The angle on this story that you appear to support is clearly disengenous. There's nothing in the interview except for Obama answering callers' questions in a rational and informed manner. Nothing he said is in conflict with what any reasonable person with a grasp of the history of the civil rights movement knows.
And unless you are some sort of 'abolish all taxes' sort of person, then you must know that the vast majority of people understand the purpose of taxes. Most people pay taxes into the Federal govenment and that money is then redistributed based on budgets (which ideally reflect the needs of the country at large).
Unfortunately, the perception perpetrated by the democratic party since McGovern ran in '72 during the heyday of anti-establishment hippiedom, is that Republicans, headed by tricky Dicky Nixon ... were all rich and white and "the man" is always out to get you. Since then, as espoused by radio talk show host Larry Elder, the mind set of far leftist and a majority of black Americans is that of reactive victimhood and a sense of entitlement -- in stark contrast to the founding dream that all men and women, through hard work and opportunity, can make whatever life for themselves they desire. McCain and conservatism champions providing programs to those, for whatever reason, cannot work and provide for their family. Taxes for social programs are justified. What Obama is now clearly for is a philisophical change in America's founding principles that is definitely more socialist in theme. McCain agrees that in hard times, such as the great depression, such programs may be needed in times of national emergency, which is why he voted for the economic rescue. But sadly, it's human nature to want something for nothing and to be angry at "rich people" or people who are more successful than you are. That mind set believes that anyone who has more money than you must be greedy and sneaky and you have every right to take their money ... unless you become successful and then that view may mysteriously change. When I was young and struggling, I fought the impulse to key fancy cars. What right do they have to drive a Porsche? I'm still not a Porsche guy but I do drive a nice car now ... and would never risk putting a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on it ... as the left would eschew my right to free speech.
I see that you are also into the elections. We can win the elections! Just have a look on www.rightpeopleforthepresident.com This powerful viral tool that can make the difference by involving voters for a reason can be in your blog by a simple copy-and-paste, as you insert any photo or text. Your blog has the power to make the difference. Don’t miss this opportunity for this last week before the elections. Insert our candidate’s player in your blog in 1 minute.
wow another "paul" I'll need to customize my name to tell us apart. In regards to the elections, the old adage, "You can fool most of the people some of the time" certainly applies here. Ever see "The Music Man"? Elections are won and lost on the ability to manipulate emotion ... and Obama is the master. Who doesn't want something for nothing? It's an old trick ... and people fall for it everytime. Democracy only works with an enlightened educated populace. Unfortunately we've raised too many generations who don't even hear about the Great Depression from their parents or even grand parents. So alas, Herbert Hoover rises from the dead on Halloween.
Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 09:59PM |
Paul in L.A.
I know how to cause lefties to stop being so angry: put them to work! Give them real jobs! Did you ever notice how army veterans are among the least whiny, most appreciative memmbers of society? This seems paradoxical, since many of them lost limbs or suffered in other terrible ways when serving our country. But they also gave to their country, they worked hard, and so they have grown-up souls, not like the whimpy, crybaby DemoRats. While I do not necessarily believe in re-instituting the Draft, maybe there should be some kind of program requiring everybody to give a cuople of years of service to our country.
Welfare programs started way back under FDR who was the worst president of the 20th Century, he started welfare and prolonged the Depression starting Social programs like Social Security and Welfare, which American workers are still paying today, I really don't like Government bailouts, but if it was up to me pay off everyone who contributed to social Security and end the progam, let people be in charge of their own money and let them succeed or fail without Government geting involved.
I think Franklin Roosevelt is the most overrated President in all of American history. He prolonged the Depression by twenty years, and delayed entering World War Two for several years, indirectly causing millions of Jews and others to needlessly die. His most lasting negative legacy of all was to greatly expand government power over our lives, which certainly sounds socialist to me.
btw, refunding people's social security money is not a bailout, since that would only consist of giving people back their own money. That is altogether different from Obama's plan of stealing money from the hard-working to give it to the lazy.
You guys have every right to your opinion. But if McCain or any Republican denounced FDR as the worst president ever, he'd not only be wrong but rightly ridiculed and would have no chance of winning. Even McCain acknowledged that FDR's programs were more a help, than a hindrance during one of the darkest hours of our union. The future of the Republican party lies not with the far far right, but with more moderate voices who can inspire and unite the country, like Reagan did.
Denouncing FDR as an overrated President only sounds far, far to the right to those who are far, far to the left. President Reagan was called a right-winger in his day; now that he is dead and so it is too late, suddenly liberals find a way to respect that great man.
On an unrelated issue, I finally figured out how to listen to Lores' new radio talk show from all the way here in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, I only heard the last five minutes of her show today. The call I heard was this woman who called Lores a racist for pointing out how Obama wants to change the world. Lores very calmly and diplomatically responded that if that indicates her to be a racist, then the definition of racist must have changed radically over the years.
Honestly, I have to wonder if liberals have any awareness at all of how utterly empty and stupid they sound, every time they repeat the same mantras over and over again how us Republicans are either stupid, racist, or both. Every time they say that, I know that they have lost the argument to us conservatives once again.
FDR had sent a boat load of Jews back to be kylled by Hitler, when they tried to enter America legally, FDR appointed KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, FDR confiscated all the gold during the thirties, if Fdr had let Government not get involved the Depression would have ended in 1934 or 1935 ai ihe latest.
Ronald is referring to the ship called the St Louis, which carried almost 1,000 Jews fleeing from the Holocaust, and was so close to Miami that those on that beach could clearly see it. So what did FDR do? He sent it back to Europe, where most of those aboard the ship were murdered by the nazis.
Then there was the incident, when 1,000 of the most prominent Rabbis descended on the White House, where they were to meet with FDR. FDR responded by sneaking out the back door...no kidding!
Perhaps worst of all, FDR could have easily bombed both the crematoria were Jews were gassed to death, as well as bomb the railroad tracks leading to the death camps. It would have involved no inconvenience whatsoever, as these things were on the way to the destinations of wherever the American Air Force was headed. FDR refused to order the Air Force to carry this out.
And let us not forget that FDR also delayed fighting adolf shitler for eight long years, resulting in so many millions of Jews and others being murdered by the nazis.
All this, in addition to him prolonging the Depression with his socialist programs. So why exactly should anybody revere that man? He was a horrible President.
Well, actually, at least I think that Dhimmi Carter is not only the worst President, but worst ex-President in all of American history. One of the maddening things about Thug beating Hero last night, is that Dhimmi Carter has now gotten his revenge over President Reagan, America, and Israel.
He even had a cabinet member who was Jewish, often seen as a self-hating secularist who took assimilation a tad too far and who may ironically had influenced FDR's decision to turn away the boat. I'll have to look into that. It's not keeping with FDR's tolerant views. Aside from this incident, if true, he did a great deal of good for this country. My point is that an attack on FDR in the media would be suicide from a strategic stand point and let's face us ... the GOP has got to get more strategic the next time around, unfortunately, being careful not to use catch phrases that the far left media loves to taut justify their blatant bias. I consider the media the enemy and a clever slingshot must be devised to knock some sense into it.
Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 07:56PM |
Paul in L.A.
Don't forget FDR also put Japaneese Americans in Camps, not like Hitlers camps , but FDR did steal the property of Japaneese Americans , what I am saying is true, but America never stoled any land from Mexico, that was a war , and the winners don't give the losers back their land or money.
I know that the Japanese internment camps during the Second World War is not the main issue being discussed here, but I figure that since Ronald brought it up, I can mention something interesting I remember reading in one of Thomas Sowell's books.
He said that America DID get it right about the Japanese being more loyal to the emporer of Japan than they were to America - sort of. See, Japanese Americans were completely loyal to America, but the Japanese living in South America, particularly in Chile, were disloyal to those countries and were spying for the Japanese emporer.
As for blaming some leftist Jew on FDR's cabinet for his blatant displays of antisemitism, I simply do not buy it. President Reagan had his Casper Weinberger and President Bush has had his Condi Rice, yet neither President turned their back on the Jews the way FDR did.
On the other hand, let's maintain some perspective here. FDR DID defeat adolf shitler and the nazis. If not for FDR, we would all speaking German...or rather, all of you would, but not me, since I would have never been born, since the nazis would have eventually found and murdered my parents.
But remember FDR would have never enter WWII if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR could have saved millions of Jewish lives if he had gone in when WWII started or even a year later,
The fact is FDR just wanted his legacy to be good when Historians decided on what he did. I know FDR could'nt have worked with Nevil Chamberlain, but as soon as Winston Churchill was appointed he should have made a partnership with him, instead of waiting for Pearl Harbor to be attacked.
Ronald, I do agree with you that FDR should have fought the nazis a lot sooner than he did. By the way, do you know who convinced him to delay any involvement in the war? None other than Joseph Kennedy Sr, who believed that we have no right to say that the nazi philosophy is any better or worse than our philosophy. Sounds chillingly like today's liberalism, that preaches the equal value of all cultures and belief systems.
Speaking of Winston Churchill, I read something a few months ago that disturbed me about him. As you know, Churchill for many years stood alone in his battle against both the nazis and communists, and was at the time labeled a right-wing extremist nutcase. Sounds all too familiar, right?
Well, he was also such a philosemite (opposite of antisemite), that he even said that had he been Jewish, he would have fought with Menachem Begin's Irgun (the right wing zionist group) against the British in the Jewish attempt to win independance from the British.
But what has long confused me about him, were two things. One is, that Churchill was instrumental in handing over two-thirds of the land promised to the Jews by the British in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, to the moslems just five years later, in 1922.
And then there was the British White Paper of 1939, which all but blocked Jewish imigration to Israel. This was at the height of shitler's power over Europe, when Jews were desperately trying to save their lives by fleeing Europe. At the same time that the British blocked the Jews from entering Israel, they allowed moslems to come in to Israel with no restrictions whatsoever. While Churchill did not directly issue this White Paper, he was by then in charge of England.
So how is this contradiction resolved? Well, apparently, Churchill really did favor the Jews every step of the way, but somehow became weak when it came to putting this love of Jews into practice in the political world. Perhaps an analogy can be made with President Bush's policy on spending. In spite of President Bush being a solid conservative, he had trouble saying no to anybody, so he had very few vetoes while in office, and allowed spending to get so out of control, that many Republicans have turned their backs on him.
Joseph Kennedy was a known anti-Semite, ans I had also heard rumors that he sold weapons to the Germans to kill Americans, wheather it's true or not , I don't know.
Lores Rizkalla
23 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (23)
And unless you are some sort of 'abolish all taxes' sort of person, then you must know that the vast majority of people understand the purpose of taxes. Most people pay taxes into the Federal govenment and that money is then redistributed based on budgets (which ideally reflect the needs of the country at large).
But you knew that, right?
A vote for Obama is a vote for Farrakhan .
I see that you are also into the elections.
We can win the elections!
Just have a look on www.rightpeopleforthepresident.com
This powerful viral tool that can make the difference by involving voters for a reason can be in your blog by a simple copy-and-paste, as you insert any photo or text.
Your blog has the power to make the difference. Don’t miss this opportunity for this last week before the elections. Insert our candidate’s player in your blog in 1 minute.
Paul
Elections are won and lost on the ability to manipulate emotion ... and Obama is the master. Who doesn't want something for nothing? It's an old trick ... and people fall for it everytime. Democracy only works with an enlightened educated populace. Unfortunately we've raised too many generations who don't even hear about the Great Depression from their parents or even grand parents. So alas, Herbert Hoover rises from the dead on Halloween.
Welfare programs started way back under FDR who was the worst president of the 20th Century, he started welfare and prolonged the Depression starting Social programs like Social Security and Welfare, which American workers are still paying today, I really don't like Government bailouts, but if it was up to me pay off everyone who contributed to social Security and end the progam, let people be in charge of their own money and let them succeed or fail without Government geting involved.
btw, refunding people's social security money is not a bailout, since that would only consist of giving people back their own money. That is altogether different from Obama's plan of stealing money from the hard-working to give it to the lazy.
On an unrelated issue, I finally figured out how to listen to Lores' new radio talk show from all the way here in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, I only heard the last five minutes of her show today. The call I heard was this woman who called Lores a racist for pointing out how Obama wants to change the world. Lores very calmly and diplomatically responded that if that indicates her to be a racist, then the definition of racist must have changed radically over the years.
Honestly, I have to wonder if liberals have any awareness at all of how utterly empty and stupid they sound, every time they repeat the same mantras over and over again how us Republicans are either stupid, racist, or both. Every time they say that, I know that they have lost the argument to us conservatives once again.
FDR to this day is the working mans enemy.
Then there was the incident, when 1,000 of the most prominent Rabbis descended on the White House, where they were to meet with FDR. FDR responded by sneaking out the back door...no kidding!
Perhaps worst of all, FDR could have easily bombed both the crematoria were Jews were gassed to death, as well as bomb the railroad tracks leading to the death camps. It would have involved no inconvenience whatsoever, as these things were on the way to the destinations of wherever the American Air Force was headed. FDR refused to order the Air Force to carry this out.
And let us not forget that FDR also delayed fighting adolf shitler for eight long years, resulting in so many millions of Jews and others being murdered by the nazis.
All this, in addition to him prolonging the Depression with his socialist programs. So why exactly should anybody revere that man? He was a horrible President.
He even had a cabinet member who was Jewish, often seen as a self-hating secularist who took assimilation a tad too far and who may ironically had influenced FDR's decision to turn away the boat. I'll have to look into that. It's not keeping with FDR's tolerant views. Aside from this incident, if true, he did a great deal of good for this country. My point is that an attack on FDR in the media would be suicide from a strategic stand point and let's face us ... the GOP has got to get more strategic the next time around, unfortunately, being careful not to use catch phrases that the far left media loves to taut justify their blatant bias. I consider the media the enemy and a clever slingshot must be devised to knock some sense into it.
He said that America DID get it right about the Japanese being more loyal to the emporer of Japan than they were to America - sort of. See, Japanese Americans were completely loyal to America, but the Japanese living in South America, particularly in Chile, were disloyal to those countries and were spying for the Japanese emporer.
As for blaming some leftist Jew on FDR's cabinet for his blatant displays of antisemitism, I simply do not buy it. President Reagan had his Casper Weinberger and President Bush has had his Condi Rice, yet neither President turned their back on the Jews the way FDR did.
On the other hand, let's maintain some perspective here. FDR DID defeat adolf shitler and the nazis. If not for FDR, we would all speaking German...or rather, all of you would, but not me, since I would have never been born, since the nazis would have eventually found and murdered my parents.
But remember FDR would have never enter WWII if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR could have saved millions of Jewish lives if he had gone in when WWII started or even a year later,
The fact is FDR just wanted his legacy to be good when Historians decided on what he did. I know FDR could'nt have worked with Nevil Chamberlain, but as soon as Winston Churchill was appointed he should have made a partnership with him, instead of waiting for Pearl Harbor to be attacked.
Speaking of Winston Churchill, I read something a few months ago that disturbed me about him. As you know, Churchill for many years stood alone in his battle against both the nazis and communists, and was at the time labeled a right-wing extremist nutcase. Sounds all too familiar, right?
Well, he was also such a philosemite (opposite of antisemite), that he even said that had he been Jewish, he would have fought with Menachem Begin's Irgun (the right wing zionist group) against the British in the Jewish attempt to win independance from the British.
But what has long confused me about him, were two things. One is, that Churchill was instrumental in handing over two-thirds of the land promised to the Jews by the British in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, to the moslems just five years later, in 1922.
And then there was the British White Paper of 1939, which all but blocked Jewish imigration to Israel. This was at the height of shitler's power over Europe, when Jews were desperately trying to save their lives by fleeing Europe. At the same time that the British blocked the Jews from entering Israel, they allowed moslems to come in to Israel with no restrictions whatsoever. While Churchill did not directly issue this White Paper, he was by then in charge of England.
So how is this contradiction resolved? Well, apparently, Churchill really did favor the Jews every step of the way, but somehow became weak when it came to putting this love of Jews into practice in the political world. Perhaps an analogy can be made with President Bush's policy on spending. In spite of President Bush being a solid conservative, he had trouble saying no to anybody, so he had very few vetoes while in office, and allowed spending to get so out of control, that many Republicans have turned their backs on him.