Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on February 06, 2008, 07:04:52 PM
-
See Rule #14
-
Well look at the moron we elected last time, I guess people like to elect idiots, and thats the demo they play too.
-
I think we are in for a lot of such commercials. Obama is charismatic and articulate. You can't really blame a guy for putting himself out there when it plays to his strengths. I'm glad I don't watch much TV. While Obama doesn't bother me, Hillary's voice is almost like fingernails on the chalkboard to my ears.
-
The thing is, he doesn't SAY anything. It's just empty words. Smoke and mirrors. He has no record to speak of, other than being the single most liberal left wing member of Congress.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The thing is, he doesn't SAY anything. It's just empty words. Smoke and mirrors. He has no record to speak of, other than being the single most liberal left wing member of Congress.
*cough* Kucinich *cough*
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
*cough* Kucinich *cough*
Last time I read the ratings for the past couple of years, Obama's voting record was the most liberal.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The thing is, he doesn't SAY anything. It's just empty words. Smoke and mirrors. He has no record to speak of, other than being the single most liberal left wing member of Congress.
You're right that he is extremely liberal. However, from my observations, many people are willing to vote for him based simply on the fact that they like him. His campaign for change has appeal on the surface although is has no substance.
Liberals, and those who don't bother to consider substance will probably flock to his banner.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
You're right that he is extremely liberal. However, from my observations, many people are willing to vote for him based simply on the fact that they like him. His campaign for change has appeal on the surface although is has no substance.
Liberals, and those who don't bother to consider substance will probably flock to his banner.
EXACTLY. He speaks almost exclusively in broad generations of "change" and "hope", and very little of specifics. It's VERY safe, and easy to pass off on those who are relatively easy to "lead".
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The thing is, he doesn't SAY anything. It's just empty words. Smoke and mirrors. He has no record to speak of, other than being the single most liberal left wing member of Congress.
And which if the major contenders on either side of the isle doesnt do this again?
In otherwords. he's a typical politition
-
Osama/Obama dont give a single crap about Illinois so you know he wont care about the US if by some mistake that he is elected.
If you arent from Chicago or Springfield, you never heard of him before he started to run. Apparently to them, Illinois stops as soon as you get to the southern city limits of Springfield.
Last major article in the paper that came out, over 90% of the budget cuts was for south of springfield. Cancelled money for schools, roads, cities, etc. But every single budget proposed in Chicago or Springfield was passed because all of his corrupt theiving crooked pals were there.
He isnt welcome in this part of the state and I believe he knows it too
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The thing is, he doesn't SAY anything. It's just empty words. Smoke and mirrors. He has no record to speak of, other than being the single most liberal left wing member of Congress.
couldn't have said it better.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And which if the major contenders on either side of the isle doesnt do this again?
In otherwords. he's a typical politition
No, Obama is worse, and I'm not saying ANY of them are without guilt. As much as I dislike Shrillary, her positions are much clearer than Obama's. Basically all our choices really suck, regardless of party, unless something real strange happens and some sort of deal is brokered.
-
the dems dont care what obama or billary are saying .. they are either going to vote for a black man or a white woman .. period.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Obama is charismatic and articulate.
I just don't see any of this in Obama. When I see this guy I see a very coreographed (sp), mechanical politician. I just don't get the major appeal of him. Idiot or not, i'd rather spend the afternoon with dubya, than osama obama, and it has nothing to do with being conservative. The guy just doesn't seem very human to me at all.
Fox News has actually done one good thing lately. They were interviewing a group of dems listening in on one of the debates, and there was majority support for Obama. One of the anchors asks them why they like Obama, and to name one specific thing he has done. Guess what? Not a single person could name one accomplishments. They are voting for a guy because he has a nice personality, or so people say.
ugh.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the dems dont care what obama or billary are saying .. they are either going to vote for a black man or a white woman .. period.
I been telling people here the same thing. Hitler or Osama is seen as a novelty. The first black guy or first woman as president. People wont care about the issues, they just want them in office as novelty.
Puke.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The thing is, he doesn't SAY anything. It's just empty words. Smoke and mirrors. He has no record to speak of, other than being the single most liberal left wing member of Congress.
J.F.K. too?
he's also 1 term senator from MA.
-
Originally posted by mg1942
J.F.K. too?
he's also 1 term senator from MA.
Best thing dads money could buy.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
You're right that he is extremely liberal. However, from my observations, many people are willing to vote for him based simply on the fact that they like him. His campaign for change has appeal on the surface although is has no substance.
Liberals, and those who don't bother to consider substance will probably flock to his banner.
let him win the primary and then see how much everybody like's him
it wont be pretty!
democrats= the party that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory more than any other, same thing this time i bet:aok
-
I thought I was watching a Tony Powers video for stupid people.
====
And thats exactly what it was :cry
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Fox News has actually done one good thing lately. They were interviewing a group of dems listening in on one of the debates, and there was majority support for Obama. One of the anchors asks them why they like Obama, and to name one specific thing he has done. Guess what? Not a single person could name one accomplishments. They are voting for a guy because he has a nice personality, or so people say.
ugh.
Deja Vu.......same thing was said about a nobody from Arkansas. Nice guy. Good looks. People voted for him because he looked and sounded good on camera. Talked about change...no specifics...but he felt everybodies PAIN...along with thier daughters in the closet so the stories went.
-
The rascal is a plagiarist. He stole those lines from the Miss America Contest
:lol
-
This is how I see the Dems. They have elitist who are followed by the ignorant. McCain caught onto this and it seems to work quite well.
Ooops, I guess that makes the Republicants very similar.
-
obama, "we are going to change this country and then we are going to change the world", but he never says exactly what changes are going to happen.
obama is all hat and no horse. But the DNC has put him on the fast track.
The blacks will vote for him because he is black, the young people will vote for him because it will be cool to vote for a black president, and the liberals will vote for him because they are liberals.
-
Originally posted by mg1942
J.F.K. too?
he's also 1 term senator from MA.
I liked JFK! The last half way good democrat. He was a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. He didn't want to got to Nam. It was Johnson who did that and then passed all those horrible entitlement programs in Kennedy's name. Shameless!!
-
Originally posted by JB73
do people REALLY buy that ****?
"we can Save the Planet"
"we can give health care to everyone"
"we can... "
Oh my God I thought I was watching a Tony Powers video for stupid people.
I have to live through 9 more months of this crap?? :furious :mad:
Saving the planet is a Marxist ideal? Are you sure you're making him less palatable?
;)
-
Originally posted by john9001
The blacks will vote for him because he is black, the young people will vote for him because it will be cool to vote for a black president,
Just out of curiosity, how old are you? Im not trying to insult you or anything, Im just wondering. It seems that past generations haven't gotten past the novelty stage (one reason so many women are voting for Hillary Clinton), but, out of all honesty, the majority of those in my peer group (that I know, obviously I cant speak for everyone) see the two candidates as, well, candidates, not as a woman candidate and a black candidate. Obviously the majority of the voters are older, and will based on race/sex, but I honestly dont think the younger generation(s) will.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Best thing dads money could buy.
Leave W outa this. ;)
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Just out of curiosity, how old are you? Im not trying to insult you or anything, Im just wondering. It seems that past generations haven't gotten past the novelty stage (one reason so many women are voting for Hillary Clinton), but, out of all honesty, the majority of those in my peer group (that I know, obviously I cant speak for everyone) see the two candidates as, well, candidates, not as a woman candidate and a black candidate. Obviously the majority of the voters are older, and will based on race/sex, but I honestly dont think the younger generation(s) will.
i would vote for the best person for the job, doesnt matter if it's a woman, black, Hispanic, Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical, Italian or even (gasp) a democrat.
you however will play the race card or the gender card or the religion card and claim to be just voting for the person.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i would vote for the best person for the job, doesnt matter if it's a woman, black, Hispanic, Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical, Italian or even (gasp) a democrat.
you however will play the race card or the gender card or the religion card and claim to be just voting for the person.
I never accused you voting based on race, but I doubt your opinion that young people will vote for Obama because voting for a black person is 'cool', for the reasons I outlined in my post.
I also pointed out that it is the older generations, statistically, that vote based on sex and race.
-
well, i think you are wrong.
-
Originally posted by john9001
well, i think you are wrong.
Well then, I guess that ends that discussion.
-
ok,:D
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Just out of curiosity, how old are you? Im not trying to insult you or anything, Im just wondering. It seems that past generations haven't gotten past the novelty stage (one reason so many women are voting for Hillary Clinton), but, out of all honesty, the majority of those in my peer group (that I know, obviously I cant speak for everyone) see the two candidates as, well, candidates, not as a woman candidate and a black candidate. Obviously the majority of the voters are older, and will based on race/sex, but I honestly dont think the younger generation(s) will.
Unfortunately in certain sectors he is right.
And beleive me I dont mean this as a slight toward blacks.
But thee are certain sectors of the black population that are going ot vote for him simply because he is black.
There are alot of blacks where my wife works.
Perhaps I shoudl rephrase to a more accurate term.
there are alot of racial blacks where my wife works where race with them always seems to be an issue.
Example. We know several interracial couples who have obviously interracial children.
some of the people my wife works with will forget about the white half (not that it should matter) and say " If they have black skin they are black"
Often offending the white half of the couple who do not see them as black or white but simply as children
anyway. these same people she tells me tonight are "already at it with Obama and We gonna have a BLACK president."
These same people less then a year ago claimed " He might have black skin but he isnt no black man."
Now because he's made it so far they are jumping on the bandwagon and he is now suddenly "black".
Now me personally I dont care if we have a black president a white president or a green and purple president with orange stripes.
so long as we have a good president.
Having a president "of color" (whatever that means) might be a good thing inasmuch as maybe it will finally stop some of the "because im black" cop out excuses I tend to hear alot of around here.
If nothing else that whine needs to stop. Fore their own good and everyone elses sanity
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Basically all our choices really suck, regardless of party, unless something real strange happens and some sort of deal is brokered.
First time I've agreed with a political statement from Virg!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Saving the planet is a Marxist ideal? Are you sure you're making him less palatable?
;)
bring that crap to here:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=218081
if you are stupid enough to believe in "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever new name the liberal democrats give to it and are arrogant enough to TRULY believe something lowly people do can possibly be a thermostat for the freaking planet I apologize, this topic is no meant for you. I should have posted it in the "actual intelligent non-simian human" forum.
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Just out of curiosity, how old are you? Im not trying to insult you or anything, Im just wondering. It seems that past generations haven't gotten past the novelty stage (one reason so many women are voting for Hillary Clinton), but, out of all honesty, the majority of those in my peer group (that I know, obviously I cant speak for everyone) see the two candidates as, well, candidates, not as a woman candidate and a black candidate. Obviously the majority of the voters are older, and will based on race/sex, but I honestly dont think the younger generation(s) will.
just curious how old are you? I am about to turn 35.
IIRC there's a LOT more then 2 candidates right now, and neither that man or womanmake a difference for my vote.
something I learned and all those I have chosen to surround myself with learned with the disaster that was bill clinton the dangers of voting on who is "cool" or "a nice guy" versus the actual issues a politician stands for. Me, I wasn't swayed in the lease when that ******, and disaster of our nations history played sax on Arseno Hall, but at early 20's of the time I know some who were.
They have since woken up and learned the wreck on our country they bestowed, and now vote with much more intelligence, and research into each candidate.
Thats one thing I will give the clinton legacy, tons of more informed voters who once having made a horrible mistake vow to never do that again.
-
Originally posted by john9001
The blacks will vote for him because he is black, the young people will vote for him because it will be cool to vote for a black president, and the liberals will vote for him because they are liberals.
So is it right too vote for the wrong man just because he is black or the wrong woman just becuase she is a woman? I sure hope that you are wrong about why they will vote for who ever they want.
Chances are that the ones who think it is cool to vote for whoever are too busy doing COOL stuff to bother!
I would like to think we are all smarter than that,
i would vote for Obama in a future election if he was the best choice, but he is not the best choice for this election in my opinion! and i would not vote for Clinton in any race, and that has nothing to do with Bill, but my opinion of her!
-
Regarding the detractors attacking him because of his youth and inexperience....
When you consider where this country is because of the EXPERIENCED politicians over the last dozen or so years, I say give the newbie a chance. :rolleyes:
But either way, this country is hosed so long as the only choices that make it to election day are the party-line toeing, lobbyists' ass-kissing, big business and religious Right pandering sheeple candidates. I say it's LONG past time for a viable median third party around here to thump the heads of the Left and Right together until they remember that they're here to serve the American PEOPLE, not the minority groups, special interests, big oil and whatever flavor-of-the-week cause that happens to be screaming the loudest at that time.
Or until their skulls crack and their brains splooge out.
But either way, the people win! :D
-
Originally posted by JB73
just curious how old are you? I am about to turn 35.
IIRC there's a LOT more then 2 candidates right now, and neither that man or womanmake a difference for my vote.
something I learned and all those I have chosen to surround myself with learned with the disaster that was bill clinton the dangers of voting on who is "cool" or "a nice guy" versus the actual issues a politician stands for. Me, I wasn't swayed in the lease when that ******, and disaster of our nations history played sax on Arseno Hall, but at early 20's of the time I know some who were.
They have since woken up and learned the wreck on our country they bestowed, and now vote with much more intelligence, and research into each candidate.
Thats one thing I will give the clinton legacy, tons of more informed voters who once having made a horrible mistake vow to never do that again.
...Then why does Hillary have the numbers' she has? Or Obama, for that matter?
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
...Then why does Hillary have the numbers' she has? Or Obama, for that matter?
well first off "numbers" as you call them right now are just prelim party line stuff.... polls meant to prop up a candidate via party lines.
second, what I said was in regards to the people I personally surround myself with. smart, and now experienced in politics.
-
Originally posted by JB73
bring that crap to here:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=218081
if you are stupid enough to believe in "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever new name the liberal democrats give to it and are arrogant enough to TRULY believe something lowly people do can possibly be a thermostat for the freaking planet I apologize, this topic is no meant for you. I should have posted it in the "actual intelligent non-simian human" forum.
Angst
Noun
1. An acute but unspecific feeling of anxiety; usually reserved for philosophical anxiety about the world or about personal freedom.
You tend to yours and I'll be in charge of my own. :D
-
Obama is why the voting age needs to be bumped up to at least 30
-
My name is Barack Obama and I approve of this message
Allah Ackbar!
-
The only thing that the possibility of you guys getting either Billiary or Osama as Pres. that leaves me wondering is how long do you think it will be before the Veep is sworn in?
-
I liked Richard Harris's lines in "Unforgiven" when he was talking about the assassination of Presidents.
"If you were to try to assassinate a king, sir, the, how shall I say it, the aura of royalty would cause you to miss. But, the president, I mean, why not shoot the president?"
-
I love you guys that complain about "the bad shape our country is in." Ahhhh, what shape would that be? Leftist's around the world hate us? Nothing new there. Some politicians are corrupt? Again, nothing new. We're racist (or sexist, or homophobic, or destroyers of mother earth)? As long as there are entire "industries" to profit from these insults, there will always be people who claim it's our national sport and there will always be a few numbnuts around that they can point to as proof.
There have always been issues, there always will be issues. The Civil War was probably a little more significant than $3 a gallon gas. I hear the Depression was mighty depressing. In more recent history, things are arguably better now than say....when Carter was President.....you know, right after a certain political party decided that "losing" Vietnam was in our best national interest.
Right now, I'm pretty damn happy with my life and my country. I'll be voting for McCain to make sure that certain political party that is wholy invested in defeat is itself defeated so we don't have a repeat of the true disaster of Vietnam.
-
Here's what keeps me up at night......
What if, after the primaries have established a "pecking order", the two candidates decide to join efforts, concede the less successful race and join as Pres. and V.P. candidates for the national?
The numbers would be compelling and I can see them getting a little cozy on the campaign trail. Very little vitriol flying between them at the moment and it would make for an eye catching convention.
I fear that were that ticket elected, I would be compelled to renounce my citizenship and move back to Dallas.
-
Originally posted by JB73
if you are stupid enough to believe in "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever new name the liberal democrats give to it and are arrogant enough to TRULY believe something lowly people do can possibly be a thermostat for the freaking planet I apologize, this topic is no meant for you. I should have posted it in the "actual intelligent non-simian human" forum.
:D
-
Well.. I hope he gets the nomination.. he is not as evil as the klinton machine so not as smart. not as experienced in what it takes.. I will be surprised if the billary machine doesn't end up making him cry tho.
I want him to win because.. no commercial is gonna cover up the republican machine pointing out that he is the most liberal socialist politician ever.
Once people start putting his feet to the fire on how he is going to pay for saving the people and the planet... It matters not if you believe the global warming hoax or if you believe you deserve "free" healthcare..
Once the numbers start getting put out there.. people will not even hear his soundbites... or.. more accurately.. hear em for the crap they are.
billary is much sharper.. more savy.. but.. she went down in flames with her first socialized medicine plan.. this one will be just as hard to sell and for the same reasons. The numbers don't add up.. and.. the government has a REAL BAD reputation on every single one of it's socialist programs so far.. we always get less out of it than we put in unless we are in the lowest 10% income bracket.. if you put nothing into a government program.. you will be the one to get the most out of it.
If someone says there may be man made global warming you say "interesting" If they say it will cost you $2 a gallon more at the pump or for heating oil (cause you are freezing every winter)... or it will cost you another couple grand a year in taxes and or increase in price of products.. You will say..."uh... maybe we better look at your numbers again.. how did you say we were changing the weather again?"
If someone says free health care you say... "cool... I could use some..I haven't been paying $200 a month now cause I wanted cable anyway"
If they say.. We will make you get it (like car insurance) and it will be cheap... like maybe $250 a month.. You will say... "I think I will pass on the osamabama billary thing."
Mccain killed billarys first socialized medicine plan if you recall.
lazs
-
sweetheart or ****? (http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/preview/?id=5986)
Charon
-
I heard a great Romney speech today.
-
By the way, isn't Obama like John F Kennedy?
- Obama and JFK were both 1 term senators ~ both inexperienced.
- Both have the youth, charisma, and the desire to make US great again.
-They're both controversial. JFK went through a lot of crap for being a Catholic and W.A.S.Ps detractors thought that a Catholic in the white house equals a vote for the Pope. Obama did not receive much criticism as JFK, but people still see Obama as the Antichrist because of his middle name and they accuse him of going to a Madrasa school in his early days.
-
there is a difference... you would hate kennedy if you had him running today... He would be the most conservative candidate of either party running.
Most of you lefties here would call kennedy a neocon who was worse than darth chenny vador if he were running today.
I would vote for JFK over mccain.. I would not even consider the stalin like osamabama.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
there is a difference... you would hate kennedy if you had him running today... He would be the most conservative candidate of either party running.
Most of you lefties here would call kennedy a neocon who was worse than darth chenny vador if he were running today.
I would vote for JFK over mccain.. I would not even consider the stalin like osamabama.
lazs
JFK= an uberconservative US liberals would hate today and Obama=Stalin?
Well .... guess I can say I've read more extreme alternate-history/alternate-reality fiction. But not by much. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
JFK= an uberconservative US liberals would hate today and Obama=Stalin?
Well .... guess I can say I've read more extreme alternate-history/alternate-reality fiction. But not by much. :D
JFK's veiws were very much along the lines of todays republican base I.E. lower taxes to boost the economy,less gov. in our daily lives. pretty much the oposite of the lib's today
-
Originally posted by Arlo
JFK= an uberconservative US liberals would hate today and Obama=Stalin?
Well .... guess I can say I've read more extreme alternate-history/alternate-reality fiction. But not by much. :D
You're correct regarding the Obama=Stalin part but Lazs is absolutely right about JFK.
JFK= Major tax cuts, Bay of Pigs, Cuba Blockaid and first US "advisors" to Vietnam. He was a McCarthy backer and started our Moon program. He commutted no Federal death sentences. He proposed the Civil Rights act which was passed over the objections of the Democrat majority because it had Republican backing. 82 percent of Republicans in Congress voted for the act. Only 66 percent of Democrates voted for it (kinda makes you wonder why the Dems always get the black vote doesn't it?)
Here's a "Fun Fact"...he backed the overthrow of the Iraqi regime by the Baath party. Now that's a hoot.
Ahhhh...not seeing anything even remotely similar to current Democrats. Not one withdrawal, not one surrender, and no naval gazing. Yep, he'd have made a fine Republican and the Dems truely would have dispised him.
-
Originally posted by WWhiskey
JFK's veiws were very much along the lines of todays republican base I.E. lower taxes to boost the economy,less gov. in our daily lives. pretty much the oposite of the lib's today
Well, that's an opinion, I'm sure. I might suggest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
Domestic policy
Kennedy called his domestic program the "New Frontier". It ambitiously promised federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, and government intervention to halt the recession. Kennedy also promised an end to racial discrimination. In 1963, he proposed a tax reform which included income tax cuts, but this was not passed by Congress until 1964, after his death. Few of Kennedy's major programs passed Congress during his lifetime, although, under his successor Johnson, Congress did vote them through in 1964–65.
Immigration
John F. Kennedy initially proposed an overhaul of American immigration policy that later was to become the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, sponsored by Kennedy's brother Senator Edward Kennedy. It dramatically shifted the source of immigration from Northern and Western European countries towards immigration from Latin America and Asia and shifted the emphasis of selection of immigrants towards facilitating family reunification. Kennedy wanted to dismantle the selection of immigrants based on country of origin and saw this as an extension of his civil rights policies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reinventing Kennedy as an uber-conservative is akin to reinventing McCartney as an heroic crusader, imo.
Opinion. Educated helps, though. Agenda-fed generally doesn't. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well, that's an opinion, I'm sure. I might suggest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
Domestic policy
Kennedy called his domestic program the "New Frontier". It ambitiously promised federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, and government intervention to halt the recession. Kennedy also promised an end to racial discrimination. In 1963, he proposed a tax reform which included income tax cuts, but this was not passed by Congress until 1964, after his death. Few of Kennedy's major programs passed Congress during his lifetime, although, under his successor Johnson, Congress did vote them through in 1964–65.
Immigration
John F. Kennedy initially proposed an overhaul of American immigration policy that later was to become the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, sponsored by Kennedy's brother Senator Edward Kennedy. It dramatically shifted the source of immigration from Northern and Western European countries towards immigration from Latin America and Asia and shifted the emphasis of selection of immigrants towards facilitating family reunification. Kennedy wanted to dismantle the selection of immigrants based on country of origin and saw this as an extension of his civil rights policies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reinventing Kennedy as an uber-conservative is akin to reinventing McCartney as an heroic crusader, imo.
Opinion. Educated helps, though. Agenda-fed generally doesn't. :)
Well, if you say so cause, wikipedia is the only real source of info on a man that has been dead now for over forty years, and it was wrote when? by whom?
a rewrite of history usually happens after the fact in this case i guess the last 8 years or so.
You should try to get your info from an encyclopedia instead , maybe one that was printed anywhere from say 1964 to 1985. by the way he was going to help the economy and fund his programs with tax cuts, to raise revenue! try to find a dem today that can run on that platform and see what you come up with!
-
JFK's high points, messed up the bay of pigs which led to the cuban missile crisis which almost started WW3, hired McNamara who totally screwed up the Vietnam war. Who knows how much more damage he could have done if he had finished his term. Of course his booze smuggling daddy buying him the election and his connections with the Mafia are only rumors.
-
John Kerry" I have a plan for this....I have a plan for that"...I never did here his "Plan"....Just like Obama..."We need change...we need change!" What is the changes you have in mind....I never here what the changes are going to be!!:O
-
Originally posted by WWhiskey
Well, if you say so cause, wikipedia is the only real source of info on a man that has been dead now for over forty years, and it was wrote when? by whom?
a rewrite of history usually happens after the fact in this case i guess the last 8 years or so.
You should try to get your info from an encyclopedia instead , maybe one that was printed anywhere from say 1964 to 1985. by the way he was going to help the economy and fund his programs with tax cuts, to raise revenue! try to find a dem today that can run on that platform and see what you come up with!
You see ... that's how presumption works. You presume the only source I've read regarding JFK is Wiki because it happens to be the most convenient to present to you online at a moment's notice. Poor presumption. I'm sorry you're prone to such. You also recommend an encyclopedia as if I've never seen one or have no access to such and that I didn't grow up with the 1965 edition of WB and read it like most kids do comics. Is that supposedly the source you're using to make claim about Kennedy being the equivilent to a modern day neocon? What brand? Whiskey's encyclopedia of political persuasion?
Good luck with that. :aok
-
By the standards of the 1960s, Kennedy was a "liberal." Today, he would be considered to be a middle-of-the-roader. While it is true that he favored the creation of programs that expanded the government's role in civil rights and social welfare, he most certainly did not favor making vast numbers of citizens dependent on government largesse, which the modern democratic party has embraced with both hands. If he did favor that, why in Heaven's Name did he make this famous statement during his Inaugural Address..."Ask Not what your country can do for you..."?
Moreover, Kennedy was a veteran, and had the stones to stand up to Khruschev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I shudder to think what might have happened if one of this year's current non-military background democratic candidates had occupied the White House during that crisis.
Hillary and her like came from a political movement within my own generation that not only opposed the Vietnam War, but expressed disdain for the military in all of its permutations. The draconian military cutbacks during the 1970s were something that she heartily agreed with. If, as she now says, she respects our servicemen and our modern military it is only because her opinions have gone through a sea-change in the intervening years.
If elected, she will revert to her old ways, and favor drastic cutbacks in the military, and withdrdaw our forces from Iraq regardless of any negative consequences....and there will be consequences.
Because of these considerations, I think that she and Obama bear little resemblance to JFK, in their political beliefs or national vision.
-
Originally posted by john9001
JFK's high points, messed up the bay of pigs which led to the cuban missile crisis which almost started WW3,
I think you left out a part concerning the Cuban missile crisis...........you know , the outcome where he put the Ruskies on their friggin knees sucking wind.
-
if JFK and McNamara had not screwed up the bay of pigs there would not have been missiles in Cuba to start with, Castro was so afraid of another invasion he asked Russia for the missiles for defense. I did not read this in a history book , i lived it.
-
Ya'll would have quite the daisy chain going here if Arlo hadn't horned in.
-
Originally posted by john9001
if JFK and McNamara had not screwed up the bay of pigs there would not have been missiles in Cuba to start with, Castro was so afraid of another invasion he asked Russia for the missiles for defense. I did not read this in a history book , i lived it.
The Cuban missile crisis was the very best thing that could have happened at the time. It gave the chance to put the Ruskies on their knees where they belonged.....and still do.
I lived it also, along a great many others here.
-
Originally posted by JB73
do people REALLY buy that ****?
Yep
-
So if he gets elected...how do we judge that he saved the planet by the end of his term?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
By the standards of the 1960s, Kennedy was a "liberal." Today, he would be considered to be a middle-of-the-roader.
Well there you go. A less extreme and a more realistic claim. S'all I was sayin'.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Because of these considerations (Obama's lack of veteran status), I think that [Obama] bear(s) little resemblance to JFK, in [his] political belief or national vision.
I'm not seeing Obama's lack of service as a difference in political belief or national vision. I'm seeing it as a lack of experience for practical assessment regarding the use of military force in foreign policy. Something that can easily be made up for through cabinet and pentagon guidance if ... 1: He chooses his cabinet wisely and .... 2: He's not a "predestined decider" on all facets of policy.
You and I have room for reasonable discussion on this, though. :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ya'll would have quite the daisy chain going here if Arlo hadn't horned in.
What can I say? Was feelin' jealous and lonely.
;)
(And I can't seem to resist breaking up torch-n-pitchfork/ tar-n-feathers rallies) :D
-
Originally posted by Fulmar
So if he gets elected...how do we judge that he saved the planet by the end of his term?
Well .... how bout this? He'll be judged on how hard he worked to fix the mess the current potus stuck him/us/the planet with. :D
-
Well Arlo, it's true that the right choices for Secretary of State and other key cabinet posts can compensate, at least to some degree, for lack of military experience. That's why I thought the choice of Colin Powell by Bush was such a great move....and why I was sorry to see him go.
However, having said that, the President is, ultimately, the one who calls the shots....and I just do not think that Obama or Hillary fully understand the military or its proper usage. For example, consider the fumble-fingered, stumble-bum way Bill used it while he was in office....in Somalia and in the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant. Those embarassing fiascoes overshadow the one real successful use of military force by Clinton during his administration....the intervention in Bosnia. The egg we got on our faces in the aforementioned snafus emboldened our enemies in the Middle East, and that threat matured due, at least in part, to a lackadaisical attitude in the oval office toward that threat.
Every time our nation has stuck its head in the sand while threats arose abroad we have paid a heavy price for it. Yet, our citizens of an isolationist bent refuse to learn from that. They prefer to have a government that slashes the military budget and tucks them into bed at night, and leaves the nation's security to happenstance.
A lot of the support for Obama is coming from this crowd. They are tired of the drum-beating and war talk....and want to be put back to sleep again....and that is exactly what he and Hillary will do if either is elected.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well .... how bout this? He'll be judged on how hard he worked to fix the mess the current potus stuck him/us/the planet with. :D
Yes, with "change" and "hope". :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well, that's an opinion, I'm sure. I might suggest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
Please if you are trying to prove a point, NEVER quote wikipedia. If you want to know how wiki works, just go to their website.
Side Note:
A year ago I took an Aviation Writing class. One of the assignments we had was to write/add to a Wikipedia article. One of the students in my class made up a completely fictional page about a famous Canadian Aviator. The name, the accomplishments were all made up. I wish I had the name of the fictional aviator to see if he is still on there. It's a great read, and is very believable.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Well Arlo, it's true that the right choices for Secretary of State and other key cabinet posts can compensate, at least to some degree, for lack of military experience. That's why I thought the choice of Colin Powell by Bush was such a great move....and why I was sorry to see him go.
However, having said that, the President is, ultimately, the one who calls the shots....and I just do not think that Obama or Hillary fully understand the military or its proper usage. For example, consider the fumble-fingered, stumble-bum way Bill used it while he was in office....in Somalia and in the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant. Those embarassing fiascoes overshadow the one real successful use of military force by Clinton during his administration....the intervention in Bosnia. The egg we got on our faces in the aforementioned snafus emboldened our enemies in the Middle East, and that threat matured due, at least in part, to a lackadaisical attitude in the oval office toward that threat.
Every time our nation has stuck its head in the sand while threats arose abroad we have paid a heavy price for it. Yet, our citizens of an isolationist bent refuse to learn from that. They prefer to have a government that slashes the military budget and tucks them into bed at night, and leaves the nation's security to happenstance.
A lot of the support for Obama is coming from this crowd. They are tired of the drum-beating and war talk....and want to be put back to sleep again....and that is exactly what he and Hillary will do if either is elected.
Wreckless use of military force abroad, even (perhaps especially) when the adminstration is steadfastly committed to doing so (without taking heed the neccessity of wise planning prior and recognition of failed policy during) is just as bad, if not worse. Both Vietnam and Iraq are testament.
However .... didn't you see Obama's mention of the worsening atmosphere in Pakistan needing intervention (even though he also mentioned how the current situation in Iraq presents impediment in doing so as effectively as we once could have)? That doesn't sound like sleep, isolationship or anything of the kind. Obama is anti-sand .... in so much as the "hundred years war" plan McCain seems intent on for the sake of "national security and prestige" .... Republican style (wish the GOP would unhijack itself from extremism).
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Yes, with "change" and "hope". :rolleyes:
Because "change" and "hope" are both bad words and ridiculous sentiments. Obviously anyone who uses them is unrealistic. No ... wait .... that's not a given. It's just what some think is. :)
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
Please if you are trying to prove a point, NEVER quote wikipedia. If you want to know how wiki works, just go to their website.
Appreciate the advice but I'm well aware of how Wiki works ... per say. It's not a bad source, even so. Case in point ... the very subject I cited. It further cites the various sources comprising the entirety of the material and the Wiki-monitors have cranked up their fact-checking/re-checking.
The knee-jerk response Whiskey gave me for using it as a source doesn't really involve Wiki providing inaccuracies over Jack Kennedy's "obvious" conservativeness as much as it's an attempted slam inferring that before Wiki I never studied or learned a single thing.
Wiki's convenient. Whisky can get over it if he didn't have an ulterior axe to grind. :D
-
obama speaks in cliches, he speaks and yet says nothing.
-
Originally posted by john9001
obama speaks in cliches, he speaks and yet says nothing.
Kinda like you just did? Bashing sentiment for sentimental purpose is such an ironic event. :D
-
actually obama speaks more like arlo. Lots of words that sound good but say nothing.
-
Originally posted by john9001
actually obama speaks more like arlo. Lots of words that sound good but say nothing.
Repeating yourself made you less ironic? No ... wait ....
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You see ... that's how presumption works. You presume the only source I've read regarding JFK is Wiki because it happens to be the most convenient to present to you online at a moment's notice. Poor presumption. I'm sorry you're prone to such. You also recommend an encyclopedia as if I've never seen one or have no access to such and that I didn't grow up with the 1965 edition of WB and read it like most kids do comics. Is that supposedly the source you're using to make claim about Kennedy being the equivilent to a modern day neocon? What brand? Whiskey's encyclopedia of political persuasion?
Good luck with that. :aok
You presume too much. I dont care who you like, that is your choice, i also didnt mean to say you were not educated ! You have however failed too answer my question's,
name a dem. candidate that could run and win the dem. nomination based on JFK's platforms?
this is a simple thing!
You also provided no other source material than wiki., then you attacked me for my stance in this matter instead of doing a better job of presenting your position!I see and hear this all the time ,no answers, just insults and personal attack's mostly from people not qualified to answer the questions presented. i like too debate with people who rise above that level
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Because "change" and "hope" are both bad words and ridiculous sentiments. Obviously anyone who uses them is unrealistic. No ... wait .... that's not a given. It's just what some think is. :)
If he said anything else to go with it, that would be different. His short, limited voting record says he's as far left/liberal as it gets right now. He offers "change" and "hope" based on "programs" (at best, if based on anything at all) that he can't even begin to explain (or find a way to pay for, without economy crippling taxation). He offers wistful words backed by an absurd voting record, and nothing more. Except a lack of experience, and maybe an overabundance of questionable "charisma", effective only on those charmed into a hypnotic state by wishful thinking.
-
I gotta ask:
Does anyone else see a bit of an uncle tom in him, and also think underneath not even he believes or agrees with the BS that spews out of his pie hole?
-
Arlo, leaving aside the discussion about the mistakes made in planning and implementing the Iraq War, and there has never been a war that was fought without mistakes, a compelling argument can be made that Saddam needed to be taken down, just as post-WWII historians have made compelling arguments that Hitler should have been forcibly confronted or taken down during the mid-1930s.
As has been revealed in recent weeks, Saddam deliberately attempted to deceive the west into believing he had active wmd development programs. The U.S. and its allies in Europe were more than willing to believe these deceptions because that fox had, indeed, developed them and used them in the past. That usage has been well documented, and is seldom disputed.
In addition, the man was a mass-murderer. Irregardless of the fact that he had been an ally of ours in the past, we should never suffer such a bloody tyrant to remain in power. I don't buy the argument voiced by some opponents of the war that these things aren't really any of our business, or that it isn't possible to police the world. To paraphrase a line from Charles Dickens, "Mankind is our business." Ignoring the evil such men do undermines any moral superiority we may lay claim to.
In the destruction of tyranny and madness I see no wrecklessness but a commitment to the ideals that this nation and its people have always aspired to. The arguments against intervention voiced by reasonable people which are based on fervent and genuine distaste for armed conflict, have been, unfortunately, undermined by the shrill rantings of a vociferous few that is fueled by their vitriolic hatred of the president....a hatred that, in many cases, dates all the way back to the hotly contested election of 2000.
As you can see from the points I've made above, I do not consider our efforts in Iraq to have been in vain, nor the price we have paid to have been prohibitive. While the lives of very real people are touched by the loss of each and every casualty, perhaps we need to stop, take a step back from the fray, and remind ourselves what heavy casualty rates can really be like. In the six years that we have been in Iraq we have suffered a little over 3,500 casualties. That is roughly half the losses we suffered in the single month it took to secure the island of Iwo Jima.
As to Obama's comments about Pakistan, I have to wonder exactly what it is he would do about that situation. Pakistan is a sovereign country that has cooperated to a great extent in the past. It has many problems to solve in tackling Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents within its own borders. Despite its support of us, they have shown a reluctance to allow large numbers of U.S. troops to cross their borders to assist them. Would Obama send the troops in anyway? He could activate the regular army units stationed in Europe and send them to Pakistan I suppose, but how would that fit his self-proclaimed image of himself as an opponent of interventionism?
Finally, when John McCain spoke of leaving our troops in Iraq for 100 years, he was merely using a little hyperbole to reiterate his strong support for staying the course until the job was done.
But I think you already knew that. Anyway, if the Republicans have been hijacked by extremists then the same might also be said for their democratic opponents.
Regards, Shuckins
-
LoL Arlo.. You bring good entertainment with your crackdowns and anti-pitchfork post! :aok
I understand that Obama has not accepted any money on his campaign from lobbyist and his funds come primarily from average folk donations.. Couldn't this mean we might have a politician NOT in corporate america's pocket?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
LoL Arlo.. You bring good entertainment with your crackdowns and anti-pitchfork post! :aok
I understand that Obama has not accepted any money on his campaign from lobbyist and his funds come primarily from average folk donations.. Couldn't this mean we might have a politician NOT in corporate america's pocket?
That would be funny if it weren't so sad. Obama is buying every single vote with taxpayer money.
-
Originally posted by WWhiskey
You presume too much. I dont care who you like, that is your choice, i also didnt mean to say you were not educated ! You have however failed too answer my question's,
name a dem. candidate that could run and win the dem. nomination based on JFK's platforms?
this is a simple thing!
You also provided no other source material than wiki., then you attacked me for my stance in this matter instead of doing a better job of presenting your position!I see and hear this all the time ,no answers, just insults and personal attack's mostly from people not qualified to answer the questions presented. i like too debate with people who rise above that level
Not qualified? As much as you, at least? I'm cut! :D
Obama. Simple answer. Kennedy clone? Pfffft ... mnoooooo. Closest candidate to exhibiting the same spirit? No brainer. U-yeah.
My position? "My position" is I don't see you presenting a case without ramping it up and taking it overboard. If I "failed" anything ... I "failed" to take your stance seriously. That's because you didn't present or support one that deserved it, imo. Bit extreme. Now, if you're done having a "Wiki-cow" perhaps you're ready to show me the "encyclopedia articles" that prove Jack would make a class-a modern-day neocon.
:)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If he said anything else to go with it, that would be different. His short, limited voting record says he's as far left/liberal as it gets right now. He offers "change" and "hope" based on "programs" (at best, if based on anything at all) that he can't even begin to explain (or find a way to pay for, without economy crippling taxation). He offers wistful words backed by an absurd voting record, and nothing more. Except a lack of experience, and maybe an overabundance of questionable "charisma", effective only on those charmed into a hypnotic state by wishful thinking.
Hold. What was the state of the economy/standard of living/quality of life under Bill, again? I see how you feel but I don't see those feelings well-based/placed. ;)
-
Originally posted by JB73
I gotta ask:
Does anyone else see a bit of an uncle tom in him, and also think underneath not even he believes or agrees with the BS that spews out of his pie hole?
Well, I'm sure you see what you wanna see. Not seein' the chips behind a reverse race card building you a winning hand from this seat. ;)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Arlo, leaving aside the discussion about the mistakes made in planning and implementing the Iraq War, and there has never been a war that was fought without mistakes, a compelling argument can be made that Saddam needed to be taken down, just as post-WWII historians have made compelling arguments that Hitler should have been forcibly confronted or taken down during the mid-1930s.
Leaving aside? ;) I'm not dealing with "what-if." We see the results and they ain't pretty. Many saw it coming long ago. Some even presented this to the potus. Those that made it past the Cheney/Rumsfeld filter/wall, that is.
There's plenty of stupid tyrants goading us to invade now. Especially after they see how much a negative impact it's had on us by "saving" Iraq. Is that good reason? Wasn't to begin with. Plenty of mass-murderers out there. We never had the resources to depose them and force Democracy on their "thankful" victims.
Not good reasons for supporting broken policy. Maybe if the policy was productive we could stomach some frilly feel-good floating on top.
And ... regarding Obama's Pakistan statement .... you could say that flies in the face of both claims of "isolationism promotion" and "anti-war for sake of anti-warism."
And hyperpole has no practical place in policy. Shame on the Cain.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
LoL Arlo.. You bring good entertainment with your crackdowns and anti-pitchfork post! :aok
I understand that Obama has not accepted any money on his campaign from lobbyist and his funds come primarily from average folk donations.. Couldn't this mean we might have a politician NOT in corporate america's pocket?
At least .... not as deep, eh? ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
That would be funny if it weren't so sad. Obama is buying every single vote with taxpayer money.
Mmmmm .... you figure how?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well, I'm sure you see what you wanna see. Not seein' the chips behind a reverse race card building you a winning hand from this seat. ;)
I don't understand your post
"Not seein' the chips behind a reverse race card building you a winning hand from this seat."
Is that meant as I have / am building a "race card" or is it meant as he is?
either way, my post was meant to those who know what an uncle tom is, he has been very non-race in most everything he says, almost to alienate the "black vote" as in distancing himself form it. he seems to pander to "white media" well, and doesn't play the card like jackson would back in the 90's.
Remember back oh 10 years ago? someone named powell tried running for a major seat and was labeled an uncle tom and lost MANY "black" votes..
funny how history decides to NOT repeat itself according to media some times.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I just don't see any of this in Obama. When I see this guy I see a very coreographed (sp), mechanical politician. I just don't get the major appeal of him. Idiot or not, i'd rather spend the afternoon with dubya, than osama obama, and it has nothing to do with being conservative. The guy just doesn't seem very human to me at all.
Fox News has actually done one good thing lately. They were interviewing a group of dems listening in on one of the debates, and there was majority support for Obama. One of the anchors asks them why they like Obama, and to name one specific thing he has done. Guess what? Not a single person could name one accomplishments. They are voting for a guy because he has a nice personality, or so people say.
ugh.
Because the Republicans last election voted for the guy "they most wanted to have a beer with".
You know what? People are fluff'n nuts. End of story.
The one overtly positive thing I can say for Obama... He's not the Washington Insider, the status quo.
Finally....Perhaps I can vote for the first time in my life without a fluff'n Bush or a Clinton on the ticket for god's sake. McCain and Obama, that's what I want to see.
-
Originally posted by JB73
I don't understand your post
"Not seein' the chips behind a reverse race card building you a winning hand from this seat."
Is that meant as I have / am building a "race card" or is it meant as he is?
either way, my post was meant to those who know what an uncle tom is, he has been very non-race in most everything he says, almost to alienate the "black vote" as in distancing himself form it. he seems to pander to "white media" well, and doesn't play the card like jackson would back in the 90's.
Remember back oh 10 years ago? someone named powell tried running for a major seat and was labeled an uncle tom and lost MANY "black" votes..
funny how history decides to NOT repeat itself according to media some times.
I read the book the term "Uncle Tom" was based on and am pretty familiar with the term. And yeah, my response was reflective of what I see you claiming ... it's not his claim, shame or even resemblence to me.
His not having the race issues you do does not an "Uncle Tom" make. If anything, it proves he can be a potus without such.
Short: No ... I don't see what you do. Question: Do you see it because you want to?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
That would be funny if it weren't so sad. Obama is buying every single vote with taxpayer money.
Whats sad? Are you saying his campaign buget is taxpayer money? If so, how so?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Not qualified? As much as you, at least? I'm cut! :D
Obama.
Reply:(obama is not running on the same platform as JFK)
Simple answer. Kennedy clone? Pfffft ... mnoooooo. Closest candidate to exhibiting the same spirit? No brainer. U-yeah.
My position? "My position" is I don't see you presenting a case without ramping it up and taking it overboard. If I "failed" anything ... I "failed" to take your stance seriously. That's because you didn't present or support one that deserved it, imo. Bit extreme. Now, if you're done having a "Wiki-cow"
Reply: ( you had the wiki cow not me)
perhaps you're ready to show me the "encyclopedia articles" that prove Jack would make a class-a modern-day neocon.
Reply:(i only meant he would not make a dem. today, he fits the republican base well as a fiscal conservative! and by the way I thought very highly of him , only wish there were more like him!)
:)
Lets see.I've been cut, been shot, been blown up in an airplane crash been in the VA medical center in albuquerque for over 6 months at a time, been in 7 different VA hospitals since i got out of service,died 13 times, was given 2 years to live 17 years ago, have had a broken neck, two ribs removed from gunshot wounds,burns over 45%of my body, an inlarged heart caused by blunt force trama, all recieved while in sevice to you and this country,and yet i still work and run my own bussiness during the summer so as not too draw you'r precious social security and I have not drawn a day's veterans benifits other than what the VA offers too its own as far as medical care is concerned! what else do i need too do to convince you that i dont care that much about what you think?
The only reason i even answered this time was i wondered what you meant by been cut? and yet i think i'm tired of your crap so i doubt i'll answer you any more anyway, since you seem to only want too attack me, and those like me, instead of the real problems of this world
for an old man you need to grow up a bit!
of course thats just my opinion! Thanks to me and others like me we still get to exercise that right!
Dont worry Skuzzy I'm not about to type what i wanted too next!!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Appreciate the advice but I'm well aware of how Wiki works ... per say. It's not a bad source, even so. Case in point ... the very subject I cited. It further cites the various sources comprising the entirety of the material and the Wiki-monitors have cranked up their fact-checking/re-checking.
The knee-jerk response Whiskey gave me for using it as a source doesn't really involve Wiki providing inaccuracies over Jack Kennedy's "obvious" conservativeness as much as it's an attempted slam inferring that before Wiki I never studied or learned a single thing.
Wiki's convenient. Whisky can get over it if he didn't have an ulterior axe to grind. :D
I use it too because it's handy. If I need quick info, or a general idea about something I will reference that. It's a great concept and can be very useful. Unfortunately, I've seen first hand how easily facts can be changed on that site.
-
Originally posted by WWhiskey
Lets see.I've been cut, been shot, been blown up in an airplane crash been in the VA medical center in albuquerque for over 6 months at a time, been in 7 different VA hospitals since i got out of service,died 13 times, was given 2 years to live 17 years ago, have had a broken neck, two ribs removed from gunshot wounds,burns over 45%of my body, an inlarged heart caused by blunt force trama, all recieved while in sevice to you and this country,and yet i still work and run my own bussiness during the summer so as not too draw you'r precious social security and I have not drawn a day's veterans benifits other than what the VA offers too its own as far as medical care is concerned! what else do i need too do to convince you that i dont care that much about what you think?
The only reason i even answered this time was i wondered what you meant by been cut? and yet i think i'm tired of your crap so i doubt i'll answer you any more anyway, since you seem to only want too attack me, and those like me, instead of the real problems of this world
for an old man you need to grow up a bit!
of course thats just my opinion! Thanks to me and others like me we still get to exercise that right!
Dont worry Skuzzy I'm not about to type what i wanted too next!!
Sorry the sarcasm of "being cut" by your opinion was too subtle. ;)
While I'm as impressed as you want me to be that you've been a human pincushion/ballistic testbed/duralog during your service time and I managed to avoid it during mine .... what would convince me you're as apathetic as you claim would be actual apathy displayed. All this keyboard pounding and whining about being attacked ain't doin' it. :D
I'm rootin' for you more than you realize. I think you should be able to manage it. Most vets I've rubbed shoulders with that've been in the real thick seem to.
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
I use it too because it's handy. If I need quick info, or a general idea about something I will reference that. It's
Exactly why I use it. My time is actually divided tween this place and elsewhere. But too many here go all emo and claim they're just citing historical fact so I use it to give them a reality clue-by-four whack when it suffices for such. :)
-
13 times! wow.. thats got to be some kind of a record I would think!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hold. What was the state of the economy/standard of living/quality of life under Bill, again? I see how you feel but I don't see those feelings well-based/placed. ;)
The prosperity of the Clinton era was inherited by Clinton from the Reagan era, and furthered by a Republican Congress. And I have actually been far better off under Bush, as I own my own business now, live more comfortably, and am doing better every day. Nice try, but wrong again. Having known you from the boards for years, Arlo, you'd argue with a gate post, just for the sake of arguing, I guess because you don't have anything better to do. I have better things to do, so argue with a gate post and have fun. No hard feelings.
-
Virgil,
Actually, I lost a job several years ago because Bush repealed safeguards that Clinton put in place to limit American businesses from moving jobs overseas.
Worked over a year doing technical support for SBC DSL. Until SBC decided to close two of its sites in my department. We had 4-5 involved in the cut:
St. Louis, Houston, Phoenix, Manila, New Dehli.
St. Louis was rated highest both as technical knowledge AND customer service.
Houston was where corporate HQ was located (don't know if that's the case after the merger.
Guess who got cut? Yup, that's right, St. Louis and Phoenix. Corporate HQ and the overseas centers were saved. Quite a surprise.
-
I fail to see how I said anything that was not true.. JFK would be considered a "neocon" by todays standards.. he was for strong defense and projecting Americas power even by regime changes.. covert regime changes were perfectly alright by him.
I don't think he would have advocated schooling illegals or that government documents were available in spanish or licenses for illegals. He believed in personal responsibility.
I don't think saying osamabama is left of stalin is too far off. I fail to see any vote that osamabama made that stalin .. or any commie...would not have made the same choice. JFK was more conservative than most of the republicans running today... peace core or no... and osamabama is no less a commie than the commies of JFK's time.
There has simply been a shift to the left in America. It always happens as population in cities grows and people become more dependent and.. less able to accept personal responsibility and.. it is a normal stage of govenment and it's growth and decay.
lazs
-
saxman.. "safeguards"? you mean protectionism right? Like the unions had coal tenders on trains for many years after diesel came in and the first cars had sockets for the buggy whips?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Mmmmm .... you figure how?
He's Robin Hood. Only the rich he's promising to steal from will actually be the working class.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Whats sad? Are you saying his campaign buget is taxpayer money? If so, how so?
He's promising to redistribute the wealth in our country. Campaign contributions will be repaid with tax dollars probably 1,000 fold.
-
The one overtly positive thing I can say for Obama... He's not the Washington Insider, the status quo.
I keep hearing this, but there is overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise.
1. He is definitely an insider of the Illinois Democratic machine, one of the most draconian and established political machines remaining in America. He is known to have Washington insider Dick Durbin as his mentor. His votes have largely paralleled Durbin's and have supported Illinois pork barrel issues -- at least the ones he didn't simply vote "present" on to reduce his exposure to having a more solid record during his term as senator/candidate. It's a point of fact, that you do not get the support of the Illinois Democratic machine by being an "outsider" or "a force for change." Really, a laughable idea.
2. As above, you do not get the support of the national Democratic Party by being an outsider, anymore than you do with the Republicans. Some Democrats are more liberal than others, some have an assortment of different favored positions. But, Obama is a mainstream candidate and you are not part of the mainstream if you express an unwillingness to play ball or show any great degree of independence. His support from Ted Kennedy, a consummate party insider, should make this obvious.
3. He has already managed to establish an "insider" base of lobbyist support in Washington to rival any other politician.
Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama’s senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation’s manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a “leadership PAC,” a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians’ campaigns—and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
4. Similarly, his claims of not accepting money from lobbyists are a bit thin in actual practice:
But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.
In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/
5. He has also already managed to become involved in the whole "shady deals" thing for personal gain that is so common (and bipartisan, actually) in Illinois politics. Such as the Tony Rezko (http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-080126kass-column,0,5033309.column) shady real estate deal.
Obama talks a good game. He is attractive and articulate and has a good speech writer to take advantage of those skills. However, as an "agent of change" you likely have to look no further than Dick Durbin or Ted Kennedy for insight as to what change means. He will likely push a very progressive, but mainstream Democratic agenda. He will certainly work with the people he needs to to achieve this agenda and support his next election bid.
The only true outsiders, true agents for change, in this election are/were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. You can tell the difference between insiders and outsiders by how they were supported by their own parties compared to the mainstream candidates.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lazs2
There has simply been a shift to the left in America. It always happens as population in cities grows and people become more dependent and.. less able to accept personal responsibility and.. it is a normal stage of govenment and it's growth and decay.
lazs
Lazs, what historical precedents come to your mind. You maybe be entirely right. Some of what you say from time I find my self on the same page with you.
On this, I'm hard-pressed to evidence your claim except from the last bit of American history itself, or other some other countries also. Post WW2 I'm thinking.
Anyone have a decent summary of US tax policy since our inception? Not a nut-job screed?
-
Hap.. I would point to socialism as a system in the communist countries and in england.. england is decaying at a rapid rate.
I would say that our economy is decaying due to socialism more than anything. If you look at our spending you will see just how much goes for socialist programs.. are you saying that they are not contributing to our decay?
Do you believe that we can tax our selves into prosperity? Osamabama does.
lazs
-
but hap..maybe we should get the ground rules straight and take things one at a time...
Do you believe that the country is more to the left now than when kennedy was elected?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Charon
The only true outsiders, true agents for change, in this election are/were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. You can tell the difference between insiders and outsiders by how they were supported by their own parties compared to the mainstream candidates.
LOL, if that's the best we can do for "outsiders" then lets hear it for the insiders. The issue with these guys isn't that they aren't supported by their own parties, it's that they are nut jobs and the vast majority of Americans know it.
-
George W. Bush was the greatest president we've had in the last 7 years. What more can I say?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Because "change" and "hope" are both bad words and ridiculous sentiments. Obviously anyone who uses them is unrealistic. No ... wait .... that's not a given. It's just what some think is. :)
Actually ~ it is a given. "hope" is wishful thinking without any action behind it. Hope is for the limp wristed big-mouths who don't intend on ever making the actual "change" part happen.
I don't see a problem with "change" though. If things are good, it's a wasted effort... but if things are crappy, "change" is good. :)
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Actually ~ it is a given. "hope" is wishful thinking without any action behind it. Hope is for the limp wristed big-mouths who don't intend on ever making the actual "change" part happen.
We live by admiration, hope and love. -- William Wordsworth
We judge of man's wisdom by his hope. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for. And the most you can do is live inside that hope. Not admire it from a distance but live right in it, under its roof. -- Barbara Kingsolver
Hope" is the thing with feathers-- That perches in the soul-- And sings the tune without the words-- And never stops--at all-- Emily Dickenson
-
Hitler said he would change Germany, and he did.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We live by admiration, hope and love. -- William Wordsworth
We judge of man's wisdom by his hope. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for. And the most you can do is live inside that hope. Not admire it from a distance but live right in it, under its roof. -- Barbara Kingsolver
Hope" is the thing with feathers-- That perches in the soul-- And sings the tune without the words-- And never stops--at all-- Emily Dickenson
*and there's a point somewhere around the corner?*
So lots of people think hope is a grand & noble thing ~ including famous poets. So what? None of them gained sucess in attaining what they wanted by "hoping" for it... or waiting for it to be handed to them.
Hope is for those who aren't willing to get up & get it themselves.
-
Hope is for those who aren't willing to get up & get it themselves. - Texasmom
I'll have to submit that one.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We live by admiration, hope and love. -- William Wordsworth
We judge of man's wisdom by his hope. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for. And the most you can do is live inside that hope. Not admire it from a distance but live right in it, under its roof. -- Barbara Kingsolver
Hope" is the thing with feathers-- That perches in the soul-- And sings the tune without the words-- And never stops--at all-- Emily Dickenson
Yep, and hope is supposed to lead to pragmatic solutions, not more abstract hope with no concrete solutions. Otherwise we could just elect Rich Simmons.
-
Hope gives one the COURAGE to strive for something better. Hope is the sense that something CAN be done, no matter how difficult. The unthinkable and the astonishing are seldom brought to pass without hope. Without hope, there's no reason to even try because you've already failed.
-
:lol
The only problems that hope will solve on its own are sentimental. You don't resolve a concrete problem with an abstract solution, which is what hope is - a feeling. This feeling might facilitate finding and implementing the solution, but said solution could just as well be determined by simply thinking about it.
Hope is just a convenient tool in apealing to warm fuzzy tendencies in people... Determination and any other sort of drive to accomplish things are what get things done. Hope as a solution to concrete problems is as tangible and reliable as faith.
Obama would have better credibility if he actualy suggested concise solutions to the problem he promises to adress. You don't send a psychic or cleric to lead surgeries or stock market companies.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Hope gives one the COURAGE to strive for something better. Hope is the sense that something CAN be done, no matter how difficult. The unthinkable and the astonishing are seldom brought to pass without hope. Without hope, there's no reason to even try because you've already failed.
Yes, that's true. It can cause the effort to succeed. I guess I can make an effort to not be so callused. :)
-
Originally posted by moot
:lol
The only problems that hope will solve on its own are sentimental. You don't resolve a concrete problem with an abstract solution, which is what hope is - a feeling. This feeling might facilitate finding and implementing the solution, but said solution could just as well be determined by simply thinking about it.
Hope is just a convenient tool in apealing to warm fuzzy tendencies in people... Determination and any other sort of drive to accomplish things are what get things done. Hope as a solution to concrete problems is as tangible and reliable as faith.
Obama would have better credibility if he actualy suggested concise solutions to the problem he promises to adress. You don't send a psychic or cleric to lead surgeries or stock market companies.
Hummm, makes sense. Dems are all about how something makes you feel, stuff like does a particular word make you feel bad (we'll ban it)? How about a bad grade, how does that make you feel? We'll get rid of them. You will feel better if we give you a handout (from other peoples pockets, not ours of course). Does the war make you feel bad, we'll end it (and screw the long term consequences of cowardace).
Whether or not what makes you "feel" good actually works doesn't seem to enter into their equation.
-
Watch and see what happens if Hillary gets elected. Bill would have his fingers in everything else.
Obama won't make it near the WH. America is not ready for that... especially someone so inexpirienced.
Romney is out now... Good ridance.
I'm thinking maybe a McCain/Huckabee Ticket.
It's not like Hillary would ask Vince Foster right?
~Touche~
Mac
-
JFK was inexperienced too. I'm still wondering how he got elected at that time:noid
-
LOL, if that's the best we can do for "outsiders" then lets hear it for the insiders. The issue with these guys isn't that they aren't supported by their own parties, it's that they are nut jobs and the vast majority of Americans know it.
I don't know. Paul was the only true conservative in the race, at least if you like small government, and the rule of Constitutional law. Though, these concepts have fallen out of favor even among people who brand themselves as conservative Republicans and confuse the policies of, say GWB in any way shape of form with "conservative."
Most pseudo-conservatives today just want a big Republican government, slicing up the pork and power pie to more fill their pet issues than those of the other branded political party. Managed trade that only benefits the multinational corporate shareholders. No resistance to corporate subsidies OR domestic pork. A desire to use our superpower superpowers -- even if we aren't quite super enough to absorb the economic burden (hey worked for Rome!). A willingness to give up the protections of the 4th 5th 6th and 10th Amendments to "feel" safe. An interest in what people do in their bedroom and individual bodies at the federal level. A long list of New, or neo- conservative dogma that would shock a paleo-conservative from the 1950s.
I have a feeling that in the next few years we are all going to feel the hard impact of our bipartisan big bloated out of control both sides of the same coin government from the past 16 years. And it ain't going to be pretty. I hope it's not 1929 rough though. It will probably take that though to wake people up to the alternative.
Charon
-
As I said in one of the other threads:
We need a strong median third party to start smacking the heads of the Libs and Conservatives together either until they start seeing sense or their skulls crack open and their brains splooge out.
-
Originally posted by Charon
I don't know. Paul was the only true conservative in the race, at least if you like small government, and the rule of Constitutional law. Though, these concepts have fallen out of favor even among people who brand themselves as conservative Republicans and confuse the policies of, say GWB in any way shape of form with "conservative."
Most pseudo-conservatives today just want a big Republican government, slicing up the pork and power pie to more fill their pet issues than those of the other branded political party. Managed trade that only benefits the multinational corporate shareholders. No resistance to corporate subsidies OR domestic pork. A desire to use our superpower superpowers -- even if we aren't quite super enough to absorb the economic burden (hey worked for Rome!). A willingness to give up the protections of the 4th 5th 6th and 10th Amendments to "feel" safe. An interest in what people do in their bedroom and individual bodies at the federal level. A long list of New, or neo- conservative dogma that would shock a paleo-conservative from the 1950s.
I have a feeling that in the next few years we are all going to feel the hard impact of our bipartisan big bloated out of control both sides of the same coin government from the past 16 years. And it ain't going to be pretty. I hope it's not 1929 rough though. It will probably take that though to wake people up to the alternative.
Charon
There are a few things that he says that I would agree with, and the main reason Republicans lost power was their fiscal responsibility, not the war as liberals claim. However, I don't think there's anything going on now that hasn't before. Government has been far deeper in the corporate pocket than it is now. In the late 1800's Congress passed laws which allowed child labor and sweatshops, they were so deep in the corporate pockets at the time.
Constitutional issues have been common since the Constitution was first written. From the Supreme Court claiming the right to determine what's Constitutional to slavery to internment camps in WWII. We haven't executed anyone for spying since the Rosenbergs and extreme interpretation of "freedom of speech" runs roughshod over our ability to try someone for treason (think Jane Fonda on a NV AAA gun). If anything, we have more rights run amoke than ever before including abortion (still can't see that penumbra or emanation) and freedom of the press that allows them to print the highest government secrets with complete impunity, regardless of how it may hamper the war effort. For the first time in history we grant right to trial to illegal combatants.
IMHO, and with a few exceptions, we've expanded what constitutes a "right" to the point of insanity. We've turned freedom of religion to freedom from religion and we can't even figure out if we need two or five different bathrooms for all of our newly discovered types of sexuality.
I haven't heard Ron Paul say anything about curbing these excesses but I do know that he's accepted both money and endorsements from the KKK and the neo-Nazi's. He has yet to repudiate the support or return the funds. He is not a conservative, he is an extremist. Even that isn't the worst part. He's absolutely and totally committed to retreating from Iraq and declaring defeat. That I will never stomach and, even if I loved everything else about him he would never get my vote.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
As I said in one of the other threads:
We need a strong median third party to start smacking the heads of the Libs and Conservatives together either until they start seeing sense or their skulls crack open and their brains splooge out.
This is a two-party system, get used to it.
-
I don't recall any law on the books stating that there is has been always will be a two-party system in the US. The framework for the American government system didn't even establish PROVISIONS for a party system.
In fact, the only reason we HAVE a two-party system to begin with is because Jefferson and Adams didn't get along and it's all just snowballed from there. Washington specifically warned AGAINST a party system from the beginning, and it's damn well clear today WHY.
It's a part of our system of government out of TRADITION, and so entrenched that the Party Line sheeple are terrified of thinking of anything else.
And unfortunately, it's the Party Line that throws around the power.
-
I haven't heard Ron Paul say anything about curbing these excesses but I do know that he's accepted both money and endorsements from the KKK and the neo-Nazi's. He has yet to repudiate the support or return the funds. He is not a conservative, he is an extremist. Even that isn't the worst part. He's absolutely and totally committed to retreating from Iraq and declaring defeat. That I will never stomach and, even if I loved everything else about him he would never get my vote.
The first part, well, It's a matter of opinion whether or not those "excesses" are excesses or if the federal govt. should be playing much of a role in promoting social conservatism. I'm probably more libertarian in this area myself, you're not and there are a range of personal opinions to the extreme on both ends. That's what constitutional amendments are for, not legislating from the bench or taking on federal powers not proscribed by law at the legislative level.
Paul's position on his contributors is not politically correct. But, as odd as it is nobody that knows him or has worked with him in congress has any doubt that they do not represent his personal views. Even the folks over at Stormfront see Paul as not a true believer and a lesser of 3 evils at best. Paul's no Trent Lott or Robert Byrd.
As for retreating from Iraq. We are trying to solve a 4th Generation conflict with a 3rd generation war fighting model. We are hoping that the surge works, and that it is not just localized and that our enemies are not simply just pulling back and waiting us out. Hoping that this is as much of a military problem as it is an internal political problem set in motion by our eliminating the type of power that is ruthless enough to actually make an abortion like Iraq work in reality.
At some point we will have to leave (our continued presence only defeats our gains long term in 4th Generation warfare) and at that point we have to have achieved both a locally political and emotional/cultural victory or it's all for nothing. Perhaps Philip D. Zelikow (working for Rice) can help achieve this goal. There have been some recent shifts that show an appreciation for 4th Generation warfare that were absent since the beginning. If not, we are just wasting our time, money and blood. And we do not have an infinite supply of any of those. Without a surge of insight in the Pentagon and Washington, any troop surge is a short term band aid at best, IMO.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Saxman
I don't recall any law on the books stating that there is has been always will be a two-party system in the US. The framework for the American government system didn't even establish PROVISIONS for a party system.
In fact, the only reason we HAVE a two-party system to begin with is because Jefferson and Adams didn't get along and it's all just snowballed from there. Washington specifically warned AGAINST a party system from the beginning, and it's damn well clear today WHY.
It's a part of our system of government out of TRADITION, and so entrenched that the Party Line sheeple are terrified of thinking of anything else.
And unfortunately, it's the Party Line that throws around the power.
It's true that the founders didn't even provide for parties, actually had anticipated having none at all but this is an example of one of very few failures in their vision. The primary failure on their part being, of course, not eliminating slavery.
Political parties would have developed in any case as like minded people will congregate. In our case the spark was provided by Jefferson and Adams; however, it would have occured anyway. I would consider it a true statement that our two party system is based, to a degree, on tradition; however, the system has proven to be amazingly flexible with both parties absorbing ideas that come from third parties.
That said, historically, third parties are spoilers. While, over time, some ideas do become more mainstream but a third party will never succeed primarily due to the electoral college.
I understand the frustration that motivates the idea of third parties; however, additional parties are destabilizing and not in a good way. Look around at the multiple party governments (Italy comes immediately to mind)and there is a long standing tradition of instability and even more ineptness than in our system. Small fringe groups like the Greens for instance gain power far out of proportion to their constituancy because other parties must build a coalition in order to govern. Our system has shown far more stability and progress than any other and third parties have usually worked to the detrement of all. For instance, it is well known that Nadar's candidacy pulled votes from the party that was closest in ideology and the Democrats lost. Perot did the same thing to the Republicans.
In any case IMO there is no possibility or need for a third party. What really disturbs me the most though is the factionalizing. Consider this. Is the Libertarian Party closer to the Republican or Democrat party? I'd say the Republican as both are based on a conservative ideology. Now, say the country is 50/50 conservative and liberal (yes, an oversimplification but just for the sake of argument). A significant percentage of disaffected Republicans shift to the Libertarian party because Republicans are not conservative enough which then basically guarantees LIBERALs win. This is what happened in the last election. Disaffected Republicans, upset that the Republican party is not conservative enough either didn't vote or went Libertarian virtually guaranteeing Liberals a win. Where's the sense in that? It's little more than a five year old holding their breath. It's immature, destructive and just flat out foolish.
Overall, while the system isn't perfect it's work well. You want to become another Italy? Lets add a third party and while we're at it a fourth, fifth and sixth.
-
If voting didn't go predominantly down party lines this wouldn't even be an ISSUE because *gasp* people would actually THINK about what they're voting on, not just whether it's an elephant or an bellybutton they're holding up.
And with the way the parties now are being run how DARE one vote against the party? There's a massive stigma in the government about crossing party lines, which is a large part about why the Clinton impeachment went forward, until a few Republicans finally got fed up and said "This is bullchit."
If you go back through the voting record of Congress, a significant part of the voting, especially on contentious issues, is almost perfectly split directly down the party line, with only the occasional dissenter on either side. There IS no bipartisanship in the government. It's all of the Party, by the Party, for the Party.
This is why we NEED a strong median voice. Right now the extremist whack jobs on BOTH sides are in control, and NEITHER are in the best interest of this nation (all the complaining on these boards is about the far left, but the extreme right is JUST AS DANGEROUS).
A strong middle ground would more strongly foster compromise between the two ends, and help cut a LOT of the garbage going on in DC. And that's EXACTLY why the extremes don't want it. It's DANGEROUS to their position.
-
I believe that we are so far down the road at this point that the only option is to vote the lesser of two evils.. right now.. the great evil for personal liberty and individual freedom is the peoples democratic party.
It is a bleak future we face but there is no need to rush toward it.. I will drag my feet and do my best to see that they don't get in.
I hope that it is cyclical and that people will get fed up with the nanny state soon.. the less power they have when that happens the easier it will be to pry it from their greedy socialist hands... I do not want a bloody revolution.
lazs
-
there is no turning back from the nanny state, governments never give up power, they only take more. One inch at a time.
for your own good, of course.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
If voting didn't go predominantly down party lines this wouldn't even be an ISSUE because *gasp* people would actually THINK about what they're voting on, not just whether it's an elephant or an bellybutton they're holding up.
And with the way the parties now are being run how DARE one vote against the party? There's a massive stigma in the government about crossing party lines, which is a large part about why the Clinton impeachment went forward, until a few Republicans finally got fed up and said "This is bullchit."
If you go back through the voting record of Congress, a significant part of the voting, especially on contentious issues, is almost perfectly split directly down the party line, with only the occasional dissenter on either side. There IS no bipartisanship in the government. It's all of the Party, by the Party, for the Party.
This is why we NEED a strong median voice. Right now the extremist whack jobs on BOTH sides are in control, and NEITHER are in the best interest of this nation (all the complaining on these boards is about the far left, but the extreme right is JUST AS DANGEROUS).
A strong middle ground would more strongly foster compromise between the two ends, and help cut a LOT of the garbage going on in DC. And that's EXACTLY why the extremes don't want it. It's DANGEROUS to their position.
Jeeze you guys are grim.
I'll address it this way: politics are ALL about partisanship. Why do people think by-partisanship or unity is a good thing? Does it make you feel good or something? Reagan did not achieve success by playing nice with the other side, had he done so we would probably still be in the Cold War. Name someone who achieved anything by being "moderate" or a "centrist"....I'll answer that for you, there are none. Not to trivalize politics (or maybe, on second thought, it is really trivial) but pretend it's a football game. How does a team move the ball and score? Unity and by-partisanship with the other team? or unity within its own team?
How about this example, I have no idea what your point of view is on this but let's say you're strongly anti-abortion. Exactly how much compromise do you think would work for you on this issue? How much "compromise" would you accept? The parties provide a choice, either for or against abortion giving the people the opportunity to decide. Again, the main issue that divided Republicans in the last election wasn't that the party wasn't bi-partisan, it's that they weren't partisan enough in living up to conservative ideals. They began to act like Democrats.
Also, assuming there is a third party, what makes you think it would be "a strong median voice"? No third party yet has come close to being a median voice, these movements come from and are always farther out on the extreme, not the center. The viciously anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-abortion, Gia loving factions of the Democrat party are all extreme and have all pulled the Democrat party even further to the left. The same thing would happen to an even greater degree if they split to form a third party.
Obama is promising to be a "uniter, not a divider" and yet his strongest and most frequent criticism of other Democrats has been that they COOPERATED with the Republican's. So, Obama is saying what YOU want to hear (a non-partisan "uniter") but has no intention of following through....in other words he's a politician. That's the way things work.
Third-party retoric is nothing but feel good nonsense.
-
Partisanship is one thing, blind passion for an outfit is another.
-
democrats mean the we need to unite...
By "unite" they mean that they have a plan to force everyone to do it their way.
(for our own good of course)
lazs
-
Originally posted by moot
Partisanship is one thing, blind passion for an outfit is another.
And how exactly do you judge this? When someone agrees with you they are OK but when they disagree with you and agree with a particular party they are exhibiting "blind passion for an outfit"?
-
Irrationality is an almost omnipresent symptom of fanaticism. It's only rarely so well hidden that it's unnoticeable to others or even unknown to the fanatic himself.
You know what I'm saying. Sheeple who haven't done their homework but absolutely und unquestionably support a party, or any machine, without knowing or understanding the ideas at the root of the movement's purpose and intent. People who'll skip a beat or not know the lyrics to a song but get all red in the face reciting and singing it.
-
Originally posted by moot
Irrationality is an almost omnipresent symptom of fanaticism. It's only rarely so well hidden that it's unnoticeable to others or even unknown to the fanatic himself.
You know what I'm saying. Sheeple who haven't done their homework but absolutely und unquestionably support a party, or any machine, without knowing or understanding the ideas at the root of the movement's purpose and intent. People who'll skip a beat or not know the lyrics to a song but get all red in the face reciting and singing it.
I can buy that but don't forget that many of the same sheeple are third partyests. Those that unquestionably support the idea of "change" for changes sake, or who irrationally and shrilly scream that their "rights" are being compromised when nothing of the sort has occured. One of the most recent examples is Code Pink who, after the Berkley City Council talked about withdrawing their letter calling the Marines "uninvited" said: "I was under the impression that we have the right of free speech," said Xanne Joi of Code Pink. "To me, I thought free speech meant you get to say what you want without recrimination." So, her right to free speech was denied because someone (actually many) voiced opposing viewpoints. Hard to get worked up that freedom of speech has been compromised in the past 50 years, it's actually gotten quite out of control.
There are times to be concerned and then there are those that make a lifetime committment to being victims. This happens on both the right and left and is a favorite pastime of conspiracy theorists. Take a few disparate facts, throw in a ton of emotion, suspicion and insecurity and voila you've created an entire theology based on nothing. That's how you arrive at things like global warming or a North American Nation.
-
Yep. I never thought or implied that it's exclusive to any party, in fact I was saying it's a pitfall of any party.
I think it's more widespread than a few fringe crackpots, it's apparent in a large portion of the population, IMO. People will commit to some guy or outfit absolutely but ommit accounting for how much they don't know about the machine, or leading people, or ideals.
And that's almost always how it goes anyway. Some very noble values lead to certain ideals. Ideals spur on a few individuals to be all but said ideal incarnate, which soon enough drags all sorts of inspired people and organisations in their wake, and eventualy the original values and ideals are corrupted by the machine, straight to hell in a handbasket. :)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The prosperity of the Clinton era was inherited by Clinton from the Reagan era, and furthered by a Republican Congress. And I have actually been far better off under Bush, as I own my own business now, live more comfortably, and am doing better every day. Nice try, but wrong again. Having known you from the boards for years, Arlo, you'd argue with a gate post, just for the sake of arguing, I guess because you don't have anything better to do. I have better things to do, so argue with a gate post and have fun. No hard feelings.
None were ever present. But the state of the union does involve more than just you or me, personally. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I fail to see how I said anything that was not true.. JFK would be considered a "neocon" by todays standards.. he was for strong defense and projecting Americas power even by regime changes.. covert regime changes were perfectly alright by him.
I don't think he would have advocated schooling illegals or that government documents were available in spanish or licenses for illegals. He believed in personal responsibility.
I don't think saying osamabama is left of stalin is too far off. I fail to see any vote that osamabama made that stalin .. or any commie...would not have made the same choice. JFK was more conservative than most of the republicans running today... peace core or no... and osamabama is no less a commie than the commies of JFK's time.
There has simply been a shift to the left in America. It always happens as population in cities grows and people become more dependent and.. less able to accept personal responsibility and.. it is a normal stage of govenment and it's growth and decay.
lazs
That's certainly an opinion. Seems as well thought out as anyone with an extreme right agenda could muster. From that perspective everything "shifted" left. :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
He's Robin Hood. Only the rich he's promising to steal from will actually be the working class.
That's not even close to what you claimed, firstly. And it's theoretical opinion, secondly. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
england is decaying at a rapid rate.
You base your theory on Great Britain's "decay" on what? A feeling? Go exchange your USD for pounds stirling. Afterall, the economic standard is all that counts. Ask China. ;)
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Actually ~ it is a given. "hope" is wishful thinking without any action behind it. Hope is for the limp wristed big-mouths who don't intend on ever making the actual "change" part happen.
I don't see a problem with "change" though. If things are good, it's a wasted effort... but if things are crappy, "change" is good. :)
Hope is potential. Change is realization. Neither are bad and it seems a poor reason for critisism. A desperate one, even. :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
Hitler said he would change Germany, and he did.
Nixon said he wasn't a crook and he was. *ShruG*
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I believe that we are so far down the road at this point that the only option is to vote the lesser of two evils..
And that's the ... belief ... that's part of the problem ... not the solution.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hope is potential. Change is realization. Neither are bad and it seems a poor reason for critisism. A desperate one, even. :)
There is nothing desperate about the truth except for those who are opposed to it.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
There is nothing desperate about the truthiness except for those who are opposed to it.
"Truth" sure seems a subjective thing regarding political mud. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Nixon said he wasn't a crook and he was. *ShruG*
your lack of historical knowledge and personal bias is amazing.
-
Originally posted by john9001
your lack of historical knowledge and personal bias is amazing.
You typed that "outloud" ... in public .. and even seemed to address it to me. But good for you. ;)
-
yes arlo, it was addressed to you.
-
Originally posted by john9001
yes arlo, it was addressed to you.
Remember the irony that seems to best describe your opinion? If not, here's your reminder. ;)
-
arlo speaks words that have no meaning.
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo speaks words that have no meaning.
john can't even understand them when the short ones are used. :D
-
"hope" and "courage"..
the serial killer hopes that his next victim will be easy to find and he "hopes" that he will get away but he has the "courage" to do it anyway.
To have a speech with nothing more substantial than we need hope and courage is meaningless or.. in osamabamas case.. judging by his record... Hope for him is that he "hopes" that he can further a socialist agenda.
I think that it will be interesting when people start asking him what the hell he means when he uses such words. Next will come.. How will he pay for it.
Last I heard.. he doesn't have any money... or not enough for us.. He has to take the money from each and every one of us who works for a living or has an income... he will give it to someone who has not earned it.
lazs
-
Hillary accepted over $700,000 from pharmacutical lobbiests after her failed attempt at socializing medicine...She has zero integrity.
If Obama tries too,it will be the same result & with probably a bigger payout.
-
See Rules #10, #14
-
I'm new to this, is this worthy of an IN?
-
lol
I'll keep my Freedom, my Guns, and my Money...... you can keep the change <<<<< bumper sticker on my truck
-
I'm new to this, is this worthy of an IN?
INdubitably
wrongway
-
INdubitably
wrongway
INsatiably
-
(http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/304/6/c/6ceb480d3dd5234206582cfe9c1f69b6-d31vkam.jpg)