President obama does not help his family, how can he help the nation?

[Pr0d1gy]

It's kind of funny seeing a bunch of nutjob right wingers in here banging on Obama for non-Socialist tendencies. Get your stories straight, morons.

 

[Nemesis 1]

The Communist Manifesto has absolutely zero relevance for the left in America in 2012. It's not 1940 anymore. Get over your paranoid Cold War delusions. There's about 10 people left in the U.S. who are actually communists.

This article is pathetic, but kind of funny in that it implicitly violates so many of the right's prejudices. Poor black foreigner wants to take care of his own family rather than ask for handouts from famous half-brother. Obama not involved in nepotism. Shocking!!

There are even fewer people who see socialism and communists as being differant than socialist . Carl Marx the jew wrote the book on socialism anyone who studies this period of time should be awake to the world around him . I am surrounded by what you call socialist . The alarming part is as socialism grows so does their daring. Most here are now infact commies as they want all other voices muted.

 

[berzerker60]

That's some fine, near-incoherent paranoid fantasy.

Whatever people "see," socialism and communism are very, very different systems. Socialism and capitalism can work together just fine, as has been the case in Europe for decades. Capitalism and communism cannot, since they are contradictory economic systems. Socialism says nothing about religion one way or another, communism (in its original incarnation) is atheist. Neither communism nor socialism has the least bit to do with "wanting all other voices muted," which is just tinfoil hat nonsense.

Communism used to be a real intellectual force back in the 1930s-1950s, but that day is long, long past, the USSR is dead, and China is 'communist' in the same way North Korea is a "Democratic people's republic," which is to say not at all. Other than some fringe rabble, nobody is campaigning to overthrow capitalism.

People arguing for social democracy / socialism in America are arguing for a capitalism that is less cut-throat and oppressive to those on the lower rungs, which means higher taxes and more government services. It's perfectly fine for you to want the other end of the scale, where it's fewer services / less taxes, but I can't wait until enough Cold War fossils wake up to the new reality or die off so we can have honest debate in the country that doesn't think communism is some real threat to America. No significant group in the country wants anything but what they see as the best for everyone. No one is trying to destroy America.

 

[MrColin]

LOL, economy appears to be possibly turning up slightly, so Romney can't even focus on economy, and has to resort to belated swift-boating.

If this were 2008 Democratic Primary and Obama was not a known quantity, it might have worked. But rational observers have seen Obama in action for four years and easily recognize wing-nut last throes of desperation.

e. g. Obama Campaign and Real Clear Politics both apparently see North Carolina as a toss up state:


Translation: Romney campaign is in deep, deep, deep sh*t in electoral college (if Obama takes North Carolina, I would guess landslide in 350 electoral votes or more (ballpark number, haven't dug into electoral scenarios to get more precise blowout number).

Wing Nuts will truly have their head explode if and when Texas is in play in electoral college:

I live in NC, and everyone here hates Obama, mostly because the talking heads on TV tell them they should and that's about all they know.

 

[CitizenKain]

I read the article and its mainly about obama not helping out his suferring brother George Obama

So you didn't, got it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Hmm. Let's turn that around. As someone who likes Obama, you deny any truth to an internally consistent string of reportage, no matter how many times the same thing is reported about multiple Obama relatives. Now which of us seems the most reasonable, the one who accepts that several independent sources reporting the same behavior about a string of relatives are probably essentially true, or the one who denies all the reports simply because he will believe no bad about the Messiah, no matter the evidence?

The problem with your attempt to turn this around boils down to one simple word: evidence.

"There have been reports" is not evidence, it is innuendo. You have already flatly said you believe this report -- which is completely biased and unsubstantiated, just the word of one man who hates Obama -- largely because you have done this exact same thing before. I have not.

I am not an Obama fan and I don't consider him a "Messiah". I just refuse to think ill of the man based on unsubstantiated innuendo. The onus is on those making accusations to prove them. No proof has been provided here that Obama is neglecting his family.

However, I'm also not so foolish as to deny what seems to be very plain and is widely reported, that Obama's bothers (and his aunts, cousins, etc.) are not being helped financially and are in desperate poverty both here and abroad. Since this is evident, it's also a given that Obama is not helping them.

Once again, your position boils down to "lots of people who don't like Obama have said something bad about him, and since I don't like Obama, it must be true". You can't actually produce any proper, documented evidence that Obama has been asked for help by his family and refused. But since you hate the man, you are eager to believe this, so you accept the stories at face value.

And next time it happens, you'll now consider it to be even more "evident" that this is true, because of the story being discussed here -- even though anyone with any reasonable level of intellectual honesty can see that the article is a hit job with no evidence whatsoever.

Classic confirmation bias.

 

[cybrsage]

I would love to see non-religious charity giving as the true number.

That said, there is a study that came out very recently that shows the less weatlhy give more than the wealthy. But again, we dont know if that is for non-religious donations.

Compassion International is a religious charity, you would discount helping the poor in other countries?

Catholic Charities is...well, obviously a religious charity and they help millions inside the US alone...

 

[werepossum]

The problem with your attempt to turn this around boils down to one simple word: evidence.

"There have been reports" is not evidence, it is innuendo. You have already flatly said you believe this report -- which is completely biased and unsubstantiated, just the word of one man who hates Obama -- largely because you have done this exact same thing before. I have not.

I am not an Obama fan and I don't consider him a "Messiah". I just refuse to think ill of the man based on unsubstantiated innuendo. The onus is on those making accusations to prove them. No proof has been provided here that Obama is neglecting his family.



Once again, your position boils down to "lots of people who don't like Obama have said something bad about him, and since I don't like Obama, it must be true". You can't actually produce any proper, documented evidence that Obama has been asked for help by his family and refused. But since you hate the man, you are eager to believe this, so you accept the stories at face value.

And next time it happens, you'll now consider it to be even more "evident" that this is true, because of the story being discussed here -- even though anyone with any reasonable level of intellectual honesty can see that the article is a hit job with no evidence whatsoever.

Classic confirmation bias.

I don't hate the man - in fact, I obviously dislike him less than you like him. I can't even imagine what would pass for "proper, documented evidence" in your world, so I'll state my case very simply.

1. Obama has many close relatives in desperate poverty, including brothers.
2. Practically everyone in this nation knows this, as it has been reported many times by disparate entities.
3. Obama therefore knows this. Having twice met George, he cannot help but know this even were he the dimmest bulb in the nation.
4. Being a multimillionaire, Obama certainly has it within his power to help them with "money he doesn't need", to use a leftist term.
5. These Obama relatives are still in desperate poverty; therefore we know Obama has not helped them.
6. Obama has therefore made a conscious decision not to help these people, whether or not he has been asked.

There is absolutely no way you can deny any one piece of this; you can only claim it hasn't been "proven". If one willfully refuses to see reality, there's not much any of us can do about it.

D'Souza helped one of them when he desperately needed help. D'Souza did this almost certainly to make a political point, or at best, to help someone who needed it whom he had met and used for political reasons. (I don't absolutely know that D'Souza would refuse $1,000 to someone he has met who is equally needy with no larger political point to be made, but I suspect it.) He did a good thing, probably for a bad reason.

Again, I don't consider this a major sin. I would guess that Obama considers these people to be relatives, but not really family as there is probably no sense of family between his father's people and Obama, who was abandoned by his father and raised by his mother's family. But to simply deny it is happening is simply infantile.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't hate the man - in fact, I obviously dislike him less than you like him. I can't even imagine what would pass for "proper, documented evidence" in your world, so I'll state my case very simply.

You haven't provided any. None at all.

5. These Obama relatives are still in desperate poverty; therefore we know Obama has not helped them.

Correct.

6. Obama has therefore made a conscious decision not to help these people, whether or not he has been asked.

And here's where the problem lies. We don't know the circumstances behind why he has not helped them. You simply jump to the conclusion that because they have not been helped, that Obama has made a "conscious decision not to help these people".

When asked what proof there is of this supposition, you say you don't know what evidence would be satisfactory, when you know well that no evidence certainly is not.

It's entirely possible that he has offered to help them and they have refused that help. I don't know. And you don't want to.

 

[Moonbeam]

It has been scientifically demonstrated that conservatives value loyalty as a moral virtue more highly that democrats do, perhaps so that in those cases where loyalty can save a tribe, or where loyalty will lead to extinction of the loyal members of a tribe, some humans will remain alive to breed.

So naturally, when it comes to politics, conservatives are going try to use their imaginary sense of moral superiority to get votes by calling the other side morally bankrupt. Of course the spiritual leaders of all ages saw this coming and have warned them to judge not least they be judged, but you know how hypocrites are. They love to sin with their asses while talking morals out their mouth. Doubtless why a hurricane is on its way.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

If he helps them he is a Socialist, if he doesn't he is not going to help the country.

Fucking idiots, make up your damned minds. Is he a Socialist or a Capitalist? You can't argue both sides against the middle, although you try to constantly.

 

[Incorruptible]

If he helps them he is a Socialist, if he doesn't he is not going to help the country.

Fucking idiots, make up your damned minds. Is he a Socialist or a Capitalist? You can't argue both sides against the middle, although you try to constantly.

obama isn't a socialist or a Capitalist, he is a corporatist

 

[werepossum]

You haven't provided any. None at all.



Correct.



And here's where the problem lies. We don't know the circumstances behind why he has not helped them. You simply jump to the conclusion that because they have not been helped, that Obama has made a "conscious decision not to help these people".

When asked what proof there is of this supposition, you say you don't know what evidence would be satisfactory, when you know well that no evidence certainly is not.

It's entirely possible that he has offered to help them and they have refused that help. I don't know. And you don't want to.

Considering that they haven't been helped and are turning to other people to be helped, I'd say it's entirely possible that he has offered to help them and they have refused that help in the same way it's entirely possible that he sent them about t'ree fiddy and that damned ol' Loch Ness Monster intercepted it. But whatever helps you sleep. If you wish to imagine scenarios that ennoble the Messiah it's no skin off my nose.

If he helps them he is a Socialist, if he doesn't he is not going to help the country.

Fucking idiots, make up your damned minds. Is he a Socialist or a Capitalist? You can't argue both sides against the middle, although you try to constantly.

Helping one's family is NOT socialism. It's the polar opposite of socialism, which posits that government should own (or at least control) the means of production so that government can equitably divide the production and thus avoid the need to help one's family.

I really don't consider this much of a black eye, but you guys trying to paint Obama as some sort of victim here are just hilarious.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Considering that they haven't been helped and are turning to other people to be helped, I'd say it's entirely possible that he has offered to help them and they have refused that help in the same way it's entirely possible that he sent them about t'ree fiddy and that damned ol' Loch Ness Monster intercepted it. But whatever helps you sleep. If you wish to imagine scenarios that ennoble the Messiah it's no skin off my nose.

I'm not the one constructing scenarios to fit my preconceived notions. You are.

I'm the one saying we don't know, and asking for valid evidence to support allegations such as him not offering to help. You have none, so you choose instead to get petulant while avoiding the core issue.

A completely unsubstantiated story from a guy who makes a career out of trashing Obama is not credible except to someone like yourself who wanted to believe it from the start.