Story Comments
Posted by: Beau7890 1 year, 1 month ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
92%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And here we have it.
Reply
The man behind many the unfounded smears of Obama suffers from delusions of grandeur and paranoia.
And Fox News gave him an unrestricted forum on its network.
Is anyone surprised?
From the article:
"An examination of legal documents and election filings, along with interviews with his acquaintances, revealed Mr. Martin, 62, to be a man with a history of scintillating if not always factual claims. He has left a trail of animosity -- some of it provoked by anti-Jewish comments -- among political leaders, lawyers and judges in three states over more than 30 years.
"He is a law school graduate, but his admission to the Illinois bar was blocked in the 1970s after a psychiatric finding of 'moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.' "-
89%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
0%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The dumbocrat dribble and kindergarden whining is unbelievable. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Racism knows no color. There are White racist,Black racist,Brown racist, ECT. To some it is a hatred, to some it is distrust, and to others it is a tool of deceit. The last thing the USA needs at this time is an Amateur. There is no time for on the job training. More Socialist debt is definitely not what we need. Research what and who you vote for, check your resources, do not buy into the hype, think and reason for yourself. Being what one "Goppy" called an old f*rt, I have already survived this type situation (Carter), and really shiver at the thought of having to go through it again. Therefore the inexperience definitely concerns me. The Socialist leaning is a big red flag. Obama's record shows nothing to recommend him. Pretty words and rhetoric may soothe the soul but do nothing to solve problems. The fairy tale he is preaching comes direct for the Socialist Handbook.
Reply-
100%
swvmd1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Try reading anything legitimate and you'll see McNasty is another McFraud just like Shrub-Dick. Rolling Stone has an in-depth article complete with interviews with former classmates, peers and fellow POWS all of whom describe this petulent
Reply
elitist as an opportunist and core scumbag. It's factual which is something the media has avoided dealing with since repuked spin replaced actual reporting. He's another conservative clone with a fictional persona adopted shamelessly by himself and now pitched to the media and the nation by the same Rove apparatus that gave us W.-
0%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You consider Rolling Stone research?Research what and who you vote for, check your resources, do not buy into the hype, think and reason for yourself.
Reply
For those fighting the party wars.
Party is the madness of many for the gain of a few.-Alexander Pope
If your 20 and not a Liberal, You have no Heart. If you are 40 and not a Conservative, You have no Brain--Sir Winston Churchhill-
-
90%
GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amervtn's parroting of Churchill's statment is a very good example of one's inability to think rationally and for him/herself.
Reply
Discrediting Rolling Stone and any other dissenting view as "hype" while embracing the most extreme similar views is par for this putt-putt course.
His claim that he is not 'fighting the party war' and 'do your own research' bears a shocking resemblance to this exchange:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOFTPbxuWA
Funny how the Nobel winner was dead on in his assessment, while the radical, partisan hack turns out to be nothing more than a yelling lunatic with ZERO credibility.-
0%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, please do not give Krugman any credit.
Reply
He as been predicting "recession" for 7 straight years. He even predicted recession during Clinton's administration. Sooner or later, recessions will come. And "Chicken Little" will sit back and say "I told you so."
But, if you insist on giving Krugman credit, then, this is HIS explanation for our current finacial crisis: (NYTimes, July 4, 2008)
"At the top of my list of causes for the lousy economy are three factors: the housing bubble and its aftermath, rising health care costs and soaring raw materials prices."
Note that even Krugman does not blame Bush.
So, does this mean YOU will stop blaming Bush? After all, Krugman won the Nobel Prize for Economics, thus, he muuuust be right!!!-
-
0%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You may have a degree, but, you are not educated.
Reply
So what if you did not mention Bush. You brought up Paul Krugman and his Nobel Prize.
(Did you even know his name? I know your resources are limited to videos and comic books. You know, lots of pictures.)
I simply responded that Krugman does not deserve the accolades he is getting. He is a "Chicken Little". I used his analysis of the Bush economy to get you to rethink your praise of him.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Could you specify what in the article you object to, amervtrn? There is no mention of racism, and certainly no mention of socialism. Further down, your comment implores people to research candidates--if you researched Obama, you'd find nothing socialist.
Reply
And even if you did, could you tell us why socialism would produce worse results than the situation we now find ourselves in? (Please do that without confusing socialism, where the government tries to provide a basic standard for the survival of its people by providing services, and communism, where there is no private ownership of anything and the goal is that all people earn an equal amount.)-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
socialism, where the government tries to provide a basic standard for the survival of its people by providing services
Reply
I can't really agree with that definition. That's just good government. We've reached a point where anything not laissez-faire is "socialism". The fact is, few places are socialist in this day and age and yup, Obama certainly isn't a socialist.-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't mean that so much as a definition of socialism as a description of what it accomplishes, and as a way to contrast it with the radical no-oversight, no-accountability capitalism espoused by today's Republicans.
Reply
But I agree whole-heartedly with your statement that "we've reached a point where anything not laissez-faire is 'socialism.' The fact is, few places are socialist in this day and age and yup, Obama certainly isn't a socialist."-
100%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually I disagree. We DO NOT have laissez faire and have not had it for a long time. What we have is corruption. What happens depends on who you know and who you pay off in "government". The screams of "freedom" are just a means for covering up corruption.
Reply-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right, too. We don't have a free market, but many of the benefits of the government's manipulation of market forces do not go to ordinary citizens. Still, there are many who would call any kind of restriction of free markets "socialism."
Reply
But I have to ask--do you think an unregulated free market would be a good thing (even if the effects of all corruption were removed)?-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is a trick question Beau:
Reply
Lets say someone forms a corporation and puts rat poison in a bottle and sells it as baby food.
With our current regulation all the folks that gave the dude the money to set up shop are protected from the law and can lose only the value of the stock they bought, if they where not smart enough to sell it before the crap hit the fan.
The dude that thought of it may face a fine or even some prison time, He gets to keep his earnings and house and the profits from before he was caught.
Just for the sake of what I might consider a pure "Free Market" and the company and share holders where not protected by the state chartered gift of limited liability.
A jury could then asses damages that would reach into the pockets of shareholders, and there would be no need to label or check or regulate the product. It would be bad business to sell poison or pollute water or air and investors would have to be very careful about the type of activity they became involved with. The huge pools of money create cartels and monopolies, with stockholders blindly looking only towards returns on their investment, and sleeping soundly knowing that even if there money is causing harm, they are not going to get hurt as long as their timing is good.
Stock market is not Free Market.
So yes I do think an unregulated free market would be a good thing.
But if industry is given protection it has to be regulated.
We have to know if the baby food has rat poison in it, and since the the folks selling it are protected, we are stuck trying to keep up with them.
Weights and measures, Patents, are forms of regulations that exist in our Constitution, and our government is mandated to enforce them.
OOPs my thoughts are drifting: time to hit the Reply button,
sorry for the ramble.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're deflecting. What do you think about a man with questionable mental health starting rumors that you bought? You were used. One would think that would make you angry, and you'd start assessing the kind of people you promote. But noooo. Here you are fighting to the end that you weren't wrong. Absolutely pitiful.
Reply -
-
100%
JEBUS081 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
at least obama has a positive message - what does mccain have, just a bunch of hate filled implied attacks against the opposition - and i would rather have a socialist debt, which would at least benefit citizens in terms of health care and social security, than the current debt, which benefits huge corps
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
88%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really, this is an amazing find Beau.
Reply
One often wonders where this stuff comes from.
And so often, it originates in the minds of people of dubious mental or moral character.
What I find so ironic is this ... how disconnected can one political party be from their own 'Branding'? We all remember a story recently about how the Republicans wanted to 're-brand' their party.
Since the Republican Revolution - with the guidance of the adulterer Newt Gingrich - the Republican 'Brand' has proclaimed itself as the bastion of high morals and rectitude.
And yet ... where do the the supporters of Republican Candidates to every single election?
Answer ... they source the 'straight ticket ideologues' - extremist nutcases like this guy Andy Martin and Jerome Corsi. People who go first to their own demented paranoia to attack candidates.
These nutcases ... instead of being denounced by Rational Republicans, are EMBRACED by them.
Their paranoid delusions are repeated ad naseum by other 'straight ticket ideologues' such as perennial Agent of Disinformation - redtomato ... (aka luvmyprez & AlphaGnosis), Nixie, Wolfie, and Klarissa.
My personal observation is ... when you have a party that thrives on the support from paranoiacs and conspiracy theorists, anti-Islamist, anti-Catholic, homophobic, and dare I say, latent racists (for, in my years of observation and inquiry, that is the inspiration of a certain percentage of the Republican base) ... when you have a party that thrives on these people .... .... .... it's a sure sign that this party has lost it's way ... lost it's compass ... in my estimation .. a Morally Vacant Ideology.
.. -
-
7%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The facts about Obama's religion have been proven over and over again. Some people don't listen.
Reply
In this case, people like you appear to prefer the ramblings of a man who was disqualified from the bar association because of delusions and paranoid fantasies to evidence.-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Have the facts of Obama's religion been proven? I could never have made a mistake like this about my religion.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M=1-
-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M=1 This should be the right link.
Reply-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M=1
Reply
This Link should work. Sorry about that.-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hope this link works. Obama is being interviewed by George Stephanopoules and he say's, "That's right, John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith and George corrects him and say's "Christian Faith".
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, we've all seen it, or heard it.
Reply
If you listen to the entire thing, you'll see that they were discussing people who believe Obama is a Muslim. It's clear in the entire context that when Obama said "his Muslim faith," he meant his supposed Muslim faith. In other words, it's like putting quotes around a phrase to indicate what others might say.
You'll argue, I'm sure. Whatever. People who know how to speak, read and write understand when a phrase has a literal meaning or not.-
-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not a gaffe. A gaffe is a mistake. It's a misinterpretation on your part.
Reply
It's similar to if you called me a Christian, and I replied to someone asking me about it, "I don't know why people are questioning 'my Christian beliefs.' "
Get it? It's the way people speak. There's no gaffe, and I've never been a Christian. And no--since I'm certain you're wondering, neither am I Muslim.
And no soul-searching was required for me to make that statement. Just logic and linguistic convention. -
100%
Beeboppin711 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He must have searched his soul to see what he really believed."
Reply
Well, since he's been a practicing Christian for over 20 years, I'd say that was a fairly accurate statement.
Even if it wasn't, I'd still see no problem with voting for a man who practices the Muslim religion. Not all Muslims are out to blow up American buildings, not all Muslims are terrorists. To believe anything but but is nothing short of hysteria, and it's very bigoted. It's like saying that all Germans want to kill Jews, or all black men are thugs on drugs. It's simply not true.
Republicans play to these base fears of the general public because they know that many are undereducated in these matters. It is reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's very despicable and insulting to any Republican voter. You're allowing them to treat you as if you're stupid. Why do you guys put up with this tripe from your party? Do you all enjoy living in a closet with your duct tape and garbage bags?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Read my above comment. I was never indoctrinated by any religion. So it left me free to examine many beliefs for myself. His very early formative years he was in a divided household. Fact. His mother was raised a Christian. His father was a Muslim.
Reply-
-
25%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then why the Muslim name?
Reply
Was his original name changed to a Muslim name by his step-father?
When Barack made his own decision regarding his faith, why did he not change his name back? It is not required by any Christian principle, but, if his name was originally "Christian or western" and changed to Muslim, why not change back?-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
His original name is Barack Hussein Obama. When his mother was with his step-father, he took on the name "Soetero", which was his step-father's last name. Then he changed back.
Reply
Also, to make a point here. My name is Timothy. That is a Christian name. Yet I am not a Christian. Does my name make me a Christian? Of course not. I also have little wish to change my name, I like how my full name sounds. It rolls of the tongue, as it were. So, why would I change it just because I'm not a Christian? Why would Obama change his name from his birth-name of Barack Hussein Obama?-
20%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If his birth name is BHO, then, I agree, no change expected.
Reply
Your source please? I will not dispute your claim, but, it is interesting that a "Christian" mother and an "apostate/atheist" father would give him a Muslim name. Perhaps if he had been born in a Muslim country? But, if born in Hawaii to those two people, again, why the very distinct Muslim name?
Barack is not ignorant of its implications. That is why he seldom uses his middle name. He is not stupid, but, there are some interesting and unexplained issues here. They may turn out to be meaningless. Maybe not?-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Reply
Here is the reason for his name:
Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Obama, Sr.
He was named for his father. His birth announcement:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_th...
can be found in that link. It names a "Barack H. Obama" being born.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bluebirdwatcher1 tells us THEY would never make a mistake like Obama's incomplete sentence, -
Reply
then posts the wrong link twice?
And offers this, as evidence of sincerity.
Which is harder; to type as slowly as you wish,
with 3 minutes to edit and correct, - or to speak ad lib into a microphone?
Work on it, bluebird.
-
-
-
-
0%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The USA's enemies are drooling at the thought of Obama. They love the naïve inexperience weak amateur. Where there have been young leaders in the past, they had over a decade of (real)experience, yet we paid a price for it.Racism knows no color. There are White racist,Black racist,Brown racist, ECT. To some it is a hatred, to some it is distrust, and to others it is a tool of deceit. The last thing the USA needs at this time is an Amateur. There is no time for on the job training. More Socialist debt is definitely not what we need. Research what and who you vote for, check your resources, do not buy into the hype, think and reason for yourself. Being what one "guppy" called an old f*rt, I have already survived this type situation, and really shiver at the thought of having to go through it again. Therefore the inexperience definitely concerns me. The Socialist leaning is a big red flag. His record shows nothing to recommend him. Pretty words and rhetoric may soothe the soul but do nothing to solve problems.
Reply-
93%
swvmd1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You've been at the conservative fountain of misinformation drinking the same magic mix that re- created reality and installed Cheney and Bush as our fearless leaders. The only difference between McNasty and Bush is that Bush was a better pilot. Their heroic lives as portrayed by people that think Fox News is real are otherwise total fabrication and fiction. Obama is real. McNasty is McFraud and Shrub in actual history is the worst there ever was! And McNasty would be worse!
Reply-
0%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The USA's enemies are drooling at the thought of Obama. They love the naïve inexperience weak amateur. Where there have been young leaders in the past, they had over a decade of (real)experience, yet we paid a price for it. We already know you consider Rolling Stone research. I've lived through the same fairy tale and believe me what he is offering is more like a nightmare.
Reply-
100%
Progressive1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The USA's allies want Obama as president, too:
Reply
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2360...
-
-
-
92%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, amervtrn, there is no racism mentioned here. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Reply
As for experience, Obama HAS had over a decade of experience in government. He has a long record of accomplishments in the Illinois State Senate (yes, there's more than the "present" votes), but apparently you did not do the research, or believe any provided for you, that would show you.
And once again, please talk about the "socialist tendencies" you accuse Obama of displaying. It would be nice to know specifics of what you're talking about so that I could disprove them. (And when did you "survive" socialism?)-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have trillions of dollars of debt we now realize we have taken on because of the housing programs and we have $10 trillion unfunded liabilities of Social Security. Medicare piles another $50 to $60 trillion on top of the $10 trillion Soicial Security Debt. 100 years ago government took 10cents of every dollar, today it takes 35 Cents of every dollar. How is Obama going to find the funds for all his social programs? It will only threaten S.S. and Medicare for the future generations. I think it is time we returned to the ethics of hard work and stop relying on govenment to pay for and solve all our problems.
Reply-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hate to tell you, but the national debt stood at about $9.7 trillion TWO WEEKS AGO before the bailout was passed. That program is supposed to cost less than ONE trillion.
Reply
The "housing programs" (do you mean failed mortgages?) you speak of did not cause that $9.7 trillion in debt. I have NO idea where you're getting your $50-60 trillion number about Medicare. You may be confusing "billions" and "trillions."
Nevertheless, if you were to look it up, you'd discover that paying interest on the national debt accounts for almost 10% of federal spending every year. The military and mandatories (SS & Medicare) each take about 22%; close to 40% goes to payroll and administrative expenses of being the nation's largest employer; and discretionary spending (which includes but is not entirely made up of social programs) is only about 6% of the budget.
And would you like to know which political party has contributed most to the massive debt that requires interest payments (only interest--not principal!) of 10% of your taxes? Take a look at this chart, from White House data:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Beau:
Reply
This comment is a place holder.
I think your numbers are inaccurate.
I have the budget in my computer at home, and I think the %10 figure is light.
"In 2006 all of the personal income tax paid by folks west of the Mississippi went to paying the interest on the dept." Google it.
I have filtered for discretionary spending, and way more than half of it goes to DOD, and that does not include the emergency or supplemental spending that is kept out of the budget.
If I have time this evening, I will provide the numbers I have found.
I am fairly confident they would enforce your argument.
I also think that graph would be more dramatic if governmental deficit spending was subtracted from the GDP the same way imports are.
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think it is time to face reality.
Reply
There are not going to be any tax cuts.
I am still in the very fuzzy stages of building a time line.
But if you look at the history of tax cuts and there dates the seem to coincide with depressions, recessions, and stock market crashes.
I should keep my fat mouth shut until I finish my research.
But the dates of major tax laws seem to fit, there are exceptions.
-
-
-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry. Throwing out ridiculous assertions isn't debate. It's just ridiculous. "drooling at the thought"...."naive inexperience"..."Amateur"...."Socialist leaning"....
Reply
ALL of those nonsensical assertions have nothing, absolutely nothing to back them up.
Typical CON speak. -
100%
cleare1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
amervtrn must have some inside information from "The USA's enemies", perhaps he's been watching too much al jazeera...or maybe he's some kind of operative with special insight into the thoughts of our "enemies".
Reply
and as to experience...my response is that no one but an incumbent can claim appropriate experience for the presidency. nothing prior can sufficiently prepare someone for the weight of the world, we have to look at the character of the individuals running. "experience" also translates to me as insider cronyism. -
100%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama's experience is remarkably similar to Abraham Lincoln. Further, Obama has an outstanding education and a long history of public service 'in the trenches' with community organizations. I think the latter gives him a superior command of domestic policy, while the former provides depth of analysis and a calm rationality.
Reply
I find very little Socialism in Obama's policies and proposals. I think a reversal of top-down economics will strengthen the middle class without artificial temporary subsidies. I think an energy policies that focuses on renewables and alternatives will help America once again become a powerhouse of innovation and make us less beholding to rogue nations . I think investing in our deteriorating infrastructure will create jobs and energize home-grown heavy industry over the long term. I think affordable healthcare is a right, not a privilege. I think the government should stay the heII out of people's bedrooms, lifestyles, and reproductive choices.
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (34)
-
Ciera-Marie
-
tehranchik
-
engineer
-
sinophil49
-
rumple4skin
-
Dobes_Rule
-
not2needy
-
jordan11
-
cleare
-
Bacalao
-
tchef
-
Lurch
-
miklkit
-
alakazam
-
mntnman444
-
Radiofreeeuropa
-
BillieMaxer
-
inverse
-
fsev41
-
Goppy
-
Will1313
-
quiescence
-
crespi
-
flyonthewallzz
-
Grrr
-
PsychoHosebeast
-
dunkirk
-
bruhaha
-
GWHayduke
-
CRYMTYPHON
-
dissent
-
Progressive
-
VocalOp
-
9critters
Patience
FairNBalanced
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.