For all the times Obama fans have resorted to name-calling and personal attacks against anyone who believes that America is basically good and that Obama really is a marxist, commie, socialist (pick one), I think it is time for a new party, given the success of the Tea Party Movement.
I think we should form the "Obama Fans need a Good Spanking Movement". The mission would be something simple like:
"To stop bleeding heart individuals from attempting to destroy the principles and values our founding fathers built the country upon, and to stand up to being called the worst names in the book for sticking to the truth."
The reason I chose to use that phrase, is because when an Obama fan disagrees with conservatives, they take on the persona of a spoiled little brat who has never been corrected, disciplined, or reprimanded as a child, for anything they may have done.
My belief is that most of them had parents who followed Dr. Benjamin Spock's style of parenting. Spock, a pediatrician, encouraged parents to "see their children as individuals, and not to apply a one-size-fits all philosophy to them."
Dr. Spock did not believe in previous advice to parents that suggested babies needed to learn to sleep on a regular schedule. Previously, pediatricians explained that picking their babies up every time they cried would turn them into spoiled brats. Spock wrote that this childrearing advice would permanently damage the child, psychologically.
Pediatricians previously instructed parents to place their babies on a regular feeding schedule. Spock told parents to feed a baby whenever they cried if feeding them would stop them from crying.
Before Spock, parents held to the belief that if you comforted a crying child, by picking them up, hugging and kissing them, every time they cried, that the child would not grow up to be an independent, strong individual.
In the late 1960's, Norman Vincent Peale, preacher and author, said "the U.S. was paying the price of two generations that followed the Dr. Spock baby plan of instant gratification of needs."
Nowhere is that more true than in today's society, and even the President of the United States appears to have been raised on Dr. Benjamin Spock's ideals.
Peale said, "A positive mental attitude is a belief that things are going to turn out well, and that you can overcome any kind of trouble or difficulty."
Moreover, Peale said, "Never talk defeat. Use words like hope, belief, faith, victory."
Those of us raised by parents in the pre-Spock era understood that Peale did not advocate child abuse, as many will accuse us of today.
He was saying that parents should raise their children with rules and boundaries, while enforcing a positive attitude. The best example of this is in the mindset that playing a game is not only about winning, it is about how you play the game. It means to try your best at what you do, about playing fair, and about hoping for the best outcome. These principles apply to all aspects of our lives. Raising children as Peale suggested means to teach children to accept that they cannot win every time, and they cannot always get what they want or what they ask for. They need to learn to work hard for what they want.
This also applies to how parents teach their children to treat others. In order to make friends and to earn respect, children need to learn that stomping their feet and holding their breath, will not work.
This brings me to the beliefs of many liberals today. Their parents did not teach them any of these things. Their parents raised them on the advice of Dr. Benjamin Spock. They taught them that they are entitled to everything without ever lifting a finger to deserve these things.
Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the current administration's attempt to socialize every aspect of American's lives. Obama fans believe that someone else is responsible for their health and well-being. They believe Obama and Congress are right to want to tell us what to eat, how to take care of our own bodies, how to pursue happiness by having others pay for it, and most disturbing, how to raise our own kids.
The "social justice" Obama keeps talking about is another way of saying that Americans should have everything done for them, paid for them, and on top of that, that we deserve it. He is saying that every time we cry, the government will be there to comfort us.
Our founding fathers did not see this as the vision for America. It is also not the vision for conservative minded people. It is why we fight against what Obama is trying to do. Our parents taught us to work hard in life, to be responsible for your own actions, and they taught us the one thing that is of the utmost importance.
They taught us to be independent and strong, and we learned that if we behaved like a spoiled brat, a spanking was in order.
That is why I feel the need for a "Obama Fans need a Good Spanking Movement".
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 18
I am tired of your brainless commentary showing up in my E-mail and I intend to fix that. It is not because I am a brainless Obama worshipper but I really cannot stomach maliciously written material by you or channeled by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh who have no brains either. It is a waste of time to try and change the minds of people like you because again the "scarecrow" syndrome is in effect.
You are rabid with hate. Hate for not only our President but many other people you don't even know and that makes your "work" too poisonous to read. God Save America from people just like you and while you are at it look for a heart too.
My post neither mentions nor has anything to do with Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.
I am glad you came to my post to insult me, using juvenile name-calling, because what you did in that comment up there was to prove everythig I said in the post, was accurate and dead on.
You are Exhibit A!
Take your stupid idle threats and feel free not to read or comment on my posts.
Why would my posts show up in your EMAIL? Did you actually subscribe to my posts? LOL
And YOU call ME brainless?
Rabid with hate?
That's a good one!
And please take the time to RE-READ this line from my post, because it is YOU:
"In order to make friends and to earn respect, children need to learn that stomping their feet and holding their breath, will not work."
Liberals don't support single payer healthcare because they want free healthcare, they support it because it works. If everybody chips in, everyone can be covered and it costs a lot less than the current system. (Consider how efficient Medicare is in comparison to private insurance. Medicare has about 3% overhead, private insurers about 25%.)
But the whole notion is offensive to a conservative, who doesn't want to rely on others for his needs. Instead, it should be every man for himself.
Our culture is changing. We are becoming an ever more collaborative society. In business, the cultural shift has already happened -- with increasing specialization workers need to keep more closely connected to one another than ever before. Society isn't far behind. The American ideal of the rugged individualist is fading into the past. We live in a mature, developed society, and it's time that we stop having to worry about things like where we're going to get health insurance. Don't fear it -- embrace it and get on with your life with one less thing you need to think about.
Somebody is teaching the younger generation things that aren't true. You don't deserve anything you don't work for, and you should work for everything you want. When people are hurting and need help, Americans step in to help their neighbors. Americans are the most charitable people in the world.
I don't want to be part of a collective. It doesn't work. Look at the failures of all the countries that tried socialism or marxism. Millions of people usually wind up dead and that's because eventually, the government runs out of other people's money.
Americans aren't the Borg and resistance is NOT futile. That is evident from the results of the November 2010 elections, once people saw what this administration was pushing for. It will be the reason Obama will not get re-elected.
I believe that healthcare is a right, and so do doctors. The Hippocratic tells us that. We accept that it is a right when we consider a man who suffers a heart attack in the street, but has no medical insurance. Even if he could have afforded medical insurance but didn't purchase it, few of us would seek to deny him life-saving care. We might grumble about it but we'd make sure he was taken care of.
Now, given that health insurance is a right, and that anyone has the right to receive it regardless of whether they pay or not, shouldn't we just try and get everyone covered in the cheapest possible way, rather than the current system where those of us who buy health insurance cover the ones who don't? Does that seem fair?
The argument in favor of the individual mandate I gave here, by the way, is pretty much a direct paraphrase of an argument made by the Heritage Foundation about 15 years ago. The health care law that Republicans are railing against is really a conservative idea. The whole "debate" is just politics.
FDR actually prolonged the depression with the New Deal and all the gov't entitlements that came along with it.
If you think Europe's economy is doing okay, I guess you haven't paid much attention to what's going on over there right now. And this administration is trying the same things they tried. So we're next if they are allowed to continue.
No, many doctors are against Obamacare. Far too many of them, especially surgeons and specialists have said that they will not be able to perform their duties the way they have been because they cannot afford the malpractice insurance.
If you want to talk about the hippocratic oath, I guess you'd have to explain abortion doctors. We have God given rights and one of those is Life.
We are free, or at least we were, to make our own successes.
Check out some of the videos and photos of Occupy Wall Street if you believe that people are not demanding a whole bunch of stuff for free.
I'll turn it around, Vic. Some people spend so much time imagining what other people are getting that they can't just enjoy the fruits of their own labor.
We're seeing this generation as the "gimme" society. It's amazing that parents who must have had parents or grandparents who survived the depression, have not taught their kids how it was and how they survived without gov't intervention.
Gov't really is not the solution, they are the problem.
There are certain things the government can do better than any business or individual, and those are the things that should be handled by the government. These are the things the free market can't handle, where it breaks down. National defense is one of those things. Clean air and water is another. Roads and infrastructure. And I'd argue health insurance. Without the expense of worrying who pays how much, who is covered, what particular stipulations each policy declares, and so on, a single insurer can get to the business of paying claims and negotiating rates.
National defense, roads, infrastructure, and clean air and water all share the same characteristic. They all suffer from what economists call the "Free Rider" problem. We all benefit, whether we paid or not. If we left these things to the private sector, no sane businessman would pursue them (presumably leaving the market to insane businessmen who hate money). Once they are provided everyone benefits. The value to society for each of these things is immense, but no one organization or person could afford any of them.
Health care is the same way. We have an explicit social contract that if you are sick and have no money, you get taken care of. This is unfair to those of us who purchase health insurance, because anyone who chooses not to can "free ride" on product we buy.
Not only that, but government administered health care programs have been proven many times over to be far more efficient than their private sector counterparts.
Obamacare is only a small first step, really. It is a meek law that doesn't make any real structural changes, but it is a step in the right direction. Reforms that would have allowed the government to participate in the market (a public option) would have been better, but it's a start.
He's angered Catholics, Jews, pro-lifers, and now stay at home moms. Obama's even lost some of his most ardent supporters.
Yeah, he has the unions and the special interest groups and probably still the left fringe, but the November 2010 elections the dems thought they had wrapped up, showed just how disappointed Americans are with this administration's failures to make good on their promises.
We're not better off than we were; we're actually much worse off than we were in 2008.
My brother is receiving unemployment right now. He's been out of work for a year after seven years working for the same company as a galvanizer. That kind of manufacturing job is becoming harder and harder to find, and he's been trying to find something, I know.
He's now in job training classes learning new skills to go into the building maintenance trades. These classes are government subsidized, and hopefully he can complete them and find a job that's out there. He's a hard working guy and it's not his fault that his industry got pulled out from under him. I think the government has a place in helping people move to industries where the demand will be there.
As for the economy, look at this link:
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1334539109392&chddm=993140&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ntsp=0
The absolute lowest point on that chart is about six weeks after Obama took office. The Dow Jones has been steadily going up since then.
Foreign policy? Osama dead. Libya free, and not a single American life lost. Iraq and Afghanistan wrapping up. I'm not the biggest Obama fan in the world, but I have to acknowledge that his foreign policy record has been pretty darn good.
And no Democrat thought that 2010 was "wrapped up". Democrats pretty much universally were in despair leading up to that election. It wasn't a question of whether they would lose, but how badly.
As far as the other groups you mention, I can't speak for them, but I'm a Catholic and I can tell you that Obama has angered a bunch of bishops but lay Catholics themselves haven't been particularly offended. They're going to vote how they were going to vote. A lot of pro-life Catholics have given up on the Republican party in that regard and are going to vote for the party that matches their values more closely, whichever that is. They are going to devote their time and resources to charities that serve women and try to reduce abortions that way, rather than trying for a government solution that seems to be never anything more than election-year rhetoric.
The reality of the situation is that this will be a close election, and it will probably come down to which side is more inspired on election day.
straight months.
The economy is not improving. Gas and food prices are skyrocketing.
The Navy Seals followed an order any sitting president would have given,
and killed OBL.
With Planned Parenthood performing over 360,000 abortions per year,
I see no end to that, only an increase.
Yes, Pelosi and other dems in congress were overconfident about their wins
before the November 2010 elections. They still don't get it. They still
think they're going to run on the same issues they did two years ago.
The days of cheap gas are over. They're never coming back. We talk about getting off foreign oil, we can all agree that would be a good thing. But the markets for oil are global, and it doesn't really matter where it comes from. It's all going to be expensive. We need to think about what is going to fuel our cars 10 to 20 years from now, and start moving in that direction.