If you read the post, I said Obama didn't decorate the tree, but once AGAIN, they find associations with people like this, just like their czars and cabinent members looking up to Mao."
And again, in my opinion, I think you're reading way too much into this I would say it is largely due to your bias against Obama and liberals/democrats. Flat out, you don't like him/them, and never have. You've implied that you want to see him fail at what he does (Whether or not he is socialist - which is ironic because: 1) He's actually pushing a bill that gives insurance companies a lot of help. -AND- 2) The US has always been socialistic to one degree or another, whether republicans or democrats are in power).
You conservatives seem to forget that our nation was primarily founded on what was then considered liberal principles. (Do you honestly believe a conservative colinist, i.e. Tory, would have joined us?) I do agree though that modern liberalism has become corrupt, but that doesn't mean that liberalism - at its core - doesn't have its merits. Conservatism does also; but, what we see today with our politicians and other...pieces of work, is not true conservatism.
"The vast, vast majority of people in this country were/are Christians, and thusly, everyone just kind of went with that. However, in the last 30 years or so, groups like the ACLU, GLAAD and ACORN, and such, have purposely stirred the pot, and convinced the smaller groups that they don't have to be subjected to the tyranny of hearing Christmas carols for one month of the year, or suffer the harrowing experience of having to view the sickening image of a Nativity in a public place."
A few points...
Minority rights. No, I'm not talking about the more common definition. I'm talking about the individual rights of those not representative of the majority (i.e. Athiests, homosexuals, etc. ). We're not just a democracy/republic – wea are a constitutional one.
What that means is that our government is designed to express not only the will of the majority (democracy), but also to simultaneously protect the unalienable rights of minorities and the powerless. It's in our constitution RW.
As such, our government has the duty to protect (and grant all that is granted to the majority) the minority groups. In this case, due to the majority, it means minority races, homosexuals, etc.
That said, the majority is not always right, as history has shown us (Ex: Slavery, illegal relocation of the indians based on Manifest Destiney, and so on). Sometimes the majority, whether in America or not, supports the most horrible things imaginable (See: Holocaust, genocide, aggressive wars, etc.).
The majority may say that homosexuality is wrong - but - how about the minority? First, are they being represented as the constitution says the should be? Secondly, are they given the same rights?
"But see, AJ, they don't live their lives as THEY see fit; they live their lives as their GOVERNMENT sees fit, something which the designers of "our founding principles" sought desperately to avoid."
The government is a tool of the people, subject to their whim. Sometimes, like in the case of Black rights, the government must - through the actions of the people - take charge and finally say, enough is enough. We are a nation where ALL people are supposed to be equal under the law.
Such is the political reality RW; in fact, your own right wing, christians, neocons, and so on - use the exact same tactics as others do. As I call it, the concept of "Mine or I will whine," is not just a liberal modus operandi, it's a people one. Ex: Conservative doesn't like an atheist conducting a business deal and expressing themselves? (i.e. putting up a billboard that claims there is not god, or whatever) They whine and complain, and claim that their rights are infringed. They use the system we have to take it down.
Uh, what gives?
Likewise, liberals have done it as well. Both sides do.
People don't think of others, they think of themselves, period. That is largely why I identify as a liberal (albeit, perhaps an old fashioned one), because at its core - it is about living and let live, respecting each others to live life, however we want to. Christians, athiests, homosexuals, and straight people included.
"Churchill started calling for a stand against Hitler in the early days of his (Hitler's) Chancellorship, and was watching his rise, even earlier than that. But everyone chose to listen to the Barack Obama of the day, Neville Chamberlain, who saw Hitler as reasonable, and thought he could negotiate with an ambitious bully. "Peace in Our Time" resulted, for very nearly a year, during which time Hitler concentrated on preparing his military and political machines for the war. In case you're missing it, I'm making an Ahmedinejhad analogy here."
The problem is that Hitler actively sought to expand his boundaries, A (for short) has not, so far as I know. Granted, he has threatened, but that's all he has done. He has yet to show any backbone to his resolve - he's hot air. I'm not saying we should turn a blind eye, but the whole idea that we have to be tough and aggressive is bullshit. Why? Because we've been that way for how long, and how far have we gotten? Right, not far. A is going to bullshit us no matter what. Just look at his trend over the last year. We act tough, and we get nowhere - he acts all willing to work - we bite - he pulls our chain. Time, and time again we look like idiots.
"It's a window into Obama's core political beliefs...just as the ornament with images of the American flag, eagle and Declaration of Independence is, on my tree, and this simply confirms to me that we have indeed elected a Communist in Democrat's clothing to the nation's highest office.""
Bullshit. Unless you can show me - cumulative effect or not - evidence that suggests that Obama knew about it, I have to call bullshit. It isn't because of my beliefs or bias, but because it just is to big of a leap, damn near conspiracy theoryesque - to consider that he is involved in some communist plot to overthrough our country.
I'm sorry, but I just can't make that huge a leap. I'm willing listen and to be open to it, but you're gonna have to bring me some solid, unbiased evidence...and I'm not talking about "evidence" from Hannity, Beck, FoxNews, etc. I've tried, out of fairness and balance, to listen to them...but they raise my blood pressure with their "news." (Like that devious lie about the base closing threat... )
It does seem funny that some of his core beliefs (communist as you say), Americans also agreed with. Hmm, go figure.
I agree with this entirely, and I don't have a problem with people celebrating traditions of their own, as long as they aren't traditions which unermine our own beliefs and traditions. However, celebrating a Communist tyrant by putting his image on awhat is intended to be a traditional celebration of the birth of Christ, is wrong, on so very many levels. What he puts on his own tree in Chicago is up to him, but such an ornament is not acceptable on the Christmas tree of an American president, in the White House, simply because Mao is a symbol of everything America is supposed to find abhorrent: oppression, tyranny, political and social repression and violence. Mao was an atheist to begin with, and Communist governments like his tend to kill people who celebrate Christmas, anyway."
I'm sure you mean your own personal beliefs, because frankly, you don't have any right to intervene in what anyone else celebrates, even if it is - as you say - undermining to "our" beliefs and tradition. You sure as hell do not speak for me.
Such is our nation, god love it; people can do, say, and believe damn near anything they want.
2. This is entirely your opinion, but thankfully, it doesn't make it fact, or law. Yeah, you may not agree with it, and it may conjure up nightmares of some manchurian candidate in your mind, but you know...oh well. You have no real proof other than your bias.
I think this whole ornament deal is overblown honestly. I mean come on, it was brought to light be one of the more biased, anti-obama, we-hate-progressives/liberals-and-will-do-anything-to-destroy-them "news" sites (biggovernment). Really? You're willing to buy their pulitzer prize winning journalism?
If so, then you deserve what you get - vitrol, hate, venom, lies, etc. NOT - critical, investigative, unbiased (as possible), fact based news.
Why not try pbs, eh?
No, we don't have to criticize everything he does; but he does, indeed, often seem to purposely do things which will draw criticism. Someone from Obama's staff decoated the tree. Are we to believe he had no say in what went on the tree? Of course he did. He could have said, "Let's leave Mao off, huh?" but he didn't.
"The problem with your comment though is that or culture (our "American" culture) is the collision of cultures and ideas. -OR- To use
a definition I put in a class paper last term:"
Yet you and others consistantly do so. I can't remember even one event where you have praised him, or hell - given him 1 out of five stars. I don't remmember if it was you or another person, but someone once told me that while I may think that my country is great, that my words and constant critcism (albeit intended as a means to hold it accountable in a good way) show, contrary to my intentions,
The same goes for you - you may say that not all of what he does is wrong, but you (rhetorical) have shown me that damn near everything he does is wrong. It comes off no better than the pug Hannity, or Beck when they go after him.
Btw, Iran-Contra and Reagan. Normally, yes, the president is always advised and expected to be aware of all that goes on, but like anyone - even the archangel Reagan - they are human and sometimes they trust people with tasks or positions, and those people abuse them.
Then you are not a liberal, because they seem bent on making sure government lives their lives for them."
On the contrary, everything I've read points to my being a liberal. Perhaps, like I believe I mentioned earlier - I'm just an old fashioned liberal.
"Your posts are just hillarious.....a "Christian controlled" holiday.....WELL DUH, do you know what Christmas is? I swear, liberals are so naive."
ID...I was being intentionally facetious; it's my style of writing. More often than not I will use sarcasm to get a point across, often because I feel the otherside of the argument is being overly dramatic, pretentious, ignorant, etc. The list goes on.
On the topic though - "Christmas" (from Christ's Mass, circa 1050 AD) - the modern version at least, is actually a corruption of the winter solstice. The early church decided, for various reasons, to change the date, from the 21st, to the 25th, to correspond with the roman festival of Sol Invictus and the solstice - thereby establishing a dominance over the other faiths (as all early religions have done). In fact, hilariously, there is evidence to suggest that Jesus' birth was not December 25th, but March. This doesn't even go into the fact that the Bible doesn't mention that one is to set that date as one to celebrate (or a date period). Go figure, the church doing its own thing for its own agenda, and not what the bible says.
Additionally, pretty much every "Christmas" (or Christian/Jesus) tradition is drawn for early pagan rituals (as well as other customs, nonchristian). Ironic? Definitely.
You made your case very well, as always. I, personally, just don't have to agree with it, and so far, I'm part of the majority, and that used to mean something..+LOL+
Yeah well sometimes the majority sucks - badly. I find it interesting though, that all this comes down to is intention, albeit "good" intentions. (Ironic? Perhaps. Hilarious? Indeed)
And that says it all....Christmas is not political, yet folks like yourself insist on either turning it into a political statement or worse yet looking the other way. Quite self serving.
Neither is religion, yet it is made such by those pushing their beliefs onto those who don't agree with them. The religious right is just as responsible for politicizing christmas (and other subjects) as the left is, perhaps even more since they're so passionate.
YOu put in too many words. It should read
How old are you again? Geesh.