What have you got? Lets see nutrition supplement versus Ben gazi. oh ok ed. Do you real believe this claptrap?

Oh ok lol. Cruz bitchslapped those idiot Mods.

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lol! Liberals are so stupid...they asked about fantasy football. I know its a real issue for democrats, but conservatives care about the bigger picture. Like not becoming a tard state like Canada...

---

Canada isn't a state. You'll have to better with your insults. 

Canada is a Socialist state. Its a term used to encompass countries that embrace an idealogy. Like Russia is a communist state. The term encompasses more than a physical state.

You really need a bit of education hun..

When did I ever get to say it's up to me to decide? I weigh in with my opinions, just like everyone else.
Sorry if it's a problem for you. You shouldn't have invited me here if it is.

Ohfour wrote:

---

Canada is a Socialist state. Its a term used to encompass countries that embrace an idealogy. Like Russia is a communist state. The term encompasses more than a physical state.

You really need a bit of education hun..

---

 

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and social control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. It's a capitalistic system based on free enterprise. We have better safety nets, but social ownership of means of production? Please.

You have social systems in place as well. You have military, schools, infrastructure, police, fire, etc. We added healthcare to the mix. It's a human right in our Charter.

 

If it helps you sleep at night to whine about Canada being socalist/communist, knock yourself out.

 

 

 

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Canada is a Socialist state. Its a term used to encompass countries that embrace an idealogy. Like Russia is a communist state. The term encompasses more than a physical state.

You really need a bit of education hun..

---

 

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and social control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. It's a capitalistic system based on free enterprise. We have better safety nets, but social ownership of means of production? Please.

You have social systems in place as well. You have military, schools, infrastructure, police, fire, etc. We added healthcare to the mix. It's a human right in our Charter.

 

If it helps you sleep at night to whine about Canada being socalist/communist, knock yourself out.

 

 

 

---

 First, Canada isn't a state.  it's a country.  And don't ask me about states within it.  I do believe they don't have states but Providences.  Correct me if I am wrong there... 

Also yes, Socialism IS a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and social control of the means of production.  Almost every country in the world is at least partly socialist.  We do have some socialist attributes.  Like Weltz said, our military, schools, and police/fire are socialist type programs.  Canada is a bit more socialist in that they have added health care to the mix.  They still have free enterprise though.  Russia is the epitome of socialism.  Socialism is not an either or really.  It's more of a sliding scale.

Ohfour wrote:

---

I have lots of Canadian friends. They would love to bring American laws to Canada. Canada is a Socialist country. Its sick...but go on pretending like you like it. We all know you are indoctrinated. Pet the fawns...quite the sycophants. ..

---

 I'm indoctrinated?

Ohfour wrote:

---

I have lots of Canadian friends. They would love to bring American laws to Canada. Canada is a Socialist country. Its sick...but go on pretending like you like it. We all know you are indoctrinated. Pet the fawns...quite the sycophants. ..

---

ROTFLMAO!!! 

 

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Canada is a Socialist state. Its a term used to encompass countries that embrace an idealogy. Like Russia is a communist state. The term encompasses more than a physical state.

You really need a bit of education hun..

---

 

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and social control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. It's a capitalistic system based on free enterprise. We have better safety nets, but social ownership of means of production? Please.

You have social systems in place as well. You have military, schools, infrastructure, police, fire, etc. We added healthcare to the mix. It's a human right in our Charter.

 

If it helps you sleep at night to whine about Canada being socalist/communist, knock yourself out.

 

 

 

---

 First, Canada isn't a state.  it's a country.  And don't ask me about states within it.  I do believe they don't have states but Providences.  Correct me if I am wrong there... 

Also yes, Socialism IS a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and social control of the means of production.  Almost every country in the world is at least partly socialist.  We do have some socialist attributes.  Like Weltz said, our military, schools, and police/fire are socialist type programs.  Canada is a bit more socialist in that they have added health care to the mix.  They still have free enterprise though.  Russia is the epitome of socialism.  Socialism is not an either or really.  It's more of a sliding scale.

---

 You are absolutely correct. Except it's "provinces."

---

 Well, if my misspelling of it is all I got wrong I'm doing pretty good!

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I have lots of Canadian friends. They would love to bring American laws to Canada. Canada is a Socialist country. Its sick...but go on pretending like you like it. We all know you are indoctrinated. Pet the fawns...quite the sycophants. ..

---

ROTFLMAO!!! 

 

---

 Laugh all you want. People flock here from "Canadia". Aint a whole lot of Americans wanna go there. Keep living in your fantasy world. Canada is the last place people want to go to...

My Canadian friends laugh about "Canadia". They come here for medical and dental treatments. We own property in "Canadia".
Its a joke. They all would love to love to live here. But sadly, they can't. One day maybe they will enjoy the freedom we have here...

I can't stand Obama, but I have to give him credit for his commentary on the republican debate, as mentioned here: www.cnn.com/2015/11/02/politics/obama-republicans-cnbc/

Obama's spin that they can't "handle the mods" is more of utter diarrhea of the mouth. The Candidates handled the Mods beautifully. Cruz slapped them down and finally the some of the other GOP candidates decided to demonstrate some backbone as well. As for "whining", Obama whines constantly and I have never seen such a pissy, thin skinned man.

Lindley wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Obama's spin that they can't "handle the mods" is more of utter diarrhea of the mouth. The Candidates handled the Mods beautifully. Cruz slapped them down and finally the some of the other GOP candidates decided to demonstrate some backbone as well. As for "whining", Obama whines constantly and I have never seen such a pissy, thin skinned man.

---

 We'll said

---

 Well, Obama refuses to go on FOX news too because he has said their questions are too hard and unfair.  So really, should he even be talking?  I guess he can dish it out but not take it.

Lindley wrote:

---

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

Lindley wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Obama's spin that they can't "handle the mods" is more of utter diarrhea of the mouth. The Candidates handled the Mods beautifully. Cruz slapped them down and finally the some of the other GOP candidates decided to demonstrate some backbone as well. As for "whining", Obama whines constantly and I have never seen such a pissy, thin skinned man.

---

 We'll said

---

 Well, Obama refuses to go on FOX news too because he has said their questions are too hard and unfair.  So really, should he even be talking?  I guess he can dish it out but not take it.

---

 E

He very rarely  gives press conferences  even  with the other networks.

---

You're correct.  He does, in fact, hate FOX the most though.  But if he refuses to go on shows to take questions because they might be too hard he really is the pot calling the kettle black.

He definitely IS a teleprompter president. And all black people could be his son. Even the ones that are trying to commit crimes when they are caught. Way to go.

Obama refused to go on FOX because the questions are too hard? When was this? Does anybody a have a link?

Well, I don't think he said the questions were too hard per se. He says FOX news is too slanted. And like Lindley said he doesn't like being questioned by anyone. Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. He doesn't like to answer any questions he's not prepared for but he makes fun of the Repubs for answering stupid questions. I don't really know too many people who care what Jeb Bush's fantasy football team is. We have some real problems in our country right now. Honest to god, serious problems. And the mods were talking fantasy football.

weltschmerz wrote:

---

So, he never said the questions are too hard.

---

 I don't have an EXACT quote.  I do know he refuses to take questions from people he knows won't go easy on him.  He has no business saying the Repubs are afraid of real questions.  They weren't even given real questions.  Fantasy football is not a real question pertaining to being a President.  Maybe in Obama's mind but probably not in the mind of those who are unemployed.

Yeah, he's been invited MULTIPLE times to appear on Fox. He won't so it. He's a p***y, plain and simple. No balls, that one...

July 14, 2008

The Incredibly Thin Skin of Barack Obama (updated)

By Rick Moran


A long, yet unsatisfyingly incomplete article in the current issue of The New Yorker about Barack Obama's Chicago roots, lauding him for many things that might be considered non-laudable, was a passing curiosity in the blogosphere yesterday. We here at AT blogged about it, pointing out that Mr. Lizza had actually uncovered some things that weren't too flattering about the candidate.

But the piece went from a passing curiosity to a full blown campaign typhoon when the cover of the issue was released. It showed Obama in a turban doing the fist bump with his wife who is dressed up as some kind of revolutionary. An American flag burns in the fireplace of the Oval Ofice:



One look at this and the Obama campaign hit the roof. Despite the fact that The New Yorker was lampooning conservatives by portraying some on the right's overheated descriptions of Obama, spokesman Bill Burton for the Obama campaign said "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

Well, I don't agree. I find it pretty rich even if they are poking fun at conservatives. But what should trouble anyone is how thin Obama's skin truly is if he can't take a little satire from his friends on the left!

Michelle Malkin puts it nicely when she headlines her post "Grow a pair, Obama" and says "So, you found this satirical New Yorker cover art “tasteless and offensive.” Welcome to public life. Guess what? In Washington, political cartoonists and caricaturists spare no one."

So Obama plays his race/cultural card against a friendly publication while many of his allies on the left dutifully follow his lead and condemn the piece because most of them fear that those of us who live out in flyover country "won't get" the satire.

Thin skinned Obama and his tone deaf, elitist allies; what a combination.

Update from Thomas Lifson: Doug Ross presents a montage of the sort of satire Bush, Cheney and conservatives are subjected to without provoking any whining or outrage.

montage

My all-time favorite comes from Der Spiegel:

Der Spiegel

Isn't it time for Obama to man up?

Update: the artist Barry Blitt speaks in the Huffington Post (via Jake Tapper):



"I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

I keep hearing from Obama supporters that he is being "branded" or "called unpatriotic." But I do not see anyone calling him or branding him unpatriotic or a terrorist. Who is doing this, and why are they so hard to find?





A long, yet unsatisfyingly incomplete article in the current issue of The New Yorker about Barack Obama's Chicago roots, lauding him for many things that might be considered non-laudable, was a passing curiosity in the blogosphere yesterday. We here at AT blogged about it, pointing out that Mr. Lizza had actually uncovered some things that weren't too flattering about the candidate.

But the piece went from a passing curiosity to a full blown campaign typhoon when the cover of the issue was released. It showed Obama in a turban doing the fist bump with his wife who is dressed up as some kind of revolutionary. An American flag burns in the fireplace of the Oval Ofice:



One look at this and the Obama campaign hit the roof. Despite the fact that The New Yorker was lampooning conservatives by portraying some on the right's overheated descriptions of Obama, spokesman Bill Burton for the Obama campaign said "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

Well, I don't agree. I find it pretty rich even if they are poking fun at conservatives. But what should trouble anyone is how thin Obama's skin truly is if he can't take a little satire from his friends on the left!

Michelle Malkin puts it nicely when she headlines her post "Grow a pair, Obama" and says "So, you found this satirical New Yorker cover art “tasteless and offensive.” Welcome to public life. Guess what? In Washington, political cartoonists and caricaturists spare no one."

So Obama plays his race/cultural card against a friendly publication while many of his allies on the left dutifully follow his lead and condemn the piece because most of them fear that those of us who live out in flyover country "won't get" the satire.

Thin skinned Obama and his tone deaf, elitist allies; what a combination.

Update from Thomas Lifson: Doug Ross


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/the_incredibly_thin_skin_of_ba_1.html#ixzz3qeL6XgBf
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Look, here's my issue. Obama was saying the Repubs were all whining about the questions. Damn right they were. I'm a registered voter. I don't give a damn about anyone's fantasy football team. Neither Repub nor Democrat. That is not even something that means anything when it comes to the presidency. We need to be finding out answers on the IMPORTANT issues.

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

Look, here's my issue. Obama was saying the Repubs were all whining about the questions. Damn right they were. I'm a registered voter. I don't give a damn about anyone's fantasy football team. Neither Repub nor Democrat. That is not even something that means anything when it comes to the presidency. We need to be finding out answers on the IMPORTANT issues.

---

They didn't 'whine". They stood up to the idiot Mods. DOH!