WE SURROUND THEM!

“LOL...they laughed at the Contract With America Crowd in the beginning.”

“The Contract On America was an epic FAIL.”

“Funny how they accidentally forgot the part of the "contract" dealing with Term Limits for Themselves, � ROF”

“LOL...WRONG again there wet brain.

It destroyed the Dems for years. Heck it would have eliminated them if the Bush/Dole Clan hadn't been in control of the Republican Party.”

“Still slowly creeping backwards with your eyes on history as you back into the cold dull blade of the future?”

“Again, 'As goes GM so goes our Nation'. By that standard, a glance at this thread and an objective view, the future rolls out as a red carpet of which dye need not supply the color.”

“Markomunist, you are wrong again. The contract was had many successes, but they should have gotten term limits installed.

Term limits would solve many of this government's ills. Career politicians feeding at the public trough have brought us to the brink of disaster.”

“I wonder if they ever notice that when they come back after being absent a few days, there's maybe one or sometimes no fuego threads at all on the forum.”

“ON THE ROAD TO MARXISM
Boortz


Did you catch this story from the Russian Newspaper Pravda over the weekend? How about "American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper" for a title? Here's a quote from the article:

"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."

Wait a minute! Read that quote again! Here is a columnist in a Russian newspaper talking about America's decent into Marxism, and he doesn't sound all that happy about it. How do you like him calling us "passive" and "hapless?" And then there's that "sheeple" reference.

Rodina, the author, says that the American population was "dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture." Well ... you know that to be true in your heart, but it took this Pravda columnist to spell it out for you.

Fact is, the author isn't fond of Marxism. That means he isn't fold of Barack Obama. He writes "The final collapse (of capitalism) comes with the election of Barack Obama."

Just read the column .. then go outside and drive around town so that people can see your Obama bumper sticker on your car.

I encountered a flight attendant on a regularly scheduled airline this past week who actually uttered these words: "In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure ... we're screwed." The same applies to the election of Barack Obama.

Elections have consequences, folks.

Read the Pravda article for yourselves....

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/”

“This is old.”

“Millionaires' Brawl
America's real power struggle: super rich liberals vs. ordinary plutocrats.
by Andrew Stuttaford
06/08/2009


With the economy floundering, Wall Street in disgrace, and American capitalism facing its most serious ideological challenge in one, two, or three generations (you can take your pick), it's a good moment to remember Lenin. While the bearded Bolshevik's grasp of economics was never the best and his stock picks remain a mystery, he would have grasped the politics of our present situation all too well. The old butcher would not have found anything especially surprising about the rise of Barack Obama, the nature of his supporters, or the evolution of his policies. He would have simply asked his usual question: Kto/kogo ("Who/whom"). The answer would tell him almost everything he needed to know. Lenin regarded politics as binary--a zero sum game with winners, losers, and nothing in between. For him it was a bare-knuckled brawl that ultimately could be reduced to that single brutal question: who was on top and who was not. Who was giving orders to whom. Hope and Change, nyet so much.

Of course, it would be foolish to deny the role that things like idealism, sanctimony, fashion, hysteria, exhaustion, restlessness, changing demographics, Hurricane Katrina, an unpopular war, George W. Bush, and mounting economic alarm played in shaping last November's Democratic triumph. Nevertheless if we peer through the smug, self-congratulatory smog that enveloped the Obama campaign, the outlines of a harder-edged narrative can be discerned, a narrative that bolsters the idea that Lenin's cynical maxim has held up better than the state he created.

So, who in
2008 was Who, and who Whom?

In a Democratic year, it's no surprise that organized labor emerged as Who and large swaths of the private sector as Whom. Many of the other, sometimes overlapping, constituencies (whether it's minorities, the young, or the gay, to name but three) who saw themselves benefiting from an Obama presidency were equally easy to predict. After all, whether by the accident of his birth or the design of his campaign, Obama's victorious coalition was, even more than most, a creation of meticulously assembled blocks, more pluribus than unum, and each with plenty to gain from his arrival in the White House.

That said, for all the smiles, the reassuring vagueness, and the this-isn't-going-to-hurt (too much) rhetoric, it was somewhat less predictable that a large slice of the upper crust would succumb to Obama's deftly articulated pitch. Yes, it's true that there had been signs that some richer, more upscale voters were being driven into the Democratic camp by the culture wars (and the fact that prosperity had left them free to put a priority on such issues). Nevertheless, even after taking account of the impact of an unusually unpopular incumbent, it's striking how much this process intensified in 2008--a year in which the Democrats were not only running their most leftwing candidate since George McGovern, but also running a leftwing candidate with every chance of winning. Voting for Obama would not be a cost-free virtuecratic nod, but a choice with consequences. At first glance therefore it makes little sense that 49 percent of those from households making more than $100,000 a year (26 percent of the electorate) opted for the Democrat, up from 41 percent in 2004, as did 52 percent of those raking in over $200,000 (6 percent of voters), up from 35 percent last go round.”

“"Born in the U.K., Andrew Stuttaford crossed the Atlantic to make his fortune. Despite that, he has been contributing to National Review since 1993 and has written on a wide range of subjects from post-Soviet Russia to Xena, Warrior Princess. Based in New York since 1991, Andrew�s day job is in the financial sector."

well, certainly anybody who makes a living writing about Xena, Warrior Princess, is also an expert on economics, politics, and sociology and should be followed blindly without any sort of critical thinking, analysis, or... well... free thought

As for the National Review, where Stuttaford is a regular contributor:

"National Review and NRO are America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion. Both magazine and web site are the benchmark vehicles for reaching those Republicans/conservatives who shape opinion on the important issues, and both reach an affluent, educated, and highly responsive audience of corporate and government leaders, the financial elite, educators, journalists, community and association leaders, as well as engaged activists all across America."

And the Weekly Standard, the magazine that this particular gem of political colonspew was published in, is another conservative dickrag, featuring riveting articles like:

* The Unpersuasive Orator
Obama may sound good, but he doesn't close the sale.

* Say It Ain't So, Larry
Did the president's top economic adviser really sign off on these policies?

* Don't Cry for Kirchner
Why Hugo Ch�vez's friend in Buenos Aires has become so unpopular.

* The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage
It isn't going to work.

* Conservatism Is in Good Shape . . .
Even if the GOP isn't.

* But Enough About Me . . .
Does Obama understand that the office of the presidency is bigger--much bigger--than he is?

* Openness for Thee, but Not for Me
Obama gives a whole new definition to 'transparency.'

... but Strat... I thought you said you weren't just another partisan chicken little... I thought this wasn't a republicans versus democrats issue at all. In fact, I thought you said you were leaving the warm, fleshy folds of the republican party in order to forge your own path toward justice, revolution, and America ideals. I suppose, while you're off in the wilderness of political independence, starting your teabag revolution, it must be real helpful to have conservative partisan hackery like this to light your way to truth.”

“He's double-jointed ---- he teabagged himself.”

“I suppose that, since he alone apparently has all of us surrounded, it'd be pretty easy for him to teabag himself”

“He's the Original India-Rubber Man!

Now the way I heard it, the India-Rubber Man's main trick was, whenever the Bad Guys were about to get him, he'd turn his head inside-out and the bad guys would fall over puking their guts out and the India-Rubber Man would just walk away ----
last edited: 6/01/09 11:46:24 AM”

“but Strat... I thought you said you weren't just another partisan chicken little... I thought this wasn't a republicans versus democrats issue at all. In fact, I thought you said you were leaving the warm, fleshy folds of the republican party in order to forge your own path toward justice, revolution, and America ideals. I suppose, while you're off in the wilderness of political independence, starting your teabag revolution, it must be real helpful to have conservative partisan hackery like this to light your way to truth.”
pepsisformosa

yeah, as usual, no substance from the left....call me an arian or stupid or crazy....that's all you got”

“Pedx must so disappointed in them.”

“"no substance from the left"?

You spend almost three months now pushing this nonsense "cause" with the claim that it is a bipartisan effort, even going so far as to claim you've left the republican party, and yet all the "literature" and backup you provide is from right-wing magazines - and still you claim that MY argument has no substance. I don't need to parrot my favorite columnists in order to pose an argument - I'm able to rely on my own mind and judgement to formulate a belief and an argument based on it. Might I suggest a good long look in the mirror?

And I'm not calling you "an arian(sic), stupid, or crazy" (as far as "arian" is concerned - I assume you mean Aryan... and if you are, wtf are you talking about? Do you even know what that word means?). I'm calling you a hypocrite who contradicts himself. A disenfranchised conservative confusing oppression with disagreement and attempting to play Che because the party he doesn't support is now in charge. At best, you are simply so confused about the political world that you don't even realize the amazing contradictions in your arguments (arguments that are, in fact, not even yours - you simply copy/paste them from your favorite conservative writers), and at worst you're a liar and deliberate tool, trying to misrepresent this right-wing argument as a non partisan "people's struggle" against an evil tyranny that knows no party lines.
last edited: 6/01/09 1:12:19 PM”

“Ariane --- series of expendable heavy lift launch vehicles, European Space Agency.”

“strat, please report here:

http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/53115,-1.php”

“strat got pwnd”

“Report to this thread, Crash.
http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/53115,-1.php”

“everyone pwns you, stovie”

“And I'm not calling you "an arian(sic), stupid, or crazy" (as far as "arian" is concerned - I assume you mean Aryan... and if you are, wtf are you talking about? Do you even know what that word means?). I'm calling you a hypocrite who contradicts himself. A disenfranchised conservative confusing oppression with disagreement and attempting to play Che because the party he doesn't support is now in charge. At best, you are simply so confused about the political world that you don't even realize the amazing contradictions in your arguments (arguments that are, in fact, not even yours - you simply copy/paste them from your favorite conservative writers), and at worst you're a liar and deliberate tool, trying to misrepresent this right-wing argument as a non partisan "people's struggle" against an evil tyranny that knows no party lines.
last edited: 6/01/09 1:12:19 PM”
pepsisformosa

ok, no matter how many time I read your post...you are calling me TOO STUPID TO HAVE AN OPINION....guess you're too stupid to realize what you're saying.....I'm not confused, not a liar, or a tool.... AGAIN.....that's all you got is to put me down, no substance....just hate speech....from the left




NEXT!?”

“Libbies love to hate.”

“and furthurmore....I am a conservative...a government that governs least, governs best...Republicans, for the most part, have fallen into the same progressive, big government pattern as Dems...there are good Democrats and Republicans ...but the parties as a whole have sold out to special interest and if you can't or won't admit that...then you are truly the tool....fool

If you think that Obama running GM is a good idea, you are a tool

If you think borrowing our way out of dept is a good plan...TOOL!

Progressive Liberalism is based on lies..... is that plain enough for your elite brain to comprehend?”

“nope, wrong again. I'm not questioning your intelligence or calling you too stupid to have an opinion (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't suspect as much by this point). What I said was that your opinion is self-contradictory. If this struggle is nonpartisan, why are your only sources right-wingers? Why are nearly all the participants conservatives? And furthermore, if it is YOUR OWN opinion, why can't you express it in YOUR OWN voice, rather than relying on these right-wing sources at all?

It's easy to listen to emotion-grabbing rhetoric like "we surround them!" and mistake the way it makes you feel for opinion. But opinion (especially if you want to use it in argument) needs a lot more than empty emotion and hollow slogans. I don't think you've really thought your opinion through very much because you can't seem to free it from the slogans, emotions, and words of other people that make up most of the substance of your arguments. It's one thing to read writers who share your opinion, but it's another thing entirely to be unable to argue your own opinion without retreating to the writers.

The only original (IE not a copy/paste job) arguments you ever post on here are composed almost exclusively of slogans and emotions, often followed by multiple exclamation points. They're very thin on any real substance or argument. You can chant "we surround them!!!" as much as you want, and you can truly believe that it's your opinion... but I've constantly challenged you to actually verbalize that opinion using valid points and arguments and you've constantly failed to do so.

I can say "puppies are cute" or "There's no love like a dog's love" but I'd be a fool to argue that dogs are better than cats based solely on that. Your political arguments are little more, and THAT is what I keep saying. If you DO truly understand what you believe, then you've done a stunningly poor job of communicating it.

And the "NEXT!?" thing was real cute, I must add. I can imagine how you must have seen yourself as you triumphantly pecked those letters out: standing, panting and bloody, in the center of the argument ring while I lie, feet splayed, on the mat, out cold after such a stunning barriage of verbal whipping. The mighty Strat, beckoning with one red glove, inviting the next "hateful arian liberal" to try and do battle with your superior debate skills and overwhelming intellect.”

“Poor little, 'DooD'n'SteweD'.”

“ok man....whatever. You rambling about debating tactics for 5 paragraphs still isn't any substance...you still aren't debating me, only questioning my logical abilities...That is weak...at best

Guess you're the one who is out of ideas, champ....

What I say, I believe...WTF do you believe in? I'll say this...if you believe in liberal politicians.....if you have faith in Barney Frank and Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barak Obama and Charlie Wrangle, if you put your trust in them to do the right thing....lets just say that I'd have to question your IQ”

“Have they dropped a net on Beck yet? � I knew a guy years ago who used to cry like that when he got sloshed. I never thought I see that craziness on something advertised as a news channel.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

”

“He gets 'soaps' in his eyes.”

“I don't believe in politics at all. I think democracy is flawed because people are too goddamn stupid to choose the right person for the job. And the REASON why is because of people like you, who fall for slogans and empty emotional cries so hard that they're actually moved to action by them without truly knowing why.

Realistically, I'd love to see a complete revolution and political overhaul just as much as you, and I think the politicians are so corrupt at this point that nothing less will be the solution. But I didn't come to this assessment based on what I read in some conservative rag or because I was moved by Glenn Beck's crocodile tears. I don't go around towing the party line while pretending I'm being non partisan. I wouldn't stop feeling oppressed if McCain won the election (but somehow, I highly doubt you'd be Mr. Tea Party if he had), and I haven't stopped feeling oppressed because Obama won.

The truth of the matter is that you only now, after two years of being a loud and proud republican, have suddenly decided that you're oppressed and need a revolution. And whether you realize it or not, the revolution-need you feel is really just the need for another republican in office. And if you wait long enough and they don't completely implode on themselves, you'll get your wish eventually and your brave new world will live on.

You claim that all these eeeeeevil libbies are part of the problem, and lately you like to pretend that you're nonpartisan by occasionally admitting that republicans are part of the problem too. But the truth is, YOU are part of the problem. YOU are a perfect cross-section of the average American voter who gets a hard-on for his favorite slogan and decides to mirror his entire belief system around it. YOU are the sheep, YOU are the kool-aid drinker. Beacuse you drank the Glenn Beck Kool-aid, you're ready to don your bandolier and head to the barricades with a molotov cocktail, but that doesn't make you any less a gullible fool than any of the other stupid and blinded partisan hacks you rail against.

And this is why, after swearing off the fuego, I've taken particular exception to your nonsense. You've taken a bigger and longer gulp of the kool-aid than anybody else here, and you're the one who cries the loudest about how everyone but you has been fooled and you surround all of us. You don't have your own opinion, and you don't even realize it. If you were able to, in your own words and using an actual logical argument, explain WHY you want a revolution, even if it were for party-based reasons, I'd accept it and leave you alone. But you can't. You post full articles written by republican hacks, you jabber off for paragraphs and paragraphs of emotional but hollow rhetoric, and you attempt (failing miserably) to deride anyone who disagrees with your parrotted views. It's hard to realize that you've been a tool, I know. I was once there too. But believe me, it's liberating to break free from everyone else's view and actually and independently make your own opinion. Give it a try someday.”

“I don't believe in politics at all. I think democracy is flawed because people are too goddamn stupid to choose the right person for the job.

What a liberal elitist asshat...”

“... exactly what one of the goddamn stupid majority would say. Thanks.”

“And let me guess, you're just the class of f#cktard to save us from our selves, right?”

“pepsis seems to be something of an anarchist. s/he isnt about to save anyone”

“In our current system the people are only able to choose among the options presented to them.

It is hardly the fault of "the people" that they are presented with poor options.”

“nope, I don't think much can be saved in this political environment (and looking at every single other nation in the world, I wonder if anything political can be saved at all). And perhaps I used too strong of language, but one has to admit that there is quite a strong band of anti-intellectualism in this country. During the last election, people were saying that Obama was too smart and therefore elitist. The fact that a presidential candidate is "too smart" for some people doesn't do much for my faith in the majority. I would think we would want the most powerful person in the world to also be the smartest... but brains don't get votes (like him or not, Bush got a lot of votes by playing a simply country boy).

Think of how many people voted Obama because of "yes we can!" or "change you can believe in" or simply because he's black or a democrat... without knowing much (if anything) about his stance on issues, his actions, or his history.

So yes, people are much too goddamn stupid to be trusted en masse to make the right decision. People act, vote, and live on impulse, emotion, and slogans, rather than logic, reason, or decency.”

“Pepsis did do some surrounding , but the comments show the wagons in a sunflower rather than circular shape.”

“
Rational Self-Interest, Irrational Self-Deceit

http://pundits.thehill.com/2009/06/01/rational-self-interest-irrational-self-deceit/

”

“you can insult me all day, I don't give a crap. I say what I mean and mean what I say....all you do is criticize me for it. what the F ever dood....you're worse than Tilt. You were obviously born with all your opinions, since you are so much smarter than the rest of the world, so you didn't have to read or listen to anybody else to form your [non]opinions....yet you still wont debate me on any specific issue. All you have done is accuse me of being stupid, naive, gullible, ordinary.....

I'm tired of pointed headed elite's like you telling me what to believe. I know right from wrong...and unlike you, I believe the common man does too. And they will wake up to all this eventually...it may well be too late to save the nation, but history will prove that progressive liberals are domestic enemies of the state. You are no better than me or anyone else on here and I don't need your approval of what I listen to. Mainstream media is 80% liberal, a documented fact...yet you don't call them partisan hacks.... You are therefore full of it...yeah, you are bad...part of the problem....since your solution seems to be that none of us are smart enough to think for ourselves so what....?

screw you pepsi. Like Tilt, having a reasonable, intelligent conversation with you is a waste of my time because you aren't interested in the truth.”

“nice calm, rational reply, dewd

baaaaaaahhhhh





pepsis is just calling bullsh1t on your "bi-partisan" posturing. simmah down, nahw
last edited: 6/02/09 2:14:38 PM”

“"having a reasonable, intelligent conversation with you is a waste of my time because you aren't interested in the truth.�

actually, it's a waste of both of our time because you are seemingly incapable of having an intelligent conversation and, very possibly, don't even know what one would consist of

I'd kill for some real discussion and debate, but what you spew on here is the exact opposite. It is the anti-discourse. You're just a megaphone - Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh talk into your backside and you repeat it as loud as possible. We can't debate your argument because you have no argument.

"Mainstream media is 80% liberal, a documented fact...yet you don't call them partisan hacks"

oh, but they are. they are indeed. I never said they weren't. I wouldn't listen to them any more than I'd listen to your choice flavor of hackery. That's the thing with forming your own opinion... it's YOUR OWN. It's one thing to read/watch people who share your opinion, but it's another thing entirely to not be able to express your own opinion in a logical and reasonable way without falling back on them. I could quote writers for weeks, but I don't need to because I have my own views. I could quote people to support my views - you have to quote people because they ARE your view.
last edited: 6/02/09 3:00:56 PM”

“ok Sean Penn, whatever.You have no idea what I listen to or read. Absolutely none. Your point is moot, anyway. Seeya

June 3, 2009
Greenspan: Big bailouts biggest threat to U.S. economic future
@ 3:14 pm by Michael O'Brien

Bailing out financial institutions viewed as "too big too fail" is the greatest threat to the free market and the economic future of the U.S., former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Wednesday.

Greenspan lamented the growth in size of banks and other financial institutions in a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) think-tank, suggesting the formation of new, less risky banks to replace the existing financial services infrastructure.

"Government guarantees of the liabilities of institutions viewed as too big to fail thwarts the competitive process that produces capital efficiency," Greenspan said in his prepared remarks. "Of all the regulatory challenges that have emerged out of this crisis, I view the ["too big to fail"} problem and the…precedents, now fresh in everyone's mind, as the most threatening to market efficiency and our economic future."

The bailouts "impairs creative destruction," he added, with the government misdirecting funds to economically wasteful companies.

The former Fed chief also said he was "puzzled" that there hasn't been a rush to create new banks free of toxic assets, which he said could be profitable and contribute significantly to an economic recovery.

Greenspan also said the Obama administration faced a dilemma in creating new regulations for banks and financial institutions and allowing those firms to compete on a worldwide playing field.”

“So the guy that got us into this mess can tell us how to get out of it?Alan Greescam indeed”

“I think democracy is flawed because people are too goddamn stupid to choose the right person for the job. And the REASON why is because of people like you, who fall for slogans and empty emotional cries so hard that they're actually moved to action by them without truly knowing why.

There are many reasons for the flaws in democracy, but stupidity isn't one of them. In fact, you're so reductionist in your argument, you're basically criticizing a stereotypical characterization of American society, and not reality as it exists.”

“He missed the part where Greenspan admitted under oath that he had been fundamentally wrong in thinking that markets were self-correcting.”