Poll: Obama More Revered Than Jesus Christ

[FreshNugz]

it's also sad that you're considered a terrorist if you disagree with the route the government's choosing..

Yep, and in the 50's, you were a communist. Times don't seem to be a changin', eh

FreshNugz Reviewed by FreshNugz on 03-14-2009. Poll: Obama More Revered Than Jesus Christ ROCHESTER, N.Y. â?? Americans named President Obama as their No. 1 hero, followed by Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, in a new Harris poll. Others in the top 10, in descending order, were Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa. People were asked whom they admired enough to call their heroes. Those surveyed were not shown a list of people to choose from. The Harris Poll was conducted online among a sample of Rating: 5

[Rusty Trichome]

the cult of personality surrounding brak has more to do with our desire to find a scapegoat at whose feet we may lay the blame for our own failings.

Like this admins attacks Rush Limbaugh's comments regarding his hope that Obama's policies fail.
Sure sounds familiar...

James Carville's 9-11-01 speech in which he says "I hope Bush doesn't succeed..."

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: â??I certainly hope he doesnâ??t succeed.â?�â?¦
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: â??Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!â?�
The press followed Carvilleâ??s orders, never reporting his or Greenbergâ??s desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Partyâ??s top strategists, that Bush should failâ?¦
â??The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country,â?� Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. â??I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obamaâ??s socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

<sigh>

[thedeadone]

go FUUUUUK himself in his own bung hole with wis own fist......... oh
did I say that out loud?

[overgrowthegovt]

I'm definitely no conservative (I like DelusionsofNormality's description of himself as a patient anarchist), but yes, I do find something unnerving about Obama. It appears he merely strives to replace the corporate sans-habeas-corpus tyranny of the Bush administration with a more secure and benign regime, one in which all dissent is melted away in a system where the government machinates the economy almost wholly. "Socialist" is not a dirty word to me, and I believe in some of its ideals, but certainly not in the manner it seems to currently be executed.

This is probably the biggest cult of personality since Mao Zedong (probably spelled wrong), and it's dangerous to worship any individual to that degree, even if they're some sort of artist or poet (individuals with transcendental abilities). For a politician to even be considered is ludicrous.

To whoever said everybody polled was a liberal, how do you explain the presence of Bush and Reagan in the top ten?

[overgrowthegovt]

Like this admins attacks Rush Limbaugh's comments regarding his hope that Obama's policies fail.
Sure sounds familiar...

James Carville's 9-11-01 speech in which he says "I hope Bush doesn't succeed..."

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: â??I certainly hope he doesnâ??t succeed.â?�â?¦
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: â??Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!â?�
The press followed Carvilleâ??s orders, never reporting his or Greenbergâ??s desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Partyâ??s top strategists, that Bush should failâ?¦
â??The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country,â?� Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. â??I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obamaâ??s socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

<sigh>

When a semi-literate philistine of a buffoon with no integrity or innovative ideas is elected, the natural response is a desire for them to fail. I don't understand what you're criticizing...you want Obama to fail. It appears you'd like nothing better than for his socialist agenda to plunge the country into turmoil, because if he succeeded, you might be at a loss for words. A multi-trillion dollar war and a downsizing of civil rights could be said to hurt your country.

[McDanger]

When a semi-literate philistine of a buffoon with no integrity or innovative ideas is elected, the natural response is a desire for them to fail. I don't understand what you're criticizing...you want Obama to fail. It appears you'd like nothing better than for his socialist agenda to plunge the country into turmoil, because if he succeeded, you might be at a loss for words. A multi-trillion dollar war and a downsizing of civil rights could be said to hurt your country.

If his socialist agenda succeeded, it would plunge the country into turmoil. That was the point!!!
Now that we have a semi-literate philistine of a buffoon with no integrity or innovative ideas we want his ideas to fail.

[Rusty Trichome]

When a semi-literate philistine of a buffoon with no integrity or innovative ideas is elected, the natural response is a desire for them to fail. I don't understand what you're criticizing...you want Obama to fail.

No...I want any and all socialist administrations' policies to fall like the twin towers. Everybody (liberals) jumps on the "blame Bush" bandwagon, yet have dismissed the back story to Obama's ideologies as irrelevant. (well...nobody except for a few of us here that looked beyond the hype of media indoctrination, and called a spade a spade during the run-up to the primaries) Everyone liberal was sooo concerned that Bush and his anti-terror policies were an infringement on their civil rights and the constitution, yet from the actions the Osama administration is taking, they are attacking freedom of speech, gun rights, private property laws, contract laws, the tax structures, and now charitable contributions...? I say we string the bastard up like his namesake, Saddam Hussein.
This is only his second month, and this liberal fuckwad has proven he is not interested in protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, but replacing it with his own sub-prime socialist doctrine.

It appears you'd like nothing better than for his socialist agenda to plunge the country into turmoil, because if he succeeded, you might be at a loss for words. A multi-trillion dollar war and a downsizing of civil rights could be said to hurt your country.

Again you're wrong, and you assume too much. (Which is ok...I expect nothing more, from our friends north of the border) I want him to fail because he desires to change and delete civil liberties that he has no authority to change/delete. Having gone through the education system before the socialist educational requirements came about...my being at a loss for words is highly unlikely.

So how did that Iraq thing work-out? Were we defeated...? Were we humiliated...? Are the Iraqi's hiding in their basements, for fear of the insurgents and terrorists...? How about their infrastructure...? No improvements there? How about the free and open elections...?
Being as how you are in another country, I could really give a shit about your rights nor your feelings. You've got a government...(albeit insignificant) Why aren't you fighting for your Canadian rights?

Patient anarchist...? Isn't that the same thing as a lazy liberal fascist?

[thedeadone]

I am with you. long live the constitution. :stoned::stoned:

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Patient anarchist...? Isn't that the same thing as a lazy liberal fascist?

hey, "patient anarchist" is my line and i'm anything but a lazy liberal fascist. i may be a liberal in the classical sense, but my aims aren't even close to the welfare state espoused by the liberal establishment and its adherents. my anarchist ideals are to be reached through the minarchism our founders laid out when the constitution was penned and not wrung out of the citizens through threat of force, as brak and his ilk would have us believe is the proper path. my patience is born of the realization that this society is not quite ready to handle the complete freedom of anarchism, but i see the socialistic restrictions we find growing in this country as an unnecessary step backward from the liberties this country was founded to afford us. anarchism has always been about power in the hands of the people themselves, not the nanny state nonsense so loved by those too lazy to accept responsibility for their own destiny.

[Rusty Trichome]

hey, "patient anarchist" is my line

What's the matter...afraid I'd gotten the credits wrong? If you'll notice, the line wasn't included in the other members quote, but added as a humorous afterthought upon reflection of the thread. Nothing else you've contributed impressed me enough to actually quote. :thumbsup:

and i'm anything but a lazy liberal fascist. i may be a liberal in the classical sense, but my aims aren't even close to the welfare state espoused by the liberal establishment and its adherents. my anarchist ideals are to be reached through the minarchism our founders laid out when the constitution was penned and not wrung out of the citizens through threat of force, as brak and his ilk would have us believe is the proper path. my patience is born of the realization that this society is not quite ready to handle the complete freedom of anarchism, but i see the socialistic restrictions we find growing in this country as an unnecessary step backward from the liberties this country was founded to afford us. anarchism has always been about power in the hands of the people themselves, not the nanny state nonsense so loved by those too lazy to accept responsibility for their own destiny.

Ah...my mistake. How's lazy liberal fascist suit ya then...? Because if you ain't doing shit now...ya ain't doing shit. What are you going to do...talk society to death? Talk is cheap, as are the myriad of liberal ideals.
There's an ideology for every cause, but doubtful your cause is anything beyond the 'norm' of bending the rule of law, and the laws of the land, to suit your own selfish/distorted sense of right and wrong, and hoping that your posts are insightful. But they're not.

It's not that the society isn't ready for anarchism...it's that we reject it. Big difference, and frankly I see nobody ready to further your cause, aside from obscure websites touting hammer and sickles, bloody stars of David, and swastica's. But hey...as long as you are happy with your discontent and childish lack of thinking your scenarios through to the logical conclusions...who am I to judge the likes of you? Admittedly, one of the unfortunate side-effects of a free and open society that just can't be remedied...is that you can't fix stupid.

However, and I seriously mean this....I pray that you remain happy in your discontent. Your attitude makes some of us feel good about our own morals and values. For that I thank you. :jointsmile:

But doesn't it suck being such a drain on your own psyche?