On Sep 16, 4:38*pm, wrote:
Christine O'Donnell is one of my Heros.

John King, USA program on CNN TV.
Somebody was interviewing that democrap B * * HO Butt Kisser in
Braddock,Pennsylvania.That democrap woman said she voted for B * * HO..

- More and more people in America are living on welfare, food stamps,
food
- pantries, more and more people in America are at, or below the
poverty
- level.More and more people in America have no jobs.

Yes under the good leadership of Prez Obama
more people than every are now living on US
Federal Government Aid
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-numbers_N.htm

-pbhn- WE LOVE YOU PREZ OBAMA !
* Keep Send Us That Obama-Aid-Money
-but- could you make it a little more . . .

Yes under the good leadership of Prez Obama
more people than every are now Un-Employed
http://beta.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-n...-poverty-rate/

-pbhn- WE LOVE YOU PREZ OBAMA !
* Keep Send Us That Obama-Unemployment-Money
-but- could you make the check a little bigger . . .




She said she voted for B * * * HO, she ought to be happy now.She is not
happy at all.
cuhulin

Yes under the good leadership of Prez Obama
more people than every are now living on US
Federal Government Aide

On 9/17/2010 4:35 AM, RHF wrote:
On Sep 16, 4:38 pm, wrote:
Christine O'Donnell is one of my Heros.

John King, USA program on CNN TV.
Somebody was interviewing that democrap B HO Butt Kisser in
Braddock,Pennsylvania.That democrap woman said she voted for B HO.

- More and more people in America are living on welfare, food stamps,
food
- pantries, more and more people in America are at, or below the
poverty
- level.More and more people in America have no jobs.

Yes under the good leadership of Prez Obama
more people than every are now living on US
Federal Government Aid
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-numbers_N.htm

-pbhn- WE LOVE YOU PREZ OBAMA !
* Keep Send Us That Obama-Aid-Money
-but- could you make it a little more . . .

Yes under the good leadership of Prez Obama
more people than every are now Un-Employed
http://beta.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-n...-poverty-rate/

-pbhn- WE LOVE YOU PREZ OBAMA !
* Keep Send Us That Obama-Unemployment-Money
-but- could you make the check a little bigger . . .




She said she voted for B HO, she ought to be happy now.She is not
happy at all.
cuhulin

Yes under the good leadership of Prez Obama
more people than every are now living on US
Federal Government Aide

Actually, since the 1970's, each new president has seen
welfare/food-stamps increase ... through republi-crats and demo-cans the
course has been unfaltering ... why get so upset now?

The president who replaces obama, be him/her republi-crat or demo-can,
will only see to further increases, wanna' bet?

Regards,
JS

On Sep 17, 9:07*am, John Smith wrote:
On 9/17/2010 5:50 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:





On 9/17/10 07:27 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 9/17/2010 7:44 AM, John Smith wrote:

Actually, since the 1970's, each new president has seen
welfare/food-stamps increase ... through republi-crats and demo-cans the
course has been unfaltering ... why get so upset now?

"why get so upset now?" you ask?

Well, it would seem that subtle (or not so subtle) racial bigotry may be
the answer to your question.

From reading some of the posts here, it would seem that no matter WHAT
Obama says or does, he is automatically wrong.

Heck, one poster even said Obama was a bad president because he didn't
get the family dog from a pound...

No, he was commenting that Obama promised that he was going to get his
dog from the pound, and then bought a purebred from an exclusive breeder.

On 9/17/10 12:32 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 9/17/2010 7:44 AM, John Smith wrote:

Actually, since the 1970's, each new president has seen
welfare/food-stamps increase ... through republi-crats and demo-cans
the
course has been unfaltering ... why get so upset now?

On 9/17/10 07:27 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

"why get so upset now?" you ask?

Well, it would seem that subtle (or not so subtle) racial bigotry may be
the answer to your question.

From reading some of the posts here, it would seem that no matter WHAT
Obama says or does, he is automatically wrong.

Heck, one poster even said Obama was a bad president because he didn't
get the family dog from a pound...

On 9/17/2010 8:50 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

No, he was commenting that Obama promised that he was going to get his
dog from the pound, and then bought a purebred from an exclusive breeder.

Just another broken promise.

Well, I hate to put too fine a point on it...as I don't remember the
specific details (because at the time, I thought the dog deal was pretty
much a non-issue).

When you say "promise", to whom? Under what conditions? Did he swear to
it in front of a Supreme Court Justice on George Washington's bible?

As Lee Iacocca said to the Mrs, "Nice dodge."

You brought up the dog. I didn't say it was an important issue.
But it was another broken promise. One of dozens. That was the point.



I don't know if you are a parent or not, but sometimes parents do try
and please their kids. Maybe there was nothing at the pound that the
kids liked. Bottom line...there could be fifty different reasons why
they didn't end up getting it from the pound.

That's true. But to comment on it isn't racism. To criticize him
for it isn't racism.

Someone in his position doesn't make a promise on such an issue,
except to appease a political constituency. That's not racial,
either. In other words, it was another political promise broken.

Unimportant as it is.

But you brought it up.



It's real easy to throw down the race card in dismissing critics of this
President. But it's a cheap shot.

I would respectfully beg to differ. It is abundantly, I say ABUNDANTLY
clear, that racism, however subtle, IS a factor. There are some (many?)
on this NG for whom Obama can NEVER be right, no matter which side of
the fence he is on.


That's an interesting leap.

So, there's no way race can't be involved?

The fact that there are those for whom G.W. Bush can NEVER be
right no matter which side he is on? So that's got a racial component?

The fact that there are those for whom Bill Clinton can NEVER be
right no matter which side he is on? That's racial?

But criticism of Obama must have a racial factor.

Where have I heard that before. I'd say that's a pretty racist
remark on its face.

You bring up Bush. Yes, he broke promises. He was excoriated for
it. I don't recall Jesse Jackson saying that the 'no new taxes'
blunder, AND it's subsequent criticisms, were racially motivated.

Yet, criticism of Obama for his blunders must be rooted in race?

That's bull****.

Bill Clinton ran on a platform of lowering taxes for the middle
class. And before the first month was up, broke that promise.
Ironically, also blaming a Bush.

He, was crucified for it.

Bill Clinton lied his ass off before the nation, before the
Congress, before his wife. He committed perjury on the witness
stand. He also promised transparency. And he took his cornerstone
issues behind closed doors.

And he was savaged for them.

I don't recall a single comment implying racial motivations in
any of these criticisms.

Not one.

And Bush 43? Where to start.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that any criticisms of Bush were
motivated by race. But many of them did accuse HIM of racial motivation.

The hard truth is that politicians lie. They make promises with
the intention of breaking them. And make backroom deals. They sell
their influence. I'm in Illinois. Politicians rank below gang
members, career rapists and lawyers. But nowhere is ANY criticism
refuted with accusations of racism.

These career criminals are criticized for their actions. Their
ethics. Their values. For who they are. And often for who they are not.

Race isn't even on the radar.

"Racism" is the easiest card to throw in this culture today. IT's
a hot button issue.

And it's a cheap shot.

You want to defend Obama? Go for it. You'll have no end of ready
participants to such a discussion. A discussion, by the way, that
may be productive. Might actually convince some people. Will
certainly clarify thinking. And crystalize beliefs.

Try discussing the issues. You may find that you're in agreement
with many of us. You may find that many are in agreement with you.

But as soon as you get backed into a corner by a fact, throw the
race card. Please. Show us how evolved you are.


D. Peter Maus.

On 9/17/2010 11:19 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

...
These career criminals are criticized for their actions. Their ethics.
Their values. For who they are. And often for who they are not.

Race isn't even on the radar.

"Racism" is the easiest card to throw in this culture today. IT's a hot
button issue.

And it's a cheap shot.

You want to defend Obama? Go for it. You'll have no end of ready
participants to such a discussion. A discussion, by the way, that may be
productive. Might actually convince some people. Will certainly clarify
thinking. And crystalize beliefs.

Try discussing the issues. You may find that you're in agreement with
many of us. You may find that many are in agreement with you.

But as soon as you get backed into a corner by a fact, throw the race
card. Please. Show us how evolved you are.


D. Peter Maus.

I know one thing, it is truly amazing. It in non-intuitive, brilliant in
its' simplicity and seems to have some relationship to the human psyche
which keeps the victim from seeing the victimization. And, so far, has
seemed to work very well for them ... for decades.

It is the simple "political-football-deception." You simply give them
two choices (two teams, parties, etc.), and then stock the teams with
treasonous, unethical, sociopathic liars who will do anything or say
anything in support of their masters and, you have a game!

You can even do this right out in the open. If anyone, or any group,
complains and tries to point out patterns and the end results, going on
for decades, which they have even been caught at before (false-flag
operations, for example) and they simply need to yell "conspiracy
nut-job" and the blanket which hides their treasonous crimes falls to
cloak their criminal actions ... simply amazing to set back and watch,
knowing it will be impossible to awaken those caught in the lotus
blossom dreams ...

Regards,
JS

On 9/17/2010 2:19 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/17/10 12:32 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 9/17/2010 7:44 AM, John Smith wrote:

Actually, since the 1970's, each new president has seen
welfare/food-stamps increase ... through republi-crats and
demo-cans the course has been unfaltering ... why get so
upset now?

On 9/17/10 07:27 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

"why get so upset now?" you ask?

Well, it would seem that subtle (or not so subtle) racial
bigotry may be the answer to your question.

From reading some of the posts here, it would seem that no
matter WHAT Obama says or does, he is automatically wrong.

Heck, one poster even said Obama was a bad president because he
didn't get the family dog from a pound...

On 9/17/2010 8:50 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

No, he was commenting that Obama promised that he was going to
get his dog from the pound, and then bought a purebred from an
exclusive breeder.

Just another broken promise.

Well, I hate to put too fine a point on it...as I don't remember
the specific details (because at the time, I thought the dog deal
was pretty much a non-issue).

When you say "promise", to whom? Under what conditions? Did he
swear to it in front of a Supreme Court Justice on George
Washington's bible?

As Lee Iacocca said to the Mrs, "Nice dodge."

You brought up the dog. I didn't say it was an important issue. But
it was another broken promise. One of dozens. That was the point.



I don't know if you are a parent or not, but sometimes parents do
try and please their kids. Maybe there was nothing at the pound
that the kids liked. Bottom line...there could be fifty different
reasons why they didn't end up getting it from the pound.

That's true. But to comment on it isn't racism. To criticize him for
it isn't racism.

I believe that to a greater or lesser degree (sometimes subtle), racism
is indeed a component of the criticism.

Someone in his position doesn't make a promise on such an issue,
except to appease a political constituency. That's not racial,
either. In other words, it was another political promise broken.

Yes, I realize that in some cases Obama has lied...and is no doubt the
first politician to have ever done so. ;-)

It's real easy to throw down the race card in dismissing critics
of this President. But it's a cheap shot.

No, not a "cheap shot IMHO. Again, because he is not Caucasian, many
times racism does enter into the equation -- where in many cases a white
president would get a free pass -- or at least not have to tolerate the
racial shots.

I would respectfully beg to differ. It is abundantly, I say
ABUNDANTLY clear, that racism, however subtle, IS a factor. There
are some (many?) on this NG for whom Obama can NEVER be right, no
matter which side of the fence he is on.


That's an interesting leap.

So, there's no way race can't be involved?

The fact that there are those for whom G.W. Bush can NEVER be right
no matter which side he is on? So that's got a racial component?

Huh? Obviously not...because W is, well, white. Doesn't mean he can't or
shouldn't be criticized, but O is getting "legitimate" criticism PLUS
racial criticism ...or criticism at least tinged by racism.

The fact that there are those for whom Bill Clinton can NEVER be
right no matter which side he is on? That's racial?

But criticism of Obama must have a racial factor.

Where have I heard that before. I'd say that's a pretty racist remark
on its face.

You bring up Bush. Yes, he broke promises. He was excoriated for it.
I don't recall Jesse Jackson saying that the 'no new taxes' blunder,
AND it's subsequent criticisms, were racially motivated.

Yet, criticism of Obama for his blunders must be rooted in race?

Not necessarily "rooted" but many times tinged.

And Bush 43? Where to start.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that any criticisms of Bush were
motivated by race.

Huh? Why would they? To state the obvious, W is white.

The hard truth is that politicians lie. They make promises with the
intention of breaking them. And make backroom deals. They sell their
influence. I'm in Illinois. Politicians rank below gang members,
career rapists and lawyers. But nowhere is ANY criticism refuted with
accusations of racism.

These career criminals are criticized for their actions. Their
ethics. Their values. For who they are. And often for who they are
not.

Race isn't even on the radar.

Huh?

Not on the radar if you overlook the subtle (and some far from subtle)
posts here.

You've never seen race on this NG used against O, even the "n" word?
Please read the posts here more carefully.

"Racism" is the easiest card to throw in this culture today. IT's a
hot button issue.

And with the first black president in our history, yes, it has been an
"issue".

And it's a cheap shot.

You want to defend Obama? Go for it. You'll have no end of ready
participants to such a discussion. A discussion, by the way, that may
be productive. Might actually convince some people. Will certainly
clarify thinking. And crystalize beliefs.

Try discussing the issues. You may find that you're in agreement with
many of us. You may find that many are in agreement with you.

But as soon as you get backed into a corner by a fact, throw the race
card. Please. Show us how evolved you are.


D. Peter Maus.


Sorry, DP. I may have been unclear. If so, my apologies. OTOH, it may be
a comprehension problem on your part.

Let me try and clarify:

1) The dog issue has nothing to do with racism -- per se. My point was
that people will sling ANYTHING at Obama, no matter whether he is right
or wrong or how trivial it is (like the dog) and that in my eyes, at
least -some- of it is racially motivated (nothing to do with your 'cheap
shot' theory). In other words, if we had a Caucasian president, they
would not necessarily sling anything and everything at him including
stupid stuff like where he got his dog.

2) I in no way meant to imply that ALL criticism of Obama is racial.
That was a rather large leap on your part.

A lot of the criticism is not racial; some criticism is well deserved.
However, some criticism, albeit sometimes very subtle, does appear to
have a racial component. Furthermore, many comments on the NG are
*blatantly* racial, up to and including the "n" word. I'm surprised you
haven't noticed it (or are just ignoring it).

3) The topic was "broken promises/lying" and you seem to have
"accidentally" snipped W's biggest lies from my original post...so for
your edification, I've put it back in (seeing as the topic is
"presidential lies"):

The last presidential lies [from W] cost us TWO bogus wars, a
trillion dollars, thousands of US kids dead, more thousands horribly
mutilated and tens of thousands of dead innocent civilians.

If I had a choice, I'll go with the "lie" about the dog. :-(

At least so far, none of O's broken promises have gotten us into the
mess that W's lies have.

I've explained it as best I'm able. If you think there is no racism
towards Obama on this NG, you are certainly entitled to that opinion.
I've explained my position, so please feel free to have the last word.

On 9/20/2010 5:27 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:


At least so far, none of O's broken promises have gotten us into the
mess that W's lies have.

I've explained it as best I'm able. If you think there is no racism
towards Obama on this NG, you are certainly entitled to that opinion.
I've explained my position, so please feel free to have the last word.


If it were a republi-crat in the office, as I write this, very little
would be different. We would still be marching in the same direction.
The plans of the NWO and the shadow government would proceed, at each
turn of the screw ... it makes no sense to hate obama for what is
happening. Come next election, nothing he is doing will be undone, and
will continue on in the directions he set their course for--you would
simply be handed a bunch of excuses why it was happening ... haven't you
been awake though the last half-dozen presidents, or so ... NAFTA was
set in when clinton was in, bush furthered it, now obama continues it
.... duh!

Regards,
JS