Looked at policy changes? Read the news? Look at who he has surrounded himself with? I wish you talked less like Glenn Beck.

I'm not in his head and I don't really know. All I said is that the case could be made and the question is fair. What is clear and inarguable is:

1) His background and his circle of friends includes AT LEAST one convicted terrorist (Ayers)

Let me get this straight, Bill Ayers commits egregious acts when Obama is like ten years old and later in life Ayers serves on boards with him and.....??? I'm missing something here, what's the issue? Did Obama help him make those bombs or something?

Also, convicted? Per wikipedia: "Due to the illegal tactics of FBI agents involved with the program, including conducting wiretaps and property searches without warrants, government attorneys requested all weapons-related and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground, including charges against Ayers."

and one racist (Wright).

The idea the Obama is/was friends with either of them is just laughable. Obama is a full blown atheist, he sat in those pews for political reasons. Do you need a list of politicians who have sat through crazy religious sermons for political gain? Spare me the "but not that crazy!" I don't care. This would have some legs if Obama did anything as President that you could trace back to Wright.

3) Primary objective is fundamental transformation. Sure we all have things we'd like to change in the country, but fundamental transformation? Don't think so, pal.

I think it's great how the Right has this "love the country, hate the government" thing as their schtick, and then when a guy enters the picture and says "hey we're going to change a whole lot of this" and suddenly "OH MY GOD THE FUCKING COMMIE MUSLIM TOOK OVER!"

I'm still waiting for the secret Kenyan Muslim communist stuff to start showing. Will that be after the 7th year in office, or 8th?

What's more likely, Obama wants to "fundamentally transform" America in some sinister way and was juuuust dumb enough to mention it in one of his biggest campaign speeches...or "fundamentally transform" was for all of those middle class people who felt like their government has been screwing them over for the last few decades? It's almost like "CHANGE" was part of his campaign in response to the public's frustration after three decades of the Bushes and Clintons in the White House. Nahhhh, he definitely wants to fuck America over.

2) He has a lot more criticism for the US than praise.

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. Plus I think I could make the argument that Fox News and friends rip on the US more than anyone.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Many of us have been ill-treated or abused in one way or another by our parents. We love them anyway, because they are ours, but we don't forget the abuse, and it tempers the quality of our devotion. Love of country is not so different.

Horrible analogy.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Yes, I listen to his speeches, I have read his book (it wasn't very good) and know a fair amount of his past.

1. He has a racist friend and there is no arguing that, how does that mean that he hates the US? I am going to go out on a limb that most of us have at least one friend or family member who is either racist, or discriminates based off of (faith, gender, age, sexuality, where someone went to school or their job). As for Ayers, that is a good point.

2. Nope. Completely untrue. His criticisms of the US just get more coverage. Does he say negative things about the US, yes, and then Fox News and every other conservative outlet jumps all over how Obama hates the US. When he says positive things, it isn't "news" so it doesn't get covered as much or at all. Though you will believe what you want to believe.

3. What now? I think you are overplaying the fundamentally changing the US part because you don't agree with his vision of the US, so it appears fundamental to you. Healthcare changes, no truly fundamental. A little more regulation of the banks and big insurers, not really fundamental either as some of the regulations were based off of ones that we previously had. Nothing that he has done or really even said that he wants to do are fundamental changes. Yes he will say things like we need to fundamentally change ______, but most politicians do especially when they are running against an incumbent or the position that they are running for was held by the opposite party. What are they going to say, I think that guy was doing a damn good job, but don't vote for him or the person from his party who is going to do the exact same thing, vote for me instead. What are you expecting? What things is he or did he fundamentally change or try to change?

This is a fair response on a thread as divisive as these tend to be. What I bolded should be rembered by all of us. When it comes down to it, the more conservative folks here are going to side against Obama & the leftist folks here are going to side w/ Obama. To be fair, neither folks will be 100% lock step w/ either side. As much as leftists like to pigeonhole EVERY conservative person as a Pro-GWBush/Pro-war American, that's just not true. Just like to say ALL leftists automatically agree w/ everything Obama does is no fair.

In the big picture, there truly isn't a nickel's worth of difference between pols like Bush & Obama. Yes, they came from polar opposite backgrounds. That could be said for a lot of us. Neither is more or less in touch w/ the average American IMO. One was more comfortable at cocktail parties w/ the Texas elite & the other was more comfortable in the teachers lounge at a prestigous university. Both look down on most Americans IMO. It's just a matter of which one you dislike the most.

I prefer the one that stays out of my life & my pocketbook the most.

 

[GoIrish41]

lol heavy kool aid Saturday for you huh? Anyone who has taken 1 hour of time to research Obama's past, influences in family and college, allegiances and "causes", and statements could easily make this argument and have plenty of ammo.

I could devote an entire thread to Obama's contempt for this country. The fact that he doesn't come out and proclaim, "I despise the US" doesn't mean he loves this country. Hell by this point I wish Obama were more like Clinton. That's how far the left wing has driven its party.

Speaking of "wacko" candidates, the Dems are going to pedal out a certified, self proclaimed socialist named Bernie Sanders. And that's for starters.

Sanders is an independent

 

[ACamp1900]

Obama's still playing the part of the antagonistic community organizer, lead the whole country and stop consistently mocking those who see the world differently... He can get some respect when he gives it.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Nothing Sanders has done has ever been wacko or made a fatal mistake like Jindal saying there are Muslim no-go zones in London or Christie's bridge thing. He's not going to win but that is because he's far-left (for America) and not because he's a "wacko".

 

[DonnieNarco]

Apparently if you don't blindly love everything America has ever done, from Vietnam to the Iraq War, you don't like America. Good to know.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yes, I listen to his speeches, I have read his book (it wasn't very good) and know a fair amount of his past.

1. He has a racist friend and there is no arguing that, how does that mean that he hates the US? I am going to go out on a limb that most of us have at least one friend or family member who is either racist, or discriminates based off of (faith, gender, age, sexuality, where someone went to school or their job). As for Ayers, that is a good point.

2. Nope. Completely untrue. His criticisms of the US just get more coverage. Does he say negative things about the US, yes, and then Fox News and every other conservative outlet jumps all over how Obama hates the US. When he says positive things, it isn't "news" so it doesn't get covered as much or at all. Though you will believe what you want to believe.

3. What now? I think you are overplaying the fundamentally changing the US part because you don't agree with his vision of the US, so it appears fundamental to you. Healthcare changes, no truly fundamental. A little more regulation of the banks and big insurers, not really fundamental either as some of the regulations were based off of ones that we previously had. Nothing that he has done or really even said that he wants to do are fundamental changes. Yes he will say things like we need to fundamentally change ______, but most politicians do especially when they are running against an incumbent or the position that they are running for was held by the opposite party. What are they going to say, I think that guy was doing a damn good job, but don't vote for him or the person from his party who is going to do the exact same thing, vote for me instead. What are you expecting? What things is he or did he fundamentally change or try to change?

1) We are judged by the company we keep. If a Repub president were friends with a white supremacy leader, Dems would be calling for impeachment.

2) We've never heard a pres talk about this country the way he does.

3) I've detailed this already, probably more than once. Not doing it again for you. Go back to past pages and read.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Sanders is an independent

On paper yes, and a self proclaimed socialist.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Based on what? Have you looked around the last six years? Looked at policy changes? Read the news? Look at who he has surrounded himself with? I wish you talked less like Glenn Beck.



Let me get this straight, Bill Ayers commits egregious acts when Obama is like ten years old and later in life Ayers serves on boards with him and.....??? I'm missing something here, what's the issue? Did Obama help him make those bombs or something?

Also, convicted? Per wikipedia: "Due to the illegal tactics of FBI agents involved with the program, including conducting wiretaps and property searches without warrants, government attorneys requested all weapons-related and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground, including charges against Ayers."



The idea the Obama is/was friends with either of them is just laughable. Obama is a full blown atheist, he sat in those pews for political reasons. Do you need a list of politicians who have sat through crazy religious sermons for political gain? Spare me the "but not that crazy!" I don't care. This would have some legs if Obama did anything as President that you could trace back to Wright.



I think it's great how the Right has this "love the country, hate the government" thing as their schtick, and then when a guy enters the picture and says "hey we're going to change a whole lot of this" and suddenly "OH MY GOD THE FUCKING COMMIE MUSLIM TOOK OVER!"

I'm still waiting for the secret Kenyan Muslim communist stuff to start showing. Will that be after the 7th year in office, or 8th?

What's more likely, Obama wants to "fundamentally transform" America in some sinister way and was juuuust dumb enough to mention it in one of his biggest campaign speeches...or "fundamentally transform" was for all of those middle class people who felt like their government has been screwing them over for the last few decades? It's almost like "CHANGE" was part of his campaign in response to the public's frustration after three decades of the Bushes and Clintons in the White House. Nahhhh, he definitely wants to fuck America over.



I'm going to call bullshit on this one. Plus I think I could make the argument that Fox News and friends rip on the US more than anyone.

Got tough guy Buster all in a tizzy again.

1) I don't listen or read anything by Glenn Beck. Everything I noted above was factual, not conspiracy driven bull$hit from Glenn Beck or anyone else. The original discussion on this thread was whether Obama loves America. I said the question is a fair one.

2) If you don't think it's concerning that our president was serving on boards/ in social graces/ whatever with a convicted terrorist, that's a you problem. Let me repeat that for you...convicted terrorist.

3) That list of politicians who have sat through crazy sermons...I'll need it, and I'll need to see whose "pastors" yell, "God Damn America." Disgusting.

4) Fundamental transformation...in Obama's eyes, off the top of my head:

Stimulus: jobs come from government
Health care: government needs to provide
Businesses: you didn't build that
Military: we're cutting your benefits. paper pushers in DC need $100k salaries
Foreign policy: Need I say anything here?
Congress: Pen and a phone is all I need. Congress doesn't exist to me

 

[Buster Bluth]

Got tough guy Buster all in a tizzy again.

1) I don't listen or read anything by Glenn Beck. Everything I noted above was factual, not conspiracy driven bull$hit from Glenn Beck or anyone else. The original discussion on this thread was whether Obama loves America. I said the question is a fair one.

Well "in a tizzy" is an understatement. I'm pissed. The question isn't fair at all and it's laughable that a grown man can think the fucking President doesn't love his country. It's like saying Jim Harbaugh took the Michigan job to bring it down from the inside. It's almost not worth a response but there are millions of conservative adults out there who actually believe it. Simply stunning.

I love a good discussion over political disagreements, but this shit just makes me angry as an American.

2) If you don't think it's concerning that our president was serving on boards/ in social graces/ whatever with a convicted terrorist, that's a you problem. Let me repeat that for you...convicted terrorist.

This invites a person to defend Bill Ayers. I won't. But if you think Bill Ayers' actions from when Obama was ten years old had an impact on him, then that's something you need to elaborate on, because you sound like a crazy person. Do I think Bill Ayers is an A+ dude? No. Do I think it's incorrigible that a politically active guy runs in the same local political circles as another politically active guy? Also no.

Also I'm still waiting for you to tell me what he was convicted of. You said your facts were undeniable, and google tells me the FBI dropped his case and he got away with it.

3) That list of politicians who have sat through crazy sermons...I'll need it, and I'll need to see whose "pastors" yell, "God Damn America." Disgusting.

I knew when I typed it you'd response with exactly "show me one who sat throw a sermon where X was said!" I can't. Such a test is childish. The list of people who quietly sat through sermons they didn't agree with is endless. Start with our first five Presidents.

The invitation to defend Rev. Wright is there, and I won't oblige you. The guy is a joke. But the onus is on you to draw a line to any policy Obama has backed. I will say, if Obama attends that church after his Presidency you'd have a small point. I'll put all my vbucks on it that he won't.

Your inability to ask yourself "did any of this actually impact Obama?" makes total sense considering it destroys your entire argument.

4) Fundamental transformation...in Obama's eyes, off the top of my head:

Stimulus: jobs come from government
Health care: government needs to provide
Businesses: you didn't build that
Military: we're cutting your benefits. paper pushers in DC need $100k salaries
Foreign policy: Need I say anything here?
Congress: Pen and a phone is all I need. Congress doesn't exist to me

Yawn. Even with your misrepresentations, it's not exactly secret commie Muslim stuff I was promised by the Right (I say that as someone who was 100% on board with everything you typed in 2007/2008. But now seven years later conservatives' fear tactics have absolutely nothing to show for it. Where is the fundamental transformation and secret America loathing?). Newsflash: Barack Obama and the Left see public policy differently than conservatives. The sad thing is, if I asked you why he backs those things, would you be able to answer? Do conservatives know an answer other than "he's a socialist!" or "he's unamerican!"? My second biggest gripe about Guiliani's comments (after the absurd assertion that Barack Obama doesn't love his country...jesus fucking christ) is that it keeps the level of political conversation at about a 1 on a scale to 10. Why does the left think differently? Easy answer: they hate you. Repeat and drive it into the brains of everyone listening to Fox and conservative radio.