IMO Bush did more to harm us than protect us ... he's helped further tie divsision between us the Muslim workd and now people hate us and want to attack us even more. Don't confused not getting attacked in 7 years with protecting us or us being safer.



I am not sure that the hate they have for the US could be any worse than say killing 2,974 was, but then I guess it is a matter of degrees.

[QUOTE]

It still makes me wonder about this country that W will never be impeached for what he has done, yet Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job.
The truth is that while these guys won't go to jail, they do have the rest of their lives to live out and I personally, if in their shoes, would be worried about some kook who would do me harm.



W is essentially out of office now. What is left of his duties is only to inform Obama of what is going on in the Executive office. (I hear they are looking for extra dogs and ponies on Pennsylvania Ave.)

As for Clinton, if their was an impeachment everyone missed it including Hill Billy Bill. Congress attempted to censure him, which is basically calling him "Liar liar pants on fire!".

Interesting.

Ted Stevens has pretty much won his re-election.

There is a good chance the Republican Party will ask him to resign.

If that is the case, the Governor will appoint a replacement, then a special election will be scheduled for 90 days later.

Scenario:

Stevens resigns.

Palin resigns

Lt. Governor Sean Parnell becomes Governor

Parnell appoints Palin as Alaska's Senator

Palin takes her 80% approval rating into the special election and becomes a full time Senator.

In 2010, Palin announces her run for the White house (just like Barak Obama did)

IMO Bush did more to harm us than protect us ... he's helped further tie divsision between us the Muslim workd and now people hate us and want to attack us even more. Don't confused not getting attacked in 7 years with protecting us or us being safer.



I am not sure that the hate they have for the US could be any worse than say killing 2,974 was, but then I guess it is a matter of degrees.



Then let's compare Sadam to Osama.

Osama-2 attempts, 1 successful
Sadam-0 attempts

Whom did we capture? [censored] I feel so much more secure with Sadam gone and Bin Laden still running around. W should become a magician now, a little sleight of hand and we forgot who we were really after!

While Sadam was a tyrant and got what he deserved, he was not the enemy. As for our invasion into Iraq, all it did was prove that the Muslim extremists were right! Yet we sent our heroes to fight a war that is being proven to be more costly than Viet Nam and just about as correct.

Ship the UN Building and all the Diplomats to Iraq, Iran, or wherever. In exchange return our soldiers back to the US, and close our borders. Let the soldiers patrol the borders with the orders to use whatever measures necessary to prevent illegal entry into our country, then I'll consider my family safe.

IMO Bush did more to harm us than protect us ... he's helped further tie divsision between us the Muslim workd and now people hate us and want to attack us even more. Don't confused not getting attacked in 7 years with protecting us or us being safer.



I am not sure that the hate they have for the US could be any worse than say killing 2,974 was, but then I guess it is a matter of degrees.



the terrorist certainly have always hated us, but we fell into their trap and recklessly lunged into the middle east giving fuel to their fire. also the way we acted was unbecoming of the united states and left the rest of the world unable to whole heartedly support our cause at a time when we need the worlds help more than ever. i wish we had an intelligent statesman in office in 2001 (no matter what party), but at least now we have Obama.

As for Clinton, if their was an impeachment everyone missed it including Hill Billy Bill. Congress attempted to censure him, which is basically calling him "Liar liar pants on fire!".



This is not true. Clinton was impeached on two counts by the House, while two other articles of impeachment failed. He was tried in the Senate with Chief Justice William Renquist presiding. Clinton was not convicted.

Clinton is the second president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson being the first.

Yet we sent our heroes to fight a war that is being proven to be more costly than Viet Nam and just about as correct.



U.S. Vietnam Casualties as of 2001:
Killed: 58,217
Wounded: 153,452
Missing: 1947

I heard on the B-cast today that civilian casualties to crime in Chicago over the past six months have exceeded military casualties in Iraq over the same time period.

the terrorist certainly have always hated us, but we fell into their trap and recklessly lunged into the middle east giving fuel to their fire. also the way we acted was unbecoming of the united states and left the rest of the world unable to whole heartedly support our cause at a time when we need the worlds help more than ever. i wish we had an intelligent statesman in office in 2001 (no matter what party), but at least now we have Obama.



You may be right, I have also heard it said that they expected us to lie down and roll over. Kind of the same way France has done.

Yet we sent our heroes to fight a war that is being proven to be more costly than Viet Nam and just about as correct.



U.S. Vietnam Casualties as of 2001:
Killed: 58,217
Wounded: 153,452
Missing: 1947



well i am sure he meant relative to the amount of soldiers, that being said, no doubt vietnam was more jacked, but i dont think a dead soldiers family cares much about which war was worse. what matters was the reason for his sacrifice, in vietnam it was control of rubber and other essential resources in the name of dominoes falling, in irag it is the need for the largest consumer of oil to control the oil economey in the name of weapons of mass deception.

[QUOTE]

It still makes me wonder about this country that W will never be impeached for what he has done, yet Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job.
The truth is that while these guys won't go to jail, they do have the rest of their lives to live out and I personally, if in their shoes, would be worried about some kook who would do me harm.



W is essentially out of office now. What is left of his duties is only to inform Obama of what is going on in the Executive office. (I hear they are looking for extra dogs and ponies on Pennsylvania Ave.)

As for Clinton, if their was an impeachment everyone missed it including Hill Billy Bill. Congress attempted to censure him, which is basically calling him "Liar liar pants on fire!".



Impeached on 12-19-98. Acquitted on 2-12-99. He did end up paying a contempt of court fine. It was actually a pretty big deal since it had not been done since 1868.

I'm surprised "everyone" missed it.

IMO Bush did more to harm us than protect us ... he's helped further tie divsision between us the Muslim workd and now people hate us and want to attack us even more. Don't confused not getting attacked in 7 years with protecting us or us being safer.



I am not sure that the hate they have for the US could be any worse than say killing 2,974 was, but then I guess it is a matter of degrees.



the terrorist certainly have always hated us, but we fell into their trap and recklessly lunged into the middle east giving fuel to their fire. also the way we acted was unbecoming of the united states and left the rest of the world unable to whole heartedly support our cause at a time when we need the worlds help more than ever. i wish we had an intelligent statesman in office in 2001 (no matter what party), but at least now we have Obama.



You mean the terrorists were correct when they said we are fighting for Isreal and oil rather than freedom? Weapons of mass destruction, what a joke....I cannot believe there is anyone around who would defend the crooks that have been in power for the last eight years. Bush will only seem worse as history backs away from the present.

Thank God for a president who at least "got it" when it comes to protecting us.



But protecting the Constitution and our rights? Not so much.



Tony, we agree 100% on that :D

The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29385)

Pretty good (and funny) article by Ann Coulter

Thank God for a president who at least "got it" when it comes to protecting us.



But protecting the Constitution and our rights? Not so much.



Tony, we agree 100% on that :D



Now if you'd only come around on the interpretation of the necessary-and-proper clause. Then we'd have progress. :)

This is pretty good, but will not let me post it here. (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/election.png)

Ah, was this directed towards McCain????:D

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/finger_obama.jpg


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XBMdWxcFXQg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XBMdWxcFXQg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Best part about that comic is the mouseover text about 538's creator, Nate Silver.

Go to the main xkcd site to read it.

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/EricAllie110608.jpg

" Bush will only seem worse as history backs away from the present."

Discspeed would you want to bet money on that?
History will be much kinder to Bush, than the 8 years of BS spouted by our wonderful "mainstream" media. 20 years from now he will be seen in much truer light.
As for him being to blame for our trouble with Muslim world, That hate predates Bush's birth, but it is still Bush's fault right? How about the holding of hostages in Iran, the Achille Lauro, the Marine Barracks bombing, and the 1st WTC bombing in '93 was his fault too. I can go on, but you get the picture; I hope. Islamic extremists hate us because.. just because. It's like the story of the Crocodile &amp; the Scorpion.
The scorpion wanted to get across a deep river &amp; asked the croc to give him a ride. The croc said no that the scorpion would sting him. The scorpion said that was ridiculous because it would kill them both. So the croc agreed &amp; they started across. Halfway the scorpion stung the croc &amp; as they were dying, the croc asked why &amp; the scorpion said it couldn't help it; it was just in his nature.

Get ready for a rash of bombings here, just like what happened to Europe. Heck Biden already predicted it. We will be seen as weak &amp; vulnerable now that Hamas' choice won. They are already salivating over the thought of DEATH TO AMERICA.

"It still makes me wonder about this country that W will never be impeached for what he has done, yet Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job.
The truth is that while these guys won't go to jail, they do have the rest of their lives to live out and I personally, if in their shoes, would be worried about some kook who would do me harm."

Are you saying that lying under oath is ok, if its just about sex?And what did W do that deserves impeachment?And I mean factual evidence, not your opinion. As for 7 + years &amp; no attacks on our soil; I'd say that is a fair amount of protection. I wonder how safe you are going to feel this time next year, already the new team is talking up the possibility of new attacks.
And I doubt that Bush or Cheney will be too worried about some kook coming after them. I have an advance copy of Bush's farewell speech; where he quotes Sam Houston: 'To my colleagues here in DC; You can all GO TO HELL, I'm going to Texas.

Interesting.

Ted Stevens has pretty much won his re-election.

There is a good chance the Republican Party will ask him to resign.

If that is the case, the Governor will appoint a replacement, then a special election will be scheduled for 90 days later.

Scenario:

Stevens resigns.

Palin resigns

Lt. Governor Sean Parnell becomes Governor

Parnell appoints Palin as Alaska's Senator

Palin takes her 80% approval rating into the special election and becomes a full time Senator.

In 2010, Palin announces her run for the White house (just like Barak Obama did)



only difference being Obama is intelligent, magnaminous, composed, and informed while Palin is all signpost and no destination. She would do well to stay in her little pond ;)

Obama: "My Cabinet Would Be Bipartisan"

His first pick: Rahm Emanuel!!!



Good thing a presidential cabinet is more than one person. There's been mention of keeping Gates (good idea) and bringing in Lugar (who I think said no) and Hagel (who is thinking about it) for posts. So far the only name that's been mentioned that shouldn't be -- IMO -- is Summers.

Emanuel is very qualified for the job. I know it's hard for some on the right to understand the concept of selecting competent people for the job, but come on now.



Quite apparently it's even harder for some to read what is actually said. How you can read what I said, even quote it, and miss the implication of partisanship is beyond anoying. Do you wear a helmet?

I never said he wasn't qualified, never even implied it, or his competency. In fact, because I know a lot about him, the thought of him not being qualified never even crossed my mind. I think he is perhaps the best choice the media's darling could have picked in the sense of competency, experience and ability to get the job done. He is utterly ruthless and partisan to the core. If you could stop your assumptions for one second, you might understand the point, which is and was, Obama is full of crap! His idea of bipartisanship is an outright lie and many bought it. I don't care if he is partisan or not. More power to anyone who stands on what he believes. But the BS that he will have a bipartisan cabinet (or staff), and people believed it, is a joke. And the only people laughing are those who believe like Obama's history proves, that saying anything to get what you want is acceptable. Straight from Saul Alinsky, the ends justify the means.

BTW, I think it was you (if not, so sorry) who poo poo'ed me when I said many weeks ago that McCain wasn't going anywhere by spouting "bipartisanship." In typical fashion you (if it was you) called me a right winger or a neocon or the latest zinger your crowd thinks is an insult to a conservative. Well, how did that bipartisan stance of McCain work out for him? Really drew in a lot of sheeple huh? Conservatism did not loose Tuesday night, just ask San Francisco's "faux marriage" supporters. McCains appeal to the left and center (if you believe in such a thing) did.

"only difference being Obama is intelligent, magnaminous, composed, and informed while Palin is all signpost and no destination. She would do well to stay in her little pond"

The elections over &amp; you're still drinking the Koolaid? You gonna stay that way for 4 years?

And I love how you guys take offense @ anyone badmouthing your man, while at the same time running down the other side and all who support them.

you are implying that because Obama did not choose a Conservative as his first pick he is being partisan? :confused:

look what McConnell says about Barak below:


After winning a spot on the [Harvard Law] Review, Obama beat out 18 other contenders to become the first African-American president in the then-103-year history of the Review, and his duties included leading discussions and debates to determine what to print from the mountain of submissions from judges, scholars and authors from across the country, supervising the thorough editing of each issue's contents and giving every article what's known as a "P-read" once it was finally considered ready for publication.

Once a piece is set, the president also sends a letter or fax and makes a follow-up phone call to each author. Federal Judge Michael W. McConnell, who was nominated by President Bush and has frequently been mentioned as one of Bush�s potential Supreme Court nominees, recalls receiving one such letter and call in early 1990 for his article �The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion.�

McConnell told Politico, �A frequent problem with student editors is that they try to turn an article into something they want it to be. It was striking that Obama didn�t do that. He tried to make it better from my point of view.� McConnell was impressed enough to urge the University of Chicago Law School to seek Obama out as an academic prospect.

Yale professor Vicki Schultz, then an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, wrote a lengthy article for the June 1990 issue, titled �Telling Stories About Women and Work,� which compared the ways in which the courts handled sexual and racial discrimination cases. She was concerned that �some African-American scholars might be offended by the comparison� but says Obama was �incredibly reassuring and smart and nonideological� about the way he approached the piece.

One thing Obama did not do while with the review was publish any of his own work. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama didn't write any articles for the Review, though his two semesters at the helm did produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned �notes� from Harvard students.
-- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257_Page2.html

Hey Playtowin
I tried to reply to PM but your box is full
But Thanks

try it now.

you are implying that because Obama did not choose a Conservative as his first pick he is being partisan? :confused:




Assumptions are so hard to find around here!

I am not implying anything. I am flat out saying he lied for votes by saying his cabinet (I know, chief of staff isn't cabinet) would be bipartisan. His first pick (cheif of staff! Right hand man!) in the draft is anything but bipartisan. Have you ever heard the story of the dead bird he sent to someone he disagree'd with? Ever heard the story of the stabbing the table with a steak knife saying the names of those he disagree'd with and saying "DEAD!?" Ever heard of Chicago Thug Polotics? If you haven't, you're about to

Can anyone tell me what pattern of Obama's history and what part of his first move that would indicate "bipartisanship?" I really should just forget it, this crowd isn't drinking the Obama "kool aide," they are recieving and IV drip of it! Chase that dragon if you wish.

I have an advance copy of Bush's farewell speech; where he quotes Sam Houston: 'To my colleagues here in DC; You can all GO TO HELL, I'm going to Texas.



I hope he ends that speech by saying; "Oh, and one more thing, STRATEGERY!"

here's a better link -- i saw parts of this show on McCain &amp; Obama Monday night -- election eve --

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/etc/sitemap.html

here's the transcript (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/etc/script.html) and an excerpt therefrom about Obama and his non-partisan approach after becoming the President of the Harvard Law Review:

NARRATOR: Brad Berenson was a member of the conservative Federalist Society. One day, he and his associates would help run the Bush administration.

BRADFORD BERENSON: The conservatives on the Harvard Law School campus at that time were severely outnumbered.

NARRATOR: Inside that toxic environment, Obama's affinity for the Federalist students surprised his black associates.

CHRISTINE SPURELL: I don't know why at the time he was able to communicate so well with them, even spend social time with them, which was not something I would ever have done. I don't think he was agenda-driven. I think he genuinely thought some of these guys are nice, all of them are smart, some of them are funny. All of them have something to say.

NARRATOR: No African-American had ever been president of The Law Review. In his second year, Obama decided to run for it.

BRADFORD BERENSON: If being on The Law Review is a great credential and a high honor, being the president of it is the greatest credential and the greatest honor.

LIZA MUNDY: The voting for the presidency was an all-day process in which- it started out in the day with a lot of candidates, and they got basically voted off the island as the day progressed.

KENNETH MACK: One of my most poignant memories of The Law Review election process was late in the process. It's late at night. We're trying to figure out how to resolve this thing. Clearly, Barack has a lot of support, but it's not resolved yet. And a conservative editor who probably disagreed with just about everything that Barack stood for got up and said that he was firmly behind Barack because we were a divided institution, this was the best person to lead the institution and to reach out to all constituencies, even though he had his own political views and made them known.

NARRATOR: Just after midnight, he won. It was national news.

BARACK OBAMA, Pres., Harvard Law Review: Well, I'm honored, and I think people can say that my election symbolizes some progress, at least within the small confines of the legal community. I think it's real important to keep the focus on the broader world out there and see that for a lot of kids, the doors that have been opened to me aren't open to them.

NARRATOR: The African-American editors were ecstatic.

BRADFORD BERENSON: I think a lot of the minority editors on The Review expected him to use his discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them.

CASSANDRA BUTTS, Harvard Law, 1991: There was an expectation on the part of his more progressive colleagues at The Law Review that he would side with them on issues.

BRADFORD BERENSON: Barack was reluctant to do that. It's not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that.

NARRATOR: Only one African-American student received a top editor's job. Federalist Society members were given three.

CHRISTINE SPURELL: The whole Federalist slate was taking over. I was kind of hoping to get a masthead position, and I did not get a masthead position. I was hurt. I think I would call it very hurt. And I told him so. I mean, certainly, he was aware of how I felt.

BRADFORD BERENSON: I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on The Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think, there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use his position to advance the cause.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/etc/script.html

Saul Alinsky Takes the White House

http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/saul-alinsky-takes-the-white-h

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cwqh4wQPoQk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cwqh4wQPoQk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Weapons of mass destruction, what a joke....I cannot believe there is anyone around who would defend the crooks that have been in power for the last eight years. Bush will only seem worse as history backs away from the present.



Yeah, right.......Bush lied; people died

In typical fashion you (if it was you) called me a right winger or a neocon or the latest zinger your crowd thinks is an insult to a conservative. Well, how did that bipartisan stance of McCain work out for him? Really drew in a lot of sheeple huh? Conservatism did not loose Tuesday night, just ask San Francisco's "faux marriage" supporters. McCains appeal to the left and center (if you believe in such a thing) did.



Bipartisan stance? What are you talking about? Palin hating on Obama daily. Socialist. Willaim Ayers. This preacher, that community organizer.

Yes, McCain ran quite a bipartisan campaign. :p

As an aside, bipartisanship is better stated as postpartisan, imo. It is not about issues, but tone. As Obama always says: it is about disagreeing without being disagreeable. McCain oozed a bad tone from the start. it was best exemplified at the debates. Palin epitomizes ugliness in tone; she is pure divisiveness.

In sum, if you view McCain's campaign as bipartisan, and the next republican candidate runs with an even more partisan tone, don't expect to win back the presidency. The republicans are at a crossroads: listen to and appease the shrill, divisive nutjobs, or scatter them to the wind and try to capture some of the center right and left. Realistically, I don't see another way.

In sum, if you view McCain's campaign as bipartisan, and the next republican candidate runs with an even more partisan tone, don't expect to win back the presidency. The republicans are at a crossroads: listen to and appease the shrill, divisive nutjobs, or scatter them to the wind and try to capture some of the center right and left. Realistically, I don't see another way.



Exactly. The Democrats are hoping that this happens. That way they don't have to try very hard over the next couple of cycles to win elections. Please let Palin be a 2012 candidate.

When a Buckley switches sides, you know that true conservativism no longer exists in the Republican party platform.

As an aside, bipartisanship is better stated as postpartisan, imo. It is not about issues, but tone. As Obama always says: it is about disagreeing without being disagreeable. McCain oozed a bad tone from the start. it was best exemplified at the debates. Palin epitomizes ugliness in tone; she is pure divisiveness.

In sum, if you view McCain's campaign as bipartisan, and the next republican candidate runs with an even more partisan tone, don't expect to win back the presidency. The republicans are at a crossroads: listen to and appease the shrill, divisive nutjobs, or scatter them to the wind and try to capture some of the center right and left. Realistically, I don't see another way.



Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama spend just as much money on negative ads as did McCain? Yes he had more that were not negative, but then again he spent twice as much as McCain. I think Obama did not spend as much in some states than in others which gives those states the apperance that he did not run as many negative ads, but a current study by CNN shows he spent just as much nation wide.

As for him being bi-partisan there were several Democrats that spoke out for McCain including presidential hopeful Lieberman.

I won't go deep into it, but I also heard Obama had more negative ads. However, I think that whole stat is completely misleading when trying to answer the question: who ran a more negative campaign.

Is "John mCCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time" considered a negative ad? Likewise, is "Obama went to this guy's church for twenty years (run the clips)" a negative ad? Debating this in an objective way seems worthless. Ultimately, it is about public perception.

I suspect that most voters felt McCain ran a more negative campaign than Obama. More importantly, if pollsters measured the intensity of people's opinions on this matter and factored that in, the perception of McCain's negative campaign would be magnified. As an aside, I suspect historians will see it that way also.

At any rate, it is not a question I need to answer, but a question the GOP needs to answer. If they feel McCain was too bipartisan and that was his downfall, and all he needed was more Wright and Ayers, then their future direction seems clear. If they go this route, I predict it will be like McCarthy's reign until that moment where he was rebuffed and public perception coalesced against his behavior. Apparently, the GOP is not there yet. Stay tuned.

I am flat out saying he lied for votes by saying his cabinet (I know, chief of staff isn't cabinet) would be bipartisan.



I get it now, you think he's guilty of lying before he's even had a chance to proof whether he is or not --despite the fact that he is considering at least 3 Republicans, which I named above.


Words of Advice: Less Rush, more reality.

I won't go deep into it, but I also heard Obama had more negative ads. However, I think that whole stat is completely misleading when trying to answer the question: who ran a more negative campaign.

Is "John mCCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time" considered a negative ad? Likewise, is "Obama went to this guy's church for twenty years (run the clips)" a negative ad? Debating this in an objective way seems worthless. Ultimately, it is about public perception.

I suspect that most voters felt McCain ran a more negative campaign than Obama. More importantly, if pollsters measured the intensity of people's opinions on this matter and factored that in, the perception of McCain's negative campaign would be magnified. As an aside, I suspect historians will see it that way also.

At any rate, it is not a question I need to answer, but a question the GOP needs to answer. If they feel McCain was too bipartisan and that was his downfall, and all he needed was more Wright and Ayers, then their future direction seems clear. If they go this route, I predict it will be like McCarthy's reign until that moment where he was rebuffed and public perception coalesced against his behavior. Apparently, the GOP is not there yet. Stay tuned.



I can understand what you are saying and cannot disagree or agree since I did not see all the ads. I am pretty sure that if we also take out all the McCain ads that say Obama voted this way or that on an issue we might find Obama spent more, but I really cannot say if the intent was worse for McCain. I pretty much ignored both of their ads. The stat that Obama spent the same amount was a CNN stat, but it did not say anything about content.

As for bi-partisan, McCain was probably the closest a republican presidental hopeful was to it in the past 30 years. I am pretty sure that a lot of Republicans did not care for McCain because he was to much of a bi-partisan. I guess it depends on which side of the line you are on.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jC4ZYdkuWuc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jC4ZYdkuWuc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So, is Ralph Nader off base on his comment????

this video speaks for itself


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kDEAYgm0Dv8&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kDEAYgm0Dv8&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

&lt;object width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jC4ZYdkuWuc&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp; fs=1"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jC4ZYdkuWuc&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp; fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;

So, is Ralph Nader off base on his comment????



Wow, Ralph Nader has just shot himself in the head. He will be regretting his statement for years to come.

Now if President elect Obama pulls for the American people or corporations, only time will tell. He is going to have to somehow repay all the donations he received. I suspect, he like most presidents, will do something in between, however as I said, only time will tell.

this video speaks for itself


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kDEAYgm0Dv8&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kDEAYgm0Dv8&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



She did say she didn't brow beat??!! This was wrong. By the way if she had acted similarly for McCain I would also have said this was wrong. She clearly preferred Obama and she is teaching our kids..........

I agree Jerry, the Fox News guy only had Nader on because of his "Uncle Tom" reference, but Nader had a valid point, is Obama going to be what those elected him to be, or is he going to be a shill for Corporations??

I have watched the video several times, I don't think the "Uncle Tom" reference was outright racist.

I don't think it will matter if it was meant to be racist or not. Howard Cosel once was talking about a running back and made the statement "look at that monkey run", I don't think he meant that to be racist either, he never announced another football game again.

I am flat out saying he lied for votes by saying his cabinet (I know, chief of staff isn't cabinet) would be bipartisan.



I get it now



Now who's lying! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Next time I will say what I mean in riddle form or something cause apparently, simply saying what is meant is too much to handle. Sheeesh!

you are implying that because Obama did not choose a Conservative as his first pick he is being partisan? :confused:




Assumptions are so hard to find around here!

I am not implying anything. I am flat out saying he lied for votes by saying his cabinet (I know, chief of staff isn't cabinet) would be bipartisan. His first pick (cheif of staff! Right hand man!) in the draft is anything but bipartisan. Have you ever heard the story of the dead bird he sent to someone he disagree'd with? Ever heard the story of the stabbing the table with a steak knife saying the names of those he disagree'd with and saying "DEAD!?" Ever heard of Chicago Thug Polotics? If you haven't, you're about to

Can anyone tell me what pattern of Obama's history and what part of his first move that would indicate "bipartisanship?" I really should just forget it, this crowd isn't drinking the Obama "kool aide," they are recieving and IV drip of it! Chase that dragon if you wish.



couldnt Obama have meant by cabinet posts postitions like secretary of state and defense etc. why on earth would any president choose as his closest advisor someone from the other party?

I agree Jerry, the Fox News guy only had Nader on because of his "Uncle Tom" reference, but Nader had a valid point, is Obama going to be what those elected him to be, or is he going to be a shill for Corporations??

I have watched the video several times, I don't think the "Uncle Tom" reference was outright racist.



i couldnt watch the clip because im at work, but the last time i saw Nader was on Democracy NOW with Amy Goodman.he was deflating all of our liberals hopes for Obama by pointing out that he is a free trader like Clinton and will ofcourse be a shill for corporate america. this of course is true or corporate america would have never let him become a candidate in the first place. I just hope he rules with more intellegence and compassion than did the last ruler.

free trade is a liberal ideal if disparity between peoples is not

Your tax dollars pay for someone like that to teach your kids. Perfect ad for homeschoolers. If I'd been that kid with the father " over in Iraq for 100 years"; I'd have told her yeah he might have to be to protect your sorry behind. Then I'd have slapped the feces out of her.

I'd been that kid with the father " over in Iraq for 100 years"; I'd have told her yeah he might have to be to protect your sorry behind.



did not watch the clip but the war in Iraq had nothing to do with protecting our freedom and at least now we have a President who won't send our troops into harm's way on false pretenses. all Bush and Cheney did was make us weaker and waste a trillion tax dollars in Iraq and unfairly ask the ultimate sacrifice from a lot of our troops. that and pad the pockets of the arms merchants.

Bush dodged the draft by hiding in the Natl Guard which he didn't even show up for but daddy was head of the CIA then so Georgie got away with it. then he sent our Natl. Guardsmen and women overseas to fight a preemptive war based on cherry-picked intelligence. he turned what should have been a six month conflict into one that still is still going on and costing us American lives and billions of tax dollars because of a terrible miscalculation of how to get it done. he had the stupidity to make a photo op and say "mission accomplished" so prematurely that it still is a lie today. if a liberal did that you'd have long ago impeached him .

I'd been that kid with the father " over in Iraq for 100 years"; I'd have told her yeah he might have to be to protect your sorry behind.



did not watch the clip but the war in Iraq had nothing to do with protecting our freedom and at least now we have a President who won't send our troops into harm's way on false pretenses. all Bush and Cheney did was make us weaker and waste a trillion tax dollars in Iraq and unfairly ask the ultimate sacrifice from a lot of our troops. that and pad the pockets of the arms merchants.

Bush dodged the draft by hiding in the Natl Guard which he didn't even show up for but daddy was head of the CIA then so Georgie got away with it. then he sent our Natl. Guardsmen and women overseas to fight a preemptive war based on cherry-picked intelligence. he turned what should have been a six month conflict into one that still is still going on and costing us American lives and billions of tax dollars because of a terrible miscalculation of how to get it done. he had the stupidity to make a photo op and say "mission accomplished" so prematurely that it still is a lie today. if a liberal did that you'd have long ago impeached him .



No the liberal would have thrown up a white flag &amp; apologized to the world for ever trying to defend our freedom &amp; home. Still drinking that koolaid &amp; reading Soros' talking points memo are ya?

Now we will have to wait and see

however Obama has stated in this election that he would

consider putting troops in Dalfur

consider putting troops in Georgia

Is going to put more troops in Afghanistan

Will attack inside of Pakistan if we are going in to get bin Laden

Will attack Iran to keep them from getting Nukes.

preemptive war based on cherry-picked intelligence.



sort of true, except if you watch the video posted by someone else, it shows that even durring the Clinton Administration, they were talking about eliminating WMD's in Iraq.

How soon we forget how much Clinton bombed Iraq.


he had the stupidity to make a photo op and say "mission accomplished"



Lets not get the facts mixed up too much. The ship that Bush was on had just finished it tour of duty. The banner was made by them and was not there for Bush. This is one of the biggest mis truths passed on by the left.


if a liberal did that you'd have long ago impeached him



Articles of Impeachment has been turned in on both Bush and Dick, however the Democrats in Charge (Pelosi) keep killing it. I do think they both should be impeached and removed from office.

I will not defend Bush and his actions, but I will set the record straight.

[/QUOTE]

couldnt Obama have meant by cabinet posts postitions like secretary of state and defense etc. why on earth would any president choose as his closest advisor someone from the other party?

[/QUOTE]

I never even implied that he should hire a republican. In fact, I've said it was the best pick the chosen one could have made. Once again, my only point, which was far from subtle or hard to decipher was that Obama preached bipartisanship in his cabinet and I simply pointed out how his first pick was far from it. Keep in mind, he started his campaign by promissing an inner circle that was not the ordinary Washington insider crowd. HA! Exhibit A: Biden! You like the kool aide? Fine, but as the weeks, months and years go by, just ask yourself how much his words match his actions.

You watch over the next week and make a list of all the "insiders" he hires. Also, in addition to his first pick (on the board of directors during the height of Freddie and Fannie scandals), let's start counting how many folks he will "work with" who reek of the "insider" smoke. I am still waiting for someone, ANYONE, who can show me any record or pattern in Obama's record that would indicate bipartisanship or "reaching across the isle."

McCain (along with his incompetent staff of anonymous cowards) screwed the pooch in this campaign by thinking that "bipartisanship" was going to make people swoon and think "this guy gets us!" You don't win over people who hate you by trying to be like them. When you stand on core conservative values and walk the talk (mainly fiscally) you win in America. Palin is the only thing McCain had that represented that fundamental truth. McCain was, is and always will be a moderate republican who pisses off his base. It's obviously time for the republican party to grab a big wad of tissue, spread'em wide and wipe hard because they spent themselves silly and gotten away from basic conservative core values and actions. They DON'T need to redefine conservatism, they need to act it out, and articulate it to a younger crowd that has never seen what a Carter administration does to a nation. Not yet at least.

Once again, simply put, he said one thing, he's doing another. If you haven't gotten used to that part of him after two years of campaigning, no amount of me repeating it is gonna sink in now that it matters because the kool aide tastes oooh so good. And he's so cool!

Might not have to wait long. 1st 30 days according to Biden. Excellent post by the way.
The reason Pelosi is killing the impeachments is because it would come out that the real reason we are in Iraq is related to the type of warfare you have to use against terrorists. Its called cockroach killing. You turn out the lights to get them in open then turn on the light &amp; start stomping. It involves a lot of "collateral damage" &amp; you need a place thats already screwed up. We tried to do it in Afghanistan, but when we started kicking butt; the Arabs deserted their Taliban friends. So we had to pick Iraq.It was the only country that the Saudis. Iranians etc. wouldn't get too upset about if we attacked. Plus its the perfect staging area to hit anywhere in Mideast. Pelosi, Reid &amp; all the leadership were briefed &amp; signed off &amp; would have a hard time trying to justify it.
The first rule of war is you never tell what you are going to do &amp; the real reason why. You just do it.

I found this amusing


McCain would be our president-elect if just 500,000 voters in eight key battleground states opted for him instead of Barack Obama (Just imagine what the political landscape would look like if the mass media was composed of objective journalists rather than Leftist campaign hacks.)

I found this amusing


McCain would be our president-elect if just 500,000 voters in eight key battleground states opted for him instead of Barack Obama (Just imagine what the political landscape would look like if the mass media was composed of objective journalists rather than Leftist campaign hacks.)





You don't give a professional organization like ACORN enough credit. I'd bet that that after you take away all of the fraudulently registered voters that managed to cast a vote, the number would be closer to 200,000. :cool:

Lets not get the facts mixed up too much. The ship that Bush was on had just finished it tour of duty. The banner was made by them and was not there for Bush. This is one of the biggest mis truths passed on by the left.



Wake up, Pizza. The White House admitted making the sign long ago. They claim it was at the Navy's request. It strains credibility a bit, doesn't it, that the Navy doesn't have the resources to produce their own banners? Is this the only ship to celebrate the end of a tour that they needed the White House to intervene in banner production?

The White House made the sign (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/):
"White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a 'Mission Accomplished' banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

'We took care of the production of it,' McClellan said. 'We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up.'"

The White House put it up (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/dickerson/article/0,9565,536170,00.html):
"Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner -- contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. 'They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?' asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech."

The sign was not unique (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E3DE1630F93AA15753C1A9659C8B 63):
"The man responsible for the banner, Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer now with the White House communications office, was traveling overseas on Tuesday and declined to answer questions. He is known for the production of the sophisticated backdrops that appear behind Mr. Bush with the White House message of the day, like 'Helping Small Business,' repeated over and over."

Let's not get the facts mixed up too much.

it was a very costly war for us and was bungled terribly by Bush et al. "we'll be greeted as liberators" -- they bought into the Bush Doctrine which was as foolish an approach as possible to trying to lead the world. we spent ourselves into the ditch, made a recruiting brochure for al qaeda by our actions, got the arms merchants rich (peace isn't so profitable for them) and ruined a lot of American families by putting our troops into harm's way so Bushie could look tough against a paper tiger. Bush spent 1 trillion tax dollars on Iraq.
1 trillion of our tax dollars spent to what end??? -- he made things worse!

based on consequence and effect, Bush is easily the worst President we have seen. thank god a slew of Supreme Court Justices didn't get appointed by him. that would have been catastrophic! he thought he was a King -- i guess he was a king of sorts... :p

even durring the Clinton Administration, they were talking about eliminating WMD's in Iraq.

How soon we forget how much Clinton bombed Iraq.




strategic bombing of Iraq is entirely different than starting a preemptive war in which ground troops are put in harm's way, civilians are killed, infrastructure is destroyed, and bin Laden/al qaeda is given a new front in which to recruit members and be a major player against the USA. we legitimized Osama as a bonafide enemy capable of scaring the US into the irrational act of invading Iraq as if bin Laden was there -- the incongruity of which which made bin Laden more attractive to the very people we could have done well to win over by instead going after the *actual purpetrators* of 911 and not the secular govt and leader of Iraq (even if he was a pain in the ar*se). we also destroyed our long standing in the world as a great nation and gave credence to those who labeled us a bully by the way Bush went about "building" a "coalition" to invade Iraq after 9-1-1. what was it Rumsfeld said? "there are no good [bombing] targets in Afghanistan"

we never needed to start a war in Iraq -- and for a guy like Bush -- who draft dodged and didn't even report for Guard duty -- to send *our Guard* into harms way in Iraq for what bin laden did was utterly ridiculous and borderline criminal. Bin Laden and Sadaam couldn't stand each other -- Sadaam had a secular govt! Iraq also used to keep Iran in check for the same reason. strategic bombing of military targets in Iraq is FAR different than spending a trillion tax dollars there, costing countless lives and destroying America's international credibility and the goodwill we used to foster. Thank goodness the witch (Bush / Cheney / etc) is almost dead (out of office)!

I will stand corrected on the Banner issue, I had not researched it in a long time, I was going off defenses I had from when I actually use to defend Bush.

I will point out that he did say in that speech on the ship that we had successfully ousted Saddam and now comes the hard part that may take some time.

couldnt Obama have meant by cabinet posts postitions like secretary of state and defense etc. why on earth would any president choose as his closest advisor someone from the other party?

[/QUOTE]

I never even implied that he should hire a republican. In fact, I've said it was the best pick the chosen one could have made. Once again, my only point, which was far from subtle or hard to decipher was that Obama preached bipartisanship in his cabinet and I simply pointed out how his first pick was far from it. Keep in mind, he started his campaign by promissing an inner circle that was not the ordinary Washington insider crowd. HA! Exhibit A: Biden! You like the kool aide? Fine, but as the weeks, months and years go by, just ask yourself how much his words match his actions.

You watch over the next week and make a list of all the "insiders" he hires. Also, in addition to his first pick (on the board of directors during the height of Freddie and Fannie scandals), let's start counting how many folks he will "work with" who reek of the "insider" smoke. I am still waiting for someone, ANYONE, who can show me any record or pattern in Obama's record that would indicate bipartisanship or "reaching across the isle."

McCain (along with his incompetent staff of anonymous cowards) screwed the pooch in this campaign by thinking that "bipartisanship" was going to make people swoon and think "this guy gets us!" You don't win over people who hate you by trying to be like them. When you stand on core conservative values and walk the talk (mainly fiscally) you win in America. Palin is the only thing McCain had that represented that fundamental truth. McCain was, is and always will be a moderate republican who pisses off his base. It's obviously time for the republican party to grab a big wad of tissue, spread'em wide and wipe hard because they spent themselves silly and gotten away from basic conservative core values and actions. They DON'T need to redefine conservatism, they need to act it out, and articulate it to a younger crowd that has never seen what a Carter administration does to a nation. Not yet at least.

Once again, simply put, he said one thing, he's doing another. If you haven't gotten used to that part of him after two years of campaigning, no amount of me repeating it is gonna sink in now that it matters because the kool aide tastes oooh so good. And he's so cool!

[/QUOTE]

dude ive never heard of a politician that walked the talk, they all lie. its just that your example of his dishonesty is ludicrous. i am sure we will have plenty of great examples soon enough. i'm not sure why honesty is so important to you anyway, are you not a Bush supporter/apologist :Dbigger liars they do not make. talk about drinking the koolaid. at least wait until he appoints marxists to all of the cabinet posts before you call him out on not having a bipartisan cabinet.

I will point out that he did say in that speech on the ship that we had successfully ousted Saddam and now comes the hard part that may take some time.



Here is a transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/) of that speach. It's worth a re-read. I find it a fitting commentary on the failure of the Bush Doctrine.

When you stand on core conservative values and walk the talk (mainly fiscally) you win in America. Palin is the only thing McCain had that represented that fundamental truth.



wow, talk about drinking the koolaid! Palin sunk McCain -- she only appealed to the right wing nuts who have a shallow grasp of the issues facing our nation. Even the moderate middles took her as a sign that McCain could not make sound decisions about how to run our country (or who is qualified to be next in line). bye bye Repub.s if they make her their poster child...

i'm not sure why honesty is so important to you anyway, are you not a Bush supporter/apologist :Dbigger liars they do not make. talk about drinking the koolaid. at least wait until he appoints marxists to all of the cabinet posts before you call him out on not having a bipartisan cabinet.



:Dgreat post :D

she only appealed to the right wing nuts who have a shallow grasp of the issues facing our nation



Now what Right Wing nuts are you talking about?????

Theo-cons
Neo-cons
or True Conservatives???

I have always felt it was the hard left that has ZERO idea of what is going on in this country.

I have not been happy with the Neo-con's who have controlled the Republican Party sense the days of Reagan.

This is actually funny

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rTICvM7gNOo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rTICvM7gNOo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

You would not see this from McCain supporters :D

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SzwQIWS96TQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SzwQIWS96TQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

she only appealed to the right wing nuts who have a shallow grasp of the issues facing our nation



Now what Right Wing nuts are you talking about?????

Theo-cons
Neo-cons
or True Conservatives???

I have always felt it was the hard left that has ZERO idea of what is going on in this country.

I have not been happy with the Neo-con's who have controlled the Republican Party sense the days of Reagan.



the ones who find Palin appealing. Reagan read script. His admin. gave to the rich at the poor's expense -- widening the gap between the haves and the have nots, shrinking the middle class -- that wasn't very conservative despite the rhethoric he smoothly offered. Iran Contra was not Conservative. Reaganomics killed us. look at the debt he ran up -- not Conservative at all. Rudman otoh was a Repub. i respected...

You would not see this from McCain supporters :D







so much for the right to peacably assemble ;)

i'm not sure why honesty is so important to you anyway, are you not a Bush supporter/apologist :Dbigger liars they do not make. talk about drinking the koolaid. at least wait until he appoints marxists to all of the cabinet posts before you call him out on not having a bipartisan cabinet.



:Dgreat post :D



I can see why honesty is such a hard nut for you to crack. I simply pointed out the fact that under Bush we haven't been attacked since 9/11, then you guys just went crazy with Bush hatred. It's like raw meat to guys or something. I could say, "IMO Bush's first name is George" and within seconds you guys would be googling your fingers off to see if it's true or not! Remotely funny, but mostly sad.

I'd count the assumptions you guys make when I say something but I can't count that high. I am just a dumb religious conservative worshiping Palins impression of Reagan. Maybe I could hire ACORN, they seem pretty good with numbers.

Yeah, "great post" there. Admit honesty is hard for you to figure out in me because I said we haven't been attacked under his leadership and IMO history will be more kind to him than you! Then call me a liar! Someone who never voted for him and only pointed out a couple possitive aspects of his presidency that I think are very important. All that while I pointed out his many negatives! And to top it off, ignore that I said (three times!) that I wasn't poo pooing the messiah's pick, but specifically the fact that he campaigned on promises of having Washington outsiders and bipartisans, then his first pick was the ultimate antithesis to that promise. Great post wizard of smart.

sheesh, by 'great post' i was simply applauding his calling y'all out for your failure to recognize that Obama is NOT appointing marxists to his cabinet. maybe you're still a little wounded by our having elected a liberal candidate with intelligence, composure, substance, and vision?

i remember the good old days when those not so liberal didn't use mean spirited debate and bashing but actually argued issues and respected those you disagreed with. Too bad for the Repub's the NeoCons usurped that standing. now all you can do is attack .

his Cabinet hasn't even taken shape, let alone office, and your already starting the 2012 campaign ...

troll on if that is your preference /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Yes, you are correct, Reagan's presidency was run by the original Neo-Cons. Reagan himself was not a Neo-Con, in fact he even stated the Government was not the solution, it was the problem.

I would argue with you about Reaganomics though, it led to a very good decade of prosperity in the 90's

the start of the decline of that prosperity was the dot com bubble, then 9/11, and now the Housing Bubble and Dollar Bubble that are currently crashing.

A lot of Republicans think Reagan was the bomb. I don't view it that way, Iove his speeches, but he did not do what he said he would. He doubles the number of regulations when in office and doubled the National Debt. That is not very Conservative.

This morning I saw Bill Krystal on Fox talking about how Republicans need to start talking conservative again, that moving to the middle ground did not work. Funny thing is, Bill Krystal is a Big Government Neo-Con who's father is the father of the Neo-Con's. He does not speak for me, in fact I think he is a scum bag.

Michael Reagan is saying the same things, he is starting up a new group that says all the right things, except he has been talking the Neo-Con lines for years.

The Neo-cons are not going to give up easily, we, as conservative republicans, need to NOT follow these lip service guys.

I posted this nearly 22 months ago to start this thread. It was a picture of the bumper sticker still on my truck of "Ron Paul for President 2008"


I am super excited if he runs again. He filed his papers this week and will make it public in the next few weeks.

It will remain to be seen if he can muster up enough votes to win the primary, but I might actually go vote for him in the Republican primaries.



What a long strange trip it has been.

There will be a view video's out in the next year about the campaign, but this short "preview" brings back a lot of memories.

I just thought I would share it with you guys, it brings tears to my eyes.

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5W71ZeRJ1Ok&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5W71ZeRJ1Ok&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Ha, it is kind of funny reading what we posted 22 months ago :D


I hate to say it, but the best candidates that the Dem's have the "heartland" is not ready for.

The "heartland" will never elect a black man or a woman, no matter who their running mates are.

It is truly a sad state that this country is still in. You still have to be a white, christian, socially conservative, male to be the president.

Bill Clinton is the closest we will probably get to a black president in my lifetime.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sheesh, by 'great post' i was simply applauding his calling y'all out for your failure to recognize that Obama is NOT appointing marxists to his cabinet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's weird, cuz he never said "your failure to recognize that Obama is NOT appointing marxists to his cabinet." He did said to "wait" until the chosen one appoints marxists before you call him out for being bipartisan.

And, I never said the messiah is "appointing marxists to his cabinet." Look it up...

I'll say it now though, OBAMA WILL APPOINT SOME MARXISTS TO HIS CABINET. He'll need all the help he can get from like minded folks. He can't do it alone! And in case you're wondering, no, I don't think he'll be able to do nearly all the marxists things that some say he wants to. We live in a beautifully designed system that protects us in ways that deal with such "revolutions" of change over time.

Of course Marxism, like every other label thrown at the messiah, has to be clearly defined, parsed and studied because he is the most elusive presidental candidate in history. You don't seem too adept in your assumptions of me, so I'll spell it out. When I say "he will appoint some marxists to his cabinet, I am talking specifically about Obuma's Marxists views related to REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. There are more, but that one is top of mind right here. Hope that wasn't too vague! LOL

When the lord merciful Obama paves the streets with jellybeans and stocks all of our Prius's with free tire gauges, the sky full of rainbows and the 10th month re-named "Barak-tober," then you can live in a fantasy world, but I'd suggest you stop making things up. On second thought, keep it up because for now it's as funny as a clown impaled on a unicorn! It won't be so funny later.

His policies that is, not the "clown impaled on a unicorn!" That's always funny! :D

Man I love your sources. It's the Bush bash trifecta. If you could have added LA Times , you would have had the 4 Horsemen. I read all the links &amp; quotes by John Kerry &amp; Wes Clark were enough to convince me. I mean I would believe anything if they said it. And Dean was the clincher. Everything about that day was as it should have been. Except for Bush. Anyone else &amp; it would have been a moving &amp; patriotic event. When the world ends in Dec of 2012, that will be Bush's fault too. The man is just pure evil.

What part of that speech was an example of the failure of the "Bush Doctrine"?

Hey, Darrell the Mailman, I wote "commentary" not "example". There's a difference.
www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Main ideas
The main ideas to come out of Marx and Engels' collective works include:

Exploitation : Marx refers to the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another. He sees it as being an inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets. The profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value of their labour, in order to enable the capitalist class to turn a profit. This profit is not however moderated in terms of risk vs. return.

Alienation : Marx refers to the alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature" ("Gattungswesen", usually translated as 'species-essence' or 'species-being'). He believes that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and in so doing generate alienated labour.[5] Alienation describes objective features of a person's situation in capitalism - it isn't necessary for them to believe or feel that they are alienated.

Base and superstructure : Marx and Engels use the �base-structure� metaphor to explain the idea that the totality of relations among people with regard to �the social production of their existence� forms the economic basis, on which arises a superstructure of political and legal institutions. To the base corresponds the social consciousness which includes religious, philosophical, and other main ideas. The base conditions both, the superstructure and the social consciousness. A conflict between the development of material productive forces and the relations of production causes social revolutions, and the resulting change in the economic basis will sooner or later lead to the transformation of the superstructure.[6] For Marx, though, this relationship is not a one way process - it is reflexive; the base determines the superstructure in the first instance and remains the foundation of a form of social organization which then can act again upon both parts of the base-structure metaphor.[citation needed] The relationship between superstructure and base is considered to be a dialectical one, not a distinction between actual entities "in the world".[citation needed]

Class consciousness : Class consciousness refers to the awareness, both of itself and of the social world around it, that a social class possess, and its capacity to act in its own rational interests based on this awareness. Thus class consciousness must be attained before the class may mount a successful revolution. Other methods of revolutionary action have been developed however, such as vanguardism.

Ideology: Without offering a general definition for ideology[7], Marx on several instances has used the term to designate the production of images of social reality. According to Engels, �ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces�.[8] Because the ruling class controls the society's means of production, the superstructure of society, as well as its ruling ideas, will be determined according to what is in the ruling class's best interests. As Marx said famously in The German Ideology, �the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force�.[9] Therefore the ideology of a society is of enormous importance since it confuses the alienated groups and can create false consciousness such as commodity fetishism (perceiving labor as capital ~ a degradation of human life).[citation needed]

Historical materialism : Historical materialism was first articulated by Marx, although he himself never used the term. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies in the way in which humans collectively make the means to live, thus giving an emphasis, through economic analysis, to everything that co-exists with the economic base of society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies).

Political economy : The term "political economy" originally meant the study of the conditions under which production was organized in the nation-states of the new-born capitalist system. Political economy, then, studies the mechanism of human activity in organizing material, and the mechanism of distributing the surplus or deficit that is the result of that activity. Political economy studies the means of production, specifically capital, and how this manifests itself in economic activity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you want to apply a label like REDISTRIBUTIONIST onto Obama -- knock yourself out -- but all he is saying is drop taxes a little on all but the wealthiest amongst us and raise taxes a little on the very wealthy. that is a very sane approach and fair too. The NeoCon approach of cutting taxes to the wealthiest has put our nation so far into debt that is undermining our national security. And of course the poor (the majority of which are children and female) are the ones hit the hardest in terms of the impact that has on their daily lives. Bush/Cheney (perhaps it is better called Cheney/Bush) has sponsored irresponisble fiscal policy and compared to that Obama will be a move to a more fiscally conservative approach. :p

If you want to apply a label like REDISTRIBUTIONIST onto Obama -- knock yourself out -- but all he is saying is drop taxes a little on all but the wealthiest amongst us and raise taxes a little on the very wealthy. that is a very sane approach and fair too. The NeoCon approach of cutting taxes to the wealthiest has put our nation so far into debt that is undermining our national security. And of course the poor (the majority of which are children and female) are the ones hit the hardest in terms of the impact that has on their daily lives. Bush/Cheney (perhaps it is better called Cheney/Bush) has sponsored irresponisble fiscal policy and compared to that Obama will be a move to a more fiscally conservative approach. :p



As I said before, only time will tell.

My apologies. I should have quoted you.

"It's worth a re-read. I find it a fitting commentary on the failure of the Bush Doctrine."
Is that better? Now answer the question.

Now answer the question.



I don't respond well to demands.

Oops sorry about that :o
That did sound kind of demanding, didn't it.
I just don't read the things in his speech the way you did I guess.

Thanks for toning it down a bit.

I make the comparison because of the hubris of the speech juxtaposed against what we know five years later. We have learned that the technical military formulated by Rumsfeld and lauded by Bush is capable of neither creating nor enforcing a global Pax Americana. Indeed, insurgent strikes in Iraq only declined after a massive influx of U.S. boots on the ground. Given that the United States has not the military size to enforce peace in even two theaters of operation, it is evident that a policy of pre-emptive war to depose unfavorable regimes is unsustainable.

Five and one-half years later:

Electricity production in Iraq has not attained the 2004 goal. The number of hours electricity is available per day in Baghdad is less than the 10-12 hours targeted by the U.S. and less than in 2005.

There have been in excess of 80,000 Iraqi civilian deaths attributed to either combat or terrorism. Some estimates range as high as 600,000.

Nearly 2,000,000 Iraqis have fled the country.

Baghdad hospitals are lacking in basic supplies including blood, anesthetics, medications.

Iraqi politics is firmly divided along sectarian lines.

The U.S. has spent $600,000,000,000 dollars for the Iraq War, and that number grows daily.

The U.S. is building a new, heavily fortified embassy on 104 acres in Baghdad. It will be the largest and most expensive U.S. embassy in the world.

In addition to the embassy, four permanent U.S. military bases are being built, along with 14 "enduring" bases.

Nearly 4,200 U.S. servicemembers have been killed in Iraq.

Nearly 31,000 U.S. servicemembers have been wounded in Iraq.

97% of U.S. casualties occurred after "Mission Accomplished".

The Taliban is revitalized.

Osama bin-Ladin is still at large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Main ideas
The main ideas to come out of Marx and Engels' collective works include:

Exploitation : Marx refers to the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another. He sees it as being an inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets. The profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value of their labour, in order to enable the capitalist class to turn a profit. This profit is not however moderated in terms of risk vs. return.

Alienation : Marx refers to the alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature" ("Gattungswesen", usually translated as 'species-essence' or 'species-being'). He believes that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and in so doing generate alienated labour.[5] Alienation describes objective features of a person's situation in capitalism - it isn't necessary for them to believe or feel that they are alienated.

Base and superstructure : Marx and Engels use the �base-structure� metaphor to explain the idea that the totality of relations among people with regard to �the social production of their existence� forms the economic basis, on which arises a superstructure of political and legal institutions. To the base corresponds the social consciousness which includes religious, philosophical, and other main ideas. The base conditions both, the superstructure and the social consciousness. A conflict between the development of material productive forces and the relations of production causes social revolutions, and the resulting change in the economic basis will sooner or later lead to the transformation of the superstructure.[6] For Marx, though, this relationship is not a one way process - it is reflexive; the base determines the superstructure in the first instance and remains the foundation of a form of social organization which then can act again upon both parts of the base-structure metaphor.[citation needed] The relationship between superstructure and base is considered to be a dialectical one, not a distinction between actual entities "in the world".[citation needed]

Class consciousness : Class consciousness refers to the awareness, both of itself and of the social world around it, that a social class possess, and its capacity to act in its own rational interests based on this awareness. Thus class consciousness must be attained before the class may mount a successful revolution. Other methods of revolutionary action have been developed however, such as vanguardism.

Ideology: Without offering a general definition for ideology[7], Marx on several instances has used the term to designate the production of images of social reality. According to Engels, �ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces�.[8] Because the ruling class controls the society's means of production, the superstructure of society, as well as its ruling ideas, will be determined according to what is in the ruling class's best interests. As Marx said famously in The German Ideology, �the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force�.[9] Therefore the ideology of a society is of enormous importance since it confuses the alienated groups and can create false consciousness such as commodity fetishism (perceiving labor as capital ~ a degradation of human life).[citation needed]

Historical materialism : Historical materialism was first articulated by Marx, although he himself never used the term. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies in the way in which humans collectively make the means to live, thus giving an emphasis, through economic analysis, to everything that co-exists with the economic base of society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies).

Political economy : The term "political economy" originally meant the study of the conditions under which production was organized in the nation-states of the new-born capitalist system. Political economy, then, studies the mechanism of human activity in organizing material, and the mechanism of distributing the surplus or deficit that is the result of that activity. Political economy studies the means of production, specifically capital, and how this manifests itself in economic activity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you want to apply a label like REDISTRIBUTIONIST onto Obama -- knock yourself out -- but all he is saying is drop taxes a little on all but the wealthiest amongst us and raise taxes a little on the very wealthy. that is a very sane approach and fair too. The NeoCon approach of cutting taxes to the wealthiest has put our nation so far into debt that is undermining our national security. And of course the poor (the majority of which are children and female) are the ones hit the hardest in terms of the impact that has on their daily lives. Bush/Cheney (perhaps it is better called Cheney/Bush) has sponsored irresponisble fiscal policy and compared to that Obama will be a move to a more fiscally conservative approach. :p



:Dgreat post :D



standing by for irrational attack ;)

If you want to apply a label like REDISTRIBUTIONIST onto Obama -- knock yourself out -- but all he is saying is drop taxes a little on all but the wealthiest amongst us and raise taxes a little on the very wealthy. that is a very sane approach and fair too. The NeoCon approach of cutting taxes to the wealthiest has put our nation so far into debt that is undermining our national security. And of course the poor (the majority of which are children and female) are the ones hit the hardest in terms of the impact that has on their daily lives. Bush/Cheney (perhaps it is better called Cheney/Bush) has sponsored irresponisble fiscal policy and compared to that Obama will be a move to a more fiscally conservative approach. :p



As I said before, only time will tell.



you are'nt the only one, it is an official conservative talking point it's all over right wing media and in the mouths of every republican i know, i'm sure your smarter than this Jerry, but one conservative i talk with a lot thinks that litterally poor people will be moving into the houses of the rich and displacing all of the poor rich people. its hilarious and shows a complete lack understanding of where the power lies in this country.

It was not cutting taxes that ran up the National Debt, it was the unchecked Neo-Con spending. That is NOT conservative.

It was not cutting taxes that ran up the National Debt, it was the unchecked Neo-Con spending. That is NOT conservative.



cutting taxes cuts revenues. spending 600 billion on Iraq helped run up the debt. if you want to have a war, you have to pay for it. cutting taxes and waging war runs the economy into the ditch. heckuva job Bushie!

although i'm sure the arms merchants who have and are profiting from this war love W. if so they love money a lot more than they do our country

kind of ironic a "pro-life" President has helped trigger so much death...

It was not cutting taxes that ran up the National Debt, it was the unchecked Neo-Con spending. That is NOT conservative.



true that, but remember the economy since keynes relies on government spending, the question is what we spend it on. developing future energy technology that will create a new industry that raises all boats and helps the country and the world, or do we continue to subsidize giant corporations to keep doing what they are doing, do we continue to fight wars on behalf of energy companies, do we continue to subisidize the export of nuclear power plants that almost never go online etc etc.

the concept goes beyond energy of course, do we build affordable houses and public transportation or do we continue to subsidize corprate farming and the car culture that continues to desimate the planet. do we want new ideas, new strategies that make the world better or do we keep doing the same old dysfunctional things in the name of the perpetual growth economic model, if you are rich and want to get richer the answer is clear. what about the rest of us?

<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer2/flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/89632/video&autostart=false&image=http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/NOTHING_TO_TALK_ABOUT_article.jpg&bufferlength=3&embedded=true&title=Obama%20Win%20Causes%20Obsessive%20Supporter s%20To%20Realize%20How%20Empty%20Their%20Lives%20A re"></embed>
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive?utm_source=embedded_vid eo)

Not sure why you listed all that. Am I suppose to read wikapedia's cliff notes on Marx and think that his failed economic ideas did not include redistribution of wealth?

Just "raise a little" here, and "drop a little" there? We are all taxed more than enough as it is IMO. Seriously, you really think that this is the time to raise taxes on anyone?

Why did the messiah avoid the question of raising taxes and abrubtly close his first press conference emediately after his (cough, cough) "answer?" Why did Rahm dodge the question too when "Snufalufagus" (Stephanopoulos) asked, twice!? Could it possibly be that the chosen one was full of crap when he campaigned against those evil people who have succeeded in life? Fighting corporate greed is one thing, Obama used class warfare to get what he wanted.

It was not cutting taxes that ran up the National Debt, it was the unchecked Neo-Con spending. That is NOT conservative.



true dat.

if you are rich and want to get richer the answer is clear. what about the rest of us?



Just blame Bush!

After all, "It takes less effort to condemn than to think."

Emma Goldman

Seriously, you really think that this is the time to raise taxes on anyone?



taxes are revenues. tax cuts were given disproportionately to the wealthiest. if you cut your revenues you go into debt -- unless your bills decrease. Bush started a war and is using your and my tax dollars to pay for it. He also gave millionaires a tax cut. so you and i have to pay a little more unless we want to continue to run the economy into the ditch and steal from our children. Obama pledged to roll back the tax cuts that were given to the wealthiest, and give average Americans a little tax relief.
this isn't that difficult unless you drink the tax cut koolaid the wealthy like to get the rest of us to drink /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I understand taxes produce revenue. But I don't understand how anyone can think the rich don't pay their share already. This reminds me of the debate with those who are always arguing about raising the minimum wage. When you ask them "how about raising it $100.00 more per hour," the obvious (and self defeating answer) is "well that's too much!" Economics 101... you make an employer pay too much in wages, you also force that employer to cut jobs. Simularly, you over tax a business, big or small, you loose jobs. Have you seen the most recent % of what the wealthy pay in taxes? You can keep ranting about how Bush did this and Bush did that, it doesn't change the fact that the rich aren't stupid. You tax them too much, they not only leave, but cut back. Adding the word koolaid to everything under the sun won't change that and saying that "Obama pledged" anything is like saying "Clinton didn't inhale." Somehow, maybe I am just "bitterly clinging to my gun and religion with antipothy towards those who don't look like me," (Obama describing PA residents) but I don't buy it.

Isn't there some parable about those to whom much has been given?

On the minimum wage thing, my customers complain when I raised my prices.

I answer like this............

Well lets start with the Minimum wage hike from $5.25 to $5.85 to the current $6.55 to next summers $7.25.

Then lets add to the fact that at the same time the government mandated Ethanol to our gas. This was basically making our food into fuel. Sure the farmer is making more on his crops, but that caused not only our Milk (used to make cheese) prices to rise to an all time high, but also our wheat prices to double.

On top of that our shipping prices doubled with gas prices in that same time frame.

so everything I buy is now more expensive.

the cost of a pizza rose $1 from Dec of 06 to Dec of 07.

I raised my prices by $1, percentage wise, I should have raised my prices by $3 to make up for the food costs.

This is why I got politically active. I am as mad as hell and am not going to take it anymore.
_____________________________________________

BTW, 2 different customers asked me what I thought about Obama becoming president tonight.

My answer, "so far so good......... he hasn't done anything."

I have also had several comments in the last week about my Ron Paul picture in my window, they always say either "He was right" or "too bad we could not have him as president" among other things. (yes, I have a few customers to give me a hard time about him) But that is ok, we laugh about it. (they know I am right :D)

Isn't there some parable about those to whom much has been given?



The scripture you are refering to is found in Luke 12. However, if you read it, you find no evidence of socialistic redistribution of wealth mandates for the government. I know, quite the shocker huh? Using this scripture out of context and wrapping it in your attempt to make conservatives (Christians or not) look hypocritical is a sad attempt at best to twist it's meaning. It also shows a complete lack of knowledge of how much of the "tax pie" is filled with evil rich peoples money!

Oh, I thought it implied some sort of universal truth. And believe me that I am well aware of the tax burden imposed on the those in the highest bracket.

I understand taxes produce revenue. But I don't understand how anyone can think the rich don't pay their share already.



so when expenditures go up -- say 600,000,000 billion to fund the money Bush feels is well spent on Iraq -- you think we should ask the rich to pay less and charge up the national debt and let average Americans eat the bill? (that is what the Bush tax cuts say we should do). that chokes the economy because average americans then have no cash to spend.

until we tax everybody at a falt-rate, most of the rich are going to hire clever experts to find them loopholes to get them out of paying their fair share in taxes. the approach i would support would tax those with income under 100,000 X%, those making under 250,000 X + 2%, those making under 1 million X + 4%, and those making over a million X + 5%

or something like that :p

Seriously, you really think that this is the time to raise taxes on anyone?



taxes are revenues. tax cuts were given disproportionately to the wealthiest. if you cut your revenues you go into debt -- unless your bills decrease. Bush started a war and is using your and my tax dollars to pay for it. He also gave millionaires a tax cut. so you and i have to pay a little more unless we want to continue to run the economy into the ditch and steal from our children. Obama pledged to roll back the tax cuts that were given to the wealthiest, and give average Americans a little tax relief.
this isn't that difficult unless you drink the tax cut koolaid the wealthy like to get the rest of us to drink /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



For those interested in educating themselves about taxation in the U.S. of A.

History of the U.S. Tax System (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml)

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits� In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

~ President John F. Kennedy

until we tax everybody at a falt-rate, most of the rich are going to hire clever experts to find them loopholes to get them out of paying their fair share in taxes. the approach i would support would tax those with income under 100,000 X%, those making under 250,000 X + 2%, those making under 1 million X + 4%, and those making over a million X + 5%

or something like that :p




There are two completely different things being discussed here and I am suprised that no one has mentioned it yet. One is the legal use of tax "loopholes" that were put in place by both parties. Granted some of the "loopholes" are being used in ways that they are not intended for. On the other hand a couple of "loopholes" such as senior citizen tax credit and reducing the child dependent tax credit, will hurt the average taxpayer if the Dems get their way and close these.

The second thing that is being thrown about is raising taxes. Granted closing the "loopholes" will increase the taxes collected, but it will be a short term gain. That is not what is really going to occur. The tax rates are going to increase. Period. Now I keep hearing how the average guy is paying the burden and the wealthy are not covering their fair share and I have yet to see what fair share means. We can thank communism and US welfare programs for showing us that if it doesn't pay to work hard and make money, people will either quick working or go someplace else.

China, India, Korea, etc, etc, etc

Oh, I thought it implied some sort of universal truth. <font color="red"> Never said it wasn't "universal truth." In fact (at the risk of inciting the KJV police) Peter asked in the middle of the parable, "are you telling this parable to us or everyone?" It's easy to see Jesus wasn't just applying this to the disciples. Anyway, you are trying to apply this to the government taking more and more wealth from those who are rich and redistributing it to those who did not earn it in an attempt to make conservatives (Christian or not) to look hypocritical about money. Maybe you should take a closer look at your soon to be president who wan'ts to "spread the wealth." Just with other peoples money. Is this the hypocrosy you were looking for? ( http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/10/31/patr...d-their-wealth/ (http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/10/31/patrick-poole-guest-post-obama-and-biden-refused-to-spread-their-wealth/) ) </font>

And believe me that I am well aware of the tax burden imposed on the those in the highest bracket. <font color="red"> Then I am sure you are fully "aware" that "the top 1% pay greater dollar amount in income taxes to federal government?" ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html ) </font>

I don't care how you intend to argue the point, I think those that benefit the most from a society should be prepared to sacrifice the most for it. I am incredibly fortunate to be in that 1% and have absolutely no problem with my tax burden. I have no problem with it increasing. I don't think others making three or four or five times less than us should pay the same percentage as we do. My wife and I worked very hard to be where we are but it never could have happened without growing up in probably the most socialized society in the US.

And to get back to you point of the "universal truth", how then does it not apply to government? I saw that someone else already referenced dictionary.com in a related thread. Personally I use M-W.com. Either way go there, type in "universal" and then hit enter.

[QUOTE]
I don't care how you intend to argue the point, I think those that benefit the most from a society should be prepared to sacrifice the most for it. <font color="red"> Me too, and in America, they do "sacrifice the most." </font> I am incredibly fortunate to be in that 1% and have absolutely no problem with my tax burden. I have no problem with it increasing. <font color="red"> Then do it. No one is going to stop you. </font> I don't think others making three or four or five times less than us should pay the same percentage as we do. <font color="red"> Neither do I, that's why it's important to understand that the rich, and this may be you, like people to think they're only paying X, when in reality they're also paying Y and Z. Like Buffet claiming his income for '06 was 46 million. Total BS! He paid more than $46 million that year in taxes alone! It depends on what you consider "income" to be. Do you pay dividends? Do you reinvest? Well you get taxed on those things as well as your "makings" that are "three or four or five times more than others." Now, how much is your "percentage" when adding the other things you get taxed on? Dividends and reinvestments are only the tip of the iceburg, but "you don't care how I intend to argue the point" right? Whatever! The "poor guy" who recieves a check has all his deductions listed, it's easy for everyone to understand how he is taxed. Not so with the wealthy. There are many other ways they are "taxed," "penalized," or made to "sacrifice." If you are in the richest 1% (500k-plus right?) then I am truly amazed that you either don't know this or would try to convince anyone of it. </font> My wife and I worked very hard to be where we are but it never could have happened without growing up in probably the most socialized society in the US. <font color="red"> The "most socialized society in the US? I have no idea what you're trying to say there. </font>

And to get back to you point of the "universal truth", how then does it not apply to government? <font color="red"> Because "universal truth" is not synonymous with "government mandated redistribution of wealth." The parable wasn't about that. It was about "being ready" for HIS return and if you are not, there are consequences. The parable clearly says that whether or not you know the masters will or not, if you do not do it there will be consequences. Where in that context do you get from the following verse "government mandated redistribution of wealth?" I don't ask this to be a smart alec, I am just asking...have you read the parable? </font> I saw that someone else already referenced dictionary.com in a related thread. Personally I use M-W.com. Either way go there, type in "universal" and then hit enter. <font color="red"> You can define the word universal all you want, you can't find anything in the context of that parable concerning taxing the rich and to do so would be to ignore all the evidence of the context as well as many other scriptures related to the topic. Dig deeper, I promise you, the evidence far outweighs what you are doing to that verse.

I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but I doubt you (or others) want me to exhaust this subject here. The NT talks more about money than any other subject. Specifically "giving." If you care to discuss what other evidence refutes the claim that Luke 12:48 is talking about "government mandates of redistribution of wealth," I'd suggest the "Bible Discussion' thread. </font>

No, I don't care to debate the NT. And again, I am aware of what happens to our money. You'd have to be fool to get a tax bill like ours and not have everything thoroughly investigated. I'm glad to see you agree with the sacrifice comment.

It wasn't an invatation! You have openly twisted the scripture to make it say something it doesn't. I was simply offering a more appropriate place to talk about it "if you care."

If your income is classified as being in the richest 1% of income in America, then you know exactly what I mean when I pointed out that "income" can be a rather nebulous term when it comes to those considered "rich." The only question (other than did you actually read that verse) is why you would promote such an idea that the percentages weren't high enough for the rich. But just like the fact that the top 1% pay more perportionately than the bottom 90%, they also pay more percentage wise when all things are considered beyond the deceptive talking points of people like Buffet.

BTW, if you go to a tourney and you win 50 bucks for placing 1st, do you tell peole you won 50 bucks? Of course you do, but you probably don't mention the fact that you paid 15 bucks just to play. There's more to the story than meets the eye. When you bring home 500k+ a year, do you tell people (when you choose to talk about your money openly of course) the whole story or just the parts you feel are appropriate, what you want them to know etc...? That is why it is not true when you say the rich don't pay the same percentage, because it's not the whole story.

Listen, I want to do my part too. I wanna give more and more everyday. Bottom line is, I wanna do what is right. That is the intrinsic nature behind the true message of that passage of scripture. You are obviously someone who is passionate about giving, and I think that is awesome. Please keep it up? There is a world of folks who could use a helping hand. But please consider the idea that it's not the governments role to mandate the redistribution of wealth in some sort of "pay back" mentality against people who have succeeded financially. How would you feel if the PDGA took 5 bucks of that 50 you won, without your consent and gave it to me? The way I've been playing lately, I could use it! It wouldn't be fair, it's your money, not mine. You've already given to me by giving to the system, and because of it I can enjoy and use the same benifits as you do with the pdga, despite anything some may not like about it. Not a perfect analogy, but what is?

If you're in the top 1%, may I ask what you do? Are you a neurosurgeon or something? lol, If you are, I got a question for ya Q: How many neurosurgeons does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: I dunno, yer the freek'n neurosurgeon! ;)

It wasn't an invatation! You have openly twisted the scripture to make it say something it doesn't. I was simply offering a more appropriate place to talk about it "if you care."

If your income is classified as being in the richest 1% of income in America, then you know exactly what I mean when I pointed out that "income" can be a rather nebulous term when it comes to those considered "rich." The only question (other than did you actually read that verse) is why you would promote such an idea that the percentages weren't high enough for the rich. But just like the fact that the top 1% pay more perportionately than the bottom 90%, they also pay more percentage wise when all things are considered beyond the deceptive talking points of people like Buffet.



ive never been able to figure out what your point is David. do you want a flat tax rate? is that fair to you? or do you think all rich and powerful people deserve to be rich and powerful and therefore need defending? i just can figure it out, can a camel pass through the eye of a needle or not?

No, I'd say I won $35. I am a scientist, my wife is a surgeon. I'd like to point out that you are confusing income and wealth. Despite the income we are nowhere near the upper percentiles in accumulated wealth. I don't consider myself rich but I certainly recognize that we are well off. If we hadn't been given the opportunity to go to DOD schools or to obtain federal student loans it never could have happened.

No, I'd say I won $35. I am a scientist, my wife is a surgeon. I'd like to point out that you are confusing income and wealth. Despite the income we are nowhere near the upper percentiles in accumulated wealth. I don't consider myself rich but I certainly recognize that we are well off. If we hadn't been given the opportunity to go to DOD schools or to obtain federal student loans it never could have happened.



i agree we need to agree on what we mean by income and wealth. you could make 500k a year and be nowhere near the top 1% of wealth holders, but the last i checked it was like the top 1% of 1% that control about 40% of all the wealth in america. so income is for income taxes. wealth is what those people have that control this country and probably most of the world. we have the wto and imf for the purpose of compelling the rest of the world to let our wealthy extract more wealth from the rest of the world. this is what us crazy revolutionary liberals are calling evil and want the world to wake up and see. but if you and your wife worked hard for an education and great careers i think that is awesome.

If you really fear Marxism and Communism you should really fear an economic environment where 1% of the population posseses 99% of the wealth. That is the fertile ground of communism not tax policy. The problem is when the large majority is broke and desparate they rise up and take back everything. At that point a country is in real trouble not making the rich pay their fair share.

I'm getting tired of reading posts by people that just fear the idea of taxes and don't take the time to learn about economics.

I'll post this again: <font color="green"> In a consumer based economy it's better for five 50K per year families to have more spending money than one family making 250K per year. To maintain a house they have to buy 5 times as much stuff. The trickle down thing just doesn't work unless it's new money. People that earned large sums of money are not crazy spenders. They got to the position they are in by being conservative with their money not by spending it like drunken rappers.
</font>

You are absolutely correct!

People that <u>earned</u> large sums of money <u>are not crazy spenders</u>.


Fiscal Responsibility: A thing of the past.

They got to the position they are in by being <u>conservative with their money not by spending it like drunken rappers</u>.


Conservative Money Habits: Spend like drunker rappers

So the lesson, kids, is: Spend the hell out or your money, or the government will give it to someone who will!

If you really fear Marxism and Communism you should really fear an economic environment where 1% of the population posseses 99% of the wealth. That is the fertile ground of communism not tax policy. The problem is when the large majority is broke and desparate they rise up and take back everything. At that point a country is in real trouble not making the rich pay their fair share.

I'm getting tired of reading posts by people that just fear the idea of taxes and don't take the time to learn about economics.

I'll post this again: <font color="green"> In a consumer based economy it's better for five 50K per year families to have more spending money than one family making 250K per year. To maintain a house they have to buy 5 times as much stuff. The trickle down thing just doesn't work unless it's new money. People that earned large sums of money are not crazy spenders. They got to the position they are in by being conservative with their money not by spending it like drunken rappers.
</font>



thats a great point, it is a common belief amongst some that the gov, fearing revolution, gave concessions like social welfare, fair labor laws etc etc to appease the rabbel rousers. kind of like they give us two candidates to create the illusion of choice ;)

<font color="green"> In a consumer based economy it's better for five 50K per year families to have more spending money than one family making 250K per year. To maintain a house they have to buy 5 times as much stuff.</font>



You obviously don't know my wife.......

My question is where does the 50K come from when businesses are not offering jobs because the rich are not investing or buying the expensive products made here?

Of course that is the case. Small businesses might need to be somewhat protected or they will have to prepare themselves for trouble. The largest employers in your city where the employees might make 50K a year are the school system and hospitals/medical and those jobs aren't going anywhere.

My question is where does the 50K come from when businesses are not offering jobs because the rich are not investing or buying the expensive products made here?



this is why capitalism is fatally flawed. it is not sustainable and it is not an economy that serves the needs of everyone. it requires perpetual growth fueled on manufacturing demand for useless crap. why cant we do the jobs that are necessary to sustain our needs and live our lives. why do we have to be slaves to a system that needs to create more wealth to remain functioning.

I absolutely agree with you, when I took a Human Ecology class waaaaaayyyyyy back in the 70's the instructor pointed out that we (the US) worship the GNP (gross national product) and feel we are not doing well unless it gets bigger and bigger and bigger, sustainabilty should be the goal not more more more consumption.

If you don't think you're being manipulated by radio talk shows you should read this.

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046&amp;pf=yes

Of course that is the case. Small businesses might need to be somewhat protected or they will have to prepare themselves for trouble. The largest employers in your city where the employees might make 50K a year are the school system and hospitals/medical and those jobs aren't going anywhere.



Don't know about you, but the hospitals and schools are not nearly the largest nor the best paying employers where I live. High Tech manufacturing and software design/support are.

It wasn't an invatation! You have openly twisted the scripture to make it say something it doesn't. I was simply offering a more appropriate place to talk about it "if you care."

If your income is classified as being in the richest 1% of income in America, then you know exactly what I mean when I pointed out that "income" can be a rather nebulous term when it comes to those considered "rich." The only question (other than did you actually read that verse) is why you would promote such an idea that the percentages weren't high enough for the rich. But just like the fact that the top 1% pay more perportionately than the bottom 90%, they also pay more percentage wise when all things are considered beyond the deceptive talking points of people like Buffet.



ive never been able to figure out what your point is David. do you want a flat tax rate? is that fair to you? or do you think all rich and powerful people deserve to be rich and powerful and therefore need defending? i just can figure it out, can a camel pass through the eye of a needle or not?



My "point" is that we are all overtaxed and what "I want" is for everyone, no matter what they make, to be taxed less. But "the point" of my recent posts concerning taxes wasn't to lay out a tax plan! I think there is a way to do that too. I never "defended rich and powerful people" because they "deserve" it. I simply responded to what IMO is class warfare tactics and beliefs. As far as the rich man getting in to heaven reference, yes, I believe it's possible if his trust is in God. But if he's gotta luggage rack on his hearse I think he's got the wrong idea!

It wasn't an invatation! You have openly twisted the scripture to make it say something it doesn't. I was simply offering a more appropriate place to talk about it "if you care."

If your income is classified as being in the richest 1% of income in America, then you know exactly what I mean when I pointed out that "income" can be a rather nebulous term when it comes to those considered "rich." The only question (other than did you actually read that verse) is why you would promote such an idea that the percentages weren't high enough for the rich. But just like the fact that the top 1% pay more perportionately than the bottom 90%, they also pay more percentage wise when all things are considered beyond the deceptive talking points of people like Buffet.



ive never been able to figure out what your point is David. do you want a flat tax rate? is that fair to you? or do you think all rich and powerful people deserve to be rich and powerful and therefore need defending? i just can figure it out, can a camel pass through the eye of a needle or not?



My "point" is that we are all overtaxed and what "I want" is for everyone, no matter what they make, to be taxed less. But "the point" of my recent posts concerning taxes wasn't to lay out a tax plan! I think there is a way to do that too. I never "defended rich and powerful people" because they "deserve" it. I simply responded to what IMO is class warfare tactics and beliefs. As far as the rich man getting in to heaven reference, yes, I believe it's possible if his trust is in God. But if he's gotta luggage rack on his hearse I think he's got the wrong idea!




class war is on, its a fact not a belief. class consciousness is not a tactic its an awareness of economic reality. but i like jesus' metaphor, it's impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, there really is no but about it. of course i guess if you had enough money you could build a really big needle :D

ps. if we lower taxes how do we bail out GM/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

It wasn't an invatation! You have openly twisted the scripture to make it say something it doesn't. I was simply offering a more appropriate place to talk about it "if you care."

If your income is classified as being in the richest 1% of income in America, then you know exactly what I mean when I pointed out that "income" can be a rather nebulous term when it comes to those considered "rich." The only question (other than did you actually read that verse) is why you would promote such an idea that the percentages weren't high enough for the rich. But just like the fact that the top 1% pay more perportionately than the bottom 90%, they also pay more percentage wise when all things are considered beyond the deceptive talking points of people like Buffet.



ive never been able to figure out what your point is David. do you want a flat tax rate? is that fair to you? or do you think all rich and powerful people deserve to be rich and powerful and therefore need defending? i just can figure it out, can a camel pass through the eye of a needle or not?



My "point" is that we are all overtaxed and what "I want" is for everyone, no matter what they make, to be taxed less. But "the point" of my recent posts concerning taxes wasn't to lay out a tax plan! I think there is a way to do that too. I never "defended rich and powerful people" because they "deserve" it. I simply responded to what IMO is class warfare tactics and beliefs. As far as the rich man getting in to heaven reference, yes, I believe it's possible if his trust is in God. But if he's gotta luggage rack on his hearse I think he's got the wrong idea!




class war is on, <font color="red"> didn't say it wasn't </font> its a fact not a belief. <font color="red"> didn't say that </font> class consciousness is not a tactic <font color="red"> didn't say that </font> its an awareness of economic reality. <font color="red"> not when you use it!</font> but i like jesus' metaphor, it's impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, there really is no but about it. <font color="red"> never said "but" in relation to acceptance into heaven </font> of course i guess if you had enough money you could build a really big needle :D

ps. if we lower taxes how do we bail out GM/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D <font color="red"> WE DON'T!</font>



<font color="red"> Maybe you weren't wearing your helmet tonight, I dunno, but maybe this will help to clarify it for you. When I said " <font color="black"> I simply responded to what IMO is class warfare tactics and beliefs. </font> " perhaps I should have added the words "that he used" at the end. Didn't think it would trip you up so badly.</font>

Nice to know that Obama himself wouldn't pass the questionaire his potential staff has to fill out! That is, if the answers mean anything.

It wasn't an invatation! You have openly twisted the scripture to make it say something it doesn't. I was simply offering a more appropriate place to talk about it "if you care."

If your income is classified as being in the richest 1% of income in America, then you know exactly what I mean when I pointed out that "income" can be a rather nebulous term when it comes to those considered "rich." The only question (other than did you actually read that verse) is why you would promote such an idea that the percentages weren't high enough for the rich. But just like the fact that the top 1% pay more perportionately than the bottom 90%, they also pay more percentage wise when all things are considered beyond the deceptive talking points of people like Buffet.



ive never been able to figure out what your point is David. do you want a flat tax rate? is that fair to you? or do you think all rich and powerful people deserve to be rich and powerful and therefore need defending? i just can figure it out, can a camel pass through the eye of a needle or not?



My "point" is that we are all overtaxed and what "I want" is for everyone, no matter what they make, to be taxed less. But "the point" of my recent posts concerning taxes wasn't to lay out a tax plan! I think there is a way to do that too. I never "defended rich and powerful people" because they "deserve" it. I simply responded to what IMO is class warfare tactics and beliefs. As far as the rich man getting in to heaven reference, yes, I believe it's possible if his trust is in God. But if he's gotta luggage rack on his hearse I think he's got the wrong idea!




class war is on, <font color="red"> didn't say it wasn't </font> its a fact not a belief. <font color="red"> didn't say that </font> class consciousness is not a tactic <font color="red"> didn't say that </font> its an awareness of economic reality. <font color="red"> not when you use it!</font> but i like jesus' metaphor, it's impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, there really is no but about it. <font color="red"> never said "but" in relation to acceptance into heaven </font> of course i guess if you had enough money you could build a really big needle :D

ps. if we lower taxes how do we bail out GM/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D <font color="red"> WE DON'T!</font>



<font color="red"> Maybe you weren't wearing your helmet tonight, I dunno, but maybe this will help to clarify it for you. When I said " <font color="black"> I simply responded to what IMO is class warfare tactics and beliefs. </font> " perhaps I should have added the words "that he used" at the end. Didn't think it would trip you up so badly.</font>



i dont have a helmet, and am not sure what you mean by that, but if it helped me understand how you can say "i didnt say that" and then in the next line quote yourself saying that, well then maybe i could use one. you never said "but" in relation to acceptance in heaven, no you never used the word but you implied it. you see im trying to explain what i am getting from you in my own words, coming back with "i didnt say that exact word and phrase" is not an argument.

Obama is cool, Bush is a tool, Democrats rule while Republicans drool. :D

Has not the majority done spoken? Hmmmm???

It wasn't an invatation! You have openly twisted the scripture to make it say something it doesn't. I was simply offering a more appropriate place to talk about it "if you care."

If your income is classified as being in the richest 1% of income in America, then you know exactly what I mean when I pointed out that "income" can be a rather nebulous term when it comes to those considered "rich." The only question (other than did you actually read that verse) is why you would promote such an idea that the percentages weren't high enough for the rich. But just like the fact that the top 1% pay more perportionately than the bottom 90%, they also pay more percentage wise when all things are considered beyond the deceptive talking points of people like Buffet.



ive never been able to figure out what your point is David. do you want a flat tax rate? is that fair to you? or do you think all rich and powerful people deserve to be rich and powerful and therefore need defending? i just can figure it out, can a camel pass through the eye of a needle or not?



My "point" is that we are all overtaxed and what "I want" is for everyone, no matter what they make, to be taxed less. But "the point" of my recent posts concerning taxes wasn't to lay out a tax plan! I think there is a way to do that too. I never "defended rich and powerful people" because they "deserve" it. I simply responded to what IMO is class warfare tactics and beliefs. As far as the rich man getting in to heaven reference, yes, I believe it's possible if his trust is in God. But if he's gotta luggage rack on his hearse I think he's got the wrong idea!




class war is on, <font color="red"> didn't say it wasn't </font> its a fact not a belief. <font color="red"> didn't say that </font> class consciousness is not a tactic <font color="red"> didn't say that </font> its an awareness of economic reality. <font color="red"> not when you use it!</font> but i like jesus' metaphor, it's impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, there really is no but about it. <font color="red"> never said "but" in relation to acceptance into heaven </font> of course i guess if you had enough money you could build a really big needle :D

ps. if we lower taxes how do we bail out GM/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D <font color="red"> WE DON'T!</font>



<font color="red"> Maybe you weren't wearing your helmet tonight, I dunno, but maybe this will help to clarify it for you. When I said " <font color="black"> I simply responded to what IMO is class warfare tactics and beliefs. </font> " perhaps I should have added the words "that he used" at the end. Didn't think it would trip you up so badly.</font>



i dont have a helmet, and am not sure what you mean by that, but if it helped me understand how you can say "i didnt say that" and then in the next line quote yourself saying that, well then maybe i could use one. you never said "but" in relation to acceptance in heaven, no you never used the word but you implied it. you see im trying to explain what i am getting from you in my own words, coming back with "i didnt say that exact word and phrase" is not an argument.



TPOP -Thats pretty funny, get used to it. LOL

What is interesting is the exit poll numbers.

Conservitives still outnumber Liberals. (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/05/exit-poll-media-shocker-conservatives-still-outnumber-liberals)

the percentage of people who view themselves as Liberal actually went down 1% compared to 4 years ago.

However the number of people who call themselves Conservative stayed the same.

dude, comon! I said IMO "yes, it is possible for a rich man to get into heaven if he puts his trust in God." Then, I made a joke that if he thinks he's bringing his possessions along with him, by "having a luggage rack on his hearse," then "I think he's got the wrong idea!" sheesh! That's your idea of "there's no 'but' about it?" The "lame-ness" of this conversation ranks up there with the best of 'em. (enter Cam!)

If you are going to coment on what someone says and repeatedly get it wrong, please consider the idea of thinking it through a bit? When you misquote me or put words into my mouth it quickly turns into a very childish conversation. If that's what you like, fine, lesson learned. I'll just try harder to ignore you next time because apparently it's a very silly part of discussing issues on this board that I fall prey to from time to time. Silly me, I get defensive when people say things I didn't say. Silly me, I think it's easy to click "back" and actually take the time to read what someone has said with a logical progression of thought before I fly off with a response. Silly, silly me!

Say what you need to say, I don't care anymore. I'm done with this one bud. Responding to these repeated falsehoods makes me look just as foolish.

Cam, the only reason why you sypathize with him is because you've done the same thing, so to hear you chime in does not surprize anyone familiar with your lines of reason and lack of effort to find out what was actually said. What's worse, was when you used to sidetrack biblical discussions all for the sake of interjecting your "version beliefs." Whether you agreed with what was being said by a fellow believer or not!

Go Obama!

"It's up to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly HOPE for the best while the enimies of freedom grow stronger day by day." - Reagan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MNanFo_E7A


"I will slow our developement of future combat systems" - Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sj91NH5fvw


"America is afterall, freedoms greatest HOPE." - Thatcher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnN-cDFx6g

dude, comon! I said IMO "yes, it is possible for a rich man to get into heaven if he puts his trust in God." Then, I made a joke that if he thinks he's bringing his possessions along with him, by "having a luggage rack on his hearse," then "I think he's got the wrong idea!" sheesh! That's your idea of "there's no 'but' about it?" The "lame-ness" of this conversation ranks up there with the best of 'em. (enter Cam!)

If you are going to coment on what someone says and repeatedly get it wrong, please consider the idea of thinking it through a bit? When you misquote me or put words into my mouth it quickly turns into a very childish conversation. If that's what you like, fine, lesson learned. I'll just try harder to ignore you next time because apparently it's a very silly part of discussing issues on this board that I fall prey to from time to time. Silly me, I get defensive when people say things I didn't say. Silly me, I think it's easy to click "back" and actually take the time to read what someone has said with a logical progression of thought before I fly off with a response. Silly, silly me!

Say what you need to say, I don't care anymore. I'm done with this one bud. Responding to these repeated falsehoods makes me look just as foolish.

Cam, the only reason why you sypathize with him is because you've done the same thing, so to hear you chime in does not surprize anyone familiar with your lines of reason and lack of effort to find out what was actually said. What's worse, was when you used to sidetrack biblical discussions all for the sake of interjecting your "version beliefs." Whether you agreed with what was being said by a fellow believer or not!

Go Obama!



you see, in my own words this is what i hear you saying, i cant defend my point of view, in fact i dont know what im talking about half the time, i just like being sarcastic and berating people. at least that is what i get as the general tone, most of it i had no idea what you were ranting about, of course this is the usual reaction you get from people caught in there own contradictions. good luck "bud"

What is interesting is the exit poll numbers.

Conservitives still outnumber Liberals. (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/05/exit-poll-media-shocker-conservatives-still-outnumber-liberals)

the percentage of people who view themselves as Liberal actually went down 1% compared to 4 years ago.

However the number of people who call themselves Conservative stayed the same.



Correction: Liberals gained a point from 2004 to 2008, per those numbers. And yet the split between Democrat / Republican / Independent is more like 38 / 33 / 29 -- the difference, sadly, is that fewer of the 38% vote.

Not sure what's more amusing, you misreading that or the fact that a Conservative news site is putting a lot of faith into exit polls, which are notoriously bad. Remember Florida 2000? Called, not called, called, not called...

Trusting exit polls would be another reason the Republican party is going to "wander the wilderness" for awhile -- no matter how many retreats leading Conservatives have at Bozell's house.

I stand corrected, the numbers were backwards (that is what skimming an article gets you)

it was

21 - 45 - 34 in 2004
22 - 44 - 34 in 2008

so 1 percent of the moderate Ideology voters moved to Liberal. there are still more Conservatives.

Not that it means anything, but McCain was not a conservative, he is a moderate. He lost my conservative vote because of his several of his views. (including, but not limited to Immigration, Bailout, and the Global Warming hype)

I question whether he would have been a better president that Obama. I am not sure about that. Obama has a much better grasp on Foreign Policy. Neither one has a grasp on the Economy.

My hope is that Obama is able to change some of our Foreign Policy for the better, and does not totally screw up everything on the domestic side.

Those terms have lost any accepted meaning, making those polls irrelevant. Really, when someone asks if you are liberal, or conservative, what the hell does that mean? To me it is akin to asking: Are you one of the idiots who partake in performance art demonstrations, or one of those idiots who believes Rush? Just a result of decades of polarization.

However, I bet guys like Rush read those results as: "Damm, a few more spoonfuls of Wright and we would have been there."

If you respond to someone with "what you hear them saying" and not what they actually said, what do you expect? :crazy

BTW, why would you call me a liberal democrat?

If you respond to someone with "what you hear them saying" and not what they actually said, what do you expect? :crazy

BTW, why would you call me a liberal democrat?



its called summarizing your point, the fact that you think its crazy says a lot more than anything else you can say. you could say no David, you've got me all wrong, you misunderstand, let me try to explain what i meant. instead we get more of your vitriol.

If you respond to someone with "what you hear them saying" and not what they actually said, what do you expect? :crazy

BTW, why would you call me a liberal democrat?



its called summarizing your point, the fact that you think its crazy says a lot more than anything else you can say. you could say no David, you've got me all wrong, you misunderstand, let me try to explain what i meant. instead we get more of your vitriol.



I "said what I meant" the first time! What do I have to do, put it in stone the first time so you understand that I mean what I say? "Summerizing" is not changing what someone said, it's condensing it! If you want to change what I said, use some deductive or inductive reasoning when doing it please? And calling you out for doing that is "vitriol?" Are you kidding me?

where did i change what you said Dave? i am trying to understand where you're coming from, if someone asks a question or makes a counter point you go bezerk. in case your wondering, i deduced that from your previous posts.

Are you related to Cam in any way? Just kidding (a little). ;)

actually i didnt know who you were talking about until i saw the bible disc thread, and yes, we are brothers :D

see Dave, check this out. we are not as far apart as you might think

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SKyX0hCDw6M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SKyX0hCDw6M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I feel like you invited me to the party but I went to the wrong house! I don't get it? :confused: I can't even come up with a guess that makes sense... help!

a former republican party speech writer identifies with anarchism, did you watch it?

Enjoyed that Video, he mentioned a lot of names I agree with.
_______________________________________________

And now what I came here to post

How Obama got Elected (http://howobamagotelected.com/)

This goes with some of the video's I posted a few weeks ago. Watch the video, then read the Zogby poll numbers at the bottom of the page.

And now what I came here to post

How Obama got Elected (http://howobamagotelected.com/)



http://discussion.pdga.com/msgboard/show...=0&amp;fpart=20 (http://discussion.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=Miscellaneous&amp;Number=8896 69&amp;page=0&amp;fpart=20)

And now what I came here to post

How Obama got Elected (http://howobamagotelected.com/)



http://discussion.pdga.com/msgboard/show...=0&amp;fpart=20 (http://discussion.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=Miscellaneous&amp;Number=8896 69&amp;page=0&amp;fpart=20)



yea, I saw that after I posted it. I still think there is something in the numbers. I would like to see the same thing done on McCain supporters. I bet there numbers are just slightly better.

I have told this story many times, but at the Texas Republican Convention, I had a lady ask me why all the Ron Paul supporters knew all the issues. She was basically asking why we were all so smart. :D

<div><iframe src="http://www.236.com/ovembed.php?vid=MTg5Njc4Njg5Ng==" width="425" height="370" noresize="noresize" frameborder="0" border="0" cellspacing="0" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" style="border:0px;overflow: hidden;"></iframe><div style="padding: 0px 5px 5px 5px; width: 410px; text-align: center; font-size: 0.8em;">Get the latest news satire (http://www.236.com/) and funny videos (http://www.236.com/video/) at 236.com (http://www.236.com).</div></div>

yeah, I watched it. Are you saying you and him are "not as far apart as I might think?" No, that's not true, I agree, you're both nuts! JUST KIDDING!!! :D

Go Obama!

I would like to see the same thing done on McCain supporters. I bet there numbers are just slightly better.


Because we all know the main stream media pushed hard for McCain right? :D

I would like to see the same thing done on McCain supporters. I bet there numbers are just slightly better.


Because we all know the main stream media pushed hard for McCain right? :D



I have met some Republicans that would not be able to answer any of those questions. I have met Republicans that truly believe Obama is a Muslim. However, I have met many more Republicans that know the issues than Obama Supporters that know the issues.

But then the people I know are politically active, it is the sheeple that only get there news from MSM.

Shoot, the Sheeple in the disc golf comunity don't even read this thread.

Shoot, the Sheeple in the disc golf comunity don't even read this thread.



They don't even read any of the message board.

Shoot, the Sheeple in the disc golf comunity don't even read this thread.



They don't even read any of the message board.



true, true, that's actually one of the cool things about the DG community. everyone has a different or no political stance and we are still brought together as a group. if we hung out in groups that mirrored our beliefs we would conform more and more to the group, pushing us even farther away from people with a different perspective. power to the sheeple!

This Sheeple votes!