Question for KSFO's Sussman: Did Reagan's self-description as a "citizen ... of the world" make him the Antichrist, too?
SUMMARY: KSFO's Brian Sussman said of Sen. Barack Obama's Berlin speech: "As I was watching that speech, I could have sworn he was running for Antichrist." Sussman later added, "He's giving this speech in Europe -- he's talking about us being citizens of the world. I got news for you, dude. I'm not a citizen of the world. I live on this planet, but I'm a citizen of the United States of America." However, in his speech, Obama characterized himself as "a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."
On the July 28 broadcast of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show, guest host Brian Sussman said of Sen. Barack Obama's July 24 speech in Berlin, Germany: "As I was watching that speech, I could have sworn he was running for Antichrist." Sussman added: "He seemed as if he wanted to lead the world. He wants to unite the world. He wants the world to come together. He's giving this speech in Europe -- he's talking about us being citizens of the world. I got news for you, dude. I'm not a citizen of the world. I live on this planet, but I'm a citizen of the United States of America. I don't take my marching orders from any world government or world entity or world leader. I'm a citizen of the United States of America who happens to reside on Planet Earth. That's it. Not a citizen of the earth -- of the world."
In addition to smearing Obama, Sussman falsely suggested that Obama had not also characterized himself as a "citizen of the United States of America," as Sussman put it. But Obama did, in fact, refer to himself in the Berlin speech as "a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world," as Media Matters for America has noted. Sussman also did not mention that President Ronald Reagan characterized himself using similar language in a June 17, 1982, speech to the United Nations General Assembly, saying, "I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world."
From the July 28 broadcast of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show:
SUSSMAN: What was your take on the big speech Friday? I saw it while I was traveling. I went down to Texas. I was in Bush country, Waco, Crawford.
OFFICER VIC: Really.
SUSSMAN: Yeah, I really was.
OFFICER VIC: Oh, you gotta talk about that.
SUSSMAN: JetBlue has -- you know, you can watch all sorts of television programs on JetBlue, and I was watching the Barack speech. What was your, you know, shoot-from-the-hip take on it?
OFFICER VIC: Again, more vapidity. He's stealing some Reagan-esque kind of things, the "tear down this wall" bit.
SUSSMAN: Yeah. Yeah.
OFFICER VIC: You know, the -- kind of borrowing from that.
SUSSMAN: I didn't like the citizens -- fellow citizens of the world.
OFFICER VIC: No. No, no, no, no. I would like him to be a candidate for president of the United States, not emperor of the world.
SUSSMAN: You know, emperor of the world. You hit it on the head, my man. Now, I will wax religy for just a moment. As I was watching that speech, I could have sworn he was running for Antichrist. He -- it was really amazing. He seemed as if he wanted to lead the world. He wants to unite the world. He wants the world to come together.
He's giving this speech in Europe -- he's talking about us being citizens of the world. I got news for you, dude. I'm not a citizen of the world. I live on this planet, but I'm a citizen of the United States of America. I don't take my marching orders from any world government or world entity or world leader. I'm a citizen of the United States of America who happens to reside on Planet Earth. That's it. Not a citizen of the earth -- of the world.
OFFICER VIC: Well, it's clear that he wants the European Union to take the lead in a lot of issues. For example, over the weekend, he said it would be -- he made some announcement to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. He said it would be in your best interest to take on the European Union's treaty that they're basically forwarding, or their initiatives with respect to their -- Iran's nuclear ambitions. He says, well, take the lead of the European Union before the election. And there are a number of examples of him saying -- you know, the European Union is the way to go. The United Nations is the way to go. The European Union is everything.
SUSSMAN: Oh, yeah. Yeah, the European Union is basically the old Roman Empire, and I guess that's -- they've even got a president now, and he really seems as if he wants us to become one world, and akin to the European Union, intertwined in so many ways. I mean, this is a guy, during the course of his speech, he talks about we're going to break down the walls between Islam and Judaism and Christianity.
OFFICER VIC: Uh-huh.
SUSSMAN: OK.
OFFICER VIC: Good luck on that.
SUSSMAN: That's a religious figure. He's running as a religious figure.
OFFICER VIC: Interesting.
SUSSMAN: But I go back to that citizen of the -- of the world thing. Here we have -- just looked this up here -- we've got a definition of citizen: a native or naturalized member of a state or nation, which owes allegiance to its government, and is entitled to its protection. See, I -- I'm not going to give my allegiance to the government of the world.
OFFICER VIC: No. No, no, no, no. That's not going to work.
SUSSMAN: An inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises. Again, I'm not beholden to any privileges or franchises of the world. I'm a citizen of the United States of America. I pledge allegiance to its government. This government protects me as a citizen. This is just weird, and it sort of flew over everyone's head.
OFFICER VIC: Yeah. And there are more examples of this. He's -- he has said that he wants to end world poverty, and this goes along with a U.N. world tax -- tax on the United States -- to end poverty around the world. You know, this is not what we're looking for in a president of the United States.
SUSSMAN: No. This is what we're looking for in terms of the Antichrist. That's what he's running for, in my opinion. Now, when we come back, OV, we've got to talk about this Obama poverty plan.
KSFO - a station for losers run by losers.
Isn't this Savage's home base too?
Oh.... you mean like piece of trash that shot up his church in Knoxville, TN......
The cops apearantly found copies of O'Reilly's, Savage's, and Hannity's books in and around his home! This guy was a religious rightwing freak that blamed the liberals and gays for all of his problems and so he took it out on his church, which had just recently allowed gays to be part of the family.
Are the books relevant to this man killing people.... party, but I think that it can be said that his reading those books confused him even more into believing that killing those that disagree with his concept of the world that it was ok to do what he did! One need only listen to how these people speak on their radio shows.
Are those 'authors' to be blamed? No! But perhaps they should be given the chance to condemn this man and come to realize that while it may be true that what they say is just entertainment.... it is obvious that there are some among us that can't tell the difference between reality and that which is writen in a book!
But lets not forget about Jenny Jones all those years ago and what happened to her and her show when she put a gay basher in the position to find out that a gay guy had the hots for him!
I swear to god... I want someone - ANYONE - to actually confront these slimeball talkers with this. Somebody get right into Hannity or Savage's face with it. Savage is in trouble now with the autism bit but there shouldn't be any limit to exposing that scumbag for what he really is. Rake him over the coals. Same thing for Hannity.
And like George W. Bush, they will never pay for it.
Unless there is a Hell...
The Jehovah's Witnesses purty much lost all credibility when their dire prediction of Armageddon didn't come to pass in... 1975.
It wasn't Jehovah's Witnesses-- don't libel them. It was Hal Lindsey and the fundamentalist proto-wingnuts that made their "rapture" prediction-- September 9, 1975, as I remember....
Unfortunately, they're still around. I was hoping back then that they'd leave the planet to the rest of us.
It wasn't Jehovah's Witnesses-- don't libel them.
Yeah - they have enough going against them......
Sorry, Carlisle, but Rabbitluvr is correct. The Jehovah's Witnesses did predict armageddon in 1975, it's well documented. Of course, they also predicted it in 1914, 1915, 1917, and 1925, and are still predicting today that it is "just around the corner."
When their first prediction failed, that should have shown to all that they were an organization that couldn't be trusted, and in fact, fell under the condemnation of God (Deuteronomy 18:22).
Thanks for confirming my earlier post.
As an ex-JW, I remember 1975 well - even though I was only six. Some of the things I was 'taught' back then were quite disturbing to say the least. I still have one of the books I was told to read and some of the things in that book are not meant for children. I was very happy to liberate myself from that bunch a few years later.
Good piece on the JWs and the 1975 prophecy: http://www.exmormon.org/exjw3.htm
I thought Savage's flagship was KNEW
I didn't know about KSFO the radio station -- I always thought KSFO was an airport
Isn't this Savage's home base too?
According to Wikipedia, KSFO used to be Michael Weiner's flagship, but not any more.
According to Wikipedia, KSFO used to be Michael Weiner's flagship, but not any more.
So KSFO just went with a lesser kind of scum.... got it!
(Brian) Sussman: "He's giving this speech in Europe -- he's talking about us being citizens of the world. I got news for you, dude. I'm not a citizen of the world. I live on this planet, but I'm a citizen of the United States of America."
Brian Sussman may LIVE on this planet, but it sounds like he's FROM another one....
Being a good liberal, I am against polluting any planet. and that includes Pluto.
Putting them into orbit *around* Pluto might be a workable compromise.
Not only that, they could add to the native Plutonians mythology and romance... "Oh Look! There's a full Savage tonight. Isn't it gorgeous!"
It's not Pluto anymore, didn't you hear?
It's Plutoid. It's a planetoid.
A plutoid is a trans-Neptunian dwarf planet.
If there was a picture of Bush will "666" clearly on his scalp these dunderheads would be sweaing that's "999" upside down!!!
You're being generous. I think the charge would be that some religion-hating atheistic communist lefty had tried to smear Bush and stir up religious hatred by pointing out those unfortunate marks on his forehead.
But Obama talks about being a citizen of the world (which is a pretty tame and relatively well-worn and widely accepted idea called 'cosmopolitanism') and he's running for "Emperor of the World" and "Antichrist"?
I don't begrudge these guys for trying to be shocking: that's their job, and it's their way of clinging desperately to ratings and market share. Fine. But I do begrudge them for being malicious and stupid. Is that so wrong?
The EU is the old Roman Empire ? Antichrist ? Who are these guys ??
"And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words -- yes, we can." --- Barack Obama
Yeah. But don't you have anything better to do?
I mean, we all enjoy good interaction with other commenters on these threads. But I just don't see the entertainment value in trolling like that around here. You're not showing any artistry or cleverness with that stuff, being so elementary, so I know it's not an artistic outlet for you.
I admit, I just don't get it. Care to enlighten me (us)?
(I happen to think that you're really Hannity hunched over the keyboard with Levin looking over your shoulder, your shadows dancing on the walls, cast by the stark light of an unshaded bulb, as you compose yet another dreary humorless and uninspired piece of bait for the naive. Sean, do you do this for it's entertainment value only, or for the brief sessions of physical intimacy as you two wait for replies?)
Steve Thomp -
Once again you have satirized the right-wing nutcases beautifully and accurately. I commend you, sir.
T.S.####: Watching Hannity's America and the No Spin Zone has opened my mind, to a greater awareness of the evil festering among us.
That may be the funniest piece of political satire I've ever read here. Bravo!
T.S.####: Watching Hannity's America and the No Spin Zone has opened my mind, to a greater awareness of the evil festering among us.
Hannity's America is a horrible place to live, filled with lies, hatred, and mind-numbing propaganda. And the No-Spin Zone is even worse.
To borrow a phrase from a wise American philosopher, Obama's an "evil enabler."
Hmmm, let's see, was that William James? John Dewey?
Sussman is a local lightweight. Is it worth spending time on him?
Sussman is a local lightweight. Is it worth spending time on him?
Only if it will prevent him from becoming a nationally-syndicated lightweight. We have enough of those Jeff Christie wannabees out there....
President Ronald Reagan characterized himself using similar language in a June 17, 1982, speech to the United Nations General Assembly, saying, "I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world."
Ha! Obama is at it again!! First he "steals" Gov Duval Patrick's "yes we can"...now he's lifting Reagan's words ;-)
Seriously though, Obama gave an uplifting speech in Berlin. I'm not sure it will win over anyone who wasn't gonna vote for him in the first place. But to criticize him for referring to himself as a fellow citizen of the world is petty & desperate.
The difference between Reagan and Obama like night and day. Reagan held to views that sought to protect America and defeat our enemies.
Obama on the other hand, preaches defeat and appeasement. He has no record on which to show he will defend America and strengthen her. Only statements that show he is naive and ill prepared to be a leader of the free world.
Obama's great gift is one of gab. It's all style. No substance.
LOL
Better dig that underground bunker today!
AA, you are truly a good little Republican.
You had a typo in your last sentence. I'll fix that for you:
"Reagan's great gift was one of gab. It was all style. No substance. "
He also had another typo:
"Reagan held to views..."
Missed the "w" AA. Makes a big difference. Should have been:
"Reagan held two views..." Those two views, of course, being "Regulation and capitalism are mutually exclusive" and "Saddam is my bestest brown friend in the whole world!"
There was also "Mommy, did I eat already?", but that was less a view than a constant nagging question for him.
AA,
Can you provide an Obama quote where he preaches defeat and appeasement?
I can't say I've seen that one!
Skeptical,
They are well known. His cut and run strategy in Iraq and his willingness to meet with our enemies without preconditions... positions he has flipped on when pressed.
His unguarded speech to wealthy investors regarding people in the midwest who don't vote for him make me question his views.
The list goes on and on. All he preaches is "change" and "hope". Great words. Great speeches, but as I said earlier, no history behind them that matches the words.
AA,
To be fair, Obama is not cutting and running from Iraq, his strategy vs. McCain's are certainly debatable, but without inflammatory rhetoric such as "cut and run", especially after Bush's policies have left us where we are all these years later, in the most mismanaged mess of a foreign conflict I can recall.
As for appeasement, it is not appeasement to meet with anyone, it is appeasement to give stuff away, not merely a meeting.
Well said Tommy.
I'll take back one of the bad things I've said about you. You get to pick which one. :)
Tommy,
It is appeasement to offer to meet with the leaders of Iran, Hamas, N. Korea, and Syra without preconditions. I think you'll agree with me that it was an incredibly naive thing to say. Even Obama's handler's know it as he has since flopped all over trying to weasel out of his 'unconditional' statement.
Even McCain in his most 'senior' moment, has not said anything so outrageous.
AA,
It is inaccurate to call meeting with foreign leaders appeasement. Arguably, you can call it unwise or a poor decision, but it is not appeasement. As I said, to appease is to concede or sacrifice, to give away something. Meeting with foreign leaders is meeting with foreign leaders. To call it appeasement based on such a meeting is unfair. Criticize it in theory or principle, but to mischaracterize it as some concession is unwarranted.
I for one welcome new ideas where our position and standing in the world is concerned. We have tried the Bush "Doctrine", and our standing has suffered.......you can't deny that. Perhaps McCain would be less arrogant than Bush, I don't know - but I am willing to listen to what the candidates positions are, beyond their partisan spin and their misrepresentations of the other's views. Frankly, the name calling bores me.
Appreciate your opinion.
"It is appeasement to offer to meet with the leaders of Iran, Hamas, N. Korea, and Syra without preconditions."
No, it's not.
Turn off the professional right-wing liars for five minutes and open your dictionary.
Offering to talk and yielding to demands are two different things.
"Even McCain in his most 'senior' moment, has not said anything so outrageous."
This outrages you more than anything McCain has said? SERIOUSLY???
AA,
You seem to be having some trouble with that word, "appeasement": it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Appeasement necessarily involves concessions or gifts to an aggressor in the hopes of escaping conflict. Agreeing to meet has nothing to do with appeasement.
There happens to be a very useful instructional video for people like yourself who happen to be confused about just this point. Here, have a look. (If you get bored, you may want to skip to about 3:00 in the video.)
Cheers,
-Vysotsky
That clip was hilarious. Every now and then I will watch it just to remind myself of the pervasive ignorance that is alive and well in this country - and the struggle liberals have in front of them to counteract that ignorance.
And that was one of the rare moments in which Matthews was in top form. Too bad he's not always that brilliant.
Can you provide an Obama quote where he preaches defeat and appeasement?- skeptical
Skeptical,They are well known. (AA, not providing quote)AA,
I asked for quotes, not your strange interpretation of something he might have or have not said.
skeptic,
You've followed MMFA long enough to know the quotes I'm talking about. If you don't well then, perhaps you should do simple google searches and catch up with current events.
In other words, AA, you got nothin'.
BINGO!!!!
mescal,
If you cannot follow my paraphrasing of Obama, then you are simply playing word parsing games. Either that or you are ignorant of his many quotes.
Just because I refuse to waste my time doing another cut and paste on Obama quotes everybody already knows does not mean those quotes do not exist. It should not be necessary to start at square one every time.
But to say I have nothing, is to ignore my post and engage in childish games.
just did
me,
You can use whatever term you want.
Obama - July 2007 -
"In January, I introduced a plan that would have already started bringing our troops home and ending this war, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008."
I call that cut and run.
I call it making amends for the criminal behavior of a morally and ethically bankrupted administration.
And AA give up your warmongering ways.
Loonz,
If I may mindread, I wonder if AA is so into war in Iraq to make up for the time when he probably "hated America" due to the influence of those "leftist" professors who influenced him to be against the war in Vietnam.
Fried,
If I may, I'd like to thank you for the pshcyobabble. It is a refreshing change from the usual. :-)
Since you won't explain why you don't hold McCain to the "actions v. rhetoric" stance you hold Obama to, and since you attribute McCain's 71.4% absenteeism on Iraq votes in early to 2007 to him "campaigning" (without noting that none of the other major candidates missed even a SINGLE vote during that time), I thought I would try another approach to get a response.
Do you think McCain would rather win a campaign than win the war? You have still yet to back up any of your assertions with concrete evidence when it comes to appeasement. I would appreciate you addressing the points McCain made about leaving if the Iraqis wanted us to. Now that they seem to want us out in 16 months, McCain doesn't want that. Is he a "flip-flopper?"
It was a mistake. There were to WMD emplacements there. It's a cul-de-sac. And pretty nearly all our fighting land forces are tied down there.
It's a disaster and an embarrassment. It's Operation Market Garden.
Weneed to pull our troops out of this position, let them recuperate, and make them ready to respond in a more global fashion.
If you armchair warriors stand there moaning and wailing about what is nothing more than a tactical maneuver in a larger campaign go right ahead and sob.
All the great generals know that the way to win a war is to avoid engagements as often as to fight them.
And this engagement has gone on far too long. It's that simple.
PBG,
A pretty sweeping statement. Can you name me two great generals who expressed the opinion that avoiding encounters is crucial to winning? I have never heard that one.
I call that cut and run.
But not as fast as Reagan did after the bombing in Lebanon. Your hero was a paper tiger, all flash and no substance.
Skeptical,
They are well known...
In other words, AA is once again spewing the right-wing talking points with nothing to back them up. Typical....
Skeptical:
Can you provide an Obama quote where he preaches defeat and appeasement?
I can't say I've seen that one!
AA;
They are well known.
Translation of AA's answer from ignorant into English:
"No, I can't provide any."
AA, you used to be like a slightly brighter CopiousDissent, but I think the rankings may have been reversed.
Isn't that like comparing two bags of garbage, and saying Bag A smells better than Bag B? They're both full of garbage.....
Isn't "cut and run" so 2006?
And before I forget, I loved your picture in the other thread that broke the needle off the Jingometer. Are you sure it wasn't the earthquake that did it?
The only thing missing was a few Jesus stickers. Although I couldn't read all of the text on the guys truck and might have missed a "can't wait for the rapture" or a "Who would Jesus shoot?" bumper sticker.
Worrier,
I can tell that it hits close to home by all the reaction it gets. Obama wants everyone to believe he only advocates hurridly advancing in a different direction.. and do it right away or back off and say to do it over 16 months or some other arbitrary number. No matter how you slice it, without conditioning the removal of troops by the events on the ground, that is cutting and running.
Obama's posturing makes no sense and never has. Give up in Iraq to increase troops in Afghanistan? How does that help either conflict? Sorry. Not buying it. It is defeatist to the core.
Let the conditions on the ground determine the withdrawal, not some arbitrary campaign slogan.
Obama's posturing makes no sense and never has. Give up in Iraq to increase troops in Afghanistan?
Going after the guy who helped facilitate the deaths of thousands of Americans (not George Bush, OBL) makes perfect sense to me (maybe not to you). I think Barack understands [in regards to Iraq] that this is journey the Iraqis must handle by themselves and its a challenge they accept.
I'm trying to figure out what's going on in the mind of the far right (just bare with me for a second). Do you have a small penis?
AA, I am for "cutting and running". Cutting out the BS delievered by the Iraqi government (how long does it take to train an Iraqi soldier) and running to Afghanistan to get the real terrorist.
And to revisit some terminology...Mission Accomplished...Shock and Awe....Fight them there rather than fight them here.....Mushrrom Clound and my personal favorite
Concerning WMDs'......."We know were they are we just can't find them"...
AA, you throw out cut and run as a blanket term..care to discuss any of the other terms listed above.
AA,
Your rhetoric is getting more and more extreme. Appeasement, by definition, means something is given away. What, pray tell, is Obama giving away?
The whole "cut and run" dialogue is just a cliche so you don't have to talk about the issues. What events "on the ground" would warrant leaving Iraq to you? A McCain spokesperson has been quoted as saying:
"John McCain has always been clear that American forces operate in Iraq only with the consent of that country's democratically elected government," Michael Goldfarb, a McCain spokesman, told the Huffington Post. "The Senator speaks frequently with Iraq's leaders and they have made clear that they share his belief that any timeline for withdrawal must be dictated by the facts on the ground. He met with the foreign minister and President separately within the last month...He met with Maliki on his last trip to Iraq sometime in late March."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/mccain-spokesman-us-shoul_n_111691.html
In 2004:
PETERSON: We're now ready for questions. Please wait for the microphone, identify yourself, keep your questions to the point, if you would, and try to remember we have only one speaker here, speaker McCain. Our distinguished new head of the Washington office asked me to kick off one or two, senator, and let me try.
Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.
McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/
They want us to leave, AA, that is hardly cutting and running: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566914,00.html
By the way, your purely partisan, illogical defense of McCain only voting on 4 of the 14 Iraq votes in 2007 (on another thread) because, in your words "we all know he was out campaigning in 2007" is laughable. He was the ONLY Presidential Candidate to miss even one vote.
"The campaign declined to comment on the fact that all the other candidates have not missed major votes on Iraq. Iraq has arguably become the central issue of McCain’s campaign, as he has been the most outspoken in his defense of the recent troop surge."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccains-missed-votes-on-iraq-trigger-reid-rebuke-2007-05-17.html
I cannot imagine how crazy you would go if Obama had done the same thing. By McCain's own logic, he seems to want to win the presidency more than he wants to win the war, doesn't he?
"Your rhetoric is getting more and more extreme. Appeasement, by definition, means something is given away. What, pray tell, is Obama giving away? "
He's not givng anything away right now because he has no executive power :)
...
Anyway, what many people see as "appeasement" is Obama's willingness to meet with those like Hamas and Ahmadinejad and try to negotiate and compromise with them (like Senators tend to do), when many people feel that the best answer is 50 gigatons falling from an SR-71 at 92,000 feet. I would be willing to negotiate with them after they've gotten the message that we won't tolerate their terrorist agenda. To meet that requirement, military action would be required. If it takes invading Iran and overthrowing the government there to preserve peace, prosperity, and the American way of life, so be it. We invaded Iraq for similar reasons.
You have no idea what constitutes true courage.
If Iraq was about oil, WTF ARE GAS PRICES SO HIGH??? If it was about oil, then we would be receiving more of it, increasing our supply of oil and lowering the price at the pump...
DaWuss,
I am not sure your logic works here. To use another analogy, if the war in Iraq was about defeating Al Qaeda, why is Al Qaeda (not the supposed Al Qaeda in Iraq) so much stronger now?
Just because a stated (or implied) goal is given for a task and perhaps backfires doesn't make it not a goal of the original task. Does that make sense?
To use another example, the stated goal of the stimulus package was to increase consumer spending. If that is not accomplished, it still was the goal.
Controlling the flow of oil has to do with preserving the the greatest profits the world has ever known.
We should not forget or ignore the principles of disaster capitalism, that chaos and disorientation is designed to shock the body politic into accepting radical scenarios that they normally would contemptuously reject.
The difference between Reagan and Obama like night and day.
Agreed. Reagan was one of our worst presidents. Obama will be one of our best.
Reagan held to views that sought to protect America and defeat our enemies.
AA - If you're interested in learing the TRUTH about the "Amiable Dunce" and his legacy of misery for generations to come, follow this link:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html
(Anyone else who is more interested in facts than right-wing propaganda and spin is also invited to follow that link.)
Hahaha.. Thanks for the link. Hahahaha.
The funny thing is that people like you still think that reagan was a great man. He wasn't. He was a "B" actor, a "C" governor, a "D" husband and father (based on his divorce from Jane Wyman and the shabby treatment he gave his adopted son Michael when he was a boy), and an "F" president.
Actually, it's rather sad that you can't see the truth.
WZ, that may have been a too-healthy heaping helping of truth for AA. You know when they pull some lost starving person out of the woods, or out of one of those homemade dungeons, they have to start them with a little weak broth and a small piece of bread? That's to avoid shocking the system.
AA has been fasting for years fact-wise. I'd advise copy & pasting one or two of those items at a time, slowly building up the truth tolerance. You may still get a "lol" or a "haha", but the Tom Cruise like hysterical phony laughter starting and ending the post indicates that his system was trying to reject something that he was in no shape to digest.
Similar to the forced laughter Limbaugh & Hannity use to rebut a sensible point, it's close to a gag reflex you'd get if you pulled a POW out of a camp where he'd been eating a couple of crickets a day, and sat him down to a full Thanksgiving dinner, forcing seconds of pumpkin pie down his throat.
I'm only telling you this in the interest of public safety. Have you ever seen the cheesy tv show Cheaters? Where the people try to catch their significan others messing around? The sleazy host tells the cheatee "I hate to show you this...", as he reveals the video of the unfaithful partner getting busy. The deceived lover really knows they've been deceived, but seeing it right in front of their face makes the denial a little difficult, and violent reactions are the norm.
Ronald Reagan has been built up through BS and denial, much like the worthless lovers in that show, to the point where exposure to reality causes anger and hysteria. Whether the reaction is hysterical fake laughter or violent lashing out, it's not pretty.
Evidently, AA, you don't understand the power of oratory. Obama is an excellent speaker, as is Bill Clinton. Yes, their speeches are inspirational, and might border on flowery, but you're missing the bigger point - unsurprisingly.
When great speakers give their inspirational speeches, they are appealing to our sense of community. Americans are disenchanted with politics. We see our two party system and we think, "Gosh, is this all there is?" It's easy to be depressed at our current state of affairs. Inspirational speeches, which you deem to be nothing more than just rhetoric, are designed to get the listener more involved, to help them to feel more like they're part of the process, and that by their actions in community with others, we can overcome any obstacle. Hence Obama's 'Yes, we can!' Speeches, just like sermons in church, can compel a person to take a certain action. These kinds of speeches can cause a person think, "you know, I can get involved, I can make a difference." That's the point of inspiration.
Speeches by politicians don't have to be boring and dry. They don't always have to be about economic policy or any of the other myriad political topics out there. Obama breaks that cycle. He talks about issues that we all have in common, whether you're a righty or a lefty. I'd much rather listen to speeches that are inspirational and that address common issues, than the crap we're used to - the bickering, the fighting, the scandals, the lies (especially from this misadministration). Now and again, people need to hear an uplifting word and be inspired to be part of the process for change for the better.
Just to add: Obama talks about change, but he puts the impetus for change squarely on our shoulders. Do you want change, or do you want four more years of a disasterous occupation in Iraq, a difficult war in Afghanistan, possible war with Iran, crappy economy, people losing their homes and jobs, constitution trashing, eavesdropping, prison camps and torture?
Is this the legacy you want to leave your children?
Thanks, RH. Notice how I didn't get a response?
For some reason, I'm not at all surprised.
Democratic participation is the conservative's Achille's heel. History shows, and Paul Weyrich boasts, that the fewer the votes that are cast, the better Republicans fair in elections.
But to criticize him for referring to himself as a fellow citizen of the world is petty & desperate.
That pretty much sums up all the GOP has going for it this year - petty and desperate......
I made a similar comment last week in the context that Obama's speech sounded very much like a fictional speech delivered by Nicolae Carpathia, the Antichrist, to the UN in the Left Behind novels. It was not simply the words "citizen of the world" that evoked the comparison to that speech but the context that followed.
Now - as for the comparison to Regan - I assume Nathan here is young and can't comprehend the differences between a sitting US president presenting a speech to the UN on disarmament and a candidate for US president campaigning on foreign soil, or he would not have presented such a silly question.
So if a sitting president says it, it's okay, bu tif someone else says it, they are the Antichrist?
Can you provide a little more explanation?
Here's the only explanation needed: paranoia with a healthy dollop of fundamentalist stupidity thrown in for good measure.
Like I said earlier... this will bring out the 'end times' nuts in droves. Soon we will be seeing dreck on teevee with 'experts' analyzing what Obama said and how it relates to this 'end of the world' garbage.
I'll restate - It was not simply the words "citizen of the world" that evoked the comparison to ...but the context that followed.
Review the content of Regan's speech in the above link. He was stating a national interest to a functioning (albeit ineffective) governing body. Regan is acknowledging that we (as President he speaks for the nation) are part of a larger community, however it is going to take more than words to appease the US into a global agreement. Compare that to what Obama, speaking for himself as a candidate, was pontificating to a crowd of observers.
Dems,
Maybe you can provide the specific quotes in context and let us decide?
"however it is going to take more than words to appease the US into a global agreement." - Dems_Sol
Oh goody - another right-winger who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'appease'. Consult a dictionary, Dems_Sol, then please answer my very simple question below:
How is the U.S. 'appeased' into a global agreement?
I eagerly await your response.
I made a similar comment last week in the context that Obama's speech sounded very much like a fictional speech delivered by Nicolae Carpathia, the Antichrist, to the UN in the Left Behind novels. It was not simply the words "citizen of the world" that evoked the comparison to that speech but the context that followed.
It seems most conservatives made that "observation" last week. Are you all drinking from the same cesspool?
And you call what you have an 'education'?
Whatever... keep deluding yourself. The rightwing talkers and the rightwing writers are counting on your silly delusions and they are laughing to the bank - at your expense. Keep up the good work.
Perhaps if you would take the time to educate yourself you wouldn't come across as such an idiot.
Dude. You read the Left Behind novels.
Who's the idiot again?
Even worse...you read and cited the Left Behind novels and tried to use something from them as part of an argument against Obama.
Triple fail.
Perhaps if you would take the time to educate yourself you wouldn't come across as such an idiot.
That's precisely what I was going to say to you, Dems_SOL.
No - it's just that we are (convinced that listening to religious wacko pamphlets on tape makes us ) well read and aware (that we will soon be going to meet Jesus and so don't have to take any responsibility )of our surroundings.
There, more comment repairs, done while you wait!
Once again Col you have proven that you really don't have a clue.
Yes, he does....
specialist in bible prophecies
Why did that phrase make me giggle?
Nailed what, exactly?
Being an expert on Bible prophecy is like being an expert on World of Warcraft. Sure it's a great time-waster, but where's that nonsense going to get you in life?
Probably because you couldn't come up with a logical answer to the question?
No - because a "specialist in bible phophecy" is nothing but a charletan who makes stuff up and gets gullible folks like you to believe what they say.
No - it's just that we are well read and aware of our surroundings.
That can't be true because most conservatives are not well read and they're certainly not aware of their surroundings.
Okay Dems,
What are the snippets and who wrote them? Links please.
You would think so, but that would mean that the fundies are logical...
very much like a fictional speech delivered by Nicolae Carpathia, the Antichrist, to the UN in the Left Behind novels.
The fundies can kiss my "Left Behind."
And the Right one, too.
I e-mailed Brian Sussman. Here was his response:
Nice read Media Matters and not listen to my show. I'll be on the air tonight at 6pm west coast time--ksfo.com-- Listen in-- if you dare.
Apparently he's taking the Michael Savage, "Media Matters took me out of context" defense. Except it's not clear what context Sussman thinks would have made his "I could have sworn [Obama] was running for Antichrist" comment defensible, or even coherent, since he dodged my question entirely.
"Dare" being the key word in his response.
Sounds like KSFO brought back Melanie Morgan without the intellect. Listening would not be for the faint of heart, nor the weak of stomach.
When i wrote "Melanie Morgan without the intellect", I was being sarcastically redundant.
Ergo, you are correct.
if you dare
There used to be a couple of wingnut posters who would add that taunt to their posts, usually related to a link to Newsbusters or something. I guess to those who are suckered by low-level propaganda, it would seem reasonable for a schoolyard double-dog dare-ya to influence others.
Doesn't everybody use the "context defense"? When Rush gets cited, he claims to be taken out of context; when O'Reilly gets cited, he claims to be taken out of context; when Savage gets cited, he claims to be taken out of context; when Coulter gets cited she claims to be taken out of context...
And of course some of them go the extra mile, like O'Reilly claiming that MMFA is out to get conservatives in part of some grand conspiracy, and Savage threatening lawsuits against MMFA in the name of free speech (not to mention asking for a donation so he can do so)...
I may have some minor disagreements with MMFA, but come on, this is worthy of a Brian Billick or Patrick Stewart facepalm...
... and to think back when I was kid being raised on Rush Limbaugh, the only thing I knew about politics was that the Democrats were the bad guys and the Republicans were the good guys. Shows what Saturday morning cartoons + Rush Limbaugh + being a child can do for you...
Someone help me out here...
Obama is the anti-christ and the messiah
Obama is a Christian and a Muslim
Obama is black and white.
Obama is an appeaser and is willing to meet with people.
Obama met with the soldiers and didn't meet with the soldiers.
ETC, ETC, ETC. It gets so confusing, no wonder the Republicans allowed the Cons to take over their party.
Also, Obama is white and black.
Someone help me out here...
Obama is the anti-christ and the messiah
Obama is a Christian and a Muslim
Obama is black and white.
Obama is an appeaser and is willing to meet with people.
Obama met with the soldiers and didn't meet with the soldiers.
ETC, ETC, ETC. It gets so confusing, no wonder the Republicans allowed the Cons to take over their party.
Also, Obama is white and black.
On the other hand, Gramps McCain is old.
I keep expecting them to completely lose track of previously agreed to lies, lose any collective vocal coherence.
They're well on their way to collective incoherence I think.
SGTCedar, Did you serve under our Colonel? Militarily speaking. Got to be careful with JJ around.
Perhaps if you would take the time to educate yourself you wouldn't come across as such an idiot.-Del-sol
I made a similar comment last week in the context that Obama's speech sounded very much like a fictional speech delivered by Nicolae Carpathia, the Antichrist, to the UN in the Left Behind novels. It was not simply the words "citizen of the world" that evoked the comparison to that speech but the context that followed.-Del Sol
I just wanted everyone to see what he/she posted again. I'm getting good laugh reading some of these habitual conservative users. They're like addicts. They can't get enough from their dealers Hannity and O'Reilly and their pimp Limbaugh. I actually considered AA a decent poster for a while, but his logic is becoming more and more laughable. We all realize you want your candidate to win, but comparing Obama to figures from the end times is scary. I absolutely agree with the poster who said O'Reilly and some of these extreme idiots that constantly bash the left should be held somewhat accountable for the deaths of those people in that Tennessee church. Damn shame. Democrats lose an election we blame the election process ('00) or the voters and fearmongering ('04). Republicans fear losing and blame the Antichrist. Scary thought process.
next thing you know Charles Krauthammer will liken Obama
to Hitler as.... w..e..l..l
Oh, Jeez....No.....really?
He dishonors his service to America by not standing up for himself against smear politics, as himself
not of, by, and for his cynical, venal, corrupt entourage.
I sincerely believe his campaign is a shame on this country.
Shame on you Mr McCain.
to wit:
The constant smearing of Senator Obama by likening him to the AntiChrist, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and host of other inane analogies are a shame on the political discourse of this country.
The fact that Senator McCain does not call you up personally and disavow such trash is reason enough to not vote for McCain.
I sincerely believe that McCain dishonors his service to, and sacrifice for, his country by allowing such garbage in America.
Sincerely,
***
P.S. I would dare you to apologize, but I know that dishonest people are incapable of such courtesies. I welcome you to prove me wrong.
Har...
Did not read all the thread yet, but just had to say...."told ya so"...from day one.
Righties are scared to death that Obama is the Anti Christ, lol.
BECAUSE....if he is the Anti-christ, that means
CRAPPOLA
The rapture already happened, and they weren't on the train.