Fox's Rios: Obama Has "Disdain" For Stay-At-Home Moms Because His Father And His Mentor Were "Marxist[s]"
April 16, 2012 11:30 pm ET
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
uhh....what the H does being a marxist have to do with having disdain for stay-at-home moms?
Obama Has "Distain" For Stay At Home Moms Because His Father And His Mentor Were .. " MARXist(s) ...
And how many times was Sandy Rios talked over? A whopping ZERO
I mean WTF?
Hannity simply has a narrow list of pejorative phrases (Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Muslim, Nazi, fascist, elitist, liberal, etc) that he randomly hurls at the President... much like a monkey flinging its own feces.
And some people say Obama himself is a Marxist/Fascist/Socialist/Communist/Nazi/Black Panther-supporting/Rap listening all-powerful dictator. Yet at the same time he's also an incompetent buffoon who can't do anything right.
These Foxicans just crack me up.
;)
Obama's father then returned to Kenya.
How would Barack learn Marxism from his father?
I have no clue, Allan. Thats what makes the Fox people/GOP so laughable.
They just throw insults at the President with no research to back it up whatsoever.
Rosen, a CNN employee with no connection to the prez, is being called an "Obama surrogate' and an 'Obama scapegoat' at righty websites, and judging by the comments, the zombies have been pretty well convinced that the president made scathing remarks about 'traditional women'.
They're drifting further from reality every day.
The trouble was, they did not attempt to show the connection between the 2 lines much less their whopping headline assertion that Obama's speech was somehow setting the stage and direction for Rosen's remarks. It was simply that, an assertion "doesn't this sound like that"? "Doesn't "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" sound like Al Sharpton? Nolte (the author of the article) makes no attempt to show how Obama was actually setting the stage for Rosen's remarks, yet simply asserts that he was, a ploy made all the more pathetic when you read that same speech of Obama's and you realize that he was talking about the importance of women in the economy as a whole and also gave a nod to women who stayed at home.
I made a post pointing out the glaring absence of any such connection and the articles attempts to link Obama to Rosen by nothing more than assertion? What do I get as a reply? Someone who states that because 3 other posts of mine were "not in favour of Beritbart" that "I'm not calling youa troll, but you definately have an agenda (these are ACTUAL quotes from that posted). Yeah, posts that are not for Beritbart are what pass for troll posts over there, never mind if their contents are actually relevant (something NO ONE made ANY effort to address).
Seriously the populace over there don't give a hoot about logic or analysis, they have an inherent hatred of Obama, and judging by how many supported that article in question, as long as it's something that paints Obama as bad, they are for it, to hell with facts and reasoning.
By the way, has anybody else noted the Romney clip in which he brags how he made Massachusetts mothers on welfare go to work even if their kids were only two years old because they needed the "dignity of work"?
http://www.juancole.com/2012/04/romney-poor-women-with-2-year-olds-need-to-go-to-work-hayes.html
Well, I guess it's okay as long as they get good nannies.
Reality is always the true test. Name a single policy or piece of legislation that the Obama Administration has introduced that is representative of Marixism. You can't name one. Economically he has been a Keynesian, his foreign policy has been a mix of positive coopertaion, with moments of decisive military action. President Obama is a good mix of ideas, without ideology. He is not cell locked in doctines, or eenslaved by dogma (RATM).
This is what the rightwing fears...freedom.
The real test is when you ask republicans if Obama is a socialist/Marxist, they say YES.
When you ask a REAL socialist/Marxist, they laugh at the question, because they know Obama isn't even close.
Obama is barely left of President Bush for crying out loud, and actually, in some cases, he's to the right of what Mr. Bush did during his 2 terms in office.
Well, if that makes Obama a Marxist, then so are Mitt Romney, the Heritage Foundation, and Newt Gingrich.
There's something more elemental going on here, I think. The old America feels itself slipping away. It's not what Obama is, but what he symbolizes. Old orders don't just fade away.
And Obama's father? He wasn't even in his son's life. Just barely. I think they visited once for about a week or so. He was an absent father, who had little to no affect upon his son's life.
And the dead guy that they're smearing, he wasn't a Marxist either.
Two problems: 1) Alinsky adhered to no ideology; 2) Obama was 10 when Alinsky died.
Those pesky facts again.
"Coming up tonight on my Vetting of Obama segment, we expose the shocking truth that as a child, Obama knew grown ups."
Overwhelming majority of Americans' reply: "Yawn".
I will, again, fail to hold my breath waiting for a legitimate answer.
Bad enough these idiots don't know what these words mean and regularly conflate inherently conflicting ideologies.
Leave it to Hannity to take the dumbest, most ridiculous tack. So long as it's polarizing.
As for the rest of it, BULL. Obama has never shown any disdain for stay at home mothers or any other mothers. Romney and his wife? Yep.
His "Marxist" mentor was an 80 something black man who was a friend of his grandfather. He called him his "mentor" because he was a biracial child living in a white world. It had nothing to do with politics, for criminey sakes.
At that point I have to break out several dozen emergency kittens for cuddles or I'll be completely fuming for the next several hours.
The moral of the story is that we need to coordinate a kitten attack on Hannity.
She said -- even though his father wrote a scholarly paper in 1965 that was critical of Marxism . . .