GOP attacks Obama speech for a libera...

GOP attacks Obama speech for a liberalism,a a gimmicksa GOP attacks...

There are 38 comments on the USA Today story from Feb 13, 2013, titled GOP attacks Obama speech for a liberalism,a a gimmicksa GOP attacks.... In it, USA Today reports that:

Republicans said Wednesday that President Barack Obama's State of the Union address was full of well-worn liberal ideas and campaign-style hostility, and did little to ease partisan tensions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#1 Feb 13, 2013
Of course they did.

They still think Reaganomics is "capitalism" and tax cuts create jobs.
celticwarriors

Bradenton, FL

#2 Feb 13, 2013
Hello Repugs! This is the 21st century and we care about our fellow human beings. Your worship of money has been rejected. WE are LIBERAL and hear us roar!
Put down your kool-aid, Rubio and Rand, it is making you appear so 19th century!

Level 5

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#3 Feb 13, 2013
Ironically Obama isn't liberal.
Lance Winslow

San Jose, CA

#5 Feb 13, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
Ironically Obama isn't liberal.
Fortunately, he's looking out for the American people who overwhelmingly are liberal.
gossamer

Warren, MI

#6 Feb 13, 2013
He said the state of the union was strong. In what universe would high unemployment, anemic growth, trillion dollar deficits, and massive debt indicate a strong state of the union?"
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

#7 Feb 13, 2013
Unemployment is higher today then it was the day Obama was sworn in in 2009. We are bankrupt, and the Democrats have promised the same things for decades, jobs, and education reform. They lie about everything. There were 2 different columns today pointing out all the lies the President told last night. The truth isn't in the man. And he surounds himself with people who tell bigger lies then he does, and are dumber then he is, if you can imagine such a thing.

“Proud To Be An American”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#8 Feb 13, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text> I need to to tell them?
Teabaggers have been doing that since the tea party was formed.
If you're not a teabagger, you're an Anti-American communist.
Then there is this:
Everyone knows that Tea Party revolutionaries fear and hate socialism about as much as the Antichrist. Which is funny, because the Tea Party movement’s dirty little secret is that it owes its existence to the grandaddy of all Antichrists: the godless empire of the USSR.
What few realize is that the secretive oil billionaires of the Koch family, the main supporters of the right-wing groups that orchestrated the Tea Party movement, would not have the means to bankroll their favorite causes had it not been for the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.
Poor teabagger.
Attention Wall Street Communist!!! Yes indeed you have flipped your lid, douchebagger.
Once again...Your sleazy attempt to connect the USSR to Koch in the early part of the past century and to The Tea Party in 2011 is a deranged joke.
Let me educate you and your like minded history illiterate libelous pals...The entire USA, The entire UK et al allied with Stalin during WWII. That fact alone cancels your self-serving knee jerk assumption that you can single anyone out from the era like you and your ilk have done to the relatives of the Koch brothers. Furthermore, any oil related assistance provided by the USA, Koch et al to the USSR prior to WWII obviously was key for the USSR to defeat Nazis. The Cold War began in 1946, douchebagger.
You are one pathetic libelous runt talking out your butt stooping lower than a snake's belly trying to connect dots that obviously cannot be connected. You are a useful idiot for the communist party sleazebags who are stinking up American politics, those dots connect.

“Proud To Be An American”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#9 Feb 13, 2013
celticwarriors wrote:
Hello Repugs! This is the 21st century and we care about our fellow human beings. Your worship of money has been rejected. WE are LIBERAL and hear us roar!
Put down your kool-aid, Rubio and Rand, it is making you appear so 19th century!
Attention warriortwerp!!! News for you...you're nothing but a pissant useful idiot for self-serving limousine liberals...now shut your ignorant piehole, your breath stinks fruitcake.

“Proud To Be An American”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#10 Feb 13, 2013
It is indeed a sickening sight to see b. h. obama speak following a mass shooting. As if he is qualified to be the one in charge of condolences and advising people on “what to do.”
I find it very difficult to go along with b. h. obama who is a man who allowed himself to associate and to be mentored for years by the communist-terrorist bill ayers. The facts show there is not a dime’s worth of difference between obama’s mentor bill ayers and loughner, lanza and holmes. In fact they are connected in several ways…
It was discovered that loughner attended a school where ayers had created, in collaboration with longtime communist mike kolinsky, the so-called "Small Schools Movement."
It is also coincidental how holmes wired his entire apartment with bombs that would explode on police investigators; ayers is suspected of being behind a bomb that killed a police officer and maimed another and was connected to a bomb that killed his girlfriend and two comrades. That bomb was intended for US Soldiers stationed at Fort Dix NJ.
It is also coincidental how ayers advocated killing parents and that adam lanza did exactly that when he shot his mother in the face 4 times while she slept.
Common sense should dictate that anyone who allowed himself to be mentored for years by bill ayers and who launched their political career from the home of bill ayers just like b. h. obama did should be the last one to be speaking on the behalf of anyone who lost their life to deranged individuals.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individual...

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfi...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222128560757...
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#11 Feb 14, 2013
JohnInLa wrote:
<quoted text>Attention Wall Street Communist!!! Yes indeed you have flipped your lid, douchebagger.
Once again...Your sleazy attempt to connect the USSR to Koch in the early part of the past century and to The Tea Party in 2011 is a deranged joke.
Let me educate you and your like minded history illiterate libelous pals...The entire USA, The entire UK et al allied with Stalin during WWII. That fact alone cancels your self-serving knee jerk assumption that you can single anyone out from the era like you and your ilk have done to the relatives of the Koch brothers. Furthermore, any oil related assistance provided by the USA, Koch et al to the USSR prior to WWII obviously was key for the USSR to defeat Nazis. The Cold War began in 1946, douchebagger.
You are one pathetic libelous runt talking out your butt stooping lower than a snake's belly trying to connect dots that obviously cannot be connected. You are a useful idiot for the communist party sleazebags who are stinking up American politics, those dots connect.
Seems the Teabagger Koch love communism and socialism but only if they can profit.

You didn’t hear this on Fox News or the Drudge Report, but on October 10 Venezuela seized and nationalized a massive fertilizer plant part-owned by Koch Industries. The media silence is a bit puzzling. You’d think that the seizure of property belonging to America’s second-largest private company, owned by one of the most powerful families in the country and the bankrollers of today’s libertarian/Tea Party revolution—the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch–would be considered newsworthy. But no, even though their Venezuela plant was nationalized a whole three months ago, other than a handful of short business-wire dispatches, this has yet to make the news. Even Koch Industries has been suspiciously silent on the matter.

One reason why the Kochs could be keeping the news under wraps is that the nationalization of the fertilizer plant may appear to be bad news for Charles and David Koch, but here’s the big surprise: the Kochs made hundreds of millions on every end of this deal…and even more surprising, bond markets cheered the nationalization. In other words, the free markets championed by the Kochs gave a big thumbs-down to Kochs’ negative influence on the value of the business, while at the same time, the free-market Kochs earned huge windfalls doing business with socialists. No wonder this story hasn’t made the rounds.

Poor teabagger.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#12 Feb 14, 2013
JohnInLa wrote:
It is indeed a sickening sight to see b. h. obama speak following a mass shooting. As if he is qualified to be the one in charge of condolences and advising people on “what to do.”
I find it very difficult to go along with b. h. obama who is a man who allowed himself to associate and to be mentored for years by the communist-terrorist bill ayers. The facts show there is not a dime’s worth of difference between obama’s mentor bill ayers and loughner, lanza and holmes. In fact they are connected in several ways…
It was discovered that loughner attended a school where ayers had created, in collaboration with longtime communist mike kolinsky, the so-called "Small Schools Movement."
It is also coincidental how holmes wired his entire apartment with bombs that would explode on police investigators; ayers is suspected of being behind a bomb that killed a police officer and maimed another and was connected to a bomb that killed his girlfriend and two comrades. That bomb was intended for US Soldiers stationed at Fort Dix NJ.
It is also coincidental how ayers advocated killing parents and that adam lanza did exactly that when he shot his mother in the face 4 times while she slept.
Common sense should dictate that anyone who allowed himself to be mentored for years by bill ayers and who launched their political career from the home of bill ayers just like b. h. obama did should be the last one to be speaking on the behalf of anyone who lost their life to deranged individuals.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individual...
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfi...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222128560757...
"
As if he is qualified to be the one in charge of condolences and advising people on “what to do.”

George knew what Americans needed to do during a crisis.

"People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you." -- George Bush -- Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush didn't call for sacrifice. He called for shopping. "Get down to Disney World in Florida," he said. "Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed".

Poor teabagger.
ahitem

Fork Union, VA

#13 Feb 14, 2013
celticwarriors wrote:
Hello Repugs! This is the 21st century and we care about our fellow human beings. Your worship of money has been rejected. WE are LIBERAL and hear us roar!
Put down your kool-aid, Rubio and Rand, it is making you appear so 19th century!
Ok you pay for the illegals and food stampers, where are the jobs why did over 23 billion go to chryslar in china for stimilus, wheres all the infrastucter that the stimilus was going to bring shovel ready, im not a idiot repub or dem there both satanist pos's

“Open your eyes”

Level 1

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#14 Feb 14, 2013
Ok..........

Let's make this perfectly clear. Obama is not a liberal. At least not in the classic sense of the meaning.

Classical liberalism is that of freedom and liberty. To be able to make decisions for one's self, to choose their own path. Classic Liberalism I would argue should be today's Conservativism.

During the early 1900's, liberalism was transformed into a Progressive ideological mindset. Liberalism turned and morphed into a more social democracy/social liberalism. Thanks to the Roosevelt's, the meaning of the word changed into more of Socialism foundation with large government control over all aspects of life.

So when you hear people like Hitlery Clinton up there saying she is not a liberal but an early 20th century progressive. The Roosevelt social structure is to what she is referring.

Majority of those if not all of those that are in Washington and in the media that call themselves liberals, are not truly liberals. They are progressives that believe in a foundational doctrine of Socialism.

On the other hand, those that call themselves conservatives are also not really conservatives that are there in Washington and in the media. They are fascist. They support the foundational doctrine of government and corporate control.

Both Fascism and Socialism are completely against the idea and foundation of Classic Liberalism.

And this is the problem, people do not understand the true meanings of the words.

An 18th Century writer, a founding father, Thomas Paine wrote, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

“Open your eyes”

Level 1

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#15 Feb 14, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems the Teabagger Koch love communism and socialism but only if they can profit.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........

That's called Fascism.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#16 Feb 14, 2013
GOPee:'Oh, oooh, oh look, he's a liberal, he's LIBERAL, can't you see him look, he's being LIBERAL!'

Sane person:'Yeah, he's a liberal...now, do you have anything intelligent to say?'

GOPee:'Liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal...'[panting with excitement]

Sane person:'Guess not...'

:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#17 Feb 14, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
Ok..........
Let's make this perfectly clear. Obama is not a liberal. At least not in the classic sense of the meaning.
Classical liberalism is that of freedom and liberty. To be able to make decisions for one's self, to choose their own path. Classic Liberalism I would argue should be today's Conservativism.
During the early 1900's, liberalism was transformed into a Progressive ideological mindset. Liberalism turned and morphed into a more social democracy/social liberalism. Thanks to the Roosevelt's, the meaning of the word changed into more of Socialism foundation with large government control over all aspects of life.
So when you hear people like Hitlery Clinton up there saying she is not a liberal but an early 20th century progressive. The Roosevelt social structure is to what she is referring.
Majority of those if not all of those that are in Washington and in the media that call themselves liberals, are not truly liberals. They are progressives that believe in a foundational doctrine of Socialism.
On the other hand, those that call themselves conservatives are also not really conservatives that are there in Washington and in the media. They are fascist. They support the foundational doctrine of government and corporate control.
Both Fascism and Socialism are completely against the idea and foundation of Classic Liberalism.
And this is the problem, people do not understand the true meanings of the words.
An 18th Century writer, a founding father, Thomas Paine wrote, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
He's not the liberal of the right's adored, rosy, golden past, he's a modern liberal. Liberalism of the past has changed, and is no more. Just as the Conservatism of the past has changed, and gone utterly out of its tiny little mind.

Typically of a modern Conservative, you're arguing meaningless points to little purpose.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#18 Feb 14, 2013
JohnInLa wrote:
It is indeed a sickening sight to see b. h. obama speak following a mass shooting. As if he is qualified to be the one in charge of condolences and advising people on “what to do.”
I find it very difficult to go along with b. h. obama who is a man who allowed himself to associate and to be mentored for years by the communist-terrorist bill ayers. The facts ...EDITED...
The facts are something you can't handle and know nothing about, troll-boy. What's "sickening" are your lies, slander, and bullshit.

Deal with it, pimp.

“Open your eyes”

Level 1

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#19 Feb 14, 2013
Lance Winslow wrote:
<quoted text>Fortunately, he's looking out for the American people who overwhelmingly are liberal.
I do not see that. I see the people as ignorant.

People in general do not even know the meanings of the words they try to use.

They have no idea what it means to be liberal or conservative because they do not what it means.

They only think Liberals = Democrats and Republicans = Conservatives. This is because of the media and the lack of their education.

True liberals should be that of classical liberalism, 18th century liberalism. The works of Paine and Jefferson. And over time these ideological followings should be today's Conservative.

I will put money down though that maybe 3-4 people per 1000 have actually read any of their works to get a better understanding of meanings of the words.

“Open your eyes”

Level 1

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#20 Feb 14, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
He's not the liberal of the right's adored, rosy, golden past, he's a modern liberal. Liberalism of the past has changed, and is no more. Just as the Conservatism of the past has changed, and gone utterly out of its tiny little mind.
Typically of a modern Conservative, you're arguing meaningless points to little purpose.
Actually they have not changed. The true meanings of the words will always stay the same. Manipulation of the meanings is what changes. And history shows this. The Teddy Roosevelt Progressive movement did not really take off. After Taft took office, he repealed almost every one of Roosevelt's laws.

The word Progressive was tanking during this time, so the progressives took the word liberal. But, by their deeds you shall know them. Not what they say.

When comparing Progressivism to other political belief systems, it shares the foundation of Socialism. Centralized government control. Like it or not, that is what it is. And centralized government control is not liberalism.

Now conservatives of today should be classic liberalism, however, they are not. They are fascist. They believe the ideological stance that corporations and government must be one for economic stability. Which is not true, it is a form of despotism.

Arguing liberal or conservative without knowing the true meaning of the words and their foundations is a fail argument. Just like arguing Democrats versus Republicans.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#21 Feb 14, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they have not changed. The true meanings of the words will always stay the same. Manipulation of the meanings is what changes. And history shows this. The Teddy Roosevelt Progressive movement did not really take off. After Taft took office, he repealed almost every one of Roosevelt's laws.
The word Progressive was tanking during this time, so the progressives took the word liberal. But, by their deeds you shall know them. Not what they say.
When comparing Progressivism to other political belief systems, it shares the foundation of Socialism. Centralized government control. Like it or not, that is what it is. And centralized government control is not liberalism.
Now conservatives of today should be classic liberalism, however, they are not. They are fascist. They believe the ideological
stance that corporations and government must be one for economic stability. Which is not true, it is a form of despotism.
Arguing liberal or conservative without knowing the true meaning of the words and their foundations is a fail argument. Just like arguing Democrats versus Republicans.
Thanks for proving you live in the past. Change, progress, modernity....these are anathema to righties, and always have been.

You simply don't know what you're talking about here, for the most part.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump would deport children of illegal immigrants 33 min rfirma1 498
News NYC council speaker endorses Hillary Clinton fo... 38 min californio 15
When Does Anti-Immigration Go Too Far? 1 hr YouDidntBuildThat 2
News Fiorina: RNC loyalty pledge 'unenforceable' 1 hr wild child 3
News What rights do immigrants in the US have? 2 hr Righteous 42
News 'Anchor baby' fight scrambles Republican field 3 hr californio 450
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 3 hr D Valens 138,961
More from around the web