PDA

View Full Version : Truth about Obama


BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-17-2008, 08:18 PM
Some have seen videos, others talk radio...vote with the knowledge you know and research. not what others say....

obama isn't a muslim... his dad was an atheist...obama is a christian...... he wears the flag pin sometimes and other times he doesn't.... john mccain wears it sometimes and sometimes he doesn't... why don't we question him?..... obama attended a christian school when he was a child... not a muslim school. I think it is sad that republicans can't win on the issues ... so they have to invent absolute falsehoods in order to attack a man. Nothing in that video was true...nothing.... not even the hand on the heart while the national anthem played.. As any American would know. It is not customary to put your hand on your heart during the national antem.... you could do it.. but it is also customary to fold you hand in front of you... only during the pledge of allegence is it customary to put your hand on your heart. Worryin about flag pins...religion, and other non issue things such as this has gotton us into a war that we didn't have to fight.... a broken ecomony... and disaster in New Orleans... and the list goes on and on.... I'm so tired of people misleading others... and then we get people who can't do the job. McCain is a true American Hero... no doubt........... i'm sure he would be an effective prez..... but he will be in his mid 70's.... and he has a95% voting record with bush... and i can't have another bush like term.... things are too bad.... I hope people don't just watch this without researching the fact and learn the truth. Rush Limbaugh has been saying for weeks that obama's wife said "Whitey" in some speech...and that there was a tape of it... turns out it was made up..there is no tape... and it was never said..... people can say anything.... doesn't make it true....

GBMelBlount
06-17-2008, 08:22 PM
What EXACTLY are the reasons you will be voting for Obama? What issues are most important to you and what exactly are Obama's positions/solutions on these issues that you agree with?

HometownGal
06-17-2008, 08:34 PM
Some have seen videos, others talk radio...vote with the knowledge you know and research. not what others say....

obama isn't a muslim... his dad was an atheist...obama is a christian...... he wears the flag pin sometimes and other times he doesn't.... john mccain wears it sometimes and sometimes he doesn't... why don't we question him?..... obama attended a christian school when he was a child... not a muslim school. I think it is sad that republicans can't win on the issues ... so they have to invent absolute falsehoods in order to attack a man. Nothing in that video was true...nothing.... not even the hand on the heart while the national anthem played.. As any American would know. It is not customary to put your hand on your heart during the national antem.... you could do it.. but it is also customary to fold you hand in front of you... only during the pledge of allegence is it customary to put your hand on your heart. Worryin about flag pins...religion, and other non issue things such as this has gotton us into a war that we didn't have to fight.... a broken ecomony... and disaster in New Orleans... and the list goes on and on.... I'm so tired of people misleading others... and then we get people who can't do the job. McCain is a true American Hero... no doubt........... i'm sure he would be an effective prez..... but he will be in his mid 70's.... and he has a95% voting record with bush... and i can't have another bush like term.... things are too bad.... I hope people don't just watch this without researching the fact and learn the truth. Rush Limbaugh has been saying for weeks that obama's wife said "Whitey" in some speech...and that there was a tape of it... turns out it was made up..there is no tape... and it was never said..... people can say anything.... doesn't make it true....

If you feel it is justified to negatively affiliate McCain's voting record with that of GWB, I think it is more than justified to negatively affiliate Obama's morals, ethics and ideals to those of the Rev. Wright.

Ronald Reagan was a month shy of 71 years of age when he took office and held office for 2 terms, yet is regarded by many as one of the greatest Presidents of all time. Personally, I'd rather support an older, wiser and more experienced candidate than a candidate who has barely scratched the surface.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-17-2008, 08:51 PM
What EXACTLY are the reasons you will be voting for Obama? I mean what is it about Obama - his track record, experience, and positions that you agree with?

here a the issues i agree with...you may not...

Health Care..... We have a totally broken system... we need universal health care just like every other civilized government... it is ashame someone could get into a car accident on the way to work... and yet still have to go to work.... yes this is an exaggeration.. but true at the same time... I like that he does not mandate universal health care... but makes it a choice.... it is the same health care that senators and congressman have.... why not us?..... they aren't willing to give it up and have the insurance plans we do.... cause they aren't dumb...

Abortion.... I am a man..so this issue doen't affect me... however i don't think the government should tell a woman what to do with their body.... and lets be honest... if some fat cat senator little girl got pregnant and it was illegal here...they can afford to take their kid to another country and get the abortion if they wanted.. we don't have the money to do that... I do however think that late term abortions are wrong... and so does obama.

Taxes... Why is it that the 1% of americans who have more than over 90% of the rest of use pay less percentage in taxes... one of the architects of the bush tax cut has recently addmited that it doesn't work and that the clinton version of taxation does... Ben Stine... was on CNN the other day and was advocating raisning Taxes on the rich because there is no other way to pay down the debt and therefore help the falling dollar... and if the dollare is stronger.. it offsets how much.. food...gas and everything else is here...

Education.... No Child Left Behind is a sad mistake... 100% (all students) must pass the test by 2014... come on... that is statistically impossible.... you can't have 100% of anything... it sounds good.. and is well intentioned.. but really.... Not teaching science or History.... becuase it isn't tested... kids not even getting recess... at all... I agree with alot of NCLB... but Obama wants to make the goals more realistic... McCain... who i really do like... wants to keep it the same or basically the same...

The War... I was against the war from day one... I read and researched... and never say a reason to go to Iraq. They didn't attack us.. had no weapons to threaten us.. and had nothing to do with 9/11.... I really don't think Obama is going to get us totally out right away... i don't think anyone could.... but i think McCain is on the same page as bush and wants to spend billions...hundreds of billions on their schools... bridges... and hospitals...for what seems like forever.. even McCain said decades... if not 50 or 100 years.... which is ridiculious..... we can't afford it.... we have record gas prices... and everything is more expensive.... and the dollar is worth less than the euro... and it is tired to the record amount of money we are spending in iraq. THis war has gon on longer than WW1 or 2... We need to leave.!!

Environment.... although McCain at least addits that climate change is real... he sticks to the same old drill for more oil montra... if we drilled alaska...and off our cost.. it would take around 15 years to get everything set up.... and get the oil... and it would bring the price of oil down only a few cents.... we need immediate solutions.... and new technologies... and renewable energies...

Religion.... I like him because he has been exposed to many religions and cultures..yet he chooses to be a christian.. and love America... he wouldn't be where he is if it wasn't for his faith and his country.... and he always say that he knows this...

Veterans... he wants real health care..and real bennefits for the veterans... not this government hypocracy....

there are more issues and reason... but...

I think what is best is to go to http://www.barackobama.com and actually read his stand on the issues and make up your own mind..... but watching propoganda videos that have no truth... isn't the way.... you are just voting against yourself if you vote repubican this time around... go to the website.. read his background and his stand on the issues.. and if u still want to vote McCain.... that's great... just voting is truely an american act.... but passing on lies and confussin the issue... isn't the way....

SteelersMongol
06-17-2008, 08:53 PM
What EXACTLY are the reasons you will be voting for Obama? What issues are most important to you and what exactly are Obama's positions/solutions on these issues that you agree with?

May be because Obama is a Steelers' fan?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-17-2008, 08:57 PM
If you feel it is justified to negatively affiliate McCain's voting record with that of GWB, I think it is more than justified to negatively affiliate Obama's morals, ethics and ideals to those of the Rev. Wright.

Ronald Reagan was a month shy of 71 years of age when he took office and held office for 2 terms, yet is regarded by many as one of the greatest Presidents of all time. Personally, I'd rather support an older, wiser and more experienced candidate than a candidate who has barely scratched the surface.

the thing is that there is facts to support that McCain has a 95% voting record that agrees with bush.... obama has not run a campain that in anyway has used the race card..or shown any way that he agrees with wright.. and he has broken ties with the man.... what more can he do..... McCain will be 72 if he wins.... and 76 at the end of the first term.... look how much bush and clinton aged during there time in office.... what will happen to McCain.... we need change and a new way of thinking.. and a new leader.. not a guy who has 100's of millions of dollars...and has been in DC for decades.... again... if you like McCAin vote for him... he's a good guy.. i like him... but i feel he is too much like bush on the war and ecomony ..(2 major blunders under bush) and he is too old... my opinion... sorry... i respect yours...

Preacher
06-17-2008, 09:18 PM
Some have seen videos, others talk radio...vote with the knowledge you know and research. not what others say....

obama isn't a muslim... his dad was an atheist...obama is a christian...... he wears the flag pin sometimes and other times he doesn't.... john mccain wears it sometimes and sometimes he doesn't... why don't we question him?..... obama attended a christian school when he was a child... not a muslim school. I think it is sad that republicans can't win on the issues ... so they have to invent absolute falsehoods in order to attack a man. Nothing in that video was true...nothing.... not even the hand on the heart while the national anthem played.. As any American would know. It is not customary to put your hand on your heart during the national antem.... you could do it.. but it is also customary to fold you hand in front of you... only during the pledge of allegence is it customary to put your hand on your heart. Worryin about flag pins...religion, and other non issue things such as this has gotton us into a war that we didn't have to fight.... a broken ecomony... and disaster in New Orleans... and the list goes on and on.... I'm so tired of people misleading others... and then we get people who can't do the job. McCain is a true American Hero... no doubt........... i'm sure he would be an effective prez..... but he will be in his mid 70's.... and he has a95% voting record with bush... and i can't have another bush like term.... things are too bad.... I hope people don't just watch this without researching the fact and learn the truth. Rush Limbaugh has been saying for weeks that obama's wife said "Whitey" in some speech...and that there was a tape of it... turns out it was made up..there is no tape... and it was never said..... people can say anything.... doesn't make it true....

Interestingly you say that Republicans can't win on issues, so they invent falsehoods. Then you go on to list falsehoods, such as worrying about flagpins and religion got us into a war. Falsehood. Saying with absolute fact that it was a war we didn't have to fight is a falsehood. Do you know? Were you there at all the briefings? Do you know what would have happened if we didn't go to war?

You talk about a "Broken Economy" yet it is far from broken. Broken is an economy out of control. Please see the Wiemar republic for a broken economy. We are not even in a recession yet (2 quarters of negative growth), so that is a falsehood. It is a weak economy. An anemic economy. it is not broken.

Then you state the disaster in New Orleans, completely forgetting that there is a federal law PROHIBITING the fed. govt. from stepping in until the state governor OFFICIALLY asks for help... unless the president declares the state in rebellion (please see the civil rights and use of national guards). By only discussing the presidency, you, by association lay the disaster of New Orleans at the foot of the president, when the state and local govt. screwed up AT LEAST just as much. So again, Falsehood.

Then, you finish with this, "I'm so tired of people misleading others." That was just after you did so many times in this very post.

What is my point?

It is that in truth, you probably didn't try to mislead anyone. Instead, you are speaking the misleadings of your party.

Do you condemn Michael Moore for all of his work?

Do you condemn John Kerry for misleading America about Bush missing Osama at Tora Bora to place troops in iraq? (Tora Bora happened in late 2001, the first time Iraq was MENTIONED was in Jan. of 2002, and then, it went through the UN. THus, it was MONTHS after ToraBora. Oh yeah, and don't forget, General Franks was the decision maker on troops on the ground. Furthermore, he recognized his error, and STARTED putting American troops at the front of these battles after Tora Bora. So do you condemn Kerry for misleading America in an election cycle?

Do you condemn the Democrats in the 199(4?) cycle for telling constituents that republicans want to starve little children?


It is time to take the democrat rose-colored glasses off. Dems play a very nasty game. Republicans play a very nasty game. They both lie to get one thing.... power.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-17-2008, 09:40 PM
Interestingly you say that Republicans can't win on issues, so they invent falsehoods. Then you go on to list falsehoods, such as worrying about flagpins and religion got us into a war. Falsehood. Saying with absolute fact that it was a war we didn't have to fight is a falsehood. Do you know? Were you there at all the briefings? Do you know what would have happened if we didn't go to war?

You talk about a "Broken Economy" yet it is far from broken. Broken is an economy out of control. Please see the Wiemar republic for a broken economy. We are not even in a recession yet (2 quarters of negative growth), so that is a falsehood. It is a weak economy. An anemic economy. it is not broken.

Then you state the disaster in New Orleans, completely forgetting that there is a federal law PROHIBITING the fed. govt. from stepping in until the state governor OFFICIALLY asks for help... unless the president declares the state in rebellion (please see the civil rights and use of national guards). By only discussing the presidency, you, by association lay the disaster of New Orleans at the foot of the president, when the state and local govt. screwed up AT LEAST just as much. So again, Falsehood.

Then, you finish with this, "I'm so tired of people misleading others." That was just after you did so many times in this very post.

What is my point?

It is that in truth, you probably didn't try to mislead anyone. Instead, you are speaking the misleadings of your party.

Do you condemn Michael Moore for all of his work?

Do you condemn John Kerry for misleading America about Bush missing Osama at Tora Bora to place troops in iraq? (Tora Bora happened in late 2001, the first time Iraq was MENTIONED was in Jan. of 2002, and then, it went through the UN. THus, it was MONTHS after ToraBora. Oh yeah, and don't forget, General Franks was the decision maker on troops on the ground. Furthermore, he recognized his error, and STARTED putting American troops at the front of these battles after Tora Bora. So do you condemn Kerry for misleading America in an election cycle?

Do you condemn the Democrats in the 199(4?) cycle for telling constituents that republicans want to starve little children?


It is time to take the democrat rose-colored glasses off. Dems play a very nasty game. Republicans play a very nasty game. They both lie to get one thing.... power.

Democrats are no angles...... I'm an independant thinker.... and bush needed a DVD made of news coverage cause he wasn't sure what was goin on in new orleans.... and ya..i think most people KNOW that the war was a mistake... that is why like 13 different bush poeple have written books basically saying so. Hey did you know Dick Cheney gets a paycheck from the oil companies.... and that he a had secret meeting that he refuses to let people know what was said with the oil compainies that pay him when he first got in office... Funny how the VP gets more money the more gas goes up....hmmmm... look vote for the republicans if you want.... it's obviously worked for us the last 8 years.... my vote will undo yours.....lol.... and i think more people will vote democrate this time... not oly for prez... but the house and senate.... and if the dems screw up as bad as bush...i;ll vote for the republican next time... unlike you i love america...not a party!!

Preacher
06-17-2008, 09:49 PM
unlike you i love america...not a party!!

Interesting.

I was going to comment on the rest of your post... until I saw this.

Now, let me go back to what I said...

It is time to take the democrat rose-colored glasses off. Dems play a very nasty game. Republicans play a very nasty game. They both lie to get one thing.... power.

yet you have to personally attack my patriotism, after just posting this statement,

so they have to invent absolute falsehoods in order to attack a man

You have just shown yourself to be a hypocrite.

SteelCityMan786
06-17-2008, 09:57 PM
If you feel it is justified to negatively affiliate McCain's voting record with that of GWB, I think it is more than justified to negatively affiliate Obama's morals, ethics and ideals to those of the Rev. Wright.

Ronald Reagan was a month shy of 71 years of age when he took office and held office for 2 terms, yet is regarded by many as one of the greatest Presidents of all time. Personally, I'd rather support an older, wiser and more experienced candidate than a candidate who has barely scratched the surface.

Amen to that HTG.

In case people(THIS INCLUDES SEN. OBAMA) have forgotten, the more he calls McCain a 3rd term Bush, we will continue to associate him with Rev. Wright.

Right now I'd much rather have someone with McCain's experience ESPECIALLY IN A WAR TIME ERA and one who has actually seen America succeed and knows that it can rise again. Also McCain is one of the few Congressmen/Senators who actually vote in a "Bi-Partisan" manner. He does not always vote with his fellow Republicans, he does side with Democrats to. Right now considering the shape of our country, WE NEED A MODERATE MIND who knows what the hell he is doing and can move America in the right direction.

If Democrats wanted someone that was so badly experienced, they would have had Bill Richardson as their candidate. Obama will have his time in the spot light as president one day, but now we need a guy who can lead a country in a time that we are in and actually knows what it's like to have to experience a war and knows that costs and tragedy and what it takes to finish it off.

tony hipchest
06-17-2008, 10:41 PM
If Democrats wanted someone that was so badly experienced, they would have had Bill Richardson as their candidate.

:wtf: :confused:

wait...


here it comes....






seriously, it is coming....


almost there......




:rofl:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-17-2008, 10:46 PM
Obama is a steelers Fan!!!

Preacher
06-17-2008, 11:00 PM
:wtf: :confused:

wait...


here it comes....






seriously, it is coming....


almost there......




:rofl:

I gotta admit...

Richardson would have been one that I while I couldn't vote for him (abortion issue for me), I would have probably felt pretty good going to bed at night with him as president otherwise.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-17-2008, 11:16 PM
The war time era must end...... The war in iraq is useless and we need a president who is willing to take us out of a giant misteak..... Not one who believe we should be there another 10 years.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-17-2008, 11:16 PM
I gotta admit...

Richardson would have been one that I while I couldn't vote for him (abortion issue for me), I would have probably felt pretty good going to bed at night with him as president otherwise.

Do you feel good going to bed at night with Bush as our president?

Preacher
06-18-2008, 01:16 AM
Do you feel good going to bed at night with Bush as our president?

I feel better now with Bush than I am sure I would have with Gore or Kerry.

However, give me the days of Truman, Reagan, FDR, or TR.

See... What I dislike the most is the fact that the parties have become way to polarized. Back in the day, JFK ran to the right of Nixon on a number of issues, and Nixon ran to the right of JFK on some issues. The key was who repped the most issues that you agreed with.

Now... the other party is hate-mongering, lying, self-aggrandizing idiots...

There simply is no civility left in politics.

And yes, I blame both parties for that as well.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-18-2008, 08:32 AM
I feel better now with Bush than I am sure I would have with Gore or Kerry.

However, give me the days of Truman, Reagan, FDR, or TR.

See... What I dislike the most is the fact that the parties have become way to polarized. Back in the day, JFK ran to the right of Nixon on a number of issues, and Nixon ran to the right of JFK on some issues. The key was who repped the most issues that you agreed with.

Now... the other party is hate-mongering, lying, self-aggrandizing idiots...

There simply is no civility left in politics.

And yes, I blame both parties for that as well.


I agree with EVERYTHING you just said....excellent post. The closer that we get to this election... the more polarized the parties will get.... I can already hear it..."The world will end if you vote Republican/Democrat"

Jeremy
06-18-2008, 08:40 AM
This election is the final proof that the two party system simply doesn't work. We're being offered a choice between two mediocre at best candidates.

Obama is a political infant who has Marxist leanings.

McCain is a professional politician who deflects character questions with constant reminders of his time as a POW.

Obama supports many of the same policies that failed under Carter.

McCain supports the failed Presidency of George Bush.

Obama has been seen on countless videos stumbling his way through questions.

McCain can be seen and heard flip flopping on issues, sometimes on consecutive days.

Bottom line is that whoever is elected President will be a transitional President at best. I worry for the future of America with either of these candidates. There's not a decent choice to be had for America.

X-Terminator
06-18-2008, 08:44 AM
Obama is a steelers Fan!!!

Which, of course, means absolutely nothing.

I feel better now with Bush than I am sure I would have with Gore or Kerry.

However, give me the days of Truman, Reagan, FDR, or TR.

See... What I dislike the most is the fact that the parties have become way to polarized. Back in the day, JFK ran to the right of Nixon on a number of issues, and Nixon ran to the right of JFK on some issues. The key was who repped the most issues that you agreed with.

Now... the other party is hate-mongering, lying, self-aggrandizing idiots...

There simply is no civility left in politics.

And yes, I blame both parties for that as well.

Excellent post. Pretty much sums up why I'm pretty apathetic right now. Nobody cares about issues anymore, it's who makes the best speeches, who promises the most (that they will later renege on), catchy ads and scare/hate mongering. I don't see it changing any time soon either, not with the media so into "shock journalism" and promotion of their own agendas that creates the current political climate.

GBMelBlount
06-18-2008, 09:02 AM
Health Care..... We have a totally broken system... we need universal health care just like every other civilized government.

Really? You want 1/7th of our economy completely run and controlled by the government? The private sector is almost always more efficient (less costly) than the government and usually provides a much better product or service. The knee jerk compassionate solution isn’t necessarily the right one.

Taxes... Why is it that the 1% of americans who have more than over 90% of the rest of use pay less percentage in taxes.

What’s great about this company BBFW is if you don’t like your situation, rather than complain that the wealthy are just greedy, unethical cheats, you can do something about it… I wouldn’t be surprised if the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes so what you said is completely untrue. And if Obama is president, mark my words, your taxes will go way up. Although they always run on “middle class tax cut” platform, when was the last time a democrat really cut taxes on the middle class? Bush did.

I’m going to ask you flat out BBFW. Are you a big fan of socialism and communism? I’m being serious here. You talk about little more than class envy and government solutions.

And as far as the "global warming" scheme, it is primarily junk science imo. Shame on McCain for pandering to the liberal media, ignorant public, and people like Gore and scientists with an agenda. I have heard more money is spent on the global warming scam than on cancer cures…

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-18-2008, 09:17 AM
Democrats are no angles...... I'm an independant thinker.... and bush needed a DVD made of news coverage cause he wasn't sure what was goin on in new orleans.... and ya..i think most people KNOW that the war was a mistake... that is why like 13 different bush poeple have written books basically saying so. Hey did you know Dick Cheney gets a paycheck from the oil companies.... and that he a had secret meeting that he refuses to let people know what was said with the oil compainies that pay him when he first got in office... Funny how the VP gets more money the more gas goes up....hmmmm... look vote for the republicans if you want.... it's obviously worked for us the last 8 years.... my vote will undo yours.....lol.... and i think more people will vote democrate this time... not oly for prez... but the house and senate.... and if the dems screw up as bad as bush...i;ll vote for the republican next time... unlike you i love america...not a party!!

One of the most ill-informed...condecending...posts I have read in a while...Hats off!:hatsoff:

millwalldavey
06-18-2008, 09:36 AM
Politics. It's such a joke anymore it makes me sick. We claim to have chocies in the matter when it comes to electing the people who represent us in this country but that is simply a lie.

We claim to not have a "two-party system" be in effect we do. Each year we fight over the "Democrat" or the "Republican". These are simply the only people out there with the $$$ to make themselves known in the media. People laugh about the viability of third and fourth parties, which only shows the ignorance of our society.

The people who have the power know that the average american knows little about politics other than the blurbs on the news. They simply do not have the time to study these important things while they are holding down jobs in order to pay for health care food and lately petroleum. It is unfortunate that people have too much to worry about in their daily lives and do not have the opportunity to research viable political candidates out there from everyone running to see how would be a better fit for thier concience. Unfortunately, the nightly news does not have people from the green, libertarian, etc. parties on EVERY NIGHT to express their views.

So, pick the Democan or the Republicrat. They are all at their root the same... they are just really good at picking the right issues to champion (and especially non-issues) to keep us divided and fighting.

Yankees or Red Sox anyone?

We need a serious Civics lesson for everyone in this country.

GBMelBlount
06-18-2008, 09:49 AM
So, pick the Democan or the Republicrat. They are all at their root the same... they are just really good at picking the right issues to champion (and especially non-issues) to keep us divided and fighting.

In theory and ideologies, they are often not the same. They want the same result but often preach two different ways of getting there. However, in execution, they often are the same, unfortunately.

X-Terminator
06-18-2008, 10:03 AM
In theory and ideologies, they are often not the same. They want the same result but often preach two different ways of getting there. However, in execution, they often are the same, unfortunately.

A prime example of this is the ridiculous increase in overall government spending under Bush, when he's supposed to be a conservative who champions smaller government. I don't really see much changing if McCain gets elected and certainly not if Obama gets elected.

Dino 6 Rings
06-18-2008, 10:18 AM
For the Record, Rush Limbaugh has not been saying there is a "whitey" tape out there and in fact refused to talk about it until his name was brought up by the Obama campaign. Rush has been laughing his arse off the entire time giving Obama a hard time by having Republicans vote for HIllary to drag out the Dem Process.

Obama's father was a Muslim and Obama did in fact attend muslims schools while indonesia. That's fact. He may now be a Christian, but he also can recite the Koran in Arabic and that's from his own Biography.

revefsreleets
06-18-2008, 10:19 AM
A prime example of this is the ridiculous increase in overall government spending under Bush, when he's supposed to be a conservative who champions smaller government. I don't really see much changing if McCain gets elected and certainly not if Obama gets elected.

Really? McCain has ALWAYS been a big proponent of cutting down on waste, getting rid of earmarks, etc, etc. I think he'd do a fine job of reeling in runaway government spending.

Obama? Eh, not so much...

X-Terminator
06-18-2008, 10:20 AM
Really? McCain has ALWAYS been a big proponent of cutting down on waste, getting rid of earmarks, etc, etc. I think he'd do a fine job of reeling in runaway government spending.

Obama? Eh, not so much...

It's a case of "I'll believe it when I see it" when it comes to McCain.

Dino 6 Rings
06-18-2008, 10:22 AM
It doesn't matter to me, cause he's a socialist and I refuse to vote for anyone with a socialist agenda, I don't care if they worship the TellaTubbies, if they want to increase taxes and "redistribute" wealth, I'm against them. If they want to control my freedom of speech, control my guns, take away religion while I "cling to it" then I am against them. So I don't care. But why deny it so harshly unless you believe it will hurt your campaign?

He is not change, he is a typical politician who joined a major Church in the Chicago area just to make contacts, become part of the community that he would need to back him for election into the Senate. Regardless of the hateful speeches the preacher may have been giving, it was the means to an end for Obama. And that is not Hope, that is not Change, that is Politics as usual. Look closely at every single person he is putting on his "team" are they new faces? Or are they the same Dems we've been seeing for years. Kerry, Gore, Dodd, Kennedy, these guys are new and don't represent Change.

At least McCain pisssses off everyone equally. Right and Left. He's a real Moderate, and if you want real Change, McCain is all about changing things, he scares more Republicans in power than Dems because they know, you can't push around McCain.

Jeremy
06-18-2008, 10:28 AM
It's a case of "I'll believe it when I see it" when it comes to McCain.

McCain has always been a maverick who's gone against the Republicans when it suited his political needs. McCain-Feingold was a huge slap in the face to the Republicans. McCain was also a key member of the Gang of 12.

You can also look at his rating from the NRA. In 2004 he was given a C rating. The Gun Owners of America gave him a D- for 2000 through 2006.

The fact is he's a chameleon. He blends in to whatever positions seem politically expedient at the time. If the culture in Washington is favoring big government in the next 4 years, he's be out in front leading that parade.

Dino 6 Rings
06-18-2008, 10:32 AM
McCain has always been a maverick who's gone against the Republicans when it suited his political needs. McCain-Feingold was a huge slap in the face to the Republicans. McCain was also a key member of the Gang of 12.

You can also look at his rating from the NRA. In 2004 he was given a C rating. The Gun Owners of America gave him a D- for 2000 through 2006.

The fact is he's a chameleon. He blends in to whatever positions seem politically expedient at the time. If the culture in Washington is favoring big government in the next 4 years, he's be out in front leading that parade.

That's kind of true, but I think a lot of his thinking has more to do with his gut feelings than the feelings of other people. He'll take a stance because its what he believes, right or wrong. He was out against the way the Iraq war was being fought from day one and would have 500,000 troops on the ground day one and prevented the insurgency from ever having taken place. At least, that's how he feels about it.

Bob Barr looks like a legit third option, and if ever there was a year for a 3rd party to make a serious run, this would be it. A Moderate vs a Socialist. Sigh...I guess as long as we have football for the next 4 years, I'll survive.

millwalldavey
06-18-2008, 10:49 AM
I'll likely vote for Barr as I usually vote libertarian.

As for Obama having Muslim roots... who cares. I don't see how that makes him less able to run a country (anymore than he prolly already is).

Whenever you hear about McCain its never about his political record... he seems to have made a political career out of being a POW. Every commercial I see, thats all you hear about.

revefsreleets
06-18-2008, 11:26 AM
Jeremy has a personal vendetta against McCain for some reason. Calling McCain out for being a Chameleon is like calling all Chameleons out for being Chameleons, or singling out OSU out of all the 120 1-A football programs for scheduling early season cupcakes. It's ridiculous because in both cases, they literally ALL DO IT. It's impossible to be an elected official here, or anywhere else for that matter, without a little kowtowing or pandering.

As for the whole POW thing, it's not so much that he was a POW as it was that he refused to break, and he could have cut a deal and been exchanged, but he refused to do so unless every man captured before him was also released. His dad was an admiral and had a ton of pull, but McCain refused to use that to his advantage.

With Clinton evading and GW hiding out in the Texas Air National Guard, it's refreshing to see someone not only actually serve, but serve with distinction and honor and refuse to let connections be any advantage.

Dino 6 Rings
06-18-2008, 11:37 AM
I tend to agree with you Revs...McCain has at least a history to look into. Obama is an enigma, almost a ghost and whenever anyone looks at his background, or questions anything about his associates or past dealings, they are branded racists or right wing radicals. I would like to know a little bit about his family, his history, before he gets the keys to the button.

Its not American Idle. Its President of the United States, I think some people forget how important a position it really is.

Jeremy
06-18-2008, 12:41 PM
Jeremy has a personal vendetta against McCain for some reason. Calling McCain out for being a Chameleon is like calling all Chameleons out for being Chameleons, or singling out OSU out of all the 120 1-A football programs for scheduling early season cupcakes. It's ridiculous because in both cases, they literally ALL DO IT. It's impossible to be an elected official here, or anywhere else for that matter, without a little kowtowing or pandering.

As for the whole POW thing, it's not so much that he was a POW as it was that he refused to break, and he could have cut a deal and been exchanged, but he refused to do so unless every man captured before him was also released. His dad was an admiral and had a ton of pull, but McCain refused to use that to his advantage.

With Clinton evading and GW hiding out in the Texas Air National Guard, it's refreshing to see someone not only actually serve, but serve with distinction and honor and refuse to let connections be any advantage.

You'd know about vendettas revs.

Dino 6 Rings
06-18-2008, 12:44 PM
I kind of have a vandetta against McCain as well for his support of the KLA during the conflict in Yugoslavia. Not a fan of the KLA myself.

GBMelBlount
06-18-2008, 12:49 PM
It's ridiculous because in both cases, they literally ALL DO IT

I do think McCain is doing some posturing but I tend to agree this is far more the rule than the exception.

Dino 6 Rings
06-18-2008, 12:51 PM
But then again, "Change we can believe in"

right...

"Muslims barred from picture at Obama event"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.html

why? will white racist voters be turned off by a gal in a headscarf?

My grandmother used to wear a headscarf, of coarse she was a gypsie not a muslim, but I wonder if she'd have been barred from appearing over Obama's shoulder.

Big sigh....Politics as usual.

revefsreleets
06-19-2008, 09:33 AM
You'd know about vendettas revs.

Being the victim of yours has made me a bit of a pro, yes...

But this is just SOP for you. Since you can't win the argument, divert and deflect and attack the arguer. Tedious...

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 09:57 AM
Being the victim of yours has made me a bit of a pro, yes...

But this is just SOP for you. Since you can't win the argument, divert and deflect and attack the arguer. Tedious...

Pot and kettle.

revefsreleets
06-19-2008, 09:59 AM
Way to make your case.

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 09:59 AM
Way to make your case.

Frankly I don't give a damn what an you have to say about me or anything else.

revefsreleets
06-19-2008, 10:11 AM
That's why you keep typing replies...

Anyway, whatever. It's fun to have you around for comic relief, so try to keep yourself from getting banned...

HometownGal
06-19-2008, 10:22 AM
How 'bout we get back to the topic at hand gentlemen?

missedgehead
06-19-2008, 12:18 PM
I don't see what was so "great" about Reagan. Huge deficits. Iran-Contra. We made some dope named Oliver North into a "hero." The dude participated in a cover up of Iran Contra and he is a "hero?" Reagan was a lousy actor. Trust me. They almost cast him instead of Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca". Would have been a disaster. He was even a worse President. When he was a candidate, Reagan said there was NOT a Hollywood Blacklist. He used to be the head of the Actor's Union or whatever. That right there should show people what an idiot he was. Anyone who knows about any kind of American History or knows any kind of history about the Cold War, KNOWS that there sure as hell WAS a Hollywood Blacklist. Zero Mostel (The Producers), Pete Seeger, for example were among the blacklist's many victims. SUre, there was not a blacklist. Guess the old geezer never heard of the Hollywood Ten. Or Paul Robeson who had his passport ILLEGALLY taken from him by the State Department. Took him ten years to get it back when the Supreme Court told the State Department they had no right to take it from him. Of course, his voice was shot by then. Shame. Sure, there was no blacklist according to Ronald Wilson Reagan. Riiiiiiiight. I thought he was a senile old man and I do not want to see another old man in the White House who is going to just be a continuation of GWB.

If McCain is elected, we will be in Iraq and Afghanistan FOREVER. He will have us there for 100 years etc. It will be like that Who song, "We won't be fooled again," with the famous line: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." I don't know why people would want more of the same. He does not seem to know much about the economy either.

I want to see a young,envigorating, energetic man like Obama elected. SOmeone with new ideas. SOmeone who can bring the country together. I like his stances on the economy, and health care, and other issues. I just am tired of hearing "he is not experienced enough." As someone who is African American, I am very excited about the possibility of him being elected. I hope it happens.

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 12:39 PM
How 'bout we get back to the topic at hand gentlemen?

If psycho would stop stalking me we could.

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 12:42 PM
It doesn't matter to me, cause he's a socialist and I refuse to vote for anyone with a socialist agenda,

.

Did Obama declare himself to be a socialist in his biography or was there a press release I missed?

Please help me out with regard to how he is a socialist (as opposed to a Trotskyite, Wobblie, or Red) and what you see as the defining characteristics that make somebody a socialist.

Thanks

GBMelBlount
06-19-2008, 01:07 PM
To me, a socialist is someone who believes the government is the solution to problems, not freedom and capitalism. It is freedom and capitalism, not big governemnt solutions that have made this country great imo. Obama demonizing the evil oil companies and wanting to penalize them for excessive (8.5%) profits smacks of socilism. Unfortunately, the ignorant and uneducated masses are buying into it. Do you really think if Obama takes the "excess" profits from the oil companies it will lower our prices? It is nothing more than a way for the government to increase their income and power imo .

I am far more afraid of the government than businesses. The government has as much to do with $4/gallon gas as the oil companies. Wouldn't you agree?

Do you feel Obama is pro business, and pro-capitalism, and for individual freedom and letting the people keep more of what they make? I don't. I think he is into big government and social engineering. Although I am not that knowledgable on the subject, I think Obama is basically a socialist with a user friendly, utopiaspeak delivery. I may be wrong. In fact, hope I am. I mean this with no disrepect to you, friend.

davidgrenier
06-19-2008, 01:51 PM
Did Obama declare himself to be a socialist in his biography or was there a press release I missed?

Please help me out with regard to how he is a socialist (as opposed to a Trotskyite, Wobblie, or Red) and what you see as the defining characteristics that make somebody a socialist.

Thanks

Dan,

A socialist is anyone that I don't like. The Clean Water Act is the same as the Holocaust. Being able to drive on roads or get things in the mail is as horrible as living in a Siberian Gulag. I think I heard about those in Red Dawn.

Obama/Bettis '08!

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 02:08 PM
Dan,

A socialist is anyone that I don't like. The Clean Water Act is the same as the Holocaust. Being able to drive on roads or get things in the mail is as horrible as living in a Siberian Gulag. I think I heard about those in Red Dawn.

Obama/Bettis '08!


:sofunny::sofunny:

HometownGal
06-19-2008, 02:10 PM
I don't see what was so "great" about Reagan. Huge deficits. Iran-Contra. We made some dope named Oliver North into a "hero." The dude participated in a cover up of Iran Contra and he is a "hero?" Reagan was a lousy actor. Trust me. They almost cast him instead of Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca". Would have been a disaster. He was even a worse President. When he was a candidate, Reagan said there was NOT a Hollywood Blacklist. He used to be the head of the Actor's Union or whatever. That right there should show people what an idiot he was. Anyone who knows about any kind of American History or knows any kind of history about the Cold War, KNOWS that there sure as hell WAS a Hollywood Blacklist. Zero Mostel (The Producers), Pete Seeger, for example were among the blacklist's many victims. SUre, there was not a blacklist. Guess the old geezer never heard of the Hollywood Ten. Or Paul Robeson who had his passport ILLEGALLY taken from him by the State Department. Took him ten years to get it back when the Supreme Court told the State Department they had no right to take it from him. Of course, his voice was shot by then. Shame. Sure, there was no blacklist according to Ronald Wilson Reagan. Riiiiiiiight. I thought he was a senile old man and I do not want to see another old man in the White House who is going to just be a continuation of GWB.



WOW. Just wow.

I respect yours and anyone else's decision to vote for Obama, though I'd vote for Mortimer Snerd before I'd vote for him. Not because I am a GOP'er, but because, as I've mentioned numerous times, there is something very sneaky about him (imho) and I'd trust a rattlesnake more.

Here are some of the factual aspects about the Reagan presidency that you obviously weren't aware of or overlooked.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Midfield/3110/reagan.html

-20 million new jobs were created during the Reagan presidency
(U.S. Statistical Abstract)

-Of these 20 million new jobs:
-The average hourly wage was $10/hr.
-46.1% were over $28,048/yr, and another 46.2% were from
$7,012-$28,048/yr, while only 6% were under $7,012/yr.

-During the Carter administration (1977-80), of the new jobs
created, 41,77% were under $7,012, 68.2% were in the $7,012-
$28,048/yr bracket, and 9.9% of the pre-existing jobs in the
$28,048 and up bracket were actually lost (Joint Economic
Committee, based on data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor)

-During Reaganís presidency he decreased the tax rate of the
richest quintile from 70% in 1981 to 31% in 1988 (Joint
Economic Committee, 1990)

-In 1981, the beginning of Reaganís presidency, the top 5% of
wage earners paid 35% of federal income taxes, while the bottom
50% paid 8%. By 1988, the end of Reaganís presidency, the top
5% paid 46% of the federal taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 6%
(Joint Economic Committee, 1990)

-Inflation went down during Reaganís time in office. In 1980 the
CPI (Consumer Price Index) was 13.5, and in 1984 it dropped to
4.3, and eventually to 4.1 by 1988. (Economic Report of the
President, January, 1993)

-Middle class families earning between $20,000-$50,000/year had
a 28% growth in net worth during Reaganís time in office
(National Review, April 18, 1994)

-The government brought in increased amounts of tax revenue from
the highest economic quintile during the Reagan Years (55.7
bill. In 1980, 55.9 in 1985, 58.1 in 1989), while the lowest
quintile (2.0, 1.9, 1.6) and the middle quintile (13.4, 13.1,
12.6) both gave increasingly less during those same years
(Congressional Budget Office)

-The U.S. Congress outspent Ronald Reaganís proposed budget
every year he was in office, save 1984 (Budget Message of the
President, FY's 81 to 89)

-The national deficit was approx. 2.6% of the U.S. GNP when
Reagan entered office, and only 2.8% of the GNP when he left
(Congressional Budget Office)

-The Stock Market rose from 777 to 3,000 points during Reaganís
presidency, even after the crash of 1987. (Almanac of U.S.
History)

-Both Michael Dell (Head of Dell Computers) and Cypress
Semiconductors CEO, T.J. Rodgers agree that it was Reaganís
decrease in government regulation and taxes that allowed
computer and electronic entrepreneurs to thrive (DíSouza,
Ronald ReaganÖp. 125)

-86% of the poorest economic quintile as of 1979 had experienced
an increase in standard of living by 1988, and 0% a decrease
(US Treasury, Office of Analysis, 1992)

-47% of the middle class quintile from 1979 experienced an
increase in standard of living by 1988, while 33% remained
unchanged and only 20% suffered a decrease (US Treasury, Office
of Analysis, 1992)

-When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%. When he
left office the unemployment rate was 5.5% (Cato Institute
Analysis No.261; Economic Report of the President, 1996)

-During the Reagan presidency, an average of 1.7 million jobs
per year were created, as opposed to only 1.2 million jobs per
year from 1990-95 (Cato Institute Analysis No.261; Economic
Report of the President, 1996)

-The poverty rate fell from 15.2% during the peak of the 1982
recession to 12.8% when Reagan left office (U.S. Bureau of the
Census)

-The average income of the lowest economic quintile increased
from $6,494 in 1980 to $6,994 in 1989 (DíSouza, Ronald ReaganÖ
p. 146)

-In 1980 only 5,000 individuals had incomes of $1 million or
more. By 1988 there were more than 35,000 millionaires and 50
billionaires (DíSouza, Ronald ReaganÖp. 113)

-Charitable contributions increased 57% during the 80s, from $65
billion in 1980 to $100 million in 1989 (American Enterprise,
Sept-Oct í91)

-Since then:
-Greenpeace Membership- down 44%
-Wilderness Society Membership- down 35%
-National Wildfire Federation Membership- down 14%
(USA Today,1994)

-Lawrence Welsh, special prosecutor of the Iran-Contra scandal,
concluded that Ronald Reagan was not responsible for any
deflection of funds to the Contras or otherwise (DíSouza,
Ronald ReaganÖp. 204)

-There was a higher percentage rate of skilled jobs in the
Reagan era (1980s) than in the 1970s (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics)

-The rate of U.S. manufacturing productivity tripled during the
1980s (U.S. Commerce Department)

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 02:29 PM
I am far more afraid of the government than businesses. The government has as much to do with $4/gallon gas as the oil companies.
.

Yes - OPEC, the strong trend towards nationalization of energy resources (see, e.g., Exxon's dust-up with Chavez & BP getting into it with Russia), and the role of the Chinese government in the growth of China's economy, with its consequent impact on world energy demand, have all had a significant role in increased energy prices.

For some reason I do not think those are the governments to which you are referring.:chuckle:

Blaming the U.S. Government as the prime mover behind gasoline going to $4 a gallon is just as misleading and demagogic as blaming the price increase on "Big Oil."

Increased energy prices are impacted by a variety of factors and it is not a problem that is going to go away quickly. (e.g. - a 2007 Department of Energy study found that access to Florida's coastal energy deposits would not add to domestic crude oil and natural gas production before 2030 and that the impact on prices would be “insignificant.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/19offshore.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

Encouraging increased domestic production is necessary but any contention we are going back to cheap gasoline to fill up the Hummer if only we will open up drilling offshore, in ANWR and anywhere else pipe can be put down is specious.

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 02:46 PM
Do you feel Obama is pro business, and pro-capitalism, and for individual freedom and letting the people keep more of what they make? I don't. I think he is into big government and social engineering. Although I am not that knowledgable on the subject, I think Obama is basically a socialist with a user friendly, utopiaspeak delivery. I may be wrong. In fact, hope I am. I mean this with no disrepect to you, friend.

IMO that does not make him "basically" a socialist by any recognized definition of the term:

Socialism - any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
The American Heritageģ Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Calling Obama "basicaly" a socialist is about as accurate as calling anyone who voted against him "basically" a racist.

And with regard to social engineering, it's the McCain Feingold campaign finance bill, not the Obama-Feingold bill. John McCain is no libertarian.

millwalldavey
06-19-2008, 02:48 PM
There is not a single person on the right in this country that truly understands what a socialist is. It's a convenient term to slams something you do not understand. Much like their use of racial and homophobic terms.

I'm not saying socialism is the answer, I just wish a lot of these people knew what they meant before they labelled anyone a socialist.

davidgrenier
06-19-2008, 02:52 PM
Davey,

If Social Security, roads, bridges, public transit, drinkable water, and firefighters are all socialist, then hand me a red card and sign me right up.

Next time someone tries to call you a socialist to shut you up, rather than arguing with them, just say, "yes." They rarely know how to react.

millwalldavey
06-19-2008, 02:54 PM
There is not a single person on the right in this country that truly understands what a socialist is.

I'm so quotable... let me add that there are quite a few on the left that don't know either!

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 02:58 PM
Davey,

If Social Security, roads, bridges, public transit, drinkable water, and firefighters are all socialist, then hand me a red card and sign me right up.

Next time someone tries to call you a socialist to shut you up, rather than arguing with them, just say, "yes." They rarely know how to react.

With the exception of Social Security, everything you mentioned should fall to the states and not the federal government.

The biggest reasons I don't like Obama is that he seems eager to further erode states rights in favor of a "Big Brother" style of Federal government.

GBMelBlount
06-19-2008, 03:41 PM
millwalldavey
There is not a single person on the right in this country that truly understands what a socialist is. It's a convenient term to slams something you do not understand. Much like their use of racial and homophobic terms.

That is one of the most ignorant and ridiculous analogies I have ever heard in my life.

I'm not saying socialism is the answer, I just wish a lot of these people knew what they meant before they labelled anyone a socialist.

What do you call it if the government taking control of health care from the private sector?......1/7th of our economy.

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 03:49 PM
Obama wants to mimick the European style of "cradle to grave" health care for all citizens. It's a great idea for the Europeans because they have a long history of strong central government.

But that idea simply won't work in America because we have a long history of distrust of the central government. What we need to do is peepl away some of the layers of regulation and allow the states to do more to provide insurance to the uninsured.

Quite frankly, I don't like the idea of the Federal government having anything to do with health care. Too much beuracracy for that to work well.

GBMelBlount
06-19-2008, 03:51 PM
IMO that does not make him "basically" a socialist by any recognized definition of the term:

Socialism - any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
The American Heritageģ Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Calling Obama "basicaly" a socialist is about as accurate as calling anyone who voted against him "basically" a racist.

And with regard to social engineering, it's the McCain Feingold campaign finance bill, not the Obama-Feingold bill. John McCain is no libertarian.

I'm not a big fan of McCain Dan, but to me, socialism is government control over the production and distribution of goods in services. So are you telling me you do not believe that many of Obama's proposed solutions don't lean towards socialism? Remember, there is a helluvalot of gray between black and white. If you do not believe that he is a socialist, then what is he?

Also, I never said that what you quoted from my statements was the definition of socialism.

Preacher
06-19-2008, 04:34 PM
Socialism?

Socialism is to the right what Fascism is to the left...

a neat little title that is used to label someone for political purposes.

Regardless of what the facts are... and regardless of the actual, real economic truths the two economies really are about.

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 05:00 PM
With the exception of Social Security, everything you mentioned should fall to the states and not the federal government.
.

Such as the interstate highay system (proposed by big government liberal Dwight Eisenhower)?

Be careful what you wish for about states rights - lots of businesses ran to DC for pre-emptive federal oversight after getting environmental regulation by the State of California and securities reguation by Eliot Spitzer over the last 10 years..

A patchwork of 50 states regulating a national economy or developing infrasructure for that economy gets pretty dysfunctional.

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 05:06 PM
Such as the interstate highay system (proposed by big government liberal Dwight Eisenhower)?

Be careful what you wish for about states rights - lots of businesses ran to DC for pre-emptive federal oversight after getting environmental regulation by the State of California and securities reguation by Eliot Spitzer over the last 10 years..

A patchwork of 50 states regulating a national economy or developing infrasructure for that economy gets pretty dysfunctional.

Dysfunctional? Are you kidding me Dan. Look at the federal government now. Calling it dysfunctional is probably being too kind.

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 05:09 PM
I'm not a big fan of McCain Dan, but to me, socialism is government control over the production and distribution of goods in services. So are you telling me you do not believe that many of Obama's proposed solutions don't lean towards socialism? Remember, there is a helluvalot of gray between black and white. If you do not believe that he is a socialist, then what is he?

Also, I never said that what you quoted from my statements was the definition of socialism.

"Leaning" toward anything is not the same as being it.

Why not ask me if he is not a Marxist what is he?

Obama is a liberal Democrat. I have issues with a lot of what he stands for, but after 8 years of the GOP being led by W (for whom i voted in 2000 but who is a lot closer to fitting the actual definition of a war criminal than Obama is to fitting the actual definition of a socialist), I think it will be good for the country for the GOP to get a 1964 style ass whuppin, take a hike into the political wilderness and reclaim its true conservative heritage which it has lost.

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 05:12 PM
Dysfunctional? Are you kidding me Dan. Look at the federal government now. Calling it dysfunctional is probably being too kind.

You think we should have 50 states regualting the securities industry?

50 states with theie own air traffic control systems?

50 states regulating medical devices?

Saying the federal govt. has problems does not prove the answer to every problem is "states rights."

We aren't in 1789 anymore

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 05:16 PM
You think we should have 50 states regualting the securities industry?

50 states with theie own air traffic control systems?

50 states regulating medical devices?

Saying the federal govt. has problems does not prove the answer to every problem is "states rights."

We aren't in 1789 anymore

And this isn't Europe where the Central Government controls every single aspect of everyday life.

You might like the idea of Big Government, but I don't. The Federal government in America has managed to screw up education, trade, and health care. Why in God's name would you want to give them more power?

Preacher
06-19-2008, 05:19 PM
"Leaning" toward anything is not the same as being it.

Why not ask me if he is not a Marxist what is he?

Obama is a liberal Democrat. I have issues with a lot of what he stands for, but after 8 years of the GOP being led by W (for whom i voted in 2000 but who is a lot closer to fitting the actual definition of a war criminal than Obama is to fitting the actual definition of a socialist), I think it will be good for the country for the GOP to get a 1964 style ass whuppin, take a hike into the political wilderness and reclaim its true conservative heritage which it has lost.

O come on.. enough already.

Preacher
06-19-2008, 05:23 PM
I keep going back to what this govt. originally was empowered to do...

1. National Defense

2. Secure and promote trade between the states

3. Oversee justice within and between the states.


If we stick to those three things, I think we would be doing great.

National highway system? Built for national defense.

Air traffic controllers... Promotes trade (travel as trade.. and business).

Education? State issue.

Separate but equal in schools? national issue... deals with justice.

I think we have gotten away from the basics.

GBMelBlount
06-19-2008, 05:50 PM
"Leaning" toward anything is not the same as being it.

Why not ask me if he is not a Marxist what is he?

Obama is a liberal Democrat. I have issues with a lot of what he stands for, but after 8 years of the GOP being led by W (for whom i voted in 2000 but who is a lot closer to fitting the actual definition of a war criminal than Obama is to fitting the actual definition of a socialist), I think it will be good for the country for the GOP to get a 1964 style ass whuppin, take a hike into the political wilderness and reclaim its true conservative heritage which it has lost.


So you think a liberal Democrat (socialist ..he he) and a Pelosi run congress will be better for this country? :thumbsup:

millwalldavey
06-19-2008, 06:12 PM
[QUOTE=GBMelBlount;406842]That is one of the most ignorant and ridiculous analogies I have ever heard in my life.
[QUOTE]

Explain to me how it is so ridiculous? The right throws around the term socialist much like people throw around racial and homophobic slurs. Much like bigots use those terms to label things they cant understand.

They do not understand Socialism, so that means its obviously bad. So to insult someone they disagree with they call them a socialist. Simple enough. My father calls everything Socialism... he cannot explain to me why it is or why he is calling it as such. He just hears his heroes on TV shouting people down and calling them socialist.

Need I clarify more? Disagreement with a statement shouldn't render it ridiculous.

Preacher
06-19-2008, 06:18 PM
[quote=GBMelBlount;406842]That is one of the most ignorant and ridiculous analogies I have ever heard in my life.
[quote]

Explain to me how it is so ridiculous? The right throws around the term socialist much like people throw around racial and homophobic slurs. Much like bigots use those terms to label things they cant understand.

They do not understand Socialism, so that means its obviously bad. So to insult someone they disagree with they call them a socialist. Simple enough. My father calls everything Socialism... he cannot explain to me why it is or why he is calling it as such. He just hears his heroes on TV shouting people down and calling them socialist.

Need I clarify more? Disagreement with a statement shouldn't render it ridiculous.

And that is your source... your father? Because he uses the term socialist and can't explain it, everyone else does too?

Sorry, there are way too many assumptions there.

millwalldavey
06-19-2008, 06:19 PM
[quote=millwalldavey;406898][quote=GBMelBlount;406842]That is one of the most ignorant and ridiculous analogies I have ever heard in my life.


And that is your source... your father? Because he uses the term socialist and can't explain it, everyone else does too?

Sorry, there are way too many assumptions there.

Not a source... just an example. Should have specified.

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 06:30 PM
And this isn't Europe where the Central Government controls every single aspect of everyday life.

You might like the idea of Big Government, but I don't. The Federal government in America has managed to screw up education, trade, and health care. Why in God's name would you want to give them more power?

The federal govt. regulates securities (SEC), medical devices (FDA), and air traffic control (FAA) now.

I am not saying you give the feds more power, I am saying your apparent contention that we should have 50 separate state regulatory systems for these types of govt. functions would be worse. With regard to trade, do you want 50 states negotiating treaties with other nations (and for tat matter each other?)

Anytime I read someone describing something they dislike as "Big" (e.g. - Big Oil) I pretty much give up on any sort of underlying analysis..

.

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 06:36 PM
O come on.. enough already.

Larry Wilkerson, a former army officer and chief of staff to Colin Powell, US secretary of state at the time, told the Guardian: "I do know that Rumsfeld had neutralised the chairman [Myers] in many significant ways.

"The secretary did this by cutting [Myers] out of important communications, meetings, deliberations and plans.

"At the end of the day, however, Dick Myers was not a very powerful chairman in the first place, one reason Rumsfeld recommended him for the job".

He added: "Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez and - at the apex - Addington, should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/19/guantanamo.usa

Maj. General Antonio Taguba (USA-Ret.), who led the U.S. Army's investigation into the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse scandal, wrote: "After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/6/prweb1033554.htm

Fish rots from the head down Preacher

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 06:36 PM
The federal govt. regulates securities (SEC), medical devices (FDA), and air traffic control (FAA) now.

I am not saying you give the feds more power, I am saying your apparent contention that we should have 50 separate state regulatory systems for these types of govt. functions would be worse. With regard to trade, do you want 50 states negotiating treaties with other nations (and for tat matter each other?)

Anytime I read someone describing something they dislike as "Big" (e.g. - Big Oil) I pretty much give up on any sort of underlying analysis..

.

I would love to see where I advocated for every state to be given the same powers as the Federal government. That would make my day.

Preacher
06-19-2008, 06:42 PM
Larry Wilkerson, a former army officer and chief of staff to Colin Powell, US secretary of state at the time, told the Guardian: "I do know that Rumsfeld had neutralised the chairman [Myers] in many significant ways.

"The secretary did this by cutting [Myers] out of important communications, meetings, deliberations and plans.

"At the end of the day, however, Dick Myers was not a very powerful chairman in the first place, one reason Rumsfeld recommended him for the job".

He added: "Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez and - at the apex - Addington, should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/19/guantanamo.usa

Maj. General Antonio Taguba (USA-Ret.), who led the U.S. Army's investigation into the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse scandal, wrote: "After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/6/prweb1033554.htm

Fish rots from the head down Preacher



So your sources are a Sec. state COS and a lawyer?

:doh:

Seems to me there is some wishful thinking going on.

I remember when Reagan's man actually had to remind workers at the state department that they represented the U.S., not the country they were assigned to.

:toofunny:


War criminals... what a joke.

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 06:44 PM
So your sources are a Sec. state COS and a lawyer?

:doh:

Seems to me there is some wishful thinking going on.

I remember when Reagan's man actually had to remind workers at the state department that they represented the U.S., not the country they were assigned to.

:toofunny:


War criminals... what a joke.

And I suppose Iran Contra was a media invention.

Preacher
06-19-2008, 06:52 PM
And I suppose Iran Contra was a media invention.

What?

talk about a non-sequitur


Iran contra is the same lesson that is never learned by politicians:
It is never the original issue that is the big problem, it is the cover-up that is the problem.

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 06:54 PM
So your sources are a Sec. state COS and a lawyer?

:doh:

Seems to me there is some wishful thinking going on.

I remember when Reagan's man actually had to remind workers at the state department that they represented the U.S., not the country they were assigned to.

:toofunny:


War criminals... what a joke.

Nice try denigrating Wilkerson and Taguba


Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired) Larry Wilkerson joined General Colin L. Powell in March 1989 at the U.S. Army’s Forces Command in Atlanta, Georgia as his Deputy Executive Officer. He followed the General to his next position as Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, serving as his special assistant. Upon Powell's retirement from active service in 1993, Colonel Wilkerson served as the Deputy Director and Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia. Upon Wilkerson’s retirement from active service in 1997, he began working for General Powell in a private capacity as a consultant and advisor.

http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bios/w/26731.htm

Major General Antonio Taguba, the author of a devastating report into abuses by American soldiers in Iraq, is a first generation Filipino immigrant whose father was tortured by the Japanese during the Second World War.

General Taguba was born in Manila in 1950 and his family moved to Hawaii when he was 11. After graduating from school in 1968, he enrolled at the Idaho State University where he acquired a degree in history in 1972.

He joined the US Army a short time afterwards, following in the footsteps of his father, Thomas, and generations of Filipinos who served by virtue of their country's status as a former US colony.

His father was captured and tortured by the Japanese when they invaded the Philippines in 1941.

After Thomas Taguba retired as a staff sergeant, General Taguba was involved in a 20 year campaign to have his father’s service properly recognised by the US Army.

General Taguba said his father had left the Army "without so much as a retirement ceremony to thank him for those 20 years of hard work and faithful service".

General Taguba trained as an armoured officer and rose up the tranks to become an acting director of the army staff during the Iraq war. He [was] the second highest ranking soldier of Filipino origin in the US Army.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article421252.ece

Yep - just two bleeding heart liberals

Walk me through how your expertise on the subject makes their observations a joke

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 06:54 PM
What?

talk about a non-sequitur


Iran contra is the same lesson that is never learned by politicians:
It is never the original issue that is the big problem, it is the cover-up that is the problem.

So importing drugs from South America wasn't a big problem?

WOW

Preacher
06-19-2008, 07:21 PM
N

Yep - just two bleeding heart liberals

Walk me through how your expertise on the subject makes their observations a joke

Where is the official war crimes tribunal? Where is the war crimes trials in america? WHere is the congressional hearings? Where are the calls for trial even?

What are the crimes?

We are talking two people who have a bias.... like EVERYONE ELSE.

Just because they are in the military does NOT mean they are hawks.

Heck... Jimmie Carter and John Kerry were both officers in the Navy.

I am sorry, but I need to hear from man more commanders and generals then two who come from places where I would EXPECT them to say such things.

War crimes. What else can we accuse this man of?

Let's see...

Bush has

1. Destroyed the environment single handedly...
2. Destroyed the economy...
3. Caused the gas bubble.
4. Invaded Iraq for oil... only to have a gas crisis.
5. Stripped me of all my civil rights... Man.. I am truly suffereing under that patriot act. I hope that gets removed so we don't hear someone's conversation with a foreign person of interest. I spent the night in jail last week for talking on the phone to a jew (my wife)... how about anyone else?
6. Single-handedly destoryed America's reputation in the world
7. Caused cancer to increase 20 fold in the one-eyed jack rabbit frog.

Did I miss anything?

I Know I Know... you voted for him in 2000. Guess your making up for it now right?

War crimes?

Tell me.

Stalin,
Hitler,
Pol-Pot,
Nazi SS
Japanese unit 731
George Bush

Does that look about right to you? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

GBMelBlount
06-19-2008, 07:43 PM
So anyway Dan, now that I understand that Obama, though listing/leaning like the titanic, is not "technically" a socialist..... I'm wondering if you can give me a case in point. Let's take health care for instance. What is Obama's proposed solution, and how would this differ from what someone would likley propose who was the candidate of the american communist party for example?

HometownGal
06-19-2008, 07:43 PM
War crimes. What else can we accuse this man of?

Let's see...

Bush has

1. Destroyed the environment single handedly...
2. Destroyed the economy...
3. Caused the gas bubble.
4. Invaded Iraq for oil... only to have a gas crisis.
5. Stripped me of all my civil rights... Man.. I am truly suffereing under that patriot act. I hope that gets removed so we don't hear someone's conversation with a foreign person of interest. I spent the night in jail last week for talking on the phone to a jew (my wife)... how about anyone else?
6. Single-handedly destoryed America's reputation in the world
7. Caused cancer to increase 20 fold in the one-eyed jack rabbit frog.

Did I miss anything?



You forgot:

8. Caused the hurricanes, death and destruction in New Orleans.

9. Was in cahoots with Bin Boy to destroy the United States on September 11th.

:doh::doh::doh:

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 08:05 PM
Where is the official war crimes tribunal? Where is the war crimes trials in america? WHere is the congressional hearings? Where are the calls for trial even?

What are the crimes?

We are talking two people who have a bias.... like EVERYONE ELSE.

Just because they are in the military does NOT mean they are hawks.

Heck... Jimmie Carter and John Kerry were both officers in the Navy.

I am sorry, but I need to hear from man more commanders and generals then two who come from places where I would EXPECT them to say such things.

War crimes. What else can we accuse this man of?

Let's see...

Bush has

1. Destroyed the environment single handedly...
2. Destroyed the economy...
3. Caused the gas bubble.
4. Invaded Iraq for oil... only to have a gas crisis.
5. Stripped me of all my civil rights... Man.. I am truly suffereing under that patriot act. I hope that gets removed so we don't hear someone's conversation with a foreign person of interest. I spent the night in jail last week for talking on the phone to a jew (my wife)... how about anyone else?
6. Single-handedly destoryed America's reputation in the world
7. Caused cancer to increase 20 fold in the one-eyed jack rabbit frog.

Did I miss anything?

I Know I Know... you voted for him in 2000. Guess your making up for it now right?

War crimes?

Tell me.

Stalin,
Hitler,
Pol-Pot,
Nazi SS
Japanese unit 731
George Bush

Does that look about right to you? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

Switch to decaf Preacher - I did not call Bush a war criminal; I said he was closer to being a war criminal than Obama was to being a "socialist" under any accurtae definition of the term. I stand by that statement.

You referred to my initial reference to war crimes as a "joke." I gave you some sources. You trash the sources with apparently not caring to know or (since it might undermine your initial knee jerk response) wanting to know their backgrounds.

I then called you on your response because you decided to misrepresent Wilkerson as simply a State Department bureaucrat and (in a complete escape from reality) describe Gen. Taguba as (gasp!) a lawyer.

You are right - everyone has biases, including you and me. That having been said, Taguba and Wilkerson probably have forgotten more about what constitutes war crimes than you or I will ever know.

Want to know how this could play out? Read this - one person's opinion:

Only extremely unusual circumstances will lead a country to try one of its own leaders for war crimes. Curiously, the Bush administration is responsible for the most prominent recent case: the prosecution, before a U.S.-financed and -advised special court in Baghdad, of Saddam Hussein and a number of his senior lieutenants.

A number of members of Congress and organizations such as the American Bar Association have called for the creation of a 9/11-style commission with special investigatory powers to get to the bottom of the Bush administration's treatment of persons in detention. The law of war gives a combatant a great deal of latitude in conducting warfare, but it works hard to protect those who have been removed from combat. These persons are entitled to differing levels of protection depending upon their status, but as the Supreme Court reminded us in its decision in Hamdan, even those entitled to no POW protections have the benefit of basic protections against torture and physical abuse.

The Supreme Court decision in Hamdan reflects the consensus view in the legal community that the Bush administration's policies on detainee treatment crossed the line. That view is widely shared even by career lawyers inside the administration, driving such actions as the open revolt against these policies among uniformed military lawyers. The "war crimes" issue revolves around detainee treatment questions, and especially interrogation techniques. And for the experts, the dilemma is a severe one: if the United States does not honor the prohibition against torture and official cruelty, can anyone be expected to?....

Is it likely that prosecutions will be brought overseas? Yes. It is reasonably likely. [Philippe Sands's new book The Torture Team] contains an interview with an investigating magistrate in a European nation, which he describes as a NATO nation with a solidly pro-American orientation which supported U.S. engagement in Iraq with its own soldiers. The magistrate makes clear that he is already assembling a case, and is focused on American policymakers. I read these remarks and they seemed very familiar to me. In the past two years, I have spoken with two investigating magistrates in two different European nations, both pro-Iraq war NATO allies. Both were assembling war crimes charges against a small group of Bush administration officials. "You can rest assured that no charges will be brought before January 20, 2009," one told me. And after that? "It depends. We don't expect extradition. But if one of the targets lands on our territory or on the territory of one of our cooperating jurisdictions, then we'll be prepared to act."


http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=597957fd-6bbf-4d02-b29f-3dbd35176038

Yeah, I am quoting a lawyer this time and I know you reject his views. But just for giggles sometimes I refer to something other than my own opinion and believe when you want to know something about a legal issue that it is not always a bad place to start by hearing from a lawyer, assuming pompous gasbags such as Rush, Sean, or Keith Olbermnan are not available to bloviate on the subject.

Thanks for the measured responses and citations to perspectives other than your own :sofunny:

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 08:21 PM
So anyway Dan, now that I understand that Obama, though listing/leaning like the titanic, is not "technically" a socialist..... I'm wondering if you can give me a case in point. Let's take health care for instance. What is Obama's proposed solution, and how would this differ from what someone would likley propose who was the candidate of the american communist party for example?

Tell me what the "likely" position of the American Communist Party is (was? - is there still an American Communist Party) on that issue (surely you know it since you want me to compare Obama's position to it) and I will tell you whether Obama is toeing the Kremlin line. :chuckle:

stillers4me
06-19-2008, 08:37 PM
You forgot:

8. Caused the hurricanes, death and destruction in New Orleans.

9. Was in cahoots with Bin Boy to destroy the United States on September 11th.

:doh::doh::doh:

Bush may have caused all that the death and destruction in New Orleans, but wasn't it nice of him to cancel most of the hurricanes last year? :chuckle:

HometownGal
06-19-2008, 09:05 PM
Bush may have caused all that the death and destruction in New Orleans, but wasn't it nice of him to cancel most of the hurricanes last year? :chuckle:

He was too busy last summer fiendishly plotting how to skyrocket oil prices, y'know him being an oil man and all. He also was in closed door sessions with the weather gods to plot the spawnning of tornados across the Midwest. :chuckle:

GBMelBlount
06-19-2008, 09:51 PM
Tell me what the "likely" position of the American Communist Party is (was? - is there still an American Communist Party) on that issue (surely you know it since you want me to compare Obama's position to it) and I will tell you whether Obama is toeing the Kremlin line. :chuckle:


Unfortunately there is no need for them any longer.....:laughing: No need for duplicity. I was just wondering if you felt a probable "socialist" solution to healthcare was any / much different than Obama's. I honestly want to know what your opinion is.:drink:

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 10:12 PM
Unfortunately there is no need for them any longer.....:laughing: No need for duplicity. I was just wondering if you felt a probable "socialist" solution to healthcare was any / much different than Obama's. I honestly want to know what your opinion is.:drink:

This is from his Web site (I laughed out loud when I saw the home page with a "Welcome Hillary Supporters" link complete with a picture of the Blond Bomber herself).

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Looks like lots of subsidies for enrollment in private plans, regulating insurers who want to get on the gravy train, plus some rhetorical flourishes that will "force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration." Plus,"Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S" so we can get back on the Internet and buy prescription drugs from Canada without getting hassled by the FDA.

Not exactly socialist (and unlike Medicare the Feds apparently will not be paying for the treatment, just the coverage) but how the hell you pay for it all is the question.

But the current health care system is broken for a big chunk of the country (I have a nice subsidized plan with Kaiser as my HMO but friends in small businesses or self-employed are getting murdered on health care premiums) and the GOP has lost any credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility, so I do not think claiming Obama will ruin the current system while bankrupting the country has much traction for McCain as an issue.

Preacher
06-19-2008, 10:15 PM
Switch to decaf Preacher - I did not call Bush a war criminal; I said he was closer to being a war criminal than Obama was to being a "socialist" under any accurtae definition of the term. I stand by that statement.

You referred to my initial reference to war crimes as a "joke." I gave you some sources. You trash the sources with apparently not caring to know or (since it might undermine your initial knee jerk response) wanting to know their backgrounds.

I then called you on your response because you decided to misrepresent Wilkerson as simply a State Department bureaucrat and (in a complete escape from reality) describe Gen. Taguba as (gasp!) a lawyer.

You are right - everyone has biases, including you and me. That having been said, Taguba and Wilkerson probably have forgotten more about what constitutes war crimes than you or I will ever know.

Want to know how this could play out? Read this - one person's opinion:

Only extremely unusual circumstances will lead a country to try one of its own leaders for war crimes. Curiously, the Bush administration is responsible for the most prominent recent case: the prosecution, before a U.S.-financed and -advised special court in Baghdad, of Saddam Hussein and a number of his senior lieutenants.

A number of members of Congress and organizations such as the American Bar Association have called for the creation of a 9/11-style commission with special investigatory powers to get to the bottom of the Bush administration's treatment of persons in detention. The law of war gives a combatant a great deal of latitude in conducting warfare, but it works hard to protect those who have been removed from combat. These persons are entitled to differing levels of protection depending upon their status, but as the Supreme Court reminded us in its decision in Hamdan, even those entitled to no POW protections have the benefit of basic protections against torture and physical abuse.

The Supreme Court decision in Hamdan reflects the consensus view in the legal community that the Bush administration's policies on detainee treatment crossed the line. That view is widely shared even by career lawyers inside the administration, driving such actions as the open revolt against these policies among uniformed military lawyers. The "war crimes" issue revolves around detainee treatment questions, and especially interrogation techniques. And for the experts, the dilemma is a severe one: if the United States does not honor the prohibition against torture and official cruelty, can anyone be expected to?....

Is it likely that prosecutions will be brought overseas? Yes. It is reasonably likely. [Philippe Sands's new book The Torture Team] contains an interview with an investigating magistrate in a European nation, which he describes as a NATO nation with a solidly pro-American orientation which supported U.S. engagement in Iraq with its own soldiers. The magistrate makes clear that he is already assembling a case, and is focused on American policymakers. I read these remarks and they seemed very familiar to me. In the past two years, I have spoken with two investigating magistrates in two different European nations, both pro-Iraq war NATO allies. Both were assembling war crimes charges against a small group of Bush administration officials. "You can rest assured that no charges will be brought before January 20, 2009," one told me. And after that? "It depends. We don't expect extradition. But if one of the targets lands on our territory or on the territory of one of our cooperating jurisdictions, then we'll be prepared to act."


http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=597957fd-6bbf-4d02-b29f-3dbd35176038

Yeah, I am quoting a lawyer this time and I know you reject his views. But just for giggles sometimes I refer to something other than my own opinion and believe when you want to know something about a legal issue that it is not always a bad place to start by hearing from a lawyer, assuming pompous gasbags such as Rush, Sean, or Keith Olbermnan are not available to bloviate on the subject.

Thanks for the measured responses and citations to perspectives other than your own :sofunny:


Thanks for summing up the argument.

I just got back from dinner and didn't want to read through it all...

Though I gotta admit, your knee-jerk reaction to my knee jerk reaction of your knee-jerk response shows you to be a jerk as much as I am a jerk....

Wait a second.... that didn't come out good for either of us....


However...

Yeah, I am quoting a lawyer this time and I know you reject his views. But just for giggles sometimes I refer to something other than my own opinion and believe when you want to know something about a legal issue that it is not always a bad place to start by hearing from a lawyer, assuming pompous gasbags such as Rush, Sean, or Keith Olbermnan are not available to bloviate on the subject.

Thanks for the measured responses and citations to perspectives other than your own


Is simply uncalled for.. .as you have seen me post in many threads. and at times actually argue the exact opposite of my position.

I wasn't engaging in a debate with you about all the possible legal ramifications.... just that you stating Bush is closer to a war criminal than Obama a socialist is an asinine comment.

I don't need to quote a bunch of lawyers to call that an asinine comment.

millwalldavey
06-19-2008, 10:32 PM
Tell me what the "likely" position of the American Communist Party is (was? - is there still an American Communist Party) on that issue (surely you know it since you want me to compare Obama's position to it) and I will tell you whether Obama is toeing the Kremlin line. :chuckle:

Indeed there is: www.cpusa.org

Read it and find out that socialism does not turn everything over to the government as thosein the media will have you beleive, but give it all back to the workers... the public who truly make everything work.

I love the ideas in concept. Just not very concious of the complexities of human nature.

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 10:36 PM
Some fun with Communism

http://myego.cz/img/img/warez-communism.jpg

http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/motivaional_communism.jpg

http://www-cvr.ai.uiuc.edu/~slazebni/personal_page/scrapbook/images/linux_communism.jpg

http://images2.ggl.com/images/commie.jpg

Preacher
06-19-2008, 10:39 PM
Jeremy...

that's pretty funny.

millwalldavey
06-19-2008, 10:41 PM
i love the first two

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 10:43 PM
Thanks for summing up the argument.

I just got back from dinner and didn't want to read through it all...

Though I gotta admit, your knee-jerk reaction to my knee jerk reaction of your knee-jerk response shows you to be a jerk as much as I am a jerk....

Wait a second.... that didn't come out good for either of us....


However...



Is simply uncalled for.. .as you have seen me post.. and at times actually argue the exact opposite of my position.

I wasn't engaging in a debate with you about all the possible legal ramifications.... just that you stating Bush is closer to a war criminal than Obama a socialist is an asinine comment.

I don't need to quote a bunch of lawyers to call that an asinine comment.

WOW - can't rebut that.

You recite your own views in a closed loop of outrage and trash my conflicting opinions (in support of which I cited some non-posters who actually have some expertise in the area ) without having the time or inclination to refer to anything else.

Why is my contention asinine beyond the fact you cannot get your mind around the concept that a credible argument can be made that officials in the Bush Administration engaged in war crimes whereas I do not believe Obama is advocating govt. ownership of the means of production

Facts or cites would help as opposed to:

Bush = Good - Anti-Bush = Really Really Bad & Asinine

:drink:

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 10:44 PM
As a student of history....I find communism fascinating.

I mean come on, it seduced the one of the most powerful nations on Earth and held on to it for a long time. It gave the United States an enemy when none existed. It provided a refuge for a bunch of drunken British diplomats. And it served as a good backdrop for a Chevy Chase/Dan Ackroyd flick.

If humans weren't so greedy...communism would be a great system.

millwalldavey
06-19-2008, 10:49 PM
If humans weren't so greedy...communism would be a great system.

Double amen. Marx was a theorist and unfortunately did not consider human nature in his writings.

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 10:54 PM
Double amen. Marx was a theorist and unfortunately did not consider human nature in his writings.

I think he did.....but assumed people would evolve after seeing the benefits that communism was supposed to bring.

But there's still hope for those communists out there......look at the Star Trek Universe. The United Federation of Planets is communist.

Preacher
06-19-2008, 10:56 PM
WOW - can't rebut that.

You recite your own views in a closed loop of outrage and trash my conflicting opinions (in support of which I cited some non-posters who actually have some expertise in the area ) without having the time or inclination to refer to anything else.

Why is my contention asinine beyond the fact you cannot get your mind around the concept that a credible argument can be made that officials in the Bush Administration engaged in war crimes whereas I do not believe Obama is advocating govt. ownership of the means of production

Facts or cites would help as opposed to:

Bush = Good - Anti-Bush = Really Really Bad & Asinine

:drink:

Because the foundational element of your entire view of this subject tonight is wrong...

I think Bush has screwed up majorly in many many areas. You can't seem to understand that I dislike him quite a bit... yet don't want to hang him as war criminal.
_________________________

Taking this argument a different route.... and one that is more collegial (how ever you spell that)

please refer to this link which you have posted on before... it has made me think about something else in this vein... http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?p=407038&posted=1#post407038.....

Atlanta Dan
06-19-2008, 10:58 PM
I think he did.....but assumed people would evolve after seeing the benefits that communism was supposed to bring.

But there's still hope for those communists out there......look at the Star Trek Universe. The United Federation of Planets is communist.

I dunno - seems to me Earth calls the shots - Vulcans disclose their existence to Earth after we discover the warp drive but Kirk & Picard are captains of the Enterprise several centuries later.

No, wait - The Federation was headquartered in San Francisco - you're right.

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 11:01 PM
More fun with communism:

http://www.unsoughtinput.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/adblock.jpg

http://i.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/03-21-02-boardgames/rheingold-communism.jpg

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g314/Akagi30200/Communism.jpg

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/image/10/defeat_communism.jpg

Jeremy
06-20-2008, 09:26 AM
I dunno - seems to me Earth calls the shots - Vulcans disclose their existence to Earth after we discover the warp drive but Kirk & Picard are captains of the Enterprise several centuries later.

No, wait - The Federation was headquartered in San Francisco - you're right.

You're forgetting that Spock was also a Captain.

Atlanta Dan
06-20-2008, 01:05 PM
You're forgetting that Spock was also a Captain.

But at that point still outranked by then Admiral Kirk - simply not logical

Preacher
06-20-2008, 01:31 PM
But at that point still outranked by then Admiral Kirk - simply not logical

You mean this guy here?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1132/1199659277_d767ffa987.jpg



First time I saw that I laughed and laughed.

I love demotiviators! They are hilarious.


EDIT: Thanks HTG!!!

HometownGal
06-20-2008, 02:52 PM
There you go Father. Better? :drink:

Preacher
06-20-2008, 02:57 PM
There you go Father. Better? :drink:


Ahhh...

So much better!

thanks.

What happened?

HometownGal
06-20-2008, 03:13 PM
Ahhh...

So much better!

thanks.

What happened?

You are most welcome.

You needed to delete the numbers/letters after the "jpg".

fansince'76
06-20-2008, 09:18 PM
We need a serious Civics lesson for everyone in this country.

mEJL2Uuv-oQ

I couldn't resist. :chuckle:

millwalldavey
06-20-2008, 10:10 PM
You mean this guy here?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1132/1199659277_d767ffa987.jpg



First time I saw that I laughed and laughed.

I love demotiviators! They are hilarious.


EDIT: Thanks HTG!!!

I SAVE EVERY ONE OF THESE WHEN THEY ARE POSTED!!!!!

millwalldavey
06-20-2008, 10:11 PM
mEJL2Uuv-oQ

I couldn't resist. :chuckle:

I love it!!!!