| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2008 10:49:59 AM · #1226 |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 10:54:25 AM · #1227 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
You could say that - but McCain is not the president elect. If memory serves me, many here have posted associations, accusations, and very spiteful claims against our current president without your intervention of "fairness". |
?!?!?! |
Well, I had earnestly believed that my grasp of the english language would meet my needs, but I guess not... can someone help me decipher the meaning of the last message by Flash?
Ray |
He's saying Bush has been criticized endlessly by anti-Bush people without anyone protecting Bush like he perceives everyone here as protecting Obama from his version of like criticisms. |
Exactly. And my points were not even criticisms - simply matters of fact. Nothing on the level to what I've read in these threads regarding the current administration. There was no vitriol, no hate, no spite. Just observations.
ETA: as compared to the following post.
Message edited by author 2008-11-06 11:10:19. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 10:59:10 AM · #1228 |
Originally posted by Flash:
3. Since the election results are in - lets ask ourselves who is happy?
a. The far left is happy.
b. The athiests are happy. (at least as represented by those posting here).
c. The gungrabbers are happy.
d. The enviornmental extremeists are happy.
e. The pro abortionists are happy.
f. Ayers is happy.
g. Khalidi is happy.
h. Chavez is happy.
i. Iran is happy.
j. Louis Farakhan is happy.
k. Al Sharpton is happy.
l. Jesse Jackson is so happy he cried.
4. These are facts. Now why are all these groups happy? Perhaps it is because they expect legislation to follow that supports thier agendas.
5. I find it a bit ironic that an associate of Ayers and Khalidi is now receiving the highest classified intel from the CIA. I fully expect that President Elect Obama will have an eye opening revelation. He will likely understand the real nature of the world at large and the enemies of the US. I await his leadership decisions on the world stage. I suspect that the campaign rehtoric will find a home on the shelf as we transitions into reality. I pray he doesn't do a Bill Clinton to the military and intelligence community. But suspect he likely might.
6. Obama and Pelosi have already begun preparing their supporters for a let down from the promises. Already Obama is being criticized by the Black Caucus for not asking a Black to be his chief of staff.
7. Rahm Emanuel has been asked to be the chief of staff. Obama promised to work across party lines and make this one UNITED States. He chose one of the most partisan Washington politicians as his chief of staff. A fellow Chicago POL as well. This is not an early indication of inclusion. But lets assess the rest of his selections as they come forward. He certainly has time to show us the true colors of his administration.
8. I found it very heartwarming to see the pride in which Colin Powell and Condelesa Rice spoke of this historic moment. I was also pleased by the graciousness of McCain's congratulations and President Bush's very sincere invitation to Barack and his family to visit the house that they will be living in - come January.
|
2. I don't really care what the Hummer crowd is saying. Although I do find some low humor in the fact that "Hummer" is also a slang term for fellatio.
3a So are a lot of other Americans, including a good many moderates Democrat and Republican. All in all, quite a few more than would have been happy had McNasty won.
b. I'm sure anyone who has been sick of having Jesus shoved in their face by the leadership of this country is happy too.
c. What gungrabbers? Do you mean anyone opposed to the NRA's ridiculous stances on gun ownership? So what?
d. If you mean the people who won't re-write scientific papers so that the conclusions suit the goals of big business are happy, then, yes, I'm sure they are happy too.
e. The people who would have the government stay out of women's reproductive choices are happy.
f. Maybe he is maybe he's not. So? The guy had the same kinds of association and served on the same boards wioth several prominent Republicans, I never heard anyone accusing them of "Palling around with terrorists". If the guy's a dangerous terrorist, why hasn't he been locked up and put away?
g. Hmmmm, maybe he is. What's wrong with having friends that have different viewpoints than your own? Or that fall outside the mainstream. That's totally outside the Current administration's xenophobic approach of "shoot first, ask questions later", so you may need a paradigm shift to wrap your gourd around that. To suggest that Obama is somehow pro-Palestinian terrorist because of his past association with Khalidi is in stark contrast to his appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff as Emmanuel, is very pro-Israel.
h. To have someone in power in the US that might engage them in dialog rather than standing up, making threats and beating their chest, I'm sure he's not the only one.
i. That's debatable, it would depend on their goals. If they want to actually gain some measure of acceptance by the West without staring down Cowboy George's gun barrel, then they might be happy. OTOH, the war in Iraq is the best thing to happen to the Iranians in decades. They're the only real winners in this war and it was Republican Hawks that gave it to them on a silver platter, so maybe they aren't so happy about a US president who isn't ranting about the "Nucular Option" everytime Iran comes up.
j,k,l. I'm sure there are lots of black men and women that are happy. Obama's election is a historic one.
4. How do you presume to know the reasons for their happiness? Are you privy to their inner thoughts? If God is whispering such things to you, I suggest a consultation with a medical/psychological professional. Just tell them you can read the minds of prominent black men, world leaders and others and they'll get you the help you need.
5. I'm sure accessing such information for the first time would be eye-opening for anyone. I hope he doesn't do a George Bush and distort, spin and re-write such information to falsely justify a $3 Trillion war. My thoughts are he's much too smart to make such a blunder.
6. Name one politician who immediately delivered all of his campaign promises.
7. So? On the other hand, I've heard reports that Obama is considering retaining Gates as Sec. of Defense and other Republicans for the Sec. of Treasury post.
8. yep. Hopefully Bush will be more helpful in the transition of power than his dad was. It's the least he can do, considering how Bush has wrecked the country.
As to your last point, I've heard several times that Dems, both those associated with Obama's campaign and those in Congress that the plan is to "govern from the middle". Though after 8 years of right wing neo-cons, the middle might look to some a lot like free-love hippy liberalism.
Message edited by author 2008-11-06 13:01:42. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 12:52:26 PM · #1229 |
Originally posted by Flash:
b. The athiests are happy. (at least as represented by those posting here). |
Would you accept cautiously optimistic?
Would you also learn how to spell atheist?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2008 12:53:46 PM · #1230 |
Originally posted by Flash:
7. Rahm Emanuel has been asked to be the chief of staff. Obama promised to work across party lines and make this one UNITED States. He chose one of the most partisan Washington politicians as his chief of staff. A fellow Chicago POL as well. This is not an early indication of inclusion. But lets assess the rest of his selections as they come forward. He certainly has time to show us the true colors of his administration. |
Simply using words like "most partisan" doesn't really make it so. Wiki says this...
Emanuel has maintained a 100 percent pro-choice voting record and is generally liberal on social issues. He has aligned himself with the Democratic Leadership Council and the party's centrist wing, but is not among its more conservative members.
I think at this point we just need to let Flash be. He wants to be a boo-bird and if he's earned anything it's the right to bitterly complain for the next 4-8 years. That's fine and a bit of the American way. I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama.
Set phasers to "ignore"... |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 12:59:57 PM · #1231 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
\
I think at this point we just need to let Flash be. He wants to be a boo-bird and if he's earned anything it's the right to bitterly complain for the next 4-8 years. That's fine and a bit of the American way. I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama.
Set phasers to "ignore"... |
I'd never heard the term 'boobird' before. So this thread has been worth something at least. I think it might be being used incorrectly in this context. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 01:13:45 PM · #1232 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
b. The athiests are happy. (at least as represented by those posting here). |
Would you accept cautiously optimistic?
Would you also learn how to spell atheist? |
Yes and yes. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 01:16:03 PM · #1233 |
As someone who would probably be described as "far-right," in the "moral majority," "evangelical Christian," or even just "republican," on this board (though those are not all terms I would use to describe me), I am "cautiously optimistic" that things are going to be okay.
I don't agree with some of Obama's philosophy (fwiw, I didn't agree with some of mccain's either), but IF he can stay towards the center, and work to unify the country, and not see how far left he can take it, he stands a really good chance of being our president for 8 years.
Actually, perhaps I am "skeptically optimistic;" I think things CAN change, but I don't trust ANY politician to really do it. :( |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 01:17:09 PM · #1234 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 01:45:29 PM · #1235 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
I'm sorry, guns do not equate to safety, despite the rantings of Charleton Heston and the nutjobs at the NRA. If you want to hunt, shoot bowling pins, targets or whatever, sure go ahead.
If anything, taxes will need to be raised to payoff the $3 Trillion fiasco in Iraq and the other byproducts of the biggest government growth in history, I assume you'll be first in line to support that.
The Bush administration was well on the way to gutting the military when 9/11 happened and to a large extent, continued until it became painfully obvious that they'd bitten off a bit more than they could easily chew with Iraq.
The plan all along, even for Bush, has been to surrender in Iraq. Or do you believe that the US should occupy and control Iraq ad infinitum?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2008 01:49:26 PM · #1236 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
...and exactly when was it that you heard him say that he would do these things. It is conceivable and perhaps even likely that some taxes might be raised, surely you don't expect all that largesse that benefited Wall Street to pay for itself do you? If you want to see welfare at its best, simply take a look at your corporate elite... those are the real sponges in society today.
Gutting the military is not something I ever heard him say... albeit I am confident that there could be some significant savings to be had through a thorough cost analysis of military expenditures.
Surrender in Iraq... what surrender? What needs to be done in Iraq is for the US to listen to the wishes of the Iraqi people, ensure that they have the capacity to deal with the insurgents and then let them fend for themselves...better that that to offer a common enemy to the differing warring factions.
I guess we each have our way of looking at things.
Ray
|
|
|
|
11/06/2008 02:42:28 PM · #1237 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
I'm also fearing the fairness doctrine, the employee bill of rights, and stealing my 401K...
I'm not saying he will do these things. I'm pleading that he not sign them if they get to his desk! |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 02:53:31 PM · #1238 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, |
Exactly how is that going to happen?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Another relatively straightforward (at the time) document that hasn't withstood the onslaught of modern opposing agendas.
To me, it's pretty clear......and it's also abundantly clear to me that it wasn't meant as carte blanche to start your own personal arsenal or become a private arms dealer.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2008 03:07:31 PM · #1239 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
\
I think at this point we just need to let Flash be. He wants to be a boo-bird and if he's earned anything it's the right to bitterly complain for the next 4-8 years. That's fine and a bit of the American way. I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama.
Set phasers to "ignore"... |
I'd never heard the term 'boobird' before. So this thread has been worth something at least. I think it might be being used incorrectly in this context. |
Hey! I've learned something too. I'd heard the word before, but never knew it was associated with such a specific meaning. :) |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 03:18:00 PM · #1240 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
If you like being on the offense, and would not like a 'surrender' in Iraq, why are you not in the Army? Its very easy to cheer from the sidelines.. its a totally different thing to actually be a part of it.
I do not believe in wars. I am a proponent of strong defense, NOT meaningless offenses and then the attempts to justify them by painting a layer of patriotism.
Message edited by author 2008-11-06 15:27:46. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 03:46:43 PM · #1241 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
...and exactly when was it that you heard him say that he would do these things. It is conceivable and perhaps even likely that some taxes might be raised, surely you don't expect all that largesse that benefited Wall Street to pay for itself do you? If you want to see welfare at its best, simply take a look at your corporate elite... those are the real sponges in society today.
Gutting the military is not something I ever heard him say... albeit I am confident that there could be some significant savings to be had through a thorough cost analysis of military expenditures.
Surrender in Iraq... what surrender? What needs to be done in Iraq is for the US to listen to the wishes of the Iraqi people, ensure that they have the capacity to deal with the insurgents and then let them fend for themselves...better that that to offer a common enemy to the differing warring factions.
I guess we each have our way of looking at things.
Ray |
Several of the above posts ask similar questions so I will explain using this one as Ray has consistently been civil and candid - both qualities I admire.
My sentence was; "Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq.".
Then Ray wrote; "...and exactly when was it that you heard him say that he would do these things. "
During the campaign. He consistently ran in the primary as the anti war candidate and called for an immediate withdrawl from Iraq. He opposed gun rights while in the state legislature and supported the DC gun ban as well as lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, plus supported bans and or exhorbitant taxes on various ammunition. He has clearly stated that he is against various military weapons systems and seems (depending on how you parse his words) prepared to pull 10 billion a month from the war efforts to address his many campaign promises. I seem to recall one very specific debate where he made that point clearly. Lastly taxes - the above posters including Ray take this out of context. I very specifically stated "raise taxes to support more welfare". Something I feel we have enough of and earmark elimination could address without adding anything to the tax burden. If increasing welfare is important, then it is important enough to cut from something else.
Now I agree that it does indeed depend on how you interpret these comments. For me, I interpret them as he MIGHT do the following; "restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq". And if he tries to do these things, then I stand ready to hammer him for it. If he doesn't, then I wish him well. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 03:55:43 PM · #1242 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
I'm also fearing the fairness doctrine, the employee bill of rights, and stealing my 401K... |
Agreed. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 04:02:24 PM · #1243 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
If you like being on the offense, and would not like a 'surrender' in Iraq, why are you not in the Army? Its very easy to cheer from the sidelines.. its a totally different thing to actually be a part of it.
I do not believe in wars. I am a proponent of strong defense, NOT meaningless offenses and then the attempts to justify them by painting a layer of patriotism. |
Which one of the above words (from me) are not civil that you chose to not to respond there? Time and again you prove you shy away when faced with a strong argument. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 04:08:16 PM · #1244 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
I'm also fearing the fairness doctrine, the employee bill of rights, and stealing my 401K... |
Agreed. |
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 04:09:28 PM · #1245 |
Regarding taxes: in the past 8 years, the US has "borrowed" six trillion dollars, backed by "the full faith and credit" of the Federal governement. Now, unless you want the country to declare bankruptcy and welch on its obligations, then someone is going to have to pay six trillion (plus interest) in taxes "sometime" ... Just who should that be? Those of us who are reaping the (supposed) benefit of that spending, or our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids ...
The notion of "fiscal responsibility" has to be be the most* hypocritical aspect of Republican "conservative" ideology -- just how is "borrow and spend" more responsible than the dreaded "tax and spend" policy which the Democrats are accused of promoting?
*Their "No government interference in people's personal lives" rhetoric versus their anti-choice/homophobic actions run a close second. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 04:14:25 PM · #1246 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
I'm also fearing the fairness doctrine, the employee bill of rights, and stealing my 401K... |
Agreed. |
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare. |
I have posted many times on my thoughts and given examples to boot. My point above is very simple - if Obama raises taxes to pay for more welfare, then he damn well better exhaust some pork spending first. Otherwise, he will prove himself to simply be another tax and spend liberal. Something I do not believe his legions of supporters voted for but something I believe segments of his base are expecting. I am wathing carefully how he will walk this mine field. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 04:21:45 PM · #1247 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
If you like being on the offense, and would not like a 'surrender' in Iraq, why are you not in the Army? Its very easy to cheer from the sidelines.. its a totally different thing to actually be a part of it.
I do not believe in wars. I am a proponent of strong defense, NOT meaningless offenses and then the attempts to justify them by painting a layer of patriotism. |
Which one of the above words (from me) are not civil that you chose to not to respond there? Time and again you prove you shy away when faced with a strong argument. |
I suppose I did not think it a strong argument. I see no relevance whether I am serving, have served, or never served in our or any military. Obviously an american political thread can be engaged by many the world over - why does a fear of Obama gutting the military require my status in the armed forces? |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 04:24:43 PM · #1248 |
| I really have to go. I'll check back tomorrow. |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 05:02:55 PM · #1249 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm quite sure NOTHING is going to be good enough for him under Obama. |
Not if he tries to restrict the 2nd amendment, raise taxes for more welfare, gut the military and surrender in Iraq. Other than that, I wish him quite well. |
I'm also fearing the fairness doctrine, the employee bill of rights, and stealing my 401K... |
Agreed. |
The US hasn't been the land of opportunity for everyone for a very long time. From what I've read of Obama's plans for tax reform is to leave more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes so they have a chance to succeed. This is not welfare.
Maybe there's another part of the plan you can point us to. You are obviously so disillusioned with the current state of your welfare system and think anything that is giving tax cuts to those who most need it is like welfare. |
I have posted many times on my thoughts and given examples to boot. My point above is very simple - if Obama raises taxes to pay for more welfare, then he damn well better exhaust some pork spending first. Otherwise, he will prove himself to simply be another tax and spend liberal. Something I do not believe his legions of supporters voted for but something I believe segments of his base are expecting. I am wathing carefully how he will walk this mine field. |
... and I asked where in his plan is he raising taxes and increasing welfare? Where are you getting this info from and what are you calling welfare? |
|
|
|
11/06/2008 05:10:49 PM · #1250 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Otherwise, he will prove himself to simply be another tax and spend liberal. |
Or the first. Where did that phrase even come from? |
|
