Guy shows up at Obama meeting with a gun

Kama

So you really imagine that Obama will get a second term?

If the GOP keeps moving into the Angry White Man hole it's currently in, sure!

The Rove-era divisive approach got convincingly pwned by the Obamist universalist rhetoric, and the loudest Republican movement du jour seems to be the in-denial 'birthers' screaming 'where's my country?'. Kinda like Palin, this plays very well to a home base, but not nearly as well for convincing center-moderates to whom it looks like lunacy. 'Bush did 911' was a relatively-fringe conspiracy thing for the Left, whereas for the Right the 'tinfoil' approach seems to be the main political manifestation of opposition. Which is great news for Obama, tbh.

Unless there's something credible on the other side, he'll breeze into a second term...

worldrepublic

Kama wrote: »

If the GOP keeps moving into the Angry White Man hole it's currently in, sure!

The Rove-era divisive approach got convincingly pwned by the Obamist universalist rhetoric, and the loudest Republican movement du jour seems to be the in-denial 'birthers' screaming 'where's my country?'. Kinda like Palin, this plays very well to a home base, but not nearly as well for convincing center-moderates to whom it looks like lunacy. 'Bush did 911' was a relatively-fringe conspiracy thing for the Left, whereas for the Right the 'tinfoil' approach seems to be the main political manifestation of opposition. Which is great news for Obama, tbh.

Unless there's something credible on the other side, he'll breeze into a second term...

"bush did 911" was completely rejected by the left -that's the way I see it. Chomsky, Amy Goodman et al. wanted nothing to do with it at all!

Again, the conspiracy theories actually have very little impact on polls etc (although the CT people would love to take credit): it's loss of houses, loss of pensions, loss of jobs etc. As Gerald Celente is fond of saying: "when people lose everything, they lose it!"

The interesting thing is that now People like Amy Goodman are undermining the Obama Administration -he is burning too many bridges. However, he clearly has "hardline" support (i.e. "Obama worship").

28064212

worldrepublic wrote: »

That is why the Telegraph (who previously supported Obama) now have a Journalist calling him "President Pantywaist".

Ok first of all the Telegraph is traditionally a conservative paper. Second of all, where does it suggest that the Telegraph has now turned against Obama? You posted one opinion piece from a single columnist. Here's the same columnist's piece from inauguration day. Yeah, it really seems like he's changed his mind on Obama, or that he ever would have supported him in the first place.

worldrepublic wrote: »

The polls are veritably low, on any line of comparison.

You keep saying that, it doesn't make it true. A 50% approval rating in the midst of an economic crisis is doing quite well.

worldrepublic wrote: »

No, I'm afraid the Obama "halo" is gone and will never return to the public consciousness. "sounds positive" is just not going to cut it. He will need to create jobs, period. The idea that we will all be enjoying a boom within the next 3 years is pure fiction. This is not a recession, this is not a depression, it is a global breakdown crisis. Obama's worst policy is that big corporations are "too big to fail". He is flying in the face of the fundamentals of capitalism and a free market, and he is the worst offender.

On the one hand you're saying that the government shouldn't interfere with the economy and free market, and on the other saying that it's Obama's responsibility to create jobs? Which is it? You can't call for total deregulation and government intervention at the same time. And if you looked at any of the recent economic outlooks, they are all suggesting cautious optimism and that the global economy is showing signs of recovery.

Oh, and by the way, the giving of $18.4 billion to Chrysler and GM, and the nationalisation of AIG and the other banks, happend under Bush, not Obama

worldrepublic

28064212 wrote: »

Ok first of all the Telegraph is traditionally a conservative paper. Second of all, where does it suggest that the Telegraph has now turned against Obama? You posted one opinion piece from a single columnist. Here's the same columnist's piece from inauguration day. Yeah, it really seems like he's changed his mind on Obama, or that he ever would have supported him in the first place.
You keep saying that, it doesn't make it true. A 50% approval rating in the midst of an economic crisis is doing quite well.
On the one hand you're saying that the government shouldn't interfere with the economy and free market, and on the other saying that it's Obama's responsibility to create jobs? Which is it? You can't call for total deregulation and government intervention at the same time. And if you looked at any of the recent economic outlooks, they are all suggesting cautious optimism and that the global economy is showing signs of recovery.

Oh, and by the way, the giving of $18.4 billion to Chrysler and GM, and the nationalisation of AIG and the other banks, happend under Bush, not Obama

So you're suggesting that Obama's policy in relation to the handouts is a continuation of Bush's? Au contraire, Obama is about change -that's why he is trying to create jobs... and bring the troops home. Next you'll be saying that his foreign policy is a continuation of Bush's War on Terror?

28064212

worldrepublic wrote: »

So you're suggesting that Obama's policy in relation to the handouts is a continuation of Bush's? Au contraire, Obama is about change -that's why he is trying to create jobs... and bring the troops home. Next you'll be saying that his foreign policy is a continuation of Bush's War on Terror?

I never posted an opinion on the bailouts, but you're using them as a stick to beat Obama, even though they happened under Bush. Surely you can at least see the flaw in that argument?

And Obama pledged to bring the troops home from Iraq, after establishing a stable country, something he is still on schedule for. The refocus on Afghanistan was always part of his campaign.

Salvelinus

Why are people complaining about the people with guns, didn't the dixie chix take rocket launchers?

LostinKildare

The Republicans drove the country into the ditch, now they're complaining about the cost of the tow truck.

Overheal

On the one hand you're saying that the government shouldn't interfere with the economy and free market, and on the other saying that it's Obama's responsibility to create jobs? Which is it? You can't call for total deregulation and government intervention at the same time. And if you looked at any of the recent economic outlooks, they are all suggesting cautious optimism and that the global economy is showing signs of recovery.

I'd like to hear your response to this Republic.

worldrepublic

Overheal wrote: »

I'd like to hear your response to this Republic.

"which is it?" -if only everything was as simple, and as black and white as you make out. Obama can (or could have -is it too late?) create jobs by pursuing any number of strategies. He is, however, moving is a single, almost obsessive, direction. He is favouring Wallstreet by his actions, and the very real consequences of all of this (from Joe Soap's or Ethel Smith's perspective) are lost jobs, lost pensions, lost houses, and a very big lost opportunity. What has Obama really achieved:

[warning: this video may upset the naive]

WinstonSmith

norbert64 wrote: »

rather tenuous correlation TBH.
These are supposed to be healthcare townhalls after all.
Anywho, the truth is trickling out now about the gun guy in the pic. Things aren't looking good.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34475_The_Freaks_Behind_the_Arizona_Gun_Stunt

Ha Ha! You think that page is news! I challenge you to provide me with one line from the whole page that is actually accurate? The whole thing is full of unverified, unsubstantial rumour generated propaganda, possibly to discredit the fellow who decided that he would exercise his constituional right (and discourage others from doing likewise), and to associate the carrying of guns in public (which I repeat is a constitutional right in that specific state in America) with a "bug-eyed, insane gang". Personally, the level of reporting that carries such partial wording, I consider on a par with The Sun, Daily Mirror, Star, etc... all of which I steer clear of because I know that quite a lot of their stories will be hearsay and poor quality. If you are going to believe that there is any "truth" behind this chap deciding to exercise his rights then at least find a credible source!

jank

worldrepublic wrote: »

"which is it?" -if only everything was as simple, and as black and white as you make out. Obama can (or could have -is it too late?) create jobs by pursuing any number of strategies. He is, however, moving is a single, almost obsessive, direction. He is favouring Wallstreet by his actions, and the very real consequences of all of this (from Joe Soap's or Ethel Smith's perspective) are lost jobs, lost pensions, lost houses, and a very big lost opportunity. What has Obama really achieved:

[warning: this video may upset the naive]

LOL, well one thing is that Obama isnt even mentioned in that video and when will all this chaotic stuff will happen. I am afraid you are the one being naive

Ruskie4Rent

worldrepublic wrote: »

So you really imagine that Obama will get a second term?

If,
-Decent health care legislation gets passed
-The economy returns to some sort of normality
-There are no major national security incidences
AND
-The right continues with birther conspiricies, death panel claims, and comparing moderate socialization of certain institutes to nazi germany. They need to offer more legitimate opposition to the democrat's proposals.

Obama should be a shoe-in IMO.

worldrepublic

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

If,
-Decent health care legislation gets passed
-The economy returns to some sort of normality
-There are no major national security incidences
AND
-The right continues with birther conspiricies, death panel claims, and comparing moderate socialization of certain institutes to nazi germany. They need to offer more legitimate opposition to the democrat's proposals.

Obama should be a shoe-in IMO.

Maybe a white-shoe-in, mafia style!

Kama

More that there's no other shoe that fits...The birther-paranoid shoe doesn't fit enough people in it to be a viable political vehicle for anything other than oppositional yelling. The AND seems more key than the IF in Ruskies post.

As to Celente, if we assume the full 'Doomer' picture, Republicans seem no better equipped to eal with it than Dems, so it has little bearing on who would be elected. The Obama 'Hope' meme might even do better with outright calamity than his competitors.

worldrepublic

Kama wrote: »

More that there's no other shoe that fits...The birther-paranoid shoe doesn't fit enough people in it to be a viable political vehicle for anything other than oppositional yelling. The AND seems more key than the IF in Ruskies post.

As to Celente, if we assume the full 'Doomer' picture, Republicans seem no better equipped to eal with it than Dems, so it has little bearing on who would be elected. The Obama 'Hope' meme might even do better with outright calamity than his competitors.

That's funny. People have accused Celente of dealing in "pessimism porn" -his retort is always: better than your optimism opium!

Kama

Heh, I prefer to get my Doomer Dose from someone like Dmitri Orloff. Pessimism in a murphy's Law or engineering sense if more like troubleshooting - you take a pessimistic scenario, assume anything that can go wrong will, as a means of making a system more robust. True pessimism porn to me is when people get off on the idea of it all going to pieces, but there's no constructive or pre-emptive preparation.

If you buy Celente, what do you think should be done?

worldrepublic

Kama wrote: »

Heh, I prefer to get my Doomer Dose from someone like Dmitri Orloff. Pessimism in a murphy's Law or engineering sense if more like troubleshooting - you take a pessimistic scenario, assume anything that can go wrong will, as a means of making a system more robust. True pessimism porn to me is when people get off on the idea of it all going to pieces, but there's no constructive or pre-emptive preparation.

If you buy Celente, what do you think should be done?

Let us establish the alternative. What's your conception of "optimism opium"?

norbert64

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Ha Ha! You think that page is news! I challenge you to provide me with one line from the whole page that is actually accurate? The whole thing is full of unverified, unsubstantial rumour generated propaganda, possibly to discredit the fellow who decided that he would exercise his constituional right (and discourage others from doing likewise), and to associate the carrying of guns in public (which I repeat is a constitutional right in that specific state in America) with a "bug-eyed, insane gang". Personally, the level of reporting that carries such partial wording, I consider on a par with The Sun, Daily Mirror, Star, etc... all of which I steer clear of because I know that quite a lot of their stories will be hearsay and poor quality. If you are going to believe that there is any "truth" behind this chap deciding to exercise his rights then at least find a credible source!

More info for your persual.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/assault-rifle-interview-outside-obama-event-in-phoenix-was-planned.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/heavily_armed_militia_defended_by_activist_resisted_new_world_order.php

Manic Moran

norbert64 wrote: »

More info for your persual.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/assault-rifle-interview-outside-obama-event-in-phoenix-was-planned.php

Seems sensible enough to me. The Open Carry movement in California routinely calls the police ahead of a mass gathering so that the police don't panic over a bunch of sudden MWG calls (Man With Gun). Also works to remind the police to look up the laws so that they don't over-react when they encounter them. As for the interview being arranged, what's new about that? If you want to get press, it certainly doesn't hurt to ask the press to be there.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/heavily_armed_militia_defended_by_activist_resisted_new_world_order.php

And this affects our gun-carrier, how, exactly?

NTM

orourkeda

What excuse did he give for not shooting?

worldrepublic

If Obama does get shot of course they will blame it on either a republican with a gun, or Al CIAda, or BOTH! In reality Obama has much more powerful enemies (Israel?). I really have to laugh sometimes -MSNBC interviewed the Birther queen Orly Taitz a while back, by link-up -so the interviewers asked Orly where she was. Response: "In Tel Aviv (Israel), visiting friends." Of course what are MSNBC meant to do with that little fact, in terms of "perception management"???

Manic Moran

According to MSNBC, our rifle-carrier is a white racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

I like the editing..

NTM

worldrepublic

Manic Moran wrote: »

According to MSNBC, our rifle-carrier is a white racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

I like the editing..

NTM

OH MY GOD! That is blatant -it actually makes me sick.

You should watch "Media Malpractice" about the coverage of the 2008 elections.

Overheal

Fox News to t3h rescue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwg-f3dqN4

Rb

It's not men carrying guns to these events, it's retarded cowards.

It's a shame that the weapons business has so much sway in the US, if anything is wrong with that country it's the access to arms. However, I'm sure many will try to debate that and claim the country is safer, lol.

Manic Moran

I would suggest that the fact that the country is less safe than many is why law-abiding citizens need access to arms. Fixing the US is a lot more difficult than saying "No guns for anyone", the dangerous people who have them are generally already legally barred from doing so.

NTM

Rb

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would suggest that the fact that the country is less safe than many is why law-abiding citizens need access to arms. Fixing the US is a lot more difficult than saying "No guns for anyone", the dangerous people who have them are generally already legally barred from doing so.

NTM

Oh certainly, but one of the biggest contributors to the insecurity in the US/higher crime would be because of the access to weapons. I agree though, it would be near impossible to completely remove the access to weapons and even tightening the restrictions on who has access to weapons might even increase the rate of small crime, with criminals having to fight harder to get weapons.

Very bad situation, but at the end of the day carrying a rifle or automatic weapon around just because it says you can in an antiquated document is a horrible idea and can only lead to bad things. It may be an exercise of ones civil liberties, however noone will benefit when an argument gets heated and someone is shot in the midst of an argument, merely for having a different point of view.

Manic Moran

Very bad situation, but at the end of the day carrying a rifle or automatic weapon around just because it says you can in an antiquated document is a horrible idea and can only lead to bad things.

No reason it mightn't be handy in certain situations. Hence the popularity of the "trunk gun," which is basically a rifle kept in the back of the car.

t may be an exercise of ones civil liberties, however noone will benefit when an argument gets heated and someone is shot in the midst of an argument, merely for having a different point of view.

Arguments like that fail to take into account the fact that many people already carry firearms, just they're not usually rifles. If the fear is that an argument when one or both of the arguees are armed will devolve into a gunfight, then one would have to ask why it does not happen more often given that 48 States permit the concealed carrying of firearms and some 40 of them permit it as a matter of course. There are a lot of legally carried guns out there, just nobody can see them so nobody is going ape over them. It's a triumph of emotionalism over rationality.

NTM

SteveS

Rb wrote: »

Oh certainly, but one of the biggest contributors to the insecurity in the US/higher crime would be because of the access to weapons. I agree though, it would be near impossible to completely remove the access to weapons and even tightening the restrictions on who has access to weapons might even increase the rate of small crime, with criminals having to fight harder to get weapons.

Very bad situation, but at the end of the day carrying a rifle or automatic weapon around just because it says you can in an antiquated document is a horrible idea and can only lead to bad things. It may be an exercise of ones civil liberties, however noone will benefit when an argument gets heated and someone is shot in the midst of an argument, merely for having a different point of view.

There are plenty of places in the US that have tightened restrictions or instituted outright bans, but there is no evidence that does anything to lower crime, so please don't suggest that is one of the biggest contributers to crime.

I would argue that fundamental liberties exist outside of any antiquated documents and that claiming they are granted by any document is a horrible idea. If that is the case, then they can disappear at the whim of politicians. Also, are you really claiming that arguments regularly evolve into armed people shooting each other? Seriously, how often does this happen? I have been around all sorts of armed people and have managed to avoid being shot.