It's comrade Obama because he is doing everyting that Stalin,Lennin,Mao,and ಠ▄ಠ did. Take over the media,either shut them down or get them on your side(see fairness doctorine). Take away the ability to defend themselves(see att. general Eric Holders opinion on gun ownership). Nationalize the banks and major industries(see the evening news) Tax independent businesses out of existance and make citizens more dependent on the goverment. The two things that he is proposing that will/can put R&L out of business is the card check thing-....and the limit on what an executive can make-SR. pays himself and his family what HE
Note to the moderators, let me preface this by saying that I don't intend for this to be a personal attack. When you come into a public forum and liken our president to mass murders, it calls for a strongly worded response. Especially when the assertions made in the post have no factual evidence to support them at all.
Leftlanecruiser, I have a question, and please don't take this personally. How does an uneducated, narrow minded, pompous windbag like yourself get so far ahead in life (I assume you are either part of the family or upper management)? We know you are not a line haul driver as you claim, so please spare the charade for it is an assertion that only a child would entertain. If R&L is such a great company why are they concerned about Obama's labor initiatives? Are they scared that a time will come when they can't just discard people willy-nilly after years of service (the 61 year old salesman mentioned in another post comes to mind just to name one).
I have so many things to say, I don't even know where to begin. Lets start with this, “It's comrade Obama because he is doing everyting that Stalin,Lennin,Mao,and ಠ▄ಠ did”. Can you even name one thing that Obama has done that any of these men did? (Please don't just throw any B.S. you can think of out there. I am fully skilled in the art of research on a scholarly level so you better be prepared to back anything you say up.) Obama supports mass murder? Euthanasia? Here is a nice highlight of one of ಠ▄ಠ's initiatives:
“http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/ಠ▄ಠ-leftist/id16.html”
You may not quite understand the whole thing, but the gist is, “ಠ▄ಠ's rise to power produced a completely new set of definitions. Guided by the over-riding principles of racial hygiene, racial purity, and national health, the (⊙▃⊙) regime seems fairly consistently committed to the removal of those unfit to live and produce inferior offspring.” Boy, that certainly sounds like an issue that Obama campaigned on....
Here is a list of concentration camps and death tolls (in the millions):
List of (⊙▃⊙)-German concentration camps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, this does not sound like something Obama is pushing, but I could be wrong. Please provide evidence.
I am not going to go on and on about every person that you mentioned. I will touch on Stalin very quickly before I set you up for the next miserable embarrasment. Here is a bit of info on how he was responsible for the torture and murder of 3 million:
“Researchers before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union attempting to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.[70] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – for a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories”
You can find the full entry here:
Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you really want to compare these men to a president, the closest you can come is G.W. Bush. If you read the “The Iron Curtain and the Eastern Bloc” section of the aforementioned article on Stalin, and any article on ಠ▄ಠ you will find stories of how they invaded sovereign countries and tried to install their own governments. That sounds very similar to what we did in Iraq, and still to this day not one “weapon of mass destruction” has surfaced to even begin to remotely support that invasion. If you want to have a debate on this it is an entirely different can of worms. We can do so if you would like, but I must move on to address the rest of your ridiculous post.
How exactly is Obama “Take over the media,either shut them down or get them on your side(see fairness doctorine).”? Do you have any clue what you are talking about? This issue has been dead for months. See this article:
White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com
So far you are making yourself look pretty bad. Lets talk about “Take away the ability to defend themselves(see att. general Eric Holders opinion on gun ownership).” I chose this article because it actually blasts him (clearly a right wing article):
Newsmax.com - Eric Holder Was a Gun Control Nightmare
Says that he supports “He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three-day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" by anyone under age 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, and national gun registration.
“He also promoted the factoid that ‘Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence’ — a statistic that is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as ‘children,’” noted the Web site, founded by law professor Alexander Volokh.”
All of those sound like pretty rational suggestions to me. Are you arguing that people under 21 should be running around with guns or assault weapons? I remember when I was 20 and I had yet to learn that I am not invincible, and my actions did have lasting consequences. Gun shows are like “erotic services” on Craig's List. They are a legal forum used to completely disregard waiting periods and other hand gun screening laws. If I had a dollar for every gun sold illegally at one of these shows I would be a rich man like you.
Check this article out:
Mayors Against Illegal Guns - Gun Show Loophole
Among the other highlights is support for my previous ascertation “WHAT IS THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE? Federal law allows people who sell guns to avoid running background checks or keeping records by calling themselves occasional sellers, and these sellers often congregate at gun shows. The loophole provides criminals with easy access to firearms without having to worry about any background checks.
Current law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, because that is the only way to determine whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so ATF can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene.1
The law does not, however, require so-called occasional sellers to do these checks - and there-s no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller.2
Many sellers at gun shows abuse that loophole by calling themselves occasional sellers. Because they concentrate at gun shows, it is easy for felons and other prohibited possessors to find someone who will sell to them without a background check.”
I also like this snippet “Columbine: All four guns used in the Columbine school massacre were bought at gun shows without background checks.” but we don't need to close the gun show loophole....
In fact, it sounds to me as if Mr. Holder is taking a rational approach to solve a very serious problem in this country. Owning a gun is a very serious responsibility which requires the proper checks and balances to control certain situations. I challenge you to find a credible source, or quote from him saying he want to scrap the second amendment and get “take guns away”.
Now, you are really starting to look bad here. Basically everything you said was pulled out of a deep dark place that I can't talk about without violating the TOS for this forum. I really need to get back to the things that are important in my life so I am just going to pick the rest of your post apart a bit as I have already clearly proven that nothing you say is credible in the real world.
You say, “Nationalize the banks and major industries(see the evening news)”. You are actually border line accurate here, but I still believe you couldn't even begin to understand the issues. First, the banks are not being nationalized. The government is loaning them money to essentially prop the up until the reach a certain level of solvency. Once the banks repay the money and buy back their stock warrants the government has no more involvement.
Here is the details on the TARP plan:
Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is the meat of my point, which clearly shows that banks are in fact not being nationalized and they are in complete control of their own destiny:
Paying Back TARP: Good for Banks, Bad for Shareholders? - TIME
The article states that banks can repay TARP funds if they are able to raise money themselves and pass a stress test, many of which have already done both. They are also able to buy back their warrants if they negotiate a market rate (Old National Bank has already done so, Google it).
On to the major industries. I will give you the fact the auto industry is becoming partially nationalized, but please don't use the words “major industries” as it indicates that other industries are in the same boat. In fact, it is not the entire industry but just two companies in which the government is gaining a stake. We are talking about GM and Chrysler, period. Further, if this were not done they would be forced to liquidate the consequences would be unfathomable. If you read this article carefully you will see that technically the bondholders could force liquidation and get more than they are getting now. The reason this won't happen is because of the government. I have never advocated nationalizing anything, but this is one case where it is really the only option:
The Hearing - The Showdown Over Chrysler and GM
I am not going to touch check card because I don't want to get banned. Especially after spending such a long time crafting a masterful post such as this. I will finish with this, it is such a shame to limit executive compensation. I would hate to see the Roberts boy with hundreds of cars, a Hummer with a jet engine, and all of that loose his collection. After all, he started the company and made all of that money with his blood, sweat, and tears...wait a minute, he got lucky and was bore into that situation. I have no more respect for him than a gold digger who marries into it. There comes a point when one man just doesn't need any more. Why should people starve and go without, loose their houses, livelihoods so that he can have a few million bucks worth of cars?
Microsoft made 17 billion in net income last year (
MSFT: Income Statement for Microsoft Corporation - Yahoo! Finance)
Why the need to lay off thousands of workers?
Microsoft sends second wave of layoff notices to 3,000 | Beyond Binary - CNET News
It is plain an simple, greed. In fact, I could make a very valid argument that greed got us into this economic situation in the first place.
I am sure when you wrote that post you would just throw a few outlandish things out there and move on. You are on notice now. I am going to watch everything you post, and unless you come ready to play I will make you look like a fool at every point.