Posted on 03/31/2010 5:02:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
The “persuadable middle” certainly appeared to be persuaded that W was evil because they rejected McCain to spite W and voted in droves for Obama.
Poll after poll is demonstrating that the “persuadable middle” is not so happy about Obama and his policies. They may not believe he is a socialist or a Muslim or ineligible, but that doesn’t matter. They don’t like what he is doing and they believe they’ve been hoodwinked.
Yep, this article appears to be a RINO blueprint, which is a losing strategy.
“He’s doing evil, like most leftists do the bidding of the evil one,
but he’s been convinced that he’s either working for his own glory, or that he’s working for “the greater good”,”
Then in terms of guilt he is off the hook? How come I know the difference between right and wrong but somehow Obama doesn’t? Obama and his ilk dismiss God’s light for THEIR OWN LIGHT. They, just like myself, are culpable for what they CHOOSE FREELY to do. Obama is acting out of anger and it will bring him down.
No way is he off the hook. Nor are the leftists that do Satan’s work.
They are not unaware that they are not doing as Christ commands.
I vote for both.
Malicious and stupid often travel together.
Watch arraignments in criminal court. Happens all the time.
Has anyone ever listened to Michael Medwed’s talk radio show? He could put a cup of coffee to sleep.
I don't buy it. I think the Chicago gang's motives are evil, even though some of them may try to fool themselves into believing they're better. Their base motivation underneath it all is power plain and simple. You can judge whether that's evil or not.
Nope. He’s just evil. We have seen it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
He and his gang are too lazy to move their butts to a country that espouses all of their beliefs, so they are DETERMINED to set the groundwork of breaking down OURS.
Let me be clear: there is a follow-up team waiting in the wings to install the next phase when obama’s done.
Medved's thesis here has to do with how we go about resisting him, and he's probably correct, trying to convince people he's evil when it doesn't matter may be counterproductive.
I vote for spawn of Satan surrounded by Kapos.
I haven't found the answer yet.
Cordially,
Obama is the logical outcome of all the leftist garbage which was being preached to us kids in the post-Vietnam years. His problem is that he apparently swallowed every bit of it hook, line and sinker.
Rhetorical 'ism' (socialism, communism, marxism) name calling turns a lot of people off and they then tune out whatever message they might otherwise hear.
People are waking up to the reality of obama, Reid and Pelousy and the polls show increasing disapproval and anger.
Give voters the facts and some conservative opinions and they will come up with their own 'isms' about obama.
When is evil right?
That said, he’s a suit. A one dimensional, single minded Marxist who fit the bill for a self-important puppet. The leftist/socialist AGENDA was elected by half this country. Obama is the first, most acceptable face.
He’s a trained mouthpiece with a slipping mask.
The agenda is both evil and wrong.
So he is both.
Medved... the Pubbie Apparatchik. Excusing Republican stupidity and incompetence on a daily basis. The BBBIIIIGGG Govt “conservative”.
To mock by using phrases like "The People's Republic of San Francisco" carries no weight with young people because the listener has no context, only the words. "What's wrong with a 'peoples' republic'?" I was asked by a puzzled young colege graduate last week. He was unaware that violent communist regimes had a special affection for that terminology.
"Socialism" is pretty much the same thing: It works well when preaching to the choir, but leaves the uneducated young leftist confused and assuming the speaker is bitter about some bad experience in the distant past.
You do realize that there is a third alternative? He may well be intent on exactly what he wants to do, but be utterly convinced its the right thing to do. That would make him intelligent but grievously mistaken.
I think that is the direction Medved is hinting we should go and I think it is sensible. It accords respect to the man, which minimizes the possibility of offending those on the fence and maximizing the possibility of communicating with them. It focuses the discussion on the policies, which must ultimately be a constructive discussion and bring up truths which can be held and properly understood, if analyzed clearly and without resort to calumny.
I am extremely angry at the president and the congress. I in no way intend to vote for any Democrat, no matter how reasonable-sounding that person might be nor how nice they might look. But I believe that most people have not thought through anything economic and are easy prey for economic demogogues (the total population of the Democratic party leadership).
We need to speak simply and clearly about real consequences, not jump up and down about the problems with the man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.