Obama: "Parasites of the World Unite"

[Contumacious]

obama's theme is that the American value of self-reliance is over. The government will have its nose up your ass for everything.

Obama was talking to his parasitic base.

Folks who are addicted to federal largesse.

They are willing to exchange their freedom for security . They will give Obama power if he will steal, loot and plunder for them.

.

I don't think you should talk about our retired military that way.

I am not referring to the retired military .

But the welfare/warfare state uses the military to redistribute wealth. We are not supposed to have standing armies.

,

 

[Contumacious]

Obama is a milionaire an yet he speaks to us slugs against the rich as if he was one of us. Piece of shit spoiled bitchy little *** silver spoon little do nothing of a ******* chosen one little shit.
.

dem·a·gogue/ˈdeməˌgäg/
Noun:
A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.


.

 

[bripat9643]

That's because the "small" sector of society..were the very rich.

Everyone else in America was very poor.

Pure horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Well , unfortunately, your people have - UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED - the Federal Reserve Board , to be a central bank which control the currency and credit.

This ought to be good.

What's "unconstitutional" about it?

The Supreme Court ruled after the Civil War that the federal government does not have the authority to print money. The Federal Reserve was Wilson's end run around that restriction. By claiming it's a "private bank" the government claims its not printing money, but anyone who believes the federal reserve is not an arm of the government is terminally naive.

 

[kwc57]

The banks are the parasites.

Who collects 19% interest and adds nothing to the economy?

Well , unfortunately, your people have - UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED - the Federal Reserve Board , to be a central bank which control the currency and credit.

.

This ought to be good.

What's "unconstitutional" about it?

Good question. Maybe the part that speaks to creating a federal reserve is in the same section that says you can take wealth from individuals to give to others to make them equal. Get back to us on which section that is.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm all for capitalism, but I have great concern for a majority of Americans who are not being rewarded for their work that has contributed to the growth of the US economy. These people are apparently "parasites" in the minds of the far right extremist.
I guess for some, the continuation of the growth of the wealth gap/income gap is the way to go. And this continuation is healthy for a majority of Americans, how? How is the continuation good for your children and their children? Future generations, in order to succeed in the future will have to be in the top 20% or else they will be spinning their wheels going nowhere or backwards as the graph below indicates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well , unfortunately, your people have - UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED - the Federal Reserve Board , to be a central bank which control the currency and credit.

.

This ought to be good. What's "unconstitutional" about it?

Good question. Maybe the part that speaks to creating a federal reserve is in the same section that says you can take wealth from individuals to give to others to make them equal. Get back to us on which section that is.

You are entitled to your opinion, simply not to your own definition of what is unconstitutional.

Tis what tis.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's because the "small" sector of society..were the very rich.

Everyone else in America was very poor.

Why do you post such foolish bullshit?

No one believes you, your fellow leftist may gawfah and congratulate you for being a demagogue, but no one on any side believes this sort of idiocy.

 

[kwc57]

This ought to be good. What's "unconstitutional" about it?

Good question. Maybe the part that speaks to creating a federal reserve is in the same section that says you can take wealth from individuals to give to others to make them equal. Get back to us on which section that is.

You are entitled to your opinion, simply not to your own definition of what is unconstitutional.

Tis what tis.

Actually dipshit, you don't get your own definition. It needs to actually be in the constitution to be constitutional.......and it isn't.

 

[Dragon]

Well , unfortunately, your people have - UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED - the Federal Reserve Board , to be a central bank which control the currency and credit.

This ought to be good.

What's "unconstitutional" about it?

The Supreme Court ruled after the Civil War that the federal government does not have the authority to print money. The Federal Reserve was Wilson's end run around that restriction.

Not true. The case you're referring to was Hepburn v. Griswold: HEPBURN V. GRISWOLD, 75 U. S. 603 :: Volume 75 :: 1869 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez This decision was not reversed by the founding of the Federal Reserve as you claim, but rather by the so-called "Legal Tender Cases," Knox v. Lee, 1870 (FindLaw | Cases and Codes), Parker v. Davis, 1871, and Juiliard v. Greenman, 1884. The Federal Reserve was not established until 1913 and its purpose had nothing to do with the constitutionality of fiat money -- nor did it issue fiat money for many years after that.

 

[P@triot]

[the Russians] were forced at the barrel of a gun to follow Communism.

And that forcing somehow worked for 70 years and then suddenly, for some mysterious and incomprehensible reason, didn't work any more in 1991?

No. No government can exist by force alone. All governments rule by the consent of the governed, or anyway by most of the governed. The Soviet Union had that for decades. It lost it for two reasons; one, it failed to deliver the workers' paradise that was promised; two, a generation grew up after the Revolution knowing nothing to compare it with except contemporary societies in the West.

You can govern a foreign country by force, if you're stronger than they are and willing to take endless casualties from insurgent movements. You cannot govern your own that way. They must consent and support.

LMAO! Wow.... just, wow! You can't make this stuff up folks! Liberals believe that the Soviets "ruled" at the consent of the people (never mind that if it's by consent, you're not "ruling" in the first place - you're merely governing ). I mean, sure they had programs to inform on family, friends, and neighbors if they spoke ill of the party, and sure they executed those people plus tens of thousands more for various Communist reasons (like we can't support this many people with Communism), but it was all "consent". Seriously Dragon, have you never read a book in your life? Turned on the news? How can you be so profoundly ignorant of Soviet Union history? Is this just some weak attempt at propaganda? Do you really believe you can rewrite history and convince people that the people approved of Communism in the U.S.S.R., and that they approved of their own execution?!?!?!

 

[Dragon]

I mean, sure they had programs to inform on family, friends, and neighbors if they spoke ill of the party

"Programs" did not do this. People did. If they had not supported the government and the Soviet system, they would not have. The people could have overthrown the system at any time they decided to withdraw their support, just as they finally did in 1991.

(The remainder of your post, consisting of empty rhetoric devoid of any cognitive content or intellectual value whatsoever, is appropriately snipped with no reply, as it deserves.)

 

[Contumacious]

What the stupid scumbag forgot to tell us is which government agency helped the Pilgrims when they arrived at Plymouth Rock?

Which government agency helped the colonists conquer the west?

How many times did the federal government bail out Cornelius Vanderbilt?

But he knows that the parasites outnumber the producers . So the ****** will be re-elected.

.

Back then it was slaves that helped the wealthy.

I suppose it is true that the GOP wants a return to those wonderful times.

Actually, it's Obama, liberals, and people like you who want to return to slavery. Every day I labor to earn a paycheck. And the government takes 50% of what I labor for and give it to you parasites who refuse to work and earn. That is the very definition of slavery dummy. When I'm forced to labor for others and what I produce is taken against my will, that is slavery.

Presently , we must work until July to pay all federal and state taxes.

Obama plans to change that, we will soon be working until September to pay all our taxes.

Which give the parasitic scumbags more time to cruise the net and smoke their medical cannabis.

.

 

[Contumacious]

"Obama’s Long Live Karl Marx Speech


Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Well, I’m here to say they are wrong

It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.

For this, Roosevelt was called a radical, a socialist, even a communist

.

How many of these right wingers are living in trailers, collecting Social Security and calling poor people "parasites"?

OK now, how many of these right wingers are going to ask, "What's wrong with living in a trailer?" I always get that.

What's wrong with living in a trailer?"

.

 

[Contumacious]

There is no "best feature" of Soviet-sytle Socialism. ".

That is not true. Misery loves company.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

American Democrats are the true Communists, even the ChiComs and Vietnamese reject their failed economic philosophy

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good question. Maybe the part that speaks to creating a federal reserve is in the same section that says you can take wealth from individuals to give to others to make them equal. Get back to us on which section that is.

You are entitled to your opinion, simply not to your own definition of what is unconstitutional.

Tis what tis.

Actually dipshit, you don't get your own definition. It needs to actually be in the constitution to be constitutional.......and it isn't.

That's your opinion, sunny jim, not a definition of merit.

You prove my point.

 

[mudwhistle]

Except that's true (I didn't know about the puppies), and you're a brainwashed Beck/Rushbot.

Seriously, you can't tell the difference between thoughtful criticism and intellectually lazy campaign rhetoric.

And to think I thought you had some gray-matter at one time.

 

[Truthseeker420]

"Obama’s Long Live Karl Marx Speech


Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Well, I’m here to say they are wrong

It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.

For this, Roosevelt was called a radical, a socialist, even a communist

.

Roosevelt was also called the greatest President.

 

[Dragon]

American Democrats are the true Communists, even the ChiComs and Vietnamese reject their failed economic philosophy

CrusaderFrank is a liar.