Should the president be able to address school children

[MMM]

Originally Posted by komitsuki

Look at the mirror. And please read Burkhartdesu's posts.

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu

Didn't anyone (besides Komitsuki) read what I posted?

If you were half way rational you would realize that arguing petty things like this are exactly what they want you to do.

They meaning ME or they, people that want people to argue about petty things?

I didn't read Burkhartdesu's posts because they were off topic.

[komitsuki]

Originally Posted by MMM

They meaning ME or they, people that want people to argue about petty things?

You can inference from my post that I'm talking to everyone besides Burkhartdesu. Pragmatics, MMM.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by komitsuki

You can inference from my post that I'm talking to everyone besides Burkhartdesu. Pragmatics, MMM.

Then sometimes I wonder why you waste your time.

[komitsuki]

Originally Posted by MMM

Then sometimes I wonder why you waste your time.

Then I wonder why you made a very controversial thread in the first place that offends so many people.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by komitsuki

Then I wonder why you made a very controversial thread in the first place that offends so many people.

Therein lies the fascinating question for me, and hopefully answers your question.

Why is the question "Should the president be allowed to address school children?" controversial? Not only controversial, but offensive?

Two years ago...even one year ago...people would have laughed at this question. But now simply asking the question causes uproar. Why?

[burkhartdesu]

Originally Posted by MMM

They meaning ME or they, people that want people to argue about petty things?

I didn't read Burkhartdesu's posts because they were off topic.

MMM, think a bit broader... They as in the Federal Government.

I may have been off topic -- but it is completely relevant to your question.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu

MMM, think a bit broader... They as in the Federal Government.

I may have been off topic -- but it is completely relevant to your question.

I was just being honest when I said I hadn't that back and forth about the federal reserve closely, even though it isn't irrelevant.

Now we have three definitions of "they"....

[burkhartdesu]

By allowing the Federal Reserve to run the monetary system of America, it turned our entire money system into a giant debt which can never be paid off. This is the REAL issue!

Our money has lost 95% of it's value!

Therefore, I could give a **** less about Obama or any of the mainstream concerns of America, which is why this thread is it's own worst enemy.


Audit the Fed


And for the record -- I will probably rant about this everytime someone brings up some superficial political issue, because it's relevant in every situation where Government is mentioned.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by samurai007

You admit the you know nothing about these incidents, yet claim I'm the one that should "educate" myself? Amazing.

I did a search for the incidents you claimed were a big deal. It seems you're reading between the lines a bit too much....

And you need to educate yourself because again... you clearly don't know what socialism is and the fundamentals of socialist ideology are.

Obama's political ideology, as is that of the Democrats is generally modern liberalism. An ideology which maintains that the individual is the building block to society and that the freedom of individuals is not measured by what they can't do (which the Republican form of liberalism focuses on) but by what they CAN do (the "freedom from" model versus the "freedom to" model). It is to this extent that modern liberals justify their intervention. Whether it be in education, health or the economy.

For Obama to be a socialist he would have to go a bit further than nationalising health care and bailing out and regulating the economy.

Originally Posted by samurai007

And Obama isn't stupid, he's going for the Khrushchev method. Since I'm sure you don't know what that is either, I'll explain. Khrushchev said: “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you; we will so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” That is Obama's plan, to wreck our economy with massive debt and inflation (due to his unprecedented spending and increases in the money supply), and then "Only government can save you".

It's like boiling a frog, if you've heard that anecdote. If you throw a frog into boiling water, it'll jump right out. But if you put it into warm water and slowly turn up the heat, it will stay in and get cooked. Your line (I'm paraphrasing) amounts to "he's not a socialist until we are in boiling water, and it's not quite boiling yet..." reminded me of that story.

Wow... I have nothing to add to that other than you're a paranoid idiot.

I really can't come back to your post.. it's just too absurd.

"Obama plans to wreck the US economy then set up an authoritarian socialist regime. Furthermore he'll do it in 8 years tops!"

[burkhartdesu]

Screw these "socialist" , "communist" conversations.

America is a FASCIST country.


Read my post, you sheep.