# Hitler/Obama?



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Last night I was watching a show on the Military Channel about the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. The similarities of his rise and that of the "Barrack the New Messiah" were stunning to me. Has anyone else noticed this? :-?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yep, sure have. we are hoping for the best.......you know, hope and change are his promises...so far, in some ways, he has acted more like a mainstream politician than Hitler, but his *** has not even hit the chair yet.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Yep except we are the Jews this time. If you get a free vacation package to Gitmo I would pass on it. When asked for your guns I would hope the barrel is still hot when you turn it over. :beer:


----------



## hunter121390 (Nov 7, 2006)

buckseye said:


> When asked for your guns I would hope the barrel is still hot when you turn it over. :beer:


they will be hot and if they take me it willl be on a sheet drapped stretcher :beer:


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Google "Big Lie"and check out Wikipedia link and you might see some real interesting similar tactics used in this election and a few in the past. Some people haven't a clue and they still vote. Be watchful of things in the future.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Its going to be really fun to see what the Obama lovers have to say when everythin goes to the shatter.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

They'll blame it on Pres. Bush


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Bustem36 said:


> They'll blame it on Pres. Bush


I would image so too, kind of funny how people cannot take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i figure the dems will keep using Bush as an excuse for a good 2-3 years, maybe longer......the liberal press will go right along with it too.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

This is hillarious 

Finally there is something that the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives can agree on. You both hate Obama, he hasn't even taken office yet.

It is a promising sign when all of you and Feinstein and Pelosi are all pi$$ed at him at the same time.

Some of his cabinet posts are looking good, some are looking bad (Holder and that anti-hunting lady) all and all maybe things will be OK.

On a positive note, Byron Dorgan was on the radio the other day and said that Eric Holder is going to have a tough go getting the nod for AG, Dorgan figured he will still get the AG. When he said difficulty I have to assume that he meant guns. Have any of you emailed your state reps in DC and let them know how you stand on guns?


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

TK33, I didn't say I hated him. I was simply drawing a comparison between his rise to power and that of Hitler. I anyone pays attention it is so similar it is scary. Heck, he even uses some of the same terms.


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96 (Aug 25, 2008)

Why have I met no one that voted for Obama yet he kicked the crap out of McCain in the ballot? The only people I know that voted for Obama were colored people, and every one. Its nice to see this election wasn't about race.

I just don't understand. I see these topics pop up everywhere and everyone hates Obama. HTH did he win then?


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

It's very funny how if you didn't vote for Obama because he is black, your a racist, but if you vote for him because is black its ok.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr1JF ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTp_atr2 ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_ ... re=related


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Those kids were scary. That was a worship service, it just lacked the church, synagogue, or mosque.

Barack loves me this I know for the media told me so, little children to him belong, we are weak, but he is strong. Yes Barack loves me, yes Barack loves me, yes Barack loves me for the media told me so.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> It's very funny how if you didn't vote for Obama because he is black, your a racist, but if you vote for him because is black its ok.


The over played racist card is like a wild card in a poker game make it what you need it to be. :beer:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

oh well, black is in this year.......we'll see about the coming years.
as a friend of mine said, relax, when did you ever know a ----- guy to hold a job for 4 years?


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96 (Aug 25, 2008)

It had nothing to do about race for me. I didn't agree w/ his tactics and past and plans for the future. Not to mention the BS gun slingin crap he talks.

I am a little annoyed at the "we did it" stuff I saw a bunch of colored people wearing. I mean seriously, do colored people still think they still aren't treated as equals? My brother couldn't get a job w/ the state police 12 years ago in NJ because they were only hiring minorities.

My buddy has property in Ohio. He went out friday, I came out sunday. He's very religious so he decided to stay in sunday morn and go to church while he waited for me to get there. He ended up going to an all black baptist church. I sent him a text saying he should ask for who they're voting for, just joking. When I pulled in to pick him up I noticed like 2 or 3 bumper sticks for Obama. Now anyone who is or has been religious knows we typically(always) vote republican because of moral standards. He said everyone in that church was voting for Obama. I've never seen or heard of a baptist church voting demorcrat, just doesn't happen.

Funny how we vote in a pres who's birth certificate can't be verified, sat on a panel w/ a terrorist and endorsed a terrorists book. Just mind boggling.

I just hope some moron out there doesn't try or succeed to assasinate him because he's black... Now if he tries to take our guns and it happens, i guess that would be some irony...

Edit: I think some of those kids in that first video should be inspired to go on a diet... Just think of the better things they could have done w/ their time instead of learning that stupid show they put on...


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

hunter9494 said:


> oh well, black is in this year.......we'll see about the coming years.
> as a friend of mine said, relax, when did you ever know a ----- guy to hold a job for 4 years?


the only thing more funny than the fact that the moderators saying that they don't tolerate racism is the fact that they completely ignore it if not encourage it themselves. This is a great country where it o.k. to have your own opinions and your right to free speech and if you choose to be a racist you have that right. At the same timeI reserve the right to call you a racist. Anways this forum is alway good for a laugh or two......keep up the good work guys. :beer:


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

ImpalaSSpeed96 said:


> Why have I met no one that voted for Obama yet he kicked the crap out of McCain in the ballot? The only people I know that voted for Obama were colored people, and every one. Its nice to see this election wasn't about race.
> 
> I just don't understand. I see these topics pop up everywhere and everyone hates Obama. HTH did he win then?


I really hope you are kidding in your bewilderment. First, I am assuming that you live in ND by looking at your profile deal so therefore I assume the majority of people you are talking to are from ND, being surpised that most ND people vote Republican is like being surprised that he Sioux beat the Gophers on an annual basis. Secondly, is it any real surpise that a website dedicated to hunting, which is full of guys who are very passionate about gun control, bash Obama (Democrats)? Finally, you are correct, this election wasn't just about race, b.c if it were, Obama would have only recieved about 20% of the vote nation wide.

I didn't vote for Obama either but at least I understand why he got elected.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

willythekid said:


> hunter9494 said:
> 
> 
> > oh well, black is in this year.......we'll see about the coming years.
> ...


Couldn't agree more, especially with your last sentence.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Those kids were scary. That was a worship service, it just lacked the church, synagogue, or mosque.
> 
> Barack loves me this I know for the media told me so, little children to him belong, we are weak, but he is strong. Yes Barack loves me, yes Barack loves me, yes Barack loves me for the media told me so.


--Plainsman, I be we could have some great talks about hunting, but the one thing about you and the extreme rights do, is your always ripping everything on the left, but never talk about all the crap the far rights have done to bury this country. You rip Obama already, he hasn't taken office, what the hell did your fearless leader Bush do that went so well for this country?


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't know enough about politics to go deeply in depth, nor do I know enough to be definite right or left, I just don't understand where all the bashing comes from.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

One positive thing that will happen the second that Obama is sworn in is that from that moment forward no minority in this country can piss and moan anymore about anything. They got their chance.

As far as not knowing anyone who voted for Obama he did pretty good in ND considering how liberal he has been in the past. I think he did better than Kerry, Gore, or Clinton ever did in ND. I could be wrong on that but he did better than I thought he would.

Obama's birth certificate was verified here is a link:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... e_usa.html



> --Plainsman, I be we could have some great talks about hunting, but the one thing about you and the extreme rights do, is your always ripping everything on the left, but never talk about all the crap the far rights have done to bury this country


That is right on the money for most of the comments on this forum. I will however stick up for Plainsman and Bobm, they have taken pot shots at the right many times. No one knows for sure what is going to happen with guns, there are many dems who will not vote for any gun bans. I am definetely expecting that there will be more red tape to own and purchase a gun. As far as the economy and bailouts go Obama has a lot better ideas than the bush team has ever had, nobody has any idea what will work and what will fail but at least Obama is talking about creating jobs and tracking bailout money which has never been on the Bush agenda. I am hoping he is more like FDR than Hoover. Jobs have to be created and brought back to the US for us to get out of this economic slump and to get the defecit under some sort of control, closing corporate tax loopholes is also apparantly high on the agenda. Welfare is a touchy issue with everyone, it seems to me that we either help try to get people on their feet or we just build more prisons, one way or another we pay for them. There does need to be limits though. As far as Guantanamo Bay goes there will be a few prisoners who will be given a free pass home, but anyone that the gov't views as a threat will be moved to the US or to prisons in some other country. I can't believe that people actually think that Obama will give them a get out of jail free card.

I am hoping that Obama is a good president, we all need him to succeed. I am just tired of everyone thinking he is some sort of idiot or nutjob. He doesn't appear to be bipolar or have meglomaniac issues like hitler and the like. This is a man who took down the clinton political machine, he is not going to get into office and shoot himself in the foot over and over again, he has worked to hard and has too many expectations on him.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> One positive thing that will happen the second that Obama is sworn in is that from that moment forward no minority in this country can piss and moan anymore about anything. They got their chance.


That will never happen, they will piss and moan until they get whatever it is they want next. Haven't you noticed its all about ME!!

When we gave the Indians the casinos we hoped this would integrate them into the system and reduce the predijuces from the older folks. Also with all the income from all the new jobs on the reservations we hoped they would be come self reliant someday, but so far it has went backwards with them fighting like little children over a toy.

I can hardly wait until the next election, it might have a straight up black man in it if we get lucky. I don't know how a man who is 50% white, 37.5% Arabic and 12.5% black can be called a black man.


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96 (Aug 25, 2008)

I hope he does good as well. We need a good president right now.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> but the one thing about you and the extreme rights do, is your always ripping everything on the left, but never talk about all the crap the far rights have done to bury this country.


Evidently you don't read what I have to say objectively. The republicans tick me off a lot, it's just that the democrats tick me off more. I don't consider myself a republican anymore, I consider myself and independent conservative.
Bush ticks me off most on the Mexican border. He has done nothing, but then maybe his plate has been full with terrorism. No matter what way you look at it he has done a good job of that. 
Although I am very disappointed with Bush when people leave the reason reservation my conscience says defend him. Now, if I am wrong about Obama going for the guns you can serve me a big helping of crow and I will eat it.
This is the way I look at it. The democrats if not on purpose have done a magnificent job of screwing up this nation. The republicans have let them, and when in power have done nothing to correct it. 
The president can do nothing for the economy without the cooperation of congress. Congress on the other hand can totally screw up the economy and there is nothing the president can do about it. The messed up economy falls 90% on the head of democrats. It was their bleeding heart, economic ignorance that got us into this mess. Oh, we have to help the poor. Give then loans even though there is little chance they can pay them back. If they don't stop this I will soon believe they are not patriots and rather trying to destroy this nation. The reason I feel that way is because I find it hard people can mess up as bad as they have out of pure stupidity.

It's just like Iraq. They say if it goes good it will make Bush look good, but if it goes bad it will make him look really bad. Now if our democrat congress sees that America is responding this way what do you think they will do? I think a bunch of the lowlifes will try to sabotage Iraq because making Bush look bad is more important to people like Nancy and Harry than the security of America or the freedom of the Iraq people. I really have a very poor opinion of their honesty and them as decent people.

As far as Obama I am hoping for the best, but pointing out the negatives of his past. It's not so much Obama that I was upset with in some of those clips, it was the people. I think some of you reading this don't understand that. It's not Obama's fault that some of you worship him. It's your fault if your silly enough to think he is going to save this world. Your expectations are way to high. I will be pleased with him if he is 20% of what some of you people think. I will be displeased if he is 10% of what I think. Bring on the crow, I would like a ton of it. 

Willy send me your address and I'll send you some cheese to go with your whine. :eyeroll:

Edit: oh, yes, bretts,


> Plainsman, I be we could have some great talks about hunting


 Yes, no doubt in my mind.


----------



## hunter121390 (Nov 7, 2006)

buckseye said:


> > One positive thing that will happen the second that Obama is sworn in is that from that moment forward no minority in this country can piss and moan anymore about anything. They got their chance.
> 
> 
> That will never happen, they will piss and moan until they get whatever it is they want next. Haven't you noticed its all about ME!!


so true


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't like to cut and past, but this article will tell you why Christian, white, middle age, working American did not vote for Obama.



> THE FOUNDATION
> "We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times." --George Washington
> 
> Who elected Obama?
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Obama's birth certificate was verified here is a link:


\

No, it has not been released, or verified. That site is not correct. I don't like assumptions, but since he will not produce a birth certificate, but only a certificate of live birth (which is entirely different) then one has to wonder.

I often wonder what the greater resistance is. Is it that many of us resist Obama, or is it that we resist the worship of the man. I just hope that people will put what ever this emotion is aside, and use their head over the years to come.



> That explains who he is in the glassy eyes of his messianic following, but who is he really? Who is Barack Hussein Obama, the president-elect of the United States of America?
> 
> In pursuit of an answer, I have compiled a list of some important questions directed at BHO that he did not answer in 2008.
> 
> ...


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

How can the birth certificate link be incorrect. They have sources, people, and documentation to prove it. This is a hell of a lot more than any groups questioning the birth issue can come up with. This issue was tackled by the Clinton gestapo (when they still had money to burn), the republican party, the state of Hawaii, and obviously the state dept. If all this is phony someone would have caught it by now. There has already been one lawsuit filed against Obama and it was tossed in October. Too many people with something to gain and others with nothing to gain have challenged this and have failed.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Yep, factcheck.org is a fine upstanding unbiased organization.

And I got a bridge I'll sell you, cheap.

:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Those guys wouldn't recognize a "fact" if it slapped them in the face and said BOO.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I still have factcheck.org listed as one of my favorites on my computer. I often went to them to verify things I had read. Then one day I found something I knew was wrong. I think it was when they stated that Bush had raised more campaign funds than any other senator. That's wrong he has never been a senator. Maybe the key word was "other". That made me sceptical and I begin to watch closer. Sure enough they were wrong many other times. Nothing that looked blatant, things that looked like they would be accidental. However, I seen a pattern developed. That pattern was always in favor of the liberals if it was important. More often in favor of the conservatives if it was something of small importance. On the surface it looked fair, but to me that was a bias.

Obama headed the Annenberg Foundation -- an appointment that he received from Ayers. Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg foundation. Now in my book that looks like a conflict of interest. Also the last I checked it was a certificate of live birth, not a birth certificate. As I have read there is a big difference since the Hawaiian certificate of live birth is not acceptable for a passport or other official documents.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

I heard an interesting quote from a family friend the other day that totally sums up my feeling regarding our in coming President and the tough shape our country is in right now.

He said, "I didn't vote for Obama but I really hope he gives me a reason to vote for him in four years."

In my opinion there are way too many people, from either side of the aisle, including many people in this forum that truly can not buy into that optimism for our country b.c it would mean that they would have to support someone they didn't vote for. To me this is really a sad state of affairs for our country.

There might be some that try to reply and defend themselves and say they want to see our president succeed but that would mean they have to reply to a forum with a title "Obama/Hitler." Quite the irony!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The irony here is that the man hasn't taken office yet and he is already being trashed by libs and conservatives.

I wasn't aware that factcheck.org was that shaky. It still doesn't explain how the Clintons, Repubs, that one East coast lawyer, and the state dept under a repub administration hasn't caught on but a few reporters/bloggers have.

I don't think Obama is going to live up to his expectations, it would be impossible. I get so tired of constant negativity and whining, that too me is un-american. Eisenhower would not be happy if he saw how many pu$$ies there are in this country right now. :beer:

On the bright side for conservatives Pelosi was whining today that Obama is not going to repeal Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy as he promised in his campaign. Maybe he will be some what of a bipartisan leader after all, he would not be the first politician to break a campaign promise.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Here is an article that many of you may find interesting:

Barack the Black Hitler: How Obama's stated goals may lead to the deaths of roughly six million people and the striking similarities between Obama's personality and methods for acquiring power and Hitler's.

For most people, Hitler embodies pure evil. Because of this, his name is often invoked in debates over character. These sorts of comparisons are almost always unwarranted and wildly exaggerated. But now America has a new star politician, Obama, and the parallels between he and the most loathed man in history are very real. In this article, we will examine the methods of assuming power employed by both men, and the role of their decisions in the lives (and deaths) of six millions jews.

The substance behind words:

We can tell a lot about what a politician thinks of his audience based on his approach to speaking to them. A politician that believes his audience is mature and intelligent will appeal to their logic rather than emotion. He will tell them the unpleasant truth because he believes his audience can handle it. A politician that does not think very highly of his audience will do the opposite. He will remain as vague as possible and appeal to their emotions above all else.

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."
- Adolf Hitler

It is not hard to deduce Obama's opinions of his audience. When he's in public he uses vague terms such as "hope" and "change" rather than attempt to define exactly what it is he intends to do. He appeals to the authority of examples in history in order to imbue their qualities into his words rather than extoll the virtues of any specific policy he proposes. Let's not forget his creative "borrowing" of other people's words either. (see: Deval Patrick) In essence, he aims to inspire, not inform.

"I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few."
- Adolf Hitler

Behind closed doors, however, Obama shows another side to him as he attempts social psychoanalysis on the people whose votes he seeks:

"[People in small towns] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
- Obama, at a San Francisco fundraiser. (Behind closed doors)

Insults and condescension aside, what is wrong with this picture? Why doesn't Obama share his amatuer psychoanalyst-side with the rest of the people? Surely a great orator as Obama can do it without insulting them, right? It would be impressive for Obama to tell the American people exactly what they're thinking (as he seems to think himself capable of doing), but it appears he doesn't seem to think highly enough of voters to tell them what he thinks, only what he wants them to feel.

Tactics for seizing control:

"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future."
- Adolf Hitler

Its no big secret that Obama bases most of his appeal with youth voters. This is a common occurrence in the history of the rise of tyrants. Most are supported fervently by the young. Hitler famously used this technique to gain power. The tyrant-to-be must hide his true ambitions behind a mask of emotional appeal in order to seduce the gullible and unwary. The youth most often falls into this category, not yet "broken in" to the number one rule in electing a ruler: watch their actions, not their lips.

"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."
- Adolf Hitler

In the year 2000, a fierce primary raged in the Republican party. Two candidates, John McCain and George W. Bush polarized the party. Some sleazy personal attacks against McCain appeared at a crucial moment. In the end, Bush won, but not without sowing the seeds of animosity. McCain believed he had been the victim of some dirty tricks and attributed the attacks to the Bush campaign. Bush denied it. The vitriol was so bad that many expected McCain to leave the party. By most accounts, including the Democrats that met with him to discuss such matters, he almost did. Nevertheless, to the surprise of many wide-eyed pundits, McCain strolled into the convention in support of Bush. Chalk it up to character or political posturing for another run. Despite this, the rivalry did not subside. The two men represented opposite ends of the Republican party.

In the years to follow, McCain became a vocal critic of the management of the Iraq war. When the blueprints for the Surge rolled out, he was one of the first to embrace it while rejecting the Bush doctrine. He has also been critical of the wasteful spending which the administration allowed and even its tax cuts. He earned the scorn of a lot of Republican leaders for this, as well as his "maverick" handle from the media, seeing him as a thorn in the administration's side. Despite their many differences and long history of rivalry, Obama attempts to caricature McCain as essentially a Bush-clone in many of his speeches.

"No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush term&#8230;"
- Barack Obama

Returning to the subject of Obama's views of voters, what do you think this tells us about Obama? Surely the people must know Bush's policies, they've been the law of the land for nearly eight years. Surely, any voter interested in the issues would study the policies of the candidates carefully. If one candidate's policies were identical to the current administration's, wouldn't it be readily obvious even to the most untrained eye? Why would the average voter need Obama to tell them that Bush and McCain are the same person if its obvious? Only if they wouldn't get that impression from looking at the record, only if it weren't true.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
- Adolf Hitler

(For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that a version of this quote first originated with Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister. In this particular quote, Hitler was paraphrasing him.)

"Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be "discovered" by an election."
- Adolf Hitler

January 2nd, 1996, Obama began his under-handed crusade for the senate. With a crack team of lawyers, he challenged hundreds of vote petitions and managed to eliminate all of his fellow Democrats from the ballot. One fellow candidate was Alice Palmer. Up to that point, she had been grooming Obama to succeed her once she retired. Not willing to wait, Obama took matters into his own hands and denied her the right to run for her own seat. Alice Palmer is the same woman who essentially launched his political career. Apparently, Obama didn't trust the voters to "discover" a great man in that election, so he chose for them.

The genes of tyranny:

Obama and Hitler both have displayed a penchant for eliminating "undesirable" infants. Hitler's case is well known; he believed he could create a master race through selective breeding, mandatory sterilization of "undesirable parents" and abortions. Obama's methods lack the scope of ambition but the end result is similar - Obama has legalized the murder of already-born infants.

In 2002, an important bill known as the "Induced Infant Liability Act" cropped up in the Illinois senate. The purpose of the bill was to protect infants who had been born alive after a failed abortion from being "aborted" after birth. In the United States, the second a person is born, they become a U.S. citizen. Taking the life of such a citizen is murder. That is something both pro-choice and pro-life advocates can agree on. Even the most pro-abortion lobby in the country, NARAL, did not oppose it nor the federal version of the law.

Obama on the other hand, did oppose it, TWICE. In doing so, he helped establish the legality of murder of infant Americans in his state.

Both Obama and Hitler are of mixed racial heritage, and distort this heritage to control public opinion. Hitler hated jews and made a career of it, so he hid the fact that jewish blood ran through his veins. Obama has made a career out of embracing his "blackness" and African American heritage. His first book, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance", was based entirely on that premise. There's just one problem: Obama isn't an African American, Obama is an Arab American.

Obama is 50% caucasian, 43.75% arab, and 6.25% black. According to federal law, an American citizen must be at least 1/8th, or 12.5% of a particular race to be considered a member of that race. Obama meets that criteria easily to be considered an Arab American but not African American.

(The astute reader will have noticed that being that Obama is not truly African American, the title of this article is inaccurate. I have decided upon that title rather than an alternative due to the public's general familiarity with Obama as an "African American".)

Dead-end philosophy:

Pop Quiz: Which of these quotes was said by Hitler and which was said by Obama?

A. "&#8230;our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition."

B. "Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest."

If these two statements seem similiar, it's because they both derive from the same philosophy: socialism. NAZI stands for "National Socialist German Workers' Party". The socialists of Hitler's era aren't much different from those of today in terms of ideology, though most socialists of the modern era are called "latte liberals". Indeed, Hitler would've fit right in with such a group. He was a vegetarian, pro-abortion, an advocate for strict gun control, desirous of universal health care, and continually extolling the virtues of state control.

Someone once asked me how Obama could become a socialist. I replied by asking how he could not. Obama has been surrounded by marxists his entire life. I'm not sure that he has contacted non-marxist/socialist ideas within his close circle of friends even once.

His father was a communist. His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. Obama explicitly admits to seeking out marxist professors in his autobiographical work and attending socialist meetings. His close friends, like Bill Ayers the former terrorist, leadership at Trinity, all hold distinctly socialist/marxist views. Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the entire senate for 2007. He was even more radical than senators who were openly socialist.

See ratings here: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Obama's socialism will be an issue to voters.

(Quote A. was Obama, quote B. was Hitler.)

The audacity of deception.

Throughout the campaign, Obama has shown himself to be extremely "loose" with the facts. This is not unusual with politicians in general. However, while most politicians fib or exaggerate when telling stories in order to look more grandiose, Obama lies to cover up the real Obama. Apparently, Obama doesn't trust voters enough to tell them his real positions. The lies of Obama are well documented, so I will only discuss one, an important one, here.

The Obama claim:

"When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause&#8230;

&#8230;He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

"I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval."

The Facts:

"A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate."

So, not only did the bill not pass as Obama claimed, but it wasn't even his anymore, after he let others rewrite it. Most disturbing of all, is WHY he allowed Exelon to essentially take control of the very bill meant to reign in their practices of radioactive leaks:

"Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers."

In this particular Obama lie, Obama protrays himself as a champion of the people, taking up their concerns and confronting special interests run amok. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

Full article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/po ... ref=slogin

What is also particularly troubling is our press's unwillingness to ask Obama the sorts of questions to expose these falsehoods. The above New York Times article is something of an exception, you'll notice it is dated February 3, before they became shills for Obama. Indeed, in the rare instances in which Obama has been confronted with questions regarding his deceptions or questionable ties, he responds by fleeing - literally.

"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
- Adolf Hitler

For a fairly extensive list of Obama lies, try this compilation: http://savagepolitics.com/?page_id=326

The ugly head of antisemitism rears itself again:

Hitler's antisemitism is well documented. But what of Obama's?

In the 1930's, Hitler ran on a platform that included open antisemitism. At that time and place, it was politically viable to do so. In the modern era and in the U.S., it is not viable to be openly opposed to any race, including jews. Nevertheless, Obama has knowingly jeapordized his chances for the presidency by willfully associating himself with countless antisemites: Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Powers, Robert Malley, Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, El-Hady, etc. Some of his own advisors have called for the U.S. to cut off funding to Israel, have been caught negotiating with known islamic extremist groups, and have expressed sympathy and praise for Hamas.

There appears to be only two conclusions we can reach from this:

A. Obama is antisemitic but hides it from voters.

B. Obama is incredibly tolerant of antisemitism.

Regardless of Obama's true feelings, this sort of approach to something as poisonous as racism is disturbing and dangerous.

"Obama has taken no steps to moderate his church's anti-Israel invective. Obama's affiliation with Wright aligns with his choice of financial backers and foreign policy advisors. To varying degrees, all of them exhibit hostility towards Israel and support for appeasing jihadists."
- Jerusalem Post.

The second coming of the holocaust:

The next president of the United States will inherit a looming crisis: Iran. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the annihilation of Israel on more than one occassion, and has promised to be the man to do it. In that same breath, Mr. Ahmadinejad's nation is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. As he has stated his aim is to annihilate israel, has the power to give such an order, and is developing the capacity to meet such an end, it is reasonable to take this threat seriously. Very seriously.

The best solution to this problem will come from careful diplomacy, not appeasement. Appeasement is a word that is tossed around rather carelessly these days, so please allow me to explain the distinctions with an analogy:

Scenario A. A man walks into a field with a briefcase where a little girl is picking flowers. His name is Mr. Nari. He then opens up his briefcase and pulls out the components for a gun. As he is reconstructing his weapon, another man, Mr. O, walks up and asks Mr. Nari what he's doing. Mr. Nari responds by informing him of his intention to shoot the little girl. Mr. O is alarmed and asks Mr. Nari, "What do you want?" "Just to talk, that's all," responds Mr. Nari. Mr. O is relieved. All he wanted was to talk! So Mr. O obliges him and begins delivering a powerful argument against shooting people. Meanwhile, Mr. Nari nods his head in agreement as he keeps on working at putting together his gun. Soon he springs the last part into place, raises his weapon, and shoots the little girl dead. "What did you do that for!?" demands Mr. O. To which Mr. Nari replies, "You idiot, I told you that was what I was going to do and you sat here chatting away, giving me the time I needed to pull it off."

Scenario B. A man walks into a field with a briefcase where a little girl is picking flowers. His name is Mr. Nari. He then opens up his briefcase and pulls out the components for a gun. As he is reconstructing his weapon, another man, Mr. M, walks up and asks Mr. Nari what he's doing. Mr. Nari responds by informing him of his intention to shoot the little girl. Mr. M is alarmed and pulls out a gun of his own and points it at Mr. Nari. "Don't even think about it," warns Mr. M. "Whoa, relax, I just want to talk," says Mr. Nari. "Throw that away, and then we'll talk," replied Mr. M. Mr. Nari pauses, stares at the gun pointed at him, then reluctantly obliges. And so they talk.

Scenario A is appeasement, scenario B is diplomacy with preconditions. Most tyrants with diabolical ambition have complex schemes that require a lot of time to acheive. To acquire the time needed, they often use diplomacy as a stalling mechanism. So long as they are giving up nothing in the talks, they are getting something for nothing. That is why the word "appeasement" is used to describe these sorts of situations: the well-intentioned head of state gives up something the tyrant needs (time) for nothing in hopes he'll change his mind. History has shown this to be ineffective. That is the purpose of preconditions. A precondition is something the leader must give up before formal diplomacy is engaged. In the case of Iran, it would be their nuclear weapons program.

Of the three most major candidates this election season has seen, only one of them wants to engage in the sort of diplomacy described in scenario A, Barack Obama. Ahmadinejad wants the time necessary to complete his genocidal ambitions, and according to Obama, he intends to give it to him. Obama must understand that his methods consist of appeasement at some level, because when Bush gave a speech about appeasers without naming a name, political party, or even national origin, Obama decided he must've been talking about Obama.

There are approximately six million jews in Israel today. If Obama's policy of appeasement becomes U.S. policy, then Ahmadinejad will get his wish. Never again, is the slogan of Holocaust survivors. If Obama gets a chance to enact this policy, we will have let them down. Perhaps then, when an entire nation is wiped off the map with millions dead, people will finally learn that appeasement does not work. Then again, you'd think we would've learned that lesson from Hitler and the first Holocaust.

Holocaust deniers often pick up on one fact to stake their claim: Hitler never issued an order for the Final Solution. This is true. It was actually the brainchild of one his subordinates. Hitler merely allowed it to happen, and in doing so, was responsible for it. If Obama follows his stated position regarding Iran, he will find himself in a similar position - staring at the annihilation of six million innocent lives and doing nothing to stop it.

History repeats:

Pop Quiz 2. Name this leader:

The nation was in shambles. A previous ruler had led the country into an unnecessary war, the economy was failing, and a sense of depression filled the air. Then, a new leader emerged. He was a powerful speaker, offering hope, change, and a fix to the economy. He wrote two books about his experiences and used his literary work to propel him to success. He was an open christian with some muslim friends. He called for unity and considered himself an advocate of peace. Some of his political opponents cast him as naive and inexperienced. He also had alot of radical ties, but the media, and ultimately the voters, were willing to overlook that.

Who is he?

The answer is Hitler. It's something of a trick question, because nothing in the characteristics of the above described character bear any distinction between Obama and Hitler. The only difference is that the final sentence implies that the leader has already been elected, while Obama has not been elected. Yet.

Different strokes:

This article has put a great deal of focus on the similarities between Hitler and Obama, and they are indeed numerous. Indeed, I never even got around to most of it, such as the Hitler/Obama muslim connection, or gestures they share in their oratory, or even much depth into their shared views of socialism. (I will discuss Obama's socialist/marxist views at length in a later post.) An encyclopedia could be written documenting the parallels.

However, I'd like to take a moment to discuss the differences. For one thing, Hitler was competent. Hitler was also quite bold, while I doubt anyone would ever accuse Obama of personal courage. He also invaded much of Europe, while Obama seems content with merely socializing the U.S. and watching a new holocaust unfold.

In other areas, Obama shares greater similarities to other past leaders. For example, his economic policies are very similar to that of President Hoover, the man credited with essentially causing (or at least worsening) the Great Depression. They are both economic isolationists and protectionistic to the core. He also draws a parallel to Neville Chamberlin, who famously attempted to appease Hitler, in terms of foreign policy. In fact, for any student of history, it would appear that Obama sifted through a history book, collected all of the worst traits and policies of leaders past, then compiled them to make the bedrock of his campaign.

The irony of all this is that it looks as though Obama was honest about one thing - he will bring change. If history is any guide, we can expect his sort of change to contain the mores of Marx, the political ambition of Hitler, the foreign policy of Neville Chamberlin, and the economics of Hoover. It's a change that looks remarkably the same. It's a change that, if implemented, could alter this country into something so destitute, so diminished, so destroyed, so devoid of any signs of its origin, that none of us may even recognize it.

If you want change in 2008, and lots of it, vote for Obama. It may be the last vote you ever cast.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Obama's birth certificate was verified here is a link:


Obama wasn't born he is the result of immaculate misconception. :lol:


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

:beer:


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

plainsman wrote: Willy send me your address and I'll send you some cheese to go with your whine.

it wasn't whining plainsman... I was just showing how much b.s. was in your statement about racism.... I'll leave the whining to some of the regulars on here. This could easily be called the conservative b!tch and moan forum


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

willythekid said:


> I'll leave the whining to some of the regulars on here.
> 
> This could easily be called the conservative b!tch and moan forum


:lol:

:thumb:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Somebody has to, you liberals here buy anything the media and your messiah has to say. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I don't like anything about Obama, but Whistler, you should bone up on the history of the third reich and hitler's rise to power. There is absolutely NO similarity there at all. Look it up if you have a few days to read it. Like I say, I don't like Obama and his cohorts, but comparing him to Hitler? That's the silliest thing I've read for a long, long time! 
No child left behind - excluding history, that is. :>)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> He said, "I didn't vote for Obama but I really hope he gives me a reason to vote for him in four years."


That would be good. Something that unexpected would be wonderful.



> I get so tired of constant negativity and whining, that too me is un-american.





> The irony here is that the man hasn't taken office yet and he is already being trashed by libs and conservatives.


I didn't know any liberals were trashing him. That's a surprise. I have seen conservatives going ga ga over him.

The negativity. When Bush took office the liberals were lined up on Pennsylvania avenue flipping him off as he headed to the White House. I don't think there are many conservatives with manners that bad, so I doubt that will happen tomorrow.
A couple of months ago I said I was guardedly optimistic. However, secrets bread distrust, and there are so many questions that I thought would be answered before Obama took office that I wasn't overly concerned. Now I am.
I hear people say give him a chance. I was also willing to do that a couple months ago, but recently have come to realize that's foolish. Why would I give someone diametrically opposed to me a chance. Why would I give him a chance to implement an oppressive gun law, why would I give him a chance to turn America socialist (like it isn't there already)? Why would I do that? 
Why would I take people serious when they don't treat him as a president, but worship the man? 
Willy, you have to learn the difference in alerting people to resist and whining. Whining is when a liberal begs for money that doesn't belong to him. Resistance is when a conservative tries to keep the money he earned. 

I will admit I have not looked at history enough to compare Hitler and Obama. I have looked at history enough to know the American liberals are acting like the German citizens did in their following of Hitler. It's the cult like following that bothers me. Not a lot of difference between Hitlers admirers, and those who followed Jim Jones, hence the reference to the cool-aid liberals drink.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Hugger, you are still missing my point. I am still just looking at his rise to power. Look at the videos and pay attention and unless you are blind or don't want to be bothered by the facts you will see it.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Comparing him to Hitler is no more apt a comparison than comparing him to any other charismatic leader that comes to power in a furor (the pun was too good to resist ). You could just as easily compare him to Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukraine, or Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, but that doesn't let you paint him as a villain.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

omegax said:


> Comparing him to Hitler is no more apt a comparison than comparing him to any other charismatic leader that comes to power in a furor (the pun was too good to resist ). You could just as easily compare him to Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukraine, or Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, but that doesn't let you paint him as a villain.


No it doesn't. I am more disappointed in the people. We have become so shallow in our worship of people. We look up to some movie stars as if they could do no wrong. Our younger generation thinks that outstanding abilities equal a good person. It actually means only that they have outstanding ability. An outstanding orator has the potential to be a great person, or a great deceiver. The ability is no indicator.

This is my concern: that when we make decisions on emotion rather than logic it is a greater gamble. I am disappointed that each year we become a nation more of symbolism over substance. No I am not quoting Rush Limbaugh, I said that at least ten years before he did.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

"Comparing him to Hitler is no more apt a comparison than comparing him to any other charismatic leader that comes to power in a furor (the pun was too good to resist ). You could just as easily compare him to Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukraine, or Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, but that doesn't let you paint him as a villain."

I don't think any one here is painting him as a villain. His past position and future actions he can do with authority of executive order will paint him as a elected president that thinks we the people have to many liberties.

From Wikipedia,

The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

Wealth redistribution is just a move to Communism. It caused investors to run from the stock market for fear of over regulation and high taxes from Washington.

I just hope the Blue Dog Dems will stand for freedom and liberty and not follow the extreme liberals, Reed and Pelosi.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Plainsman,

Is that really a new thing?

FDR was seen as sort of the benevolent captain steering the ship. TR was a bold leader in a time of great expansion in the influence of the US. Reagan was a new light leading us out of a dark period (he was "hope" before Obama was).

People have always elected the guy they see as a sign of the times. Careful stage management and marketing of a candidate is nothing new. Look at Kennedy's "trouncing" of Nixon in the first televised debate (people who listened on radio had a whole different opinion), or LBJ's "daisy ad".

Not living up to your billing has a steep cost. People will turn on you. I guess that's why it's only 4 year terms.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Bowstring said:


> Wealth redistribution is just a move to Communism. It caused investors to run from the stock market for fear of over regulation and high taxes from Washington.


"Wealth redistribution" again? It's not like it's some unprecedented tax hike. It's returning the tax rate for the top-tier to where it was until 2003 (the 90s were pretty prosperous) from 35% to 38%. It won't even happen for quite a while. You'd be pretty crazy to raise taxes in our current situation.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman,
> 
> Is that really a new thing?


Oh, not at all. Emotion over logic has been getting us into trouble for thousands of years. I just don't understand letting your heart rule your brain. That's either love or worship. I remember the girls fainting over Elvis and the Beetles. When I was young and dating I would look at that and say "write that one off". Even at high school age there wasn't a girl pretty enough to put up with that kind of stupidity. You really don't have to choose brains or beauty. Lucky for me the blond jokes are not real.



> Not living up to your billing has a steep cost. People will turn on you. I guess that's why it's only 4 year terms.


I wonder if they will this time. I mean the media has given him every leeway possible. You would have thought McCain was in his pocket or wanted to loose. One thing is for sure, the guy is going to have a rough road. He has told America he will work miracles, but I see he started backing down two weeks ago. I was hoping he would pick smart people to advise him, but it's the same ole same ole.

My biggest worry is his history of gun control, and his self admitted reading Marxist theory and having his life greatly influenced towards the ideals.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Bowstring said:


> I don't think any one here is painting him as a villain.
> .


No people are just comparing him to the biggest murderer in world history who killed 6 million plus during the Holocaust and plunged the world into a war that killed tens of millions of people. But they aren't painting him as a villan or anything.

The ignorance would be almost laughable if it wasn't so damn sad!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The comparison i don't think is there....

But the comparison of some of this "followers" are similar to some of the people who "followed" hitler.

What I mean is people are "following" Obama blindly. They are so into bush bashing and are lead or believe in what anything that is on the news. they don't think for themselves.

Like I stated earlier in the election....I don't care if you vote for him....but tell me why other than "change"....and of the many times I asked that question (about 100)....I only had about 10 give me answers. So 10% of the people who I knew who voted for him actually did some research and did not follow blindly.

Again....this is an old saying I have heard.....A Person is smart....people are stupid.

I wish our president elect the best of luck....because who ever was in office will need it.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Bowstring said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think any one here is painting him as a villain.
> ...


Obama is extremely inexperienced and is capable of making a bad decision, that could well result in something catrostrophic....given time, we will know how capable he really is, for rhetoric won't save your *** in a volatile confrontation. when the school yard bully comes looking for you it is either flight or fight!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Bowstring said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think any one here is painting him as a villain.
> ...


Gooseguy do you pay attention to what people write? I'm not trying to put you down, but I would ask that you really look at what people write, not what you want to think they wrote so you can call them ignorant. For example I wrote: 


> I am more disappointed in the people. We have become so shallow in our worship of people.





> It's the cult like following that bothers me.





> I have looked at history enough to know the American liberals are acting like the German citizens did in their following of Hitler.


Bowstring wrote:


> but that doesn't let you paint him as a villain."


Plainsman responded:


> No it doesn't.


Gooseguy do you still think that's an honest opinion about us? Your statement is terribly misleading. Now we all have to decide if it's an honest mistake, or if your terribly partisan, and have falsely accused us. Most on here watch those videos and see the connection. Most of those give it further thought and understand it's not so much a comparison of the leaders as a comparison of the mindless followers.

I don't remember which thread it was on, but there is a quote from a prominent liberal who wants to prosecute Bush and she made a statement about not giving to much power because that's how you build tyrants. The woman came off like a nut job, but she had a point about tyrants. I don't mean liberal or conservative I mean anyone.

It's the middle of the road people that keep our nation on a steady course, but it's often the radicals that have new ideas. Not often, but sometimes a good idea even comes out of their mouths.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Most on here watch those videos and see the connection. Most of those give it further thought and understand it's not so much a comparison of the leaders as a comparison of the mindless followers.


I knew somebody on this board would get the point. But I also knew it would create a stir. :stirpot:


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Regarding this topic, I believe you are ignorant if you believe any of the following:

1. You accept a comparison an American President to Hitler as a reasonable historical comparison
2. You believe that the state of our current political system can be compared to the state of the German political system that allowed Hitler to come to power (Weimar Republic)
3. You don't have enough faith in our Constitution (or society) to believe that someone who holds office that has different views than you means the end of our democracy
4. You thinks that President Obama potential misdeeds can even come close to Hitlers deeds.
5. You think the American electorate are stupid
6. You believe this board is an unbiased exchange of ideas

Go ahead and rip away, but this is what I believe.

Also, as far as me being totally partisan, not even close. I didn't even vote for the man.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

1 Nope don't accept it.
2 I do compare the followers of each man. Emotional
3 I don't have faith in people, and the constitution can be easily changed with a super majority.
4 Nope don't think that
5 Oh, ya, I think that.
6 You don't think so because we want agree with you. This place is full of sportsman and you think your going to have equal representation when you support a guy that wants your guns? Isn't going to happen. My only responsibility is that everyone gets to say what they want. It's not my responsibility to make everyone agree with you.



> Also, as far as me being totally partisan, not even close. I didn't even vote for the man.


You sure are defending him, when it isn't even him that is being attacked. Actually there is no attack, only the observation that there is more emotion currently than reason. That what happened when Hitler came to power was much the same. That observation doesn't go any further. It doesn't hint at Obama's performance. It doesn't hint at his loyalty. As a matter of fact it makes no reflection on him, but it does make a reflection on the American people. 
Ever watch J Leno on the street. 90% of the people don't know the vice presidents name. Some people think it was France that attack Pearl Harbor etc. and you don't think the electorate is stupid. Looking at Leno I would say 90% are ignorant. I don't want to take time to vote, I want to shoot a duck. I don't want to talk politics I want to shoot a deer. Wake up or all that is gone.



> Go ahead and rip away, but this is what I believe.


No one is ripping you, but you sure are ripping on us and you didn't even understand what we were trying to say.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

I don't have a ton of time right now but as far as defending Obama. Not so much defending him, more like giving our president the benefit of the doubt. He has been in office for a grand total of 26 hours. So far all the negativity has been about what he is GOING to do. I am not big on ripping people based on what might happen, I will hold my criticism to what actually happens. I am sure I will have some criticisms.

As far as the board being biased. I don't expect it to be totall unbiased based on the people that frequent this board. Nor do I blame you in the least for the slant. However, I think it is rather funny that people try to present certain topics as not being bias....for example a topic labeled Obama/Hitler.

As far as the electorate being stupid. I think the electorate has done a fairly good job over the past 200 years selecting are leaders.

Finally, "Jay Walking" on the Tonigh Show is your proof of ignorance? If that is a fair representation, I will use Jeopardy as my proof that the electorate are intelligent. In both cases, not really representative of the public at large. In any event it is too bad that you think Americans are so stupid. I would think that history gives proof to our people's innovation, creativity and educational prowess....but I guess not.

As I have said before, to each there own.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gooseguy10, I can appreciate that wait and see attitude. I had it for a while, but his past pushes me to resist what I think will surely come. If I am wrong your welcome to an "I told you so", and I hope you are right. Better that the president does a good job than I turn our right.

The people on Jay Walking I am sure are the dumbest he could find. He says not, but that's hard to believe. However, the person who thought France attacked Pearl Harbor was a sixth grade teacher. :eyeroll: Another teacher thought there was ten feet in a mile. The people he picked, the education level they were at, and the answers they gave was sad.

No, I don't think we have done a great job. It's more like the old cliche "God watches over children and fools".

One of the things that concerns me is I see children living with their parents longer and longer. I know many who have kids 25 and 26 years old living with them. They sure can save a lot of money when mom and dad foot the grocery bill and they have no rent. However, I have a concern about that. This age group is voting before they have ever tasted independence. I wonder if they are not inclined to vote for a government that will take care of them when mom and dad don't? What does everyone else think? Do you think this recent phenomenon is contributing to lack of independence and liberal voting?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Quote,
"One of the things that concerns me is I see children living with their parents longer and longer. I know many who have kids 25 and 26 years old living with them."

A friend of mine tells the story of her Dad giving each of his kids a set of luggage for there high school graduation present. And he expected them to use it. And they did and all turned out just fine.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Finally, "Jay Walking" on the Tonigh Show is your proof of ignorance? If that is a fair representation, I will use Jeopardy as my proof that the electorate are intelligent. In both cases, not really representative of the public at large.


Goose you want my proof......of asking about 100 people why they are voting for Obama about 90 of them said that they wanted "Change". Ask them what they like about his campaign promises, economic stance, economic package, health care package, education package, etc.....they could not answer me....all they knew or wanted was "Change".

Is that away to vote for the Commander and Chief of our country?



> One of the things that concerns me is I see children living with their parents longer and longer. I know many who have kids 25 and 26 years old living with them.


Plainsman....I still live at home....but for a different reason. You may know why that is but I won't go into detail here.

I feel that my age group (20-30) year olds has more of a act now and think later attitude. Think of the divorce rate with this age group, think of the single parents in this age group, think of the people who have been engaged and then broke it off in this age group, think of the housing market and this age group....etc.

You see the majority of this age group is the "ALL ABOUT ME" as I like to call them. Yes there are a few who are not this way....but the most act before they think many of times. This is what I am observing.

Also what I think you were hinting at is they don't have any responsibility or they push their responsibility onto their parents or others. I know of many kids that the grandparents take care of while "mom" or "dad" are out partying and looking for a new significant other. But this is society in general.

Also with the obsession over Obama (like hitler had with his followers)...look at todays society.....they are the reality tv type. I mean people want the 15 mins of fame. I mean you can go on a TV show get booted off and be a so called Celebrity. Look at about 50% of the shows on TV. I mean they have shows where people are competing to find love and a soul mate. I could go on for hours on this one. But that is part of the problem. IMHO


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bowstring said:


> Quote,
> "One of the things that concerns me is I see children living with their parents longer and longer. I know many who have kids 25 and 26 years old living with them."
> 
> A friend of mine tells the story of her Dad giving each of his kids a set of luggage for there high school graduation present. And he expected them to use it. And they did and all turned out just fine.


Sounds like you know my kids. 

Chuck I agree with you completely. If you like a county song, buy the CD for ten bucks, why pay more just to go look at their face while they sing. They are just people. Same with Hollywood celebrities. I would walk a lot further to see a Winchester than any pansy *** movie star.


----------

