Deranged Rhino Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 He doesn't? Any prez that wants to fundamentally change the country certainly doesn't love it there chief. And that apology tour he went on after he got elected the fist time. That's loving the country? All he does is constantly beat the drum of how f'ed up we are.Income inequality, healthcare you name it it's all wrong in his eyes.He does everything he can to keep our borders unprotected and when a state tries on its own he sues the them! Siding with federal criminals instead of one of your own governors. More loving your country I guess. Gutting the military. Deliberately driving up energy prices by screwing coal. Real love for us. Guy sucks. Shouldn't be a 7 Eleven night manager let alone president. But you keep on keepin on with him. Your backing a wiener winner. Posts like this are the reason it makes it very difficult to take the vocal majority on the right seriously. There's a difference between having a different opinion on how best to govern the country and hating one's country. Obama, by in large, has been less than advertised and has stumbled far more than he's soared. However, there's a BIG difference between that and believing he hates America. I disagreed with MANY of Bush's policies and have taken him to task on here often, but I would never say he operated the way he did because he hated the country. That's not a real argument. That's one made by crazy people who are wearing their tinfoil hats too tightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Posts like this are the reason it makes it very difficult to take the vocal majority on the right seriously. There's a difference between having a different opinion on how best to govern the country and hating one's country. Obama, by in large, has been less than advertised and has stumbled far more than he's soared. However, there's a BIG difference between that and believing he hates America. I disagreed with MANY of Bush's policies and have taken him to task on here often, but I would never say he operated the way he did because he hated the country. That's not a real argument. That's one made by crazy people who are wearing their tinfoil hats too tightly. This. I'll also note that working to change something, in a way that you feel is for the county's betterment, is a sign of love of one's country. I'll further point out that one can (and I'm my belief, should) love without being nationalistic; as true love includes an honest willingness to acknowedge flaws and shortcomings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) Posts like this are the reason it makes it very difficult to take the vocal majority on the right seriously. There's a difference between having a different opinion on how best to govern the country and hating one's country. Obama, by in large, has been less than advertised and has stumbled far more than he's soared. However, there's a BIG difference between that and believing he hates America. I disagreed with MANY of Bush's policies and have taken him to task on here often, but I would never say he operated the way he did because he hated the country. That's not a real argument. That's one made by crazy people who are wearing their tinfoil hats too tightly. Remember though that Obama has given many a reason for people to suspect that he at least loathes what this country is all about. Google Obama's relationships with William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis and Pastor Wright. Read about his loathing from an article 5 years ago in the link below. Follow his own words about wanting to fundamentally change America. Just because you think that Bush F'd up but didn't hate the country doesn't mean the bigger "f" up doesn't hate the country. Judgement on Obama must be made on its own merits. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10784 Edited March 27, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Posts like this are the reason it makes it very difficult to take the vocal majority on the right seriously. There's a difference between having a different opinion on how best to govern the country and hating one's country. Obama, by in large, has been less than advertised and has stumbled far more than he's soared. However, there's a BIG difference between that and believing he hates America. I disagreed with MANY of Bush's policies and have taken him to task on here often, but I would never say he operated the way he did because he hated the country. That's not a real argument. That's one made by crazy people who are wearing their tinfoil hats too tightly. Different opinion? He's a friggen leftist. He admits it himself. That alone is contrary to the history and culture of this country. All that made it a success. Free enterprise capitalism. He makes no bones about his disdain for such things. All this said I can safely assume he dislikes the country. Especially when his actions support that assumption. The guy hung out with radical leftists. His parents were socialists. His background points to everything diametrically apposed to what America is. Not a big stretch here and certainly not tinfoil hat worthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Remember though that Obama has given many a reason for people to suspect that he at least loathes what this country is all about. Google Obama's relationships with William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis and Pastor Wright. Read about his loathing from an article 5 years ago in the link below. Follow his own words about wanting to fundamentally change America. Just because you think that Bush F'd up but didn't hate the country doesn't mean the bigger "f" up doesn't hate the country. Judgement on Obama must be made on its own merits. I still believe that to be inaccurate; and will note that people speaking to "what this country is all about", have an antiquated, fairie tale notion of America, that quite frankly, never existed, or atleast never existed on a Federal level once the Articles were done away with. "What this country is alll about" has been in constant flux since Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were put down; and is most clearly defined by "what is the Law of the Land today". The Law of the Land today is abortion on demand, the ACA, the Imperial Executive, affirmative action, etc. Opposition to these does not mean you hate your country. It means that you love your country enough to work for what you beleive is it's betterment. The same is true of the opposite stance. The only difference being what you believe to be best. Different opinion? He's a friggen leftist. He admits it himself. That alone is contrary to the history and culture of this country. All that made it a success. Free enterprise capitalism. He makes no bones about his disdain for such things. All this said I can safely assume he dislikes the country. Especially when his actions support that assumption. The guy hung out with radical leftists. His parents were socialists. His background points to everything diametrically apposed to what America is. Not a big stretch here and certainly not tinfoil hat worthy Again, leftists do not hate America by nature of being leftists. They simply seek to change the country for what they see as it's betterment. Just like you, only with different ideas of what "better" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Remember though that Obama has given many a reason for people to suspect that he at least loathes what this country is all about. Google Obama's relationships with William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis and Pastor Wright. Read about his loathing from an article 5 years ago in the link below. Follow his own words about wanting to fundamentally change America. Just because you think that Bush F'd up but didn't hate the country doesn't mean the bigger "f" up doesn't hate the country. Judgement on Obama must be made on its own merits. http://www.canadafre...p/article/10784 The perception may be that he hates America, and it's surely a rallying cry for some, but the reality is probably more along the lines that he simply thinks he and his ilk are far smarter than most of America, and the country would fare much better if it stopped with this silly, failed notion of individual responsibility/accountability, and just left all the important stuff to the smart people...like him. Now, this is, of course, ridiculous because there is more than enough evidence supporting the fact that, at the very least, he ain't that smart. But that's the way he sees things. Just look at how he treats Putin...like a misguided leader stuck in the 80s...a person who just isn't smart enough to realize that what he's doing is old hat and won't work based on all the books he's read. It's embarrassing, yes, and for those who bought into his schtick, it's disappointing, but at this point he wants people like you yelling about how he hates America because most of America doesn't agree with that sentiment and he looks, by default, smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Posts like this are the reason it makes it very difficult to take the vocal majority on the right seriously. There's a difference between having a different opinion on how best to govern the country and hating one's country. Obama, by in large, has been less than advertised and has stumbled far more than he's soared. However, there's a BIG difference between that and believing he hates America. I disagreed with MANY of Bush's policies and have taken him to task on here often, but I would never say he operated the way he did because he hated the country. That's not a real argument. That's one made by crazy people who are wearing their tinfoil hats too tightly. Well stated. I doubt anyone would ever say that Presidents Carter nor Bush 43 hated the US. Prior to President Obama taking over either would get a lot of votes as the worst President in their lifetime. Now, either would lose a lot of those votes. I don't believe that the President hates America; but his vision of how to reach his ideal America seems to be giving us President Carter on steroids. Not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share Posted March 27, 2014 Damn!! I'm contributing to the hijacking of my own thread. I'll have to start a thread on "Does the President Hate This Country?" so we can talk U.S. energy dominance. How do we arrive at a solution to world dominance that encompasses our vast energy reserves, our capitalist system and our government's involvement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 The administration's Keystone Pipeline policy, its avalanche of restrictive regulations and its cutting back of exploration and drilling on federal lands certainly is holding back the energy business. Throw in the laughable ACA and that rudder has the ship sailing directly into the wind. "Locked in Irons", so to speak. The phrase is "Back in chains!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share Posted March 27, 2014 The phrase is "Back in chains!!!!" http://en.allexperts.com/q/Sailing-1650/Irons.htm "Pinpointing the origin of a term this old may be rather difficult. I am no historian; nonetheless, I am familiar with the term, and at one time had it explained to me this way. Early sailing battle ships unable to maneuver due to lack of forward motion or steerage were like a prisoner “in irons” awaiting execution. (Irons meaning shackles and chains)" If this explanation isn't good enough for you just Google "locked in irons" and I'm sure you'll find something more to your liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 http://en.allexperts...-1650/Irons.htm "Pinpointing the origin of a term this old may be rather difficult. I am no historian; nonetheless, I am familiar with the term, and at one time had it explained to me this way. Early sailing battle ships unable to maneuver due to lack of forward motion or steerage were like a prisoner “in irons” awaiting execution. (Irons meaning shackles and chains)" If this explanation isn't good enough for you just Google "locked in irons" and I'm sure you'll find something more to your liking. Whiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Our energy resources are the thing that can turn our economy around and maybe save us from all this debt. Cheap energy to build manufacturing here and exports for the trade deficit. With the largest known reserves in the world we can control the Putins and the rogue states a lot better. There is tremendous pressure for this to happen tens of thousands of jobs can be created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Different opinion? He's a friggen leftist. He admits it himself. That alone is contrary to the history and culture of this country. All that made it a success. Free enterprise capitalism. He makes no bones about his disdain for such things. All this said I can safely assume he dislikes the country. Especially when his actions support that assumption. The guy hung out with radical leftists. His parents were socialists. His background points to everything diametrically apposed to what America is. Not a big stretch here and certainly not tinfoil hat worthy America has had a lot of liberal socialist leaders. So what Obama may be is NOT diametrically opposed to America. Just your opinion of what it is supposed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Not the least bit ironicaly, it'd likely be easier if Ukraine controlled the Crimean ports. There's still Odessa, for now ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) There is tremendous pressure for this to happen tens of thousands of jobs can be created. No, we can transform our economy with cheap energy and use our exports of that cheap energy as either a carrot or a stick. It's not tens of thousands of jobs but millions here at home when you count the resurgence of manufacturing. Keep a strong military but let our energy resources help dictate our international policy. Edited March 28, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 There's still Odessa, for now ... Interesting...Buffalo passed Odessa in the 1840's as the greatest grain transshipment center in the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Damn!! I'm contributing to the hijacking of my own thread. I'll have to start a thread on "Does the President Hate This Country?" so we can talk U.S. energy dominance. How do we arrive at a solution to world dominance that encompasses our vast energy reserves, our capitalist system and our government's involvement? My honest answer is I haven't a clue. I don't think the answer lies in fossil fuels of any kind -- but we don't have a new source of energy that can replace it yet. My take, and it's by no way original, is that the future super power of tomorrow will be the one who first discovers or creates a new, renewable form of energy. To that end, I think America is well positioned we have the brainpower to find a solution and the economic creativity / ingenuity to set the global market. Of course, China will be the biggest competitor as they need to find a new source of energy worse than probably any other nation other than us, and with a state focused approach they could beat America to the finish line if we're not careful. Of course, that's a long term solution as even if we discovered this mythical source of new energy, it'd take a decade if not several decades to change over fully. I'm not idealistic enough to think we can completely move away from fossil fuels any time soon, so a balance needs to be struck. How to do that exactly, I haven't the slightest idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 http://www.canadafre...p/article/10784 Cutting a link from a clearly slanted source is hardly weight..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 My honest answer is I haven't a clue. I don't think the answer lies in fossil fuels of any kind -- but we don't have a new source of energy that can replace it yet. My take, and it's by no way original, is that the future super power of tomorrow will be the one who first discovers or creates a new, renewable form of energy. To that end, I think America is well positioned we have the brainpower to find a solution and the economic creativity / ingenuity to set the global market. Of course, China will be the biggest competitor as they need to find a new source of energy worse than probably any other nation other than us, and with a state focused approach they could beat America to the finish line if we're not careful. Of course, that's a long term solution as even if we discovered this mythical source of new energy, it'd take a decade if not several decades to change over fully. I'm not idealistic enough to think we can completely move away from fossil fuels any time soon, so a balance needs to be struck. How to do that exactly, I haven't the slightest idea. We do have a safe, reliable and nearly UNLIMITED source of energy available today. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html They're called fast breeder reactors, and if we had the political will, we could be independent of fossil fuels for the generation of electricity within a generation. Couple that with more electric cars on the road and voila. It's a recipe for fossil fuels independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 Cutting a link from a clearly slanted source is hardly weight..... In other words, posting a link for an opinion based article that doesn't agree with your opinion is wrong. Regardless, this thread is back on track now, so don't try to "f' it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts