American politics and news thread

Clear Channel Radio believes TDKR is using the villain 'Bane' to hurt Mitt Romney, as in terms of his former employer, Bain Capital. Thus, when the elections really kick off later in the year, we will think back to this film and somehow put his former employer and Batman's nemesis together, and not want to vote for him or something.

Wouldn't this be the same logic as not wanting to vote for Obama because he has the name 'Hussein' in his full name?

If you want to listen to/read about this idiocy, check this link:
http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/rush-limbaugh-dark-knight-bain-ban/

Really?? :shock:

I guess Nolan is trying to balance things out politically after that guy wrote the article about how Batman is G.W. Bush in the second movie.

"I’m just telling you this is the kind of stuff the Obama team is lining up. The kind of people who would draw this comparison are the kind of people that they are campaigning to. "

I wouldn't put anything past the Obama campaign. This would be one of their more rational pitches to voters.

Considering Bane is a well established Batman villain, and that this film was in the planning stages long before Romney was locked in as a candidate, and long before anyone cared or knew that he used to run a company called Bain, I think Nolan gets a pass.

As for Bain Capital, Romney did a hell of a job with that company. I especially like the work they did buying up companies that were drowning in red ink, trimming them into shape, and making them viable again. That's great capitalism.

You can't sue your way into learning to read. It's not about money or access to computers or high-speed Internet or lap-tops or after-school programs or better lunches or cleaner bathrooms....it starts in the home and it starts with the parents. In the case of most of the kids in the Highland Park School District, I'm assuming that there is just one parent, not parents. How the f*** does your child make it into 11th grade and still can't read beyond a 4th grade level? That means she's 17 years old and can't read no betterer than a 10 year old.


ACLU Files 'Groundbreaking' Lawsuit Claiming Right To Learn To Read


The Washington Post reports that the ACLU had some of the students tested by an expert. A 14-year-old identified as Quentin was found to be reading at a first-grade level and when asked to write a letter to Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder describing his school, this is what he turned in:

"My name is Quemtin . . . and you can make the school gooder by geting people that will do the jod that is pay for get a football tame for the kinds mybe a baksball tamoe get a other jamtacher for the school get a lot of tacher."


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/13/156728852/aclu-files-groundbreaking-lawsuit-claiming-right-to-learn-to-read

Below, I am embarrassed (embarassed for what has become of the Office of the President of the United States) to post what is an actual excerpt from an actual President Obama speech made last Friday.

Even I didn't I realize he was this facile.

Obama -- whether he intended to or not -- blasted small business owners and entrepreneurs by saying that if you were successful, "somebody else made that happen." Incredible. And apparently he believes his own nonsense or he thinks Americans are dumb enough to lap it up. Maybe they are. What do I know?

Here's a sample:

<BLOCKQUOTE>

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."

Yadda yadda. The guy is trying to bamboozle that we can't do squat without big government.
I guess his campaign strategy is to appeal to the lowest common denominator in society.
A two year-old, OK a ten year-old, whose shoveled a driveway for cash, could deconstruct this nonsene. Thankfully the speech has attracted much attention.

From the Romney camp:

Obama's comments "reflect just how unqualified he is to lead us to a real economic recovery."
"They are also insulting to the hardworking entrepreneurs, small-business owners, and job creators who are the backbone of our economy."

Random samplings:

From Britt Hume: "It is fair to say that we know more tonight than we ever have about the President's view of business and the economy. His assertion over the weekend that 'if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen' explains nearly everything.He was talking about government."

From Bobby Eberle: " To me, this is the MOST revealing speech Obama has ever made. From day one, he has used race as a tool to divide. From day one, he has made the "successful" person the target. But in this speech, Obama went beyond anything he has said in the past. According to him... if you are not reliant on government, you are the bad guy.

And more from Eberle: "Oh... and of course, he throws in the "want to give back line." Like taxes are some form of charity. Does he think everyone is stupid? Actual charities are funded by wealthy people, and thank goodness for that. But taxes are NOT charity. If wealthy people want to "give something back," they can donate to a charity. They can help an organization that means something to them. We are talking about TAXES, and the so-called wealthy already pay for most of government."

I had no idea things were this bad in America. That Obama was peddling such snake-oil and that stupid people really do lap this up. The guy sounds like he's talking to children.



</BLOCKQUOTE>

Reminds me of this.

http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/382578-communists-olga-is-traitor#ixzz2121wtjWN

Quote :

"In the name of all communists we appeal to you, prodigal daughter of poor Ukraine and deserter of Slavic world."

The Soviet Union "gave you free education, free medical care but nobody knew you would commit an act of intellectual and moral betrayal that you would become a movie kept girl of Bond, who in his movies kills hundreds of Soviet people and citizens of other socialist countries: Cubans, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Chinese and Nicaraguans," the party continued.

Poor Olga. She was nothing without the great Soviet state.

The similarities are chilling.

I know we need government to build roads, and maintain a justice system etc etc but my God, this bs that we only get anything done because government is there to make it happen for us.

I give-up. I had no idea that the con was this bad in America. I have never even heard any left-wing politician talk like this in Canada. You really do have to cite marxists and communists to find anything that resonates similar. :roll:

==You can watch the great man in his own words ( if you can handle it) at below link. And remember, nothing you have ever accomplished, especially work-wise has been accomplished without government.

It's only 2:57 long. All the best quotes from the now infamous Roanoke Virginia campaign rally are contained within.

Obama - 'If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen'

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-if-you%E2%80%99ve-got-business-you-didn%E2%80%99t-build-somebody-else-made-happen

tiffanywint wrote:

And apparently he believes his own nonsense or he thinks Americans are dumb enough to lap it up. Maybe they are.

They are. The crowd went wild when he made those comments, which tells you everything you need to know about the mindset of the people who cheered him.


President Obama said:
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."

tiffanywint wrote:

Yadda yadda. The guy is trying to bamboozle that we can't do squat without big government.
I guess his campaign strategy is to appeal to the lowest common denominator in society.

It's clear from the comments he made, absolutely clear, that he equivocates individual success with government help, but how he gets to that point is very strained. Using his logic, our accomplishments in life were due to the fact that we had a government that had invested in highways and bridges and therefore the government should get credit, but shouldn't they also get the blame for the people who had the same access to bridges and roads in life yet failed to accomplish anything? For those who chose to drop off the grid, gae up on being a productive citizen, and chose a life of crime and are now in prison? With that sort of reasoning, where does it end?

And his "facts" are just dead wrong. The Internet was not started to give companies a chance to make money, and in the real world not everyone would own their own fire service because the market simply could not withstand 300 million people having jobs as firemen; there aren't enough fires to sustain that many jobs.

But above all else, his remark that If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. (which I had suspected was an off-the-cuff, unscripted moment before it was confirmed as such) is telling and helpful and useful because it reveals what he truly thinks about successful Americans. You can't just etch-a-sketch these feelings away and censor them on a campaign trail. The truth eventually comes out, and this was a truthful moment; a rarity in politics. But whether it hurts him in the election or Romney is able to make anything useful of it remains to be seen. It cannot be reasonably denied at this point that he's hostile to business.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

[But above all else, his remark that If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. (which I had suspected was an off-the-cuff, unscripted moment before it was confirmed as such) is telling and helpful and useful because it reveals what he truly thinks about successful Americans. You can't just etch-a-sketch these feelings away and censor them on a campaign trail. The truth eventually comes out, and this was a truthful moment; a rarity in politics But whether it hurts him in the election or Romney is able to make anything useful of it remains to be seen. It cannot be reasonably denied at this point that he's hostile to business.

This speech seals the deal. As many commentators are now saying, this was Obama's most revealing moment. If there was ever any doubt, this guy is truly a neo-marxist, and is that really surprising, considering those whom he has allowed to mentor him all these years. Obama does believe that the state plays the most important and vital role in achieving a "fair" and prosperous society.

Compare with the U.S. constitutional ideals of the state simply being a necessary and limited construct to facilitate individual liberties, freedom and prosperity. His obsession with taxing the rich, government regulation and/or control of all industry sectors he can get his paws on is absolutely consistent with the statist machinations of socialist and marxist idealogues. This is what they try to do, for the greater good of course, because we all need each others help, and government is here to force us to help each other. Ultimately individual liberties must be set aside, so that the state might do its helpful work without interference.

Obama can't run on his record, so he's devolved to a class warfare strategy (standard marxist operating procedure) And yes certain impressionable segments of society will eat this up. So many want the government to take care of them, in the interests of fairness of course and lifting each other up. It's very potent snake-oil.

It is all somewhat prophetic. Jefferson and the framers did warn that liberty was fragile, that the constitution was only words on paper, that America's founding principles and freedoms would only survive if the people were resolved to defend and uphold them.

Back to Great Leader. He says businesses or individuals can only be successful because of the great things that government does. At best maybe he thinks its a chicken and egg thing, but it so clearly isn't.

Eg. blow up the world. 200 persons survive in a back-to-nature environment. They might quickly form a leadership council, however this government has no resources, no money to pay anyone, no money to tax, until the people start producing and bartering goods-and-services -- in otherwords until the people start buidling an economy. Only then will the government have something to tax and do its thing.

Obama is a moron. He and Marx, Lenin, Engels etc got it wrong. Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin et al got it right.

God Bless America! Screw Obama and the ass he rode in on.

The wisest man in American (IMHO of course), Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, www.tsowell.com. has weighed in on Obama's downgrading of achieving Americans. Seems Obama's political kindred spirits are attempting to float the same balloon, including a fellow Harvard mouthpiece. Didn't Harvard used to be a respectable institution?

I've hi-lited both the most schocking and inspired bits.



There was a time, within living memory, when the achievements of others were not only admired but were often taken as an inspiration for imitation of the same qualities that had served these achievers well, even if we were not in the same field of endeavor and were not expecting to achieve on the same scale.
The perseverance of Thomas Edison, as he tried scores of materials before finally trying tungsten as the filament of the light bulb he was inventing; the dedication of Abraham Lincoln as he studied law on his own while struggling to make a living -- these were things young people were taught to admire, even if they had no intention of becoming inventors or lawyers, much less President of the United States.
Somewhere along the way, all that changed. Today, the very concept of achievement is de-emphasized and sometimes attacked. Following in the footsteps of Barack Obama, Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard has made the downgrading of high achievers the centerpiece of her election campaign against Senator Scott Brown.
To cheering audiences, Professor Warren says, "there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You build a factory out there, good for you, but I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate."
Do the people who cheer this kind of talk bother to stop and think through what she is saying? Or is heady rhetoric enough for them?
People who run businesses are benefitting from things paid for by others? Since when are people in business, or high-income earners in general, exempt from paying taxes like everybody else?
At a time when a small fraction of high-income taxpayers pay the vast majority of all the taxes collected, it is sheer chutzpah to depict high-income earners as somehow being subsidized by "the rest of us," whether in paying for the building of roads or the educating of the young.
Since everybody else uses the roads and the schools, why should high achievers be expected to feel like free loaders who owe still more to the government, because schools and roads are among the things that facilitate their work? According to Elizabeth Warren, because it is part of an "underlying social contract."
Conjuring up some mythical agreement that nobody saw, much less signed, is an old ploy on the left -- one that goes back at least a century, when Herbert Croly, the first editor of The New Republic magazine, wrote a book titled "The Promise of American Life."
Whatever policy Herbert Croly happened to favor was magically transformed by rhetoric into a "promise" that American society was supposed to have made -- and, implicitly, that American taxpayers should be forced to pay for. This pious hokum was so successful politically that all sorts of "social contracts" began to appear magically in the rhetoric of the left.
If talking in this mystical way is enough to get you control of billions of dollars of the taxpayers' hard-earned money, why not?
Certainly someone who claimed to be part Indian, as Elizabeth Warren did when applying for academic appointments in an affirmative action environment, is unlikely to be squeamish about using imaginative words during a political election campaign.
Sadly, this kind of cute use of words is not confined to one political candidate or to this election year. The very concept of achievement is a threat to the vision of the left, and has long been attacked by those on the left.
People who succeed -- whether in business or anywhere else -- are often said to be "privileged," even if they started out poor and worked their way up the hard way.
Outcome differences are called "class" differences. Thus when two white women, who came from families in very similar social and economic circumstances, made different decisions and got different results, this was the basis for a front-page story titled "Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do'" in the July 15th issue of the N.Y Times. Personal responsibility, whether for achievement or failure, is a threat to the whole vision of the left, and a threat the left goes all-out to combat, using rhetoric uninhibited by reality.

Sorry couldn't resist :p

Tasteful. :roll:

CJB wrote:

Tasteful. :roll:

I get it now. Saudis, sand people. :drunken:

Has Drax ever posted in this thread on a matter other than his denial of Islamist mass murder?

tiffanywint wrote:

Didn't Harvard used to be a respectable institution?

Yes, and it still is. It's easily the most reputable university on the planet.

HJackson wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Didn't Harvard used to be a respectable institution?

Yes, and it still is. It's easily the most reputable university on the planet.

That doesn't matter. If it's not 100 percent red-blooded conservative, it's automatically crap.

CJB wrote:

Has Drax ever posted in this thread on a matter other than his denial of Islamist mass murder?

Probably not, but so what? Given that it served as the springboard for the dismantling of the US constitution, the truth behind the false flag event that was 9/11 is the single most important political issue of our time.

Edit: I believe I've also posted in this thread about Ron Paul. I found his passion for and commitment to true constitutional government inspiring and refreshing.

CJB is the Bear Jew.

Largo's Shark wrote:

CJB is the Bear Jew.

I know it's a sensitive topic, but God-damn, the ass-wiping that the constitution has taken in the last ten years or so should be giving us all pause, especially when viewed alongside many events of the last 100 years or so.

Jack Wade wrote:

HJackson wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Didn't Harvard used to be a respectable institution?

Yes, and it still is. It's easily the most reputable university on the planet.

That doesn't matter. If it's not 100 percent red-blooded conservative, it's automatically crap.

Speaking of crap, it has two red-blooded brain-dead liberals (Mamet) among its higher profile alum talking a lot of crap, that makes them look no brighter than the average high-school drop out.

Namely one B. Obama and the aforementioned Professor ( a professor no less). I'd say the recent public utterances of these two clowns does rather lower the distinguished institution's reputation. Thank you very much.

Drax wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

CJB is the Bear Jew.

I know it's a sensitive topic, but God-damn, the ass-wiping that the constitution has taken in the last ten years or so should be giving us all pause, especially when viewed alongside many events of the last 100 years or so.

But the asswiping that the constitution has been taking has more to do with statist liberals preaching big government and a decidedly unconstitutional overreach of federal powers at the expense of individual liberties and freedoms, not to mention states rights.

Now we've got asshole Presidents and Professors from Harvard, fomenting class warfare and attempting to stir up the laziest and most entitled segments against the country's hardworking achievers.

What you are getting at I suspect is the crackdown on civil liberties in the wake of 9/11 which is another issue IMO. This speaks to the whole conspiracy industry of secret forces working behind the scenes and directing world events, in a bid to build the new world order and enslave us all via whatever form of government will keep us under control.

The problem I have with the whole conspiracy scenario is that its a morass of misdirection and agendas. I've done my due diligence. I attended a series of films and lectures on 911 about 8 years ago. It was interesting but what was very offputting was that the meetings were stacked with leftist revlolutionary types and anarchists - the same morons that populate the Occupy protests, whose only goal in life is to tear down free markets and establish their utopian communes or whatever the hell they are on about. They hate the USA and everything it stands for. Bush and Cheney brought down the towers and that's the end of it as far as they care concerned. I drank some good beer for a few weeks with these dummies and moved on.

But yes I do believe there are shadowy forces that work behind the scenes. Anyone that's read a popular spy thriller, or watched the last James Bond movie, wouldn't have much trouble buying into that.The connections between JFK and Watergate and everything in-between have been sussed out in a fairly convincing fashion. And even if the Islamists had some help, they are still very much a real and present danger ( tom clancy) and must be defended against. But there's not much we can do about shadowy secret groups trying to jerk us over. Bad and powerful people will always be with us.

But we can stand up to the visible loons, the Obamas and their ilk, who are trying to undo the great work that the founders of the Great Republic put in place.

Brian Ross of ABC News should be ****FIRED**** on the spot, immediately, with no severance pay. In fact, take George Stephanopolous with him. What they did today, trying to link the Aurora, Colorado shooter to the Tea Party, was an absolute disgrace to "journalism". I hope the non-shooter Jim Holmes sues Ross and ABC for every single penny he can get. Let's see if Aaron Sorkin covers this on Newsroom.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/abc-news-tea-party-connection-incorrect-129588.html

Yeah. That was a big gaffe. I believe there was someone else who said he was a Democrat. Tea Partier, Democrat, or whatever he is, it doesn't really matter.

Jack Wade wrote:

Yeah. That was a big gaffe. I believe there was someone else who said he was a Democrat. Tea Partier, Democrat, or whatever he is, it doesn't really matter.

No, it wasn't a "gaffe"; that implies it was accidental. Trying to fart and a little something extra coming out is a "gaffe". This was intentional. Brian Ross went looking for a Jim Holmes who was a Tea Party.member. Why even bring up a Jim Holmes of the Tea Party without any evidence that the two were the same person? I'm sure there's a Jim Holmes somewhere who works for McDonalds, so why not bring that up? It's patently clear why Brian Ross did it; he's done similar hit jobs before. I'm done with ABC News. Just another example of why people keep turning away from the "old media" and are using new media to get their reporting.