The only working copy of this I can find is : http://mayomo.com/25141-dennis-hopper-voted-for-obama
unfortunaterly the embed there is an iframe and VS doesn't accept it.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Dennis Kucinich empties his pockets on The Colbert Report. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Monday, August 15. 2011

Nero in the White House
By Mychal Massie

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

@NetRunner (For brevity)

There is, in my mind, a bigger issue at hand than the tissue at hand (Sorry, Elmo in Grouchland ref...)
And that is the movement of society. Paul isn't, as I have note before, a means to an end. He is the first step in a million mile march. The only two things he can get done in office is 1--Change the direction of our nation's military might (Which is far more important than say Unions from a financial perspective.) 2--Stop federal enforcement of the drug war.


To say you don't trust him on certain things is odd. What would it take to earn your trust? And don't get me wrong, he won't start a movement to get certain things done (I.e., more tolerance for homosexuals)--he is the movement of the right to a center again (Where homosexuals are widely more accepted...) His best friend is politically a death-knell (Dennis Kucinich,) he has continued to hold onto his politically-doomed drug policies, he speaks freely, he doesn't take (much) money from the big guy...etc.

However, how well has Obama done to legalize gay marriage? (He can't, that's up to either the courts or the legislature.) Protecting the unions? (Can't, that's really a state level thing when it comes to practicality...I.e., if the state wants a loophole to doom a union, they can enact one.) One man isn't god in an office--and that's why I don't hate Obama for being a mortal man.

I just can't see myself voting for the never ending war between Big Business R and Big Business D... Voting for Obama or Bachman, or Clinton or Bush, is voting to continue that war and honestly I don't want a part of it. Once we realize this truism we can fix our nation.

Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character
By Dennis Prager
7/19/2011

While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society's moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse. Here are 10 reasons:

1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I? This is why Western Europeans, people who have lived in welfare states far longer than Americans have, give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status.

The greatest description of American civilization was written in the early 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans -- through myriad associations -- took care of one another. Until President Franklin Roosevelt began the seemingly inexorable movement of America toward the European welfare state -- vastly expanded later by other Democratic presidents -- Americans took responsibility for one another and for themselves far more than they do today. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous. As the state grew, however, all these associations declined. In Western Europe, they have virtually all disappeared.

2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme. Conservatives have known this for generations. But now, any honest person must acknowledge it. The welfare state is predicated on collecting money from today's workers in order to pay for those who paid in before them. But today's workers don't have enough money to sustain the scheme, and there are too few of them to do so. As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, and many American states, like California, are going broke.

3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic. The great preoccupations of vast numbers of Brits, Frenchmen, Germans and other Western Europeans are how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state.

4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work. Americans work considerably harder than Western Europeans, and contrary to liberal thought since Karl Marx, work builds character.

5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. In the liberal welfare state, one develops an entitlement mentality -- another expression of narcissism. And the rhetoric of liberalism -- labeling each new entitlement a "right" -- reinforces this sense of entitlement.

6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation's currency, and they cannot arrest you.

7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband.

8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men -- men who have not grown up -- is that the liberal state has told men they don't have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want.

And here is an example regarding both sexes. The loudest and most sustained applause I ever heard was that of college students responding to a speech by President Barack Obama informing them that they would now be covered by their parents' health insurance policies until age 26.

9. As a result of the left's sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world's evils and even to defend them.

10. The leftist (SET ITAL) weltanschauung (END ITAL) sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.

None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse.

If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful.

>> ^BoneRemake:
So.. Whats the difference then ? Every politician lies, "we" all thought barrack was gonna kick ass, and he is just another tool. Doesnt matter what name gets elected, they wont do what they say, they never do.
Politicians are salesmen for themselves, and you can not trust a salesman. I am in the stands on voting, people are stupid and there are a lot of them out there buying this shit.
PHOOEY


Sigh... no. The fact that politicians lie is the outcome--but the reason is FAR more important than the outcome.

Every politician lies. WHY? Because they wouldn't be elected if they didn't. We would punish them, shit on them, and ruin their lives if they told half of what they believed. We do this every election cycle!

We the people make the salesmen.

Why are there so few nice guys left? Because the world eats them up and spits their fucking carcasses out. I hate myself sometimes because I used to be a very nice guy and was sharted on every day from everywhere. Now that I have become wiser, harsher and less likable? I am more liked. I cannot fathom that in any manner.

You’re not stupid for voting for someone you believe is telling you the truth, you’re stupid for going into an election bar, being smooth-talked by some slick fuck in a nice suit, and going home with him to his ballot. Then, when you're crying to your friend about the disease you caught, the same friend that is the honest guy you left at the bar all alone, you wonder why he hangs up the phone on you… You wonder why he doesn't try or care. Because he did try and care--and you didn't.

Sorry for the long tirade. But the excuse is shallow on me. How to stop the lies is far more valuable than to note that they do... Here is a comment I wrote in another video, "On the right, on the left, why can't all politicians be as decent as Paul? Forget what you believe in and vote for the candidate that is most decent as a human being. Because, if you vote for a liar who "believes" as you do, you won't get anything but dick."

I would vote for Dennis John Kucinich too, for the same reason of truthiness. And I am far from liberal... And I am sure Blankfist would too, because, if not, then he would be a very shitty voter. Just like--all the other shitty voters who are damning us all.

Ah yes, the "unbiased" brain story. http://rockinconservative.com/2011/04/12/a-tale-of-two-brains/

I"m too lazy to formulate my own words at this time, so I found someone with words that match my sentiments:

I believe people have rights to legally designate in contract law who can visit them in hospitals, who can be named as insurance beneficiaries and the raft of other considerations sought for gay and lesbian couples. Call the arrangement civil unions if you wish.

But that's not the same as defining any union a marriage.

My fear — based on secular, more than religious precepts — is that watering down marriage could eventually rob society of the stabilizing and other beneficial effects of an institution now relentlessly under attack. Perhaps this argument is too ethereal to be grasped or accepted in an age of radical individualism. But it's an argument that is understood by plenty of Americans willing to state it, although it puts them in danger of being painted as haters.

--Dennis Byrne


Where I disagree with Byrne is that this nightmare world is wrought by "radical individualism". It's the herd, the mob, the petty tyrants, behind these farcical ideas.


>> ^bareboards2:

“Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior Cingulate Cortex – a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger Amygdala, an almond shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety.”
So @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom, next time you feel a strongly conservative stance coming on, you might consider teasing out what is irrational fear versus a well-founded fear. And maybe, just maybe, try some critical and thoughtful analysis of the situation.
You know, like, considering science.
Why ARE you so afraid of gays and lesbians? And please don't say you aren't -- every time you trot out that 4% number, you are broadcasting "fear of the other."

>> ^rottenseed:

it's funny how it's a high school conversation/argument yet many haven't even gotten that far mentally.


No shit, this just in: everyone is a hypocrite. What are we, still 15, hanging out at the local Denny's, drinking coffee and shoulder-tapping for smokes?

I must say, I am somewhat relieved that a movie with Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken exists and I have not seen it. For I would have to end my life afterwards, due to the complete impossibility of finding anything to top it. It is comforting to know such Awesome exists in the world, and is a strong argument for a Creator, as the possibility such could be wrought through pure chance is staggeringly small.

Bill also called white people "crackers". RACISM!

This is silly. It was a joke. As Dennis Miller said:

"...it wouldn't hurt if everybody held their cards a little closer to their vest. Don't let 'em know they've rattled you if it hits close to home. You should be able to take that joke right in the solar plexus, get up, get that two-cycle weed-whacker engine of a brain humming, and give as good as you got. And if you get bested, go home, sharpen your verbal machete, and get ready for the next thicket...And most important, for chrissakes, laugh at it all. Because the only thing separating holy writ from complete bullshit is your perspective. It's your only weapon. Keep the safety off, don't take yourself too seriously, and remember that at the end of the day, this is just an ant farm with beepers, and it takes zero politically correct assholes to screw in a light bulb, because they are perpetually in the fucking dark."

I can't seem to get my point across.

I, too, think it was inevitable that Osama would die in any attempt to take him alive. I'm sure he knew that he was much more effective as a martyr than as a prisoner.

I, too, am not grieving for his death.

I am grieving at our process and the way we have spoken about this as a nation. @blankfist says it above, with one slight addition -- "I mourn the [public] disregard for his right to fair trial."

Dennis Kucinich is the only public figure I have ever heard call this what it is. One public voice.

Something is wrong when only one person holds to ideals our country is supposedly founded on.

Dennis, GeeSuss and me. Oh, and Arvana.

Thanks. I was being to feel very lonely.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Eak, justice is a hit squad ordered by the president...I am afraid. I am with you @bareboards2, but I am maybe more scared of the monsters we are becoming. Saddam got a trial, Osama got 2 in the head from a special forces task squad.

Me and Dennis. We're a lonely little crowd.

Dennis Kucinich called the hunt for Osama "state sponsored assassination."

The man needed to be brought to justice. Sending a team to murder him isn't justice.

If the point was to keep America safe, I repeat my first comment -- killing him is gasoline on the fire. Letting him die of old age, or his bad kidneys, much much safer for Americans.

My thoughts are with the soldiers overseas. I am sure they are on high alert.

>> ^COriolanus:

Paul / Kucinich 2012


One would be for regulating the Corporations one wouldn't....so no that's not gonna happen.