Is this for real???

[mikegideon]

Off the top of my head there's National Park carry...

There's also Obama's response to the Mexican president's proposed ban on "assault weapons". So far, Obama said to inspect the trucks going into Mexico. I'm not dilusional enough to believe Obama likes guns. I was neck deep in the gun buying frenzy last year. I think he believes it would be political suicide. He didn't even include gun grabbin' in his campaign "promises". The Brady bunch gave him an F. Recon what kinda grade hillary would have right now if she was the prez?

[G27]

There's also Obama's response to the Mexican president's proposed ban on "assault weapons". So far, Obama said to inspect the trucks going into Mexico. I'm not dilusional enough to believe Obama likes guns. I was neck deep in the gun buying frenzy last year. I think he believes it would be political suicide. He didn't even include gun grabbin' in his campaign "promises". The Brady bunch gave him an F. Recon what kinda grade hillary would have right now if she was the prez?

I don't think anyone believes Obama is pro-gun in way - the point is we've had some horrible anti-gun legislation passed under previous presidencies - both republican and democrat - and so far Obama hasn't touched guns with a 10' pole.

Do I think we should assume Obama won't do anything regarding guns? Nope - we must remain diligent, regardless of who is in office.

But so far, Obama has been far more of a friend to the industry and to our rights than some of our previous presidents.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I read all 3. The Canadian guy in the first article is, at least, technically competent to speak about the issues. He gets to his point in the last paragraph. he doesn't want the government taking away "his right" to manage bandwidth based on content type. We do that all the time on private networks to make sure email is snappier than all the real big stuff, like audio files. Should your ISP be able to decide which files are delivered with a higher priority? That's the whole question. The FCC's position is NO.

Marsha doesn't understand the technology, and is once again trying to love up to the music community (it's what she does). Once again, she has things flipped upside down. Net Neutrality will help the music industry move their product.

Orrin is just sticking up for the big boys. Like Marsha, he doen't have a clue about how packet based networks function, or how they're managed. Personally, I don't care if Comcast throttles back the bandwidth hogs. I really don't care either way.

All three are against net neutrality for their own reasons, but it doesn't change the definition of net neutrality.

Though the internet started with darpa, the www was spec'd loose international agreements among experts.

It has become somewhat 'wild west' anarchy, but would be a big mistake for USA and every other govt to step in and start regulating it to be 'safer' or 'more reliable' or whatever. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

We have an environment where every nutcase can post his online soapbox and conspiracy, and thieves can do their thang. But along with possibly enhanced security or reliability, govt intervention will ruin whatever is good about the internet.

For instance, broadcasters are on a fairly short leash about what they can say. Auto-search technology is getting good enough to put EVERYBODY on a short leash about what they can say, if the FCC gets the teeth to require implementation of such.

If a net provider gets too bass-ackward about blocking sites or throttling bandwidth, then other net providers will eat their lunch in the free market and take their unhappy customers and treat them right. We don't need the govt to tell comcast or ATT how to behave. People will do that with their ISP subscriptions.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Lester Weevils

[mikegideon]

I don't think anyone believes Obama is pro-gun in way - the point is we've had some horrible anti-gun legislation passed under previous presidencies - both republican and democrat - and so far Obama hasn't touched guns with a 10' pole.

Do I think we should assume Obama won't do anything regarding guns? Nope - we must remain diligent, regardless of who is in office.

But so far, Obama has been far more of a friend to the industry and to our rights than some of our previous presidents.

It doesn't appear to be a real threat right now. There is so much crap out there, whipped up by folks with personal agendas, that the real threats are hard to identify. They are doing a very good job of keeping our eyes off the ball.

[Mike.357]

the big O certainly has done nothing since being sworn in to put the kabosh on gun rights.

But just the same I don't trust him. All I have to do is look at what else he has fouled up. A guys track record really does mean something.

[mikegideon]

Though the internet started with darpa, the www was spec'd loose international agreements among experts.

It has become somewhat 'wild west' anarchy, but would be a big mistake for USA and every other govt to step in and start regulating it to be 'safer' or 'more reliable' or whatever. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

We have an environment where every nutcase can post his online soapbox and conspiracy, and thieves can do their thang. But along with possibly enhanced security or reliability, govt intervention will ruin whatever is good about the internet.

For instance, broadcasters are on a fairly short leash about what they can say. Auto-search technology is getting good enough to put EVERYBODY on a short leash about what they can say, if the FCC gets the teeth to require implementation of such.

If a net provider gets too bass-ackward about blocking sites or throttling bandwidth, then other net providers will eat their lunch in the free market and take their unhappy customers and treat them right. We don't need the govt to tell comcast or ATT how to behave. People will do that with their ISP subscriptions.

I agree, for the most part, on all counts. I don't care if Comcast manages their bandwidth. It's just the spin that bugs me. The FCC hates regulating content. It took a huge outcry from the "protect the children" types to get them to address obscenity, and it took some 'help" from the idiots in congress. Note that the whole obscenity thing came from the right. Until I see something credible, I'm gonna believe that net neutrality is simply about preventing ISP's from regulating content and bandwidth. I don't care if comcast chokes bit torrent downloads, but I DO care if they start blocking sites.

[mikegideon]

the big O certainly has done nothing since being sworn in to put the kabosh on gun rights.

But just the same I don't trust him. All I have to do is look at what else he has fouled up. A guys track record really does mean something.

I agree. Just because it hasn't come up yet doesn't mean it's not on his nanny list. I am looking at the track record. He tends to test the water before he goes into a full court press. I don't expect a sneak attack.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The National Park Carry he could have vetoed, but it's not what he is looking for. So,

I don't consider that really worth counting.

mikegideon: The FCC may not like regulating content, from your experience, but do you

think you want to give them that opportunity, considering what could be at stake in a

free election process? It's too easy for anyone to brush it off and say they are against

it because of Comcast or ATT, etc., but I don't think that's the case.

I say free speech is at stake, and after seeing that loon that likes the Hugo Chavez-style

censorship, Mark Lloyd, talk about that very thing, I don't want the government having

to do with the internet. Mark Lloyd is an appointee by Obama to the FCC. I think you trust

this bunch too much.

I stated what the summary of that bill said. Regulation with no guidelines as to what they

could regulate. That's not a good thing.

Discount it all you want and see what happens. The internet is a way people can

communicate without being censored right now. Wait until you can't.

[mikegideon]

The National Park Carry he could have vetoed, but it's not what he is looking for. So,

I don't consider that really worth counting.

mikegideon: The FCC may not like regulating content, from your experience, but do you

think you want to give them that opportunity, considering what could be at stake in a

free election process? It's too easy for anyone to brush it off and say they are against

it because of Comcast or ATT, etc., but I don't think that's the case.

I say free speech is at stake, and after seeing that loon that likes the Hugo Chavez-style

censorship, Mark Lloyd, talk about that very thing, I don't want the government having

to do with the internet. Mark Lloyd is an appointee by Obama to the FCC. I think you trust

this bunch too much.

I stated what the summary of that bill said. Regulation with no guidelines as to what they

could regulate. That's not a good thing.

Discount it all you want and see what happens. The internet is a way people can

communicate without being censored right now. Wait until you can't.

I'm not worried about it. The lefties are ALL ABOUT free speech.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Not all of them. Don't kid yourself. They are all for their free speech and not

anyone else's.

[mikegideon]

Not all of them. Don't kid yourself. They are all for their free speech and not

anyone else's.

It's more than fair to have a general hatred for lefties, but I don't see where you're coming up with this one. Remember, radio gassbags don't count

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't have a general hatred for all lefties, only the ones who pollute with

spewing. When Bill Burton got in front of the press, yesterday, calling Kyl

a liar, he couldn't back anything up. He just kept saying Obama didn't say

what was stated. same old trick, different day. Alan Combes, at least tries

to give a good reason, usually fails, but he tries. Juan Williams? I respect him,

also. don't agree with him. I try to guide myself with the truth, Mike.

Whether you believe it or not, the party doesn't come first with me. It's a

result of listening to a bunch of stuff and sifting out right and wrong, then

determining my affiliation. People buy into the notion that once you are "died

in the wool" one way or another, you're always that way. I've seen both sides

and made my choice, and did it by my own volition without any help from

any politician or pundit. Whether one likes Beck or Limbaugh shouldn't be

disqualifying of his opinion. It's funny when I listen to Beck, I came to the conclusion

way before he put it on his show. I try to pay attention and try to use a

reasonable bull**** detector. You don't have to like them to know they are right.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

some of those radio gassbags are performing a service, right now.

[mikegideon]

some of those radio gassbags are performing a service, right now.

Yep, making a buttload of money (the real reason they're there).

[mikegideon]

I don't have a general hatred for all lefties, only the ones who pollute with

spewing. When Bill Burton got in front of the press, yesterday, calling Kyl

a liar, he couldn't back anything up. He just kept saying Obama didn't say

what was stated. same old trick, different day. Alan Combes, at least tries

to give a good reason, usually fails, but he tries. Juan Williams? I respect him,

also. don't agree with him. I try to guide myself with the truth, Mike.

Whether you believe it or not, the party doesn't come first with me. It's a

result of listening to a bunch of stuff and sifting out right and wrong, then

determining my affiliation. People buy into the notion that once you are "died

in the wool" one way or another, you're always that way. I've seen both sides

and made my choice, and did it by my own volition without any help from

any politician or pundit. Whether one likes Beck or Limbaugh shouldn't be

disqualifying of his opinion. It's funny when I listen to Beck, I came to the conclusion

way before he put it on his show. I try to pay attention and try to use a

reasonable bull**** detector. You don't have to like them to know they are right.

There is an incredible amount of BS on both sides right now. I can't listen to much of it without getting totally pissed. I tend to worry about the things that they can actually pull off. For example, even if Obama was a full blown Nazi (a tall order for a black man), he would never be able to pull it off. The FCC sensoring speech... won't happen (again). Public outrage is still one of the most powerful things in this country.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not going to beat this horse to death, but

he is a full blown Nazi. Read your history on

how Hitler came to power and count the similarities,

Mike. There are more than a passing few. It

really doesn't matter whether their is a puppet

master behind him or not. Facts are facts, and

his record is reflected by that article by Thomas

Sowell.

BTW, this Tapatalk is cool!

[Guest HvyMtl]

There are little, to no, similarities between how Hitler came to power and how Obama has. Obama started as a state representative, then a US Senator, then President.

Hitler's political moves started as a police spy to the political party he eventually joined, eventually forced out the other leaders to become its leader, then led this party in an open revolt to topple the legit government. He then was imprisoned. He rebuilt his party base, took advantage of a government weakened by the World Depression in the early 1930's. He then took advantage of the division of his opponents and gained power. Eventually getting himself named Chancellor, and banning those parties who opposed him.

So, no. There is no real or imagined correlation. Obama is not a Nazi, by default, as his race would prevent his allowance in the party.

Views such as this are counter productive to getting him voted out of office.

BACK ON TOPIC: I am beginning to wonder why this false treaty crud keeps popping up. I am starting to think it is a distraction to watching for the real issues out there...

Edited June 22, 2010 by HvyMtl

[Ebow1]

Obama is certainly not a Nazi but I wouldn't put it past calling him a fascist. The fact that Hitler openly and blatantly toppled the legitimate government while Obama uses his to slink around in the shadows before his true intent is revealed is not a difference in kind between the two of them, but merely one of degree.

[Ebow1]

Found this floating around the internet, thought it was appropriate.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and BUT DONT YOU THINK WE COULD COME UP WITH A LIST tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer

I know there's been more stuff since then and it's not up to date but I wanted to keep it exactly the way I found it.

[Guest HvyMtl]

I am going to pick at your list for a few things...

Teleprompters have been used by all Presidents since Reagan, including press conferences...

G.W. spent more days on Vacation than any other President, including during the Katrina fiasco...

G.W. Approved the Bail Out of the Banks and intentionally (even admitted to the press) held the Big 3 bailout over for Obama to do...

G.W. made several poor jokes. And also got bashed for them...

As for gifts to Blair and the Queen, the items did not have Obama's speeches on them. In addition, in Britain anything given to a Government minister above a value of £140 must be declared and, if retained, paid for. Most are rejected, and then banished to a storeroom, to lie unappreciated and forgotten. So, in a different perspective, not so poor of choice... At least Obama's gifts were accepted unlike G.W.'s bomber jacket... Gordon Brown rejects gift of leather jacket from George W Bush - Telegraph

The Sultan of Brunei gave G.W. Bush a game to enhance the vocabulary called Forgotten English... how is that for gifts?

Yes, George W Bush did more than merely bow to the Saudi King. He kissed him on the lips... and held hands with him like a long lost elementary school crush...

AS for the Debt thing, G.W. Bush has no leg to stand on, going from a surplus to a $ trillion + deficit... and adding 800 BILLION for the BAIL OUT just before leaving...

Point is this: silly lists such as this, and claiming the President to be a Nazi, and going further, even to the point of some spouting about blood and the "tree of liberty," will NOT get O out of office. In many cases, statements such as this WILL ENABLE HIM TO STAY IN OFFICE. This list, Nazi claims, suggesting armed rebellion, and being hypocritical will be used by them to keep him in office. I believe posts similar to this have been used to paint such statements as near terrorist statements by those whom you oppose. Stop feeding them ammunition.

People forget, Liberals are approximately 30% of the population, and Conservatives are approximately 30% as well... To get a person elected, either groups have to get a few of the Moderates in the Middle to vote their way.

Your vile derision of Obama does not strike against him, but harms your own cause. Or have you forgotten how vile the Democrats were about G.W during the 2nd election? In spite of their spew of nastiness, G.W. got re-elected. Learn from this...

Edited June 22, 2010 by HvyMtl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Call it what you wish, but a Nazi is a national socialist.

I certainly think it qualifies, and regardless of your list of

counters, Hvymtl, two supposed wrongs don't make a right. I would take Bush back in a heartbeat.

Hitler had a green initiative, a nonsmoking campaign,

and several other things to compare with our current

leader.

Those aren't vile remarks I made, they were observations I make. You don't have to agree with

them.

[Ebow1]

"Point is this: silly lists such as this, and claiming the President to be a Nazi, and going further, even to the point of some spouting about blood and the "tree of liberty," will NOT get O out of office."

1. It's just that. Silly.

2. I never claimed Obama to be a Nazi.

3. I've never referenced the Jefferson quote about the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants once on this website.

4. If you're going to pick at references in my posts, pick at the paraphrased Nietzsche quote that you seemed to have missed.

[towerclimber37]

I won't say that Obama is a Nazi but there are stunning similarities between his political views and the views of the National Socialist party.

Keep in mind that the Nazi's, under Hitler, instituted some pretty far reaching social changes.

1. national health care.

2. Women suffrage.

3. National child care ( under "properly socialist" care givers, of course)

4. advocated for a strong national defense and for "lebensraum" or living space.

5. national gun registration.

All of these things are priorities for the DNC. If you think that Dianne Feinstein doesn't want to ban guns you have a lot to learn.

Same goes for Nancy Pelosi, who said "oh we'll ban them..but we'll choose the place and the time to do so" a few years ago.

What is left to see is if they can pull this stuff off.

Now? I don't think they'd be able to. Obama has squandered so much of his political currency with the health care bill (which now folks want to repeal) that he can't get anything done except by executive order. Even this has it's limits as you can see by the way a judge ruled to vacate his moratorium on offshore drilling in the gulf.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'll be glad to call him a Nazi. What's the point in being polite. I'm not sure "socialist"

is appropriate, maybe not even communist. He is setting the stage for a facist style

dictatorship in this country. Read "Liberal Facism" by Jonah Goldberg if you want a

glimpse into facism, big and small. I also think it is becoming necessary to start

protecting what rights and liberties this country has left. We have an imposter

president. Also, like Hitler, Obama appears to hate Jews, and I think that in itself

is troubling.

Edited June 23, 2010 by 6.8 AR

[Guest waldo]

I have use snopes over the years but just found this. Be very careful letter snopes be the end all be all. WWW.SNOPES.COM?????? HMMMMMM - Page 2