Screw it!

[LL2]

To fellow conservatives:
I'm not ready to throw in the towel and say that McCain/Palin will lose. Just for the heck of it, why not say screw it and let Obama win. I know it's a nightmare we do not want to envision or haunting our dreams for the next 4 years. Let the Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and the other Dems get control of everything. Let them get the 60 vote majority in the Senate. Why not? If everything improves and we are all prosperous then great, but if everything goes to hell in this great country of ours in the next 4 years then they have NO ONE to blame but themselves. This will empower conservatives and true independents. People are extremely short minded and reminding them of what is was like during the Carter years isn't enough. They need a punch in the face to see the stark realities of the errors and of the Obama Doctrine. Folks like PIP, Tyrone and others can't point at Palin, Bush, McCain, etc for the failures. If everything hits the crapper they can say they inherited this mess, so it's not Obama's fault. Yet, they say everything was rosey and better after Clinton's first term in office. If that was the case under Clinton, then everything should be fabuluous under Obama because he is The One. I think it could be a fun ride and we will survive it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

oh boy.

You should hope that President Obama is extremely successful. Period.

[Freak Out]

Let him win...sure.

[sooner6600]

why are you lefties in rapture over your orgasm over a shakdown
artist who would do no good for the masses?

[Freak Out]

why are you lefties in rapture over your orgasm over a shakdown
artist who would do no good for the masses?

Rapture and orgasm are words I like....what are you asking though? Why we are going to vote for Hussein?

[hoosier]

why are you lefties in rapture over your orgasm over a shakdown
artist who would do no good for the masses?

Rapture and orgasm are words I like....what are you asking though? Why we are going to vote for Hussein?

Never ask the Oracle to interpret its own words. That's bordering on blasphemy. Or redundancy. "I am what I am."

[HowardRoark]

Alright, screw it; I will throw in my two cents too. I have a strong belief in the Conservative philosophical model for humankind. Contrary to what a few posters (cough, cough, Hoosier, Ty, cough) here think, I don’t listen to Rush, Hannity, etc. Rarely do I watch TV, but I do like Brit’s news show in the evening. I have many very good friends who are Liberals. I realize that the sun will come up on Inauguration Day if Obama is elected. My life will go on. That’s our system. I am much more concerned about the fact that nearly half (and everyday, more and more) of our country can’t even put together a coherent argument for what they believe in. It seems as though the system is spitting out dumber and dumber kids with minds that are more and more closed.

CAVEAT!!!!!!! I really hope what I am going to say now doesn’t happen, it would be a disaster.

I notice a whole lot of ingredients coming together at the same time that could create a very combustible time in our history. The economy is tanking. Unemployment is getting higher and will go much higher than most people think. There is an undercurrent of fear out there; people are not sure where they will live or how they will feed their kids. As we all remember from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, when people do not have a base level of comfort (food and shelter) they can get a little crazy. There is also a big undercurrent of class warfare too. And lastly, the whole race card. Take a look at the headlines you have been reading lately; more and more you hear about how cities are making plans for rioting if Obama does not win. And the worst case of them all……..if some nut case on the Right does something once Obama is elected. It will make the Rodney King Riots look like a walk in the park.

It’s all out there right now……right below the surface. I hope it does not happen.

[sooner6600]

Howard;

I do agree with your last post.

The right does not have a monopoly in all nut cases; do they?

Since the left beleives in quotas and afirmitive action;
it would be logical that they have their fair share
of nut cases too!

Given newspeak these nut cases on the left are found in the
legislative and judical sections of the govenment.

If the Hussein becomes POTUS then will Aunt Ruth G become
the chief chair?

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

porcus dixet oink oink

[Freak Out]

If the Hussein becomes POTUS then will Aunt Ruth G become
the chief chair?

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

porcus dixet oink oink

No....the next Prez will probably get the chance to nominate a justice or two but unless the acting chief leaves he stays the chief as far as I remember.

[texaspackerbacker]

To fellow conservatives:
I'm not ready to throw in the towel and say that McCain/Palin will lose. Just for the heck of it, why not say screw it and let Obama win. I know it's a nightmare we do not want to envision or haunting our dreams for the next 4 years. Let the Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and the other Dems get control of everything. Let them get the 60 vote majority in the Senate. Why not? If everything improves and we are all prosperous then great, but if everything goes to hell in this great country of ours in the next 4 years then they have NO ONE to blame but themselves. This will empower conservatives and true independents. People are extremely short minded and reminding them of what is was like during the Carter years isn't enough. They need a punch in the face to see the stark realities of the errors and of the Obama Doctrine. Folks like PIP, Tyrone and others can't point at Palin, Bush, McCain, etc for the failures. If everything hits the crapper they can say they inherited this mess, so it's not Obama's fault. Yet, they say everything was rosey and better after Clinton's first term in office. If that was the case under Clinton, then everything should be fabuluous under Obama because he is The One. I think it could be a fun ride and we will survive it.

LL2, we very well could reach the point on or before election day where your scenario is the only straw left to grasp.

I don't think we're quite to that poInt yet, though. I am still clinging to the slim hope that polling flaws exist, and McCain/Palin are actually even or ahead in the key states. I could even see see the good guys winning in electoral votes and losing the popular vote.

McCain really pisses me off, though. It almost seems he's throwing the election with this stupid "Joe the Plumber" crap. He called his trip through Florida a "protect your wealth" tour. Sheesh! That's just fine if you're going for the vote of all those making over $250,000. But if you want and need the votes of the majority of Americans, you DON'T play right into the hands of Obama's highly effective/media enabled Class warfare rhetoric. Obama has HUGE vulnerabilities on security, defense, radical associates, social issues, etc. Emphasizing any or all of those would be a winner. Whining about how it's not fair to increase taxes on the wealthy, no matter how true and valid the argument is, is a LOSER when it comes to influencing electoral results.

The "Lose to Obama" scenario might just be survivable--as you say, except for two factors:

The lesser one is the prospect that the next president, especially if he is a two term president, will be able to pack the Supreme Court with several new justices. This is an especially significant thing if it is Obama--having a complicit left-leaning Congress. There also will be a ton of influential Federal Judge appointees.

The far GREATER factor is the specter of terrorism on American soil. Can there be ANY DOUBT that Obama will make that prospect extremely much more likely? The piece of crap OPPOSED all of the aspects in the War on Terror that have been so successful up to now in preventing repeats of 9/11--taking the War to the enemy's region of the world, enhancing security through the Patriot Act, etc., locking up probable terrorists without due process and with harsh interrogation, Obama took the anti-American position every step of the way. He even stated in his book, if it comes to a major confrontation between America and Islam, he stands with Islam.

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

[HowardRoark]

Howard;

I do agree with your last post.

The right does not have a monopoly in all nut cases; do they?



No, both sides have their share of nut cases......the Left just has more sheep.

http://collegeotr.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blogs/4d7d240352aadec62f28435865593b28.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Howard;

I do agree with your last post.

The right does not have a monopoly in all nut cases; do they?



No, both sides have their share of nut cases......the Left just has more sheep.

http://collegeotr.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blogs/4d7d240352aadec62f28435865593b28.jpg

Sure they do.

Not like those independent thinking dittoheads. :roll:

[HowardRoark]

Not like those independent thinking dittoheads. :roll:

What's a dittohead?

[mraynrand]

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

It IS the most important issue, but - out of sight out of mind - virtually no one is paying attention, except maybe Joe Biden. He knows Barack is unqualified, says so, and they ship him off to an undisclosed location. Except for some on FOX, and conservative blogs and mags, NO ONE is paying attention to the war against Islamic terrorism. They are following the economy and want the massive hand outs being promised by the messiah, B Frank, Pelosi, etc. Free Health care, free daycare, free cars, AND a TAX CUT to boot. It's the Magical Mystery Money Tree Tour - the one that ends in March 2009, when everyone gets taxed.

[texaspackerbacker]

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

It IS the most important issue, but - out of sight out of mind - virtually no one is paying attention, except maybe Joe Biden. He knows Barack is unqualified, says so, and they ship him off to an undisclosed location. Except for some on FOX, and conservative blogs and mags, NO ONE is paying attention to the war against Islamic terrorism. They are following the economy and want the massive hand outs being promised by the messiah, B Frank, Pelosi, etc. Free Health care, free daycare, free cars, AND a TAX CUT to boot. It's the Magical Mystery Money Tree Tour - the one that ends in March 2009, when everyone gets taxed.

And HOW does that happen? The God damned left-saturated mainstream media, that's how.

Their side is playing the game more effectively than our side.

[mraynrand]

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

It IS the most important issue, but - out of sight out of mind - virtually no one is paying attention, except maybe Joe Biden. He knows Barack is unqualified, says so, and they ship him off to an undisclosed location. Except for some on FOX, and conservative blogs and mags, NO ONE is paying attention to the war against Islamic terrorism. They are following the economy and want the massive hand outs being promised by the messiah, B Frank, Pelosi, etc. Free Health care, free daycare, free cars, AND a TAX CUT to boot. It's the Magical Mystery Money Tree Tour - the one that ends in March 2009, when everyone gets taxed.

And HOW does that happen? The God damned left-saturated mainstream media, that's how.

Their side is playing the game more effectively than our side.
Yes they are. And they are raising tons and tons of cash using the Howard Dean model. Remember Howard Dean? The left is pretty damn good at hiding their trash - and their true agenda, thanks to the popular media and popular cultural outlets.

[MadScientist]

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

It IS the most important issue, but - out of sight out of mind - virtually no one is paying attention, except maybe Joe Biden. He knows Barack is unqualified, says so, and they ship him off to an undisclosed location. Except for some on FOX, and conservative blogs and mags, NO ONE is paying attention to the war against Islamic terrorism. They are following the economy and want the massive hand outs being promised by the messiah, B Frank, Pelosi, etc. Free Health care, free daycare, free cars, AND a TAX CUT to boot. It's the Magical Mystery Money Tree Tour - the one that ends in March 2009, when everyone gets taxed.
If you like living like thumb sucking little girls who wet their panties every time someone says boo, keep thinking like this. If you want to live like Americans should, grow a set, or better yet grow a brain and get some perspective.
The last month has proved that a handful of greedy unregulated bankers can do far far far more economic damage than Bin Laden ever could hope to do, and the number he murdered was on par with the two months worth of domestic murders. Simply put, terrorists can't destroy America. The real damage to America from terrorism is from the overraeaction of people like you, and an administration willing to push fear to trash the constitution, and without the constitution, America is nothing.

The real way to stop the terrorists is through competent police/intellegence work and international cooperation. Can there be any doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama will be far better at gettign international cooperation than Bush / McCain?

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

[gex]

oh boy.

You should hope that President Obama is extremely successful. Period.

2nd

[HowardRoark]

oh boy.

You should hope that President Obama is extremely successful. Period.

2nd

Decided to get verbose?

[mraynrand]

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

It IS the most important issue, but - out of sight out of mind - virtually no one is paying attention, except maybe Joe Biden. He knows Barack is unqualified, says so, and they ship him off to an undisclosed location. Except for some on FOX, and conservative blogs and mags, NO ONE is paying attention to the war against Islamic terrorism. They are following the economy and want the massive hand outs being promised by the messiah, B Frank, Pelosi, etc. Free Health care, free daycare, free cars, AND a TAX CUT to boot. It's the Magical Mystery Money Tree Tour - the one that ends in March 2009, when everyone gets taxed.
If you like living like thumb sucking little girls who wet their panties every time someone says boo, keep thinking like this. If you want to live like Americans should, grow a set, or better yet grow a brain and get some perspective.
The last month has proved that a handful of greedy unregulated bankers can do far far far more economic damage than Bin Laden ever could hope to do, and the number he murdered was on par with the two months worth of domestic murders. Simply put, terrorists can't destroy America. The real damage to America from terrorism is from the overraeaction of people like you, and an administration willing to push fear to trash the constitution, and without the constitution, America is nothing.

The real way to stop the terrorists is through competent police/intellegence work and international cooperation. Can there be any doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama will be far better at gettign international cooperation than Bush / McCain?

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

Yep, the Constitution is in disarray. Right.

How about greedy unregulated Barney Franks?

The problem wasn't that the bankers weren't unregulated, the problem was they were regulated to do finance in terribly destructive ways, by guys like Barney Frank, many others in Congress, and yes, even Phil Gramm, with the full support of the Clinton administration and most of Congress. Complaints about Frank by the repubs were half-hearted and un-aggressive. And somehow you think Barney Frank, with a blank check from the Obamessiah will be a better combo. Good luck with that.

[texaspackerbacker]

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

It IS the most important issue, but - out of sight out of mind - virtually no one is paying attention, except maybe Joe Biden. He knows Barack is unqualified, says so, and they ship him off to an undisclosed location. Except for some on FOX, and conservative blogs and mags, NO ONE is paying attention to the war against Islamic terrorism. They are following the economy and want the massive hand outs being promised by the messiah, B Frank, Pelosi, etc. Free Health care, free daycare, free cars, AND a TAX CUT to boot. It's the Magical Mystery Money Tree Tour - the one that ends in March 2009, when everyone gets taxed.
If you like living like thumb sucking little girls who wet their panties every time someone says boo, keep thinking like this. If you want to live like Americans should, grow a set, or better yet grow a brain and get some perspective.
The last month has proved that a handful of greedy unregulated bankers can do far far far more economic damage than Bin Laden ever could hope to do, and the number he murdered was on par with the two months worth of domestic murders. Simply put, terrorists can't destroy America. The real damage to America from terrorism is from the overraeaction of people like you, and an administration willing to push fear to trash the constitution, and without the constitution, America is nothing.

The real way to stop the terrorists is through competent police/intellegence work and international cooperation. Can there be any doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama will be far better at gettign international cooperation than Bush / McCain?

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

That's just laughable, MS.

The courageous thing to do is just let terrorism in America happen? You sound just like piece-of-shit Obama.

The WORST thing that can happen from terrorism is having one or several of our cities taken out by nukes--or barring that, areas of them made uninhabitable by dirty bombs. Even just a series of conventional terrorist bombs at malls and sporting events would have a horrendous effect on our way of life and enjoyment of life. And you--and the sick fucks your side puts up as candidates--would just LET IT HAPPEN!

And you actually have the GALL to spout John Kerry's "police approach" to terrorism? Sheesh!

The way to prevent terrorism is exactly the way we have prevented terrorism since 9/11--all the things that left wing America-hating extremists like Obama are against. And if that means depriving terrorists from foreign countries of OUR Constitutional protections that they are NOT entitled to anyway, and which they seek to destroy, then so be it!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Too many liberals spent the 8 Bush years wishing ill for him, and consequently the U.S. They wanted the U.S. to fail in Iraq, and smiled smugly at economic problems.

I hope conservatives won't be just as stupid under Obama. The game of "we need things to get worse so we can turn things around our way" never works, and people have been saying it for centuries.

We don't live in a dictatorship. The presidents aren't ideologically pure, your viewpoint will get some hearing through congress. Remember, Bush got elected as a true conservative, that didn't work out like you thought. Obama will have to compromise and will be held accountable.

[mraynrand]

Obama will have to compromise and will be held accountable.

It depends. First, on if he gets elected and Second, on what the composition of congress is. Supermajority? look out below!

[HowardRoark]

Obama will have to compromise and will be held accountable.

It depends. First, on if he gets elected and Second, on what the composition of congress is. Supermajority? look out below!

I just had this same discussion with a guy this morning at my kid's basketball practice. Nancy has been hiding in the weeds, just causing trouble....not really trying to get any agenda through at all. Merely causing headaches for the country in order to help get majorities. Could be a very interesting two years.

A new Newt needs to emerge.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

It IS the most important issue, but - out of sight out of mind - virtually no one is paying attention, except maybe Joe Biden. He knows Barack is unqualified, says so, and they ship him off to an undisclosed location. Except for some on FOX, and conservative blogs and mags, NO ONE is paying attention to the war against Islamic terrorism. They are following the economy and want the massive hand outs being promised by the messiah, B Frank, Pelosi, etc. Free Health care, free daycare, free cars, AND a TAX CUT to boot. It's the Magical Mystery Money Tree Tour - the one that ends in March 2009, when everyone gets taxed.

You never get tired of distorting the truth, do you?

Nice of you to carefully not pay attention to Biden's spine of steel comments.

[HowardRoark]

Spine? What about his abs of steel?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/obamabeach.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You love to post that pic.

I always knew, like so many conservs, that you were hiding in the closet.

[mraynrand]

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

It IS the most important issue, but - out of sight out of mind - virtually no one is paying attention, except maybe Joe Biden. He knows Barack is unqualified, says so, and they ship him off to an undisclosed location. Except for some on FOX, and conservative blogs and mags, NO ONE is paying attention to the war against Islamic terrorism. They are following the economy and want the massive hand outs being promised by the messiah, B Frank, Pelosi, etc. Free Health care, free daycare, free cars, AND a TAX CUT to boot. It's the Magical Mystery Money Tree Tour - the one that ends in March 2009, when everyone gets taxed.

You never get tired of distorting the truth, do you?

Nice of you to carefully not pay attention to Biden's spine of steel comments.

Were those from the primary when he said Barack was unqualified - for the fist time?

[mraynrand]

Spine? What about his abs of steel?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/obamabeach.jpg

How about Hip Hop Abs? I'm tellin' ya, it works!


http://www.as-seen-on-tv-compare.com/images/products/hip-hop-abs.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How could any America-loving American dispute the fact that THIS--Obama's stance on preventing terrorism in America--is the MOST important issue--the ONE single factor that America just might NOT be able to survive?

It IS the most important issue, but - out of sight out of mind - virtually no one is paying attention, except maybe Joe Biden. He knows Barack is unqualified, says so, and they ship him off to an undisclosed location. Except for some on FOX, and conservative blogs and mags, NO ONE is paying attention to the war against Islamic terrorism. They are following the economy and want the massive hand outs being promised by the messiah, B Frank, Pelosi, etc. Free Health care, free daycare, free cars, AND a TAX CUT to boot. It's the Magical Mystery Money Tree Tour - the one that ends in March 2009, when everyone gets taxed.

You never get tired of distorting the truth, do you?

Nice of you to carefully not pay attention to Biden's spine of steel comments.

Were those from the primary when he said Barack was unqualified - for the fist time?

Biden, like many candidates say things about their opponents. Were you as critical of Bush when he sold his soul to be reagan's runningmate?

And, for you to pretend that your comment is about what was said roughly a year ago..and not recent is a joke. As is the "they ship him off" comment.

But, in your warped rubric..obama's sick grandma is just a clever political gambit...as is his devotion to her.

You truly have become morally bankrupt...at least now you have joined the rest of your party.

[packinpatland]

Says John McCain.... "What America needs now is someone who will finish the race before starting the victory lap.”


John doing a lap......mind boggling.

[wist43]

In a democracy, no one is safe and everyones property is up for grabs. He who promises the most goodies, usually wins.

Is it any surprise then, that a filthy piece of garbage like Barack Obama can come along and simply spew platitudes from the Communist Manifesto, spit on the Constitution itself, and surf his way to the oval office on a tidal wave of ignorance???

Of course in America, under our Constitution, we are not supposed to be a democracy, and not one syllabal of what either McCain or Obama utters is Constitutional, but what does that matter??? The Constitution was abandoned decades ago.

Does anyone remember that crap about the Constitution being a "living document" being taught in high school??? All that means is that the Constitution as a restrictive document, a document that restricts government, a document that acts as bell weather against the encroachments of government on our freedoms, no longer exists.

The Constitution was designed to restrict government, not people... that principle has been turned on its head by the liberal elite - the liberal elite that direct both parties.

Absent legal restraint, absent understanding on the part of the governed about the proper role of government - governments become nothing more than vast robberies.

Our freedoms will not likely survive another generation here in the U.S... Our founders predicted it all - warning that should we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking we were a democracy, that we deserve neither freedom nor prosperity.

Debate at this point between socialist party A, and socialist party B, is little more than debate over how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just a matter of time.

I had hoped to be able to live out my days w/o seeing our country implode, but at 45, and the prospect of a left wing nut like Obama being elected, the writing is on the wall.

The building blocks of tyranny from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Barack Obama should be easy to see - it's obvious to anyone who is educated about the principles of freedom. Sadly, there are so few of us.

[MJZiggy]

You're only 45?

[texaspackerbacker]

In a democracy, no one is safe and everyones property is up for grabs. He who promises the most goodies, usually wins.

Is it any surprise then, that a filthy piece of garbage like Barack Obama can come along and simply spew platitudes from the Communist Manifesto, spit on the Constitution itself, and surf his way to the oval office on a tidal wave of ignorance???

Of course in America, under our Constitution, we are not supposed to be a democracy, and not one syllabal of what either McCain or Obama utters is Constitutional, but what does that matter??? The Constitution was abandoned decades ago.

Does anyone remember that crap about the Constitution being a "living document" being taught in high school??? All that means is that the Constitution as a restrictive document, a document that restricts government, a document that acts as bell weather against the encroachments of government on our freedoms, no longer exists.

The Constitution was designed to restrict government, not people... that principle has been turned on its head by the liberal elite - the liberal elite that direct both parties.

Absent legal restraint, absent understanding on the part of the governed about the proper role of government - governments become nothing more than vast robberies.

Our freedoms will not likely survive another generation here in the U.S... Our founders predicted it all - warning that should we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking we were a democracy, that we deserve neither freedom nor prosperity.

Debate at this point between socialist party A, and socialist party B, is little more than debate over how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just a matter of time.

I had hoped to be able to live out my days w/o seeing our country implode, but at 45, and the prospect of a left wing nut like Obama being elected, the writing is on the wall.

The building blocks of tyranny from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Barack Obama should be easy to see - it's obvious to anyone who is educated about the principles of freedom. Sadly, there are so few of us.

Good job of telling it like it is, wist. The fact that you made it perfectly clear in an earlier post that you see the filthy piece of garbage as by far, the worst alternative, though, gives you credibility that people intending to waste their vote on Bob Barr just don't have.

Tyrone, your analogy of Obama bin Biden with Reagan/Bush the Elder is wrong. Obama and Biden are extremely like-minded--the first and third worst liberal voting records in the Senate. Bush the Elder was philosopically, a completely different kind of Republican than Reagan.

Aside from the fact that Bush's "conversion" would be much better characterized as "stepping into the light" than "selling his soul", you have the question that nobody can really answer except the man himself: Was Bush the Elder merely recognizing political reality and giving lip service to Reaganomics and other conservative principals? Or was he really won over to the wisdom of that viewpoint by the great success of the Reagan presidency?

[Partial]

That is a great post Wist! I agree 100% For me, the best government is a small government. McCain seems to support that theory as well. Obama and his banter lead me to believe he does not. Our government is far too bloated.

[wist43]

You're only 45?

With a touch of gray 8-)

[mraynrand]

But, in your warped rubric..obama's sick grandma is just a clever political gambit...as is his devotion to her.


Now you're just making things up. I never mentioned his Grandmother's illness.

[mraynrand]

Were you as critical of Bush when he sold his soul to be reagan's runningmate?

Funny you should mention this - I was critical of it and wrote an essay on it called "Voodoo politics." I also wrote to Reagan asking how he could have both tax cuts and increased military spending. I got back a policy paper that I still have.

I find it interesting that you come across as an expert on who is selling their soul. Perhaps you have inside information.

[MadScientist]

If you like living like thumb sucking little girls who wet their panties every time someone says boo, keep thinking like this. If you want to live like Americans should, grow a set, or better yet grow a brain and get some perspective.
The last month has proved that a handful of greedy unregulated bankers can do far far far more economic damage than Bin Laden ever could hope to do, and the number he murdered was on par with the two months worth of domestic murders. Simply put, terrorists can't destroy America. The real damage to America from terrorism is from the overraeaction of people like you, and an administration willing to push fear to trash the constitution, and without the constitution, America is nothing.

The real way to stop the terrorists is through competent police/intellegence work and international cooperation. Can there be any doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama will be far better at gettign international cooperation than Bush / McCain?

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

That's just laughable, MS.

The courageous thing to do is just let terrorism in America happen? You sound just like piece-of-shit Obama.

The WORST thing that can happen from terrorism is having one or several of our cities taken out by nukes--or barring that, areas of them made uninhabitable by dirty bombs. Even just a series of conventional terrorist bombs at malls and sporting events would have a horrendous effect on our way of life and enjoyment of life. And you--and the sick fucks your side puts up as candidates--would just LET IT HAPPEN!

And you actually have the GALL to spout John Kerry's "police approach" to terrorism? Sheesh!

The way to prevent terrorism is exactly the way we have prevented terrorism since 9/11--all the things that left wing America-hating extremists like Obama are against. And if that means depriving terrorists from foreign countries of OUR Constitutional protections that they are NOT entitled to anyway, and which they seek to destroy, then so be it!

There must be something in the Texas water that creates right-wingers who can't comprehend above things beyond "The Pet Goat" level. Al Queda just loves people like you, easily frightened and really stupid. I'll just call you Bin Laden's bitch from now on.

If you want to prevent these pissants from nuking us, secure the goddamn nukes. Fully fund Nunn-Lugar (and it's follow-up Lugar-Obama) instead of cutting it like shit for brains Bush did.

Of course you'd obviously rather tie up intelligence resources listening in to our troops' phone-sex calls home, and pretend it makes us safer.

[MJZiggy]

That is a great post Wist! I agree 100% For me, the best government is a small government. McCain seems to support that theory as well. Obama and his banter lead me to believe he does not. Our government is far too bloated.

Like Bush did, right? Wait, isn't McCain talking about buying back mortgages? Who's going to run that program? He's privatizing it, right? Isn't he talking about sending checks straight to insurance companies? Won't that bloat up HHS? (good for me because the ugliest building ever built that houses that department is but a couple miless from my house, but still) He also wants to continue two wars indefinitely and they aren't being run by private militia.

He's talking about a freeze the above programs prove he can't support without breaking his campaign promise and while Obama may not be declaring smaller government, he also is talking about going through program by program to cut waste. Which is exactly the thing that the state and local governments are having to do now.

[wist43]

That is a great post Wist! I agree 100% For me, the best government is a small government. McCain seems to support that theory as well. Obama and his banter lead me to believe he does not. Our government is far too bloated.

Like Bush did, right? Wait, isn't McCain talking about buying back mortgages? Who's going to run that program? He's privatizing it, right? Isn't he talking about sending checks straight to insurance companies? Won't that bloat up HHS? (good for me because the ugliest building ever built that houses that department is but a couple miless from my house, but still) He also wants to continue two wars indefinitely and they aren't being run by private militia.

He's talking about a freeze the above programs prove he can't support without breaking his campaign promise and while Obama may not be declaring smaller government, he also is talking about going through program by program to cut waste. Which is exactly the thing that the state and local governments are having to do now.

I can't remember the last time I voted for a Republican for prez... there's little to seperate them from dems really - at least for those of us who understand how our country and our freedoms are being deliberately and systematically dismantled. The process has been going on for many decades, but Obama is too much.

Welcome to the United Soviet Socialist States of the former America.

All you folks are doing, really, is arguing about what color you should paint a burning house - the end result will be the desired result - a sufficiently weakened United States, paving the way for further empowering the United Nations - global this, global that. Both parties, at least at the top, are completely comitted to globalism. Too bad we lose our sovreignty and freedom in the tradeoff.

That said, the dems, as nasty as they are at their core, have gone beyond the pale. I guess what's got my hackles up more than anything is democratic elected officials using their positions to foster corruption - OH, WI especially.

Here in Wisconsin, the democratic party has a corruption machine that Joseph Stalin would be proud of. I'm just sick of the democratic party, the corruption, and then the media and academia providing cover. Only the weak minded fall for their nonsense, unfortuately, the weak minded make up a majority of our citizenry, and since most of that citizenry erroneously believes we are a democracy, we stand no chance of maintaining our freedoms in the long run. In some ways, ignorance is bliss.

The Republicans aren't much better, but at least there is still a general sense of honesty in the party. Yes there are loathsome characters that can be pointed to as greasy examples, but the rank and file member of the Rebublican party tends to be an honest hard working American... the dems on the other hand, have all but abandoned any pretense of honesty. True to the Leftist axiom, "the end justifies the means".

I never would have considered voting for McCain... he represents the right wing of the socialst two party system here in the U.S., but Obama overtly spouting socialist platitudes, the media is giving him unbelievable cover, and their use of elected offices to protect and foster corrupt enterprises is simply too much.

I will hold my nose and vote for McCain not b/c I support McCain, but b/c Obama and the democrats are a complete disgrace.

[MJZiggy]

Media in Wisconsin? How 'bout media ABOUT Wisconsin. You're gonna love this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/10/23/VI2008102302925.html?hpid=multimedia1&hpv=local

[Partial]

That is a great post Wist! I agree 100% For me, the best government is a small government. McCain seems to support that theory as well. Obama and his banter lead me to believe he does not. Our government is far too bloated.

Like Bush did, right? Wait, isn't McCain talking about buying back mortgages? Who's going to run that program? He's privatizing it, right? Isn't he talking about sending checks straight to insurance companies? Won't that bloat up HHS? (good for me because the ugliest building ever built that houses that department is but a couple miless from my house, but still) He also wants to continue two wars indefinitely and they aren't being run by private militia.

He's talking about a freeze the above programs prove he can't support without breaking his campaign promise and while Obama may not be declaring smaller government, he also is talking about going through program by program to cut waste. Which is exactly the thing that the state and local governments are having to do now.

What Democrats say and what they do are two entirely different things. Sure, he'll go through the budget line by line, but does that mean he'll think things that are wasteful are? Don't think for a second this joker doesn't increase spending.

As for the wars, be glad you live in a place like America where you're allowed to say something like that. Sadam would have had you hung for A) being an outspoken woman, B) for being outspoken against the government.

I'm much happier having the war fought on the terrorists turf than having them blowing up schools, school buses, churches, etc in our country. Don't think for a second there won't be a much worse version of 9/11 right around the corner once obama pulls out all the troops and lets his people continue their radical ways.

[MJZiggy]

I am glad I'm living in America which is why I'm here. But it still doesn't mean that you can claim that you're going to make government smaller while you're waging two wars. I'm all for finishing what Bush started in both countries (Afghanistan being more important) but finishing them costs money and necessarily bloats the government so you don't get it both ways claiming you're going to fight two wars and that you're going to freeze spending. It's an impossible claim.

I was working for the Federal government when Clinton came through and believe me they went through every agency. The only fault I saw in his logic is that he left it up to each agency to decide for itself what was necessary and while I left that position before he was finished, I would have liked to see him assign the GAO to review the suggested cuts and changes. He may have done that, I don't know, but what I do know is that it's highly likely that my old position no longer exists and if it does, it should be cut.

[HowardRoark]

This reminds me of when I talk to my wife about how we have to watch our budget more and she tells me that I have to cancel my subscription to National Review right after she goes out and spends $700 on shoes.

As much as we have to get rid of many agencies, it’s the entitlements that will sink the ship.

And the whole Afghanistan thing is nothing but a strawman on the part of the Lefties. It’s B.S.

[MJZiggy]

Tell it to the people who got shot there. It's not a strawman in talks of government spending if we still have to pay for it. Just like social security, roads, bridges, WIC, EPA, offshore drilling or any other program that spends money is part of the discussion.

[wist43]

Media in Wisconsin? How 'bout media ABOUT Wisconsin. You're gonna love this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/10/23/VI2008102302925.html?hpid=multimedia1&hpv=local

Pretty tame piece MJ... Wisconsin is a very backward state, and while ignorance rules the day throughout our country, Wisconsin's residents tend to be naively ignorant.

My step-father is a good example. Personally, a great guy; but also a self proclaimed socialist/marxist/communist/democrat. Only votes for democrats. He's honest insomuch as he wants to help people, but he can't understand how his taking my money, or anybody elses money to do so is dishonest - never minding the gross violations of principle with regard to proper governance - and here in the U.S. the obvious unConstitutionality of it all. He can never bring himself to make the distinction between theory and reality - which of course, any left winger suffers from.

He simply cannot bring himself to understand that government cannot be trusted to be a positive force. It is principle - the principle being that governments unrestrained, will inevitably move to control the population.

A country or kingdom may function through periods in which a benevolent king or dictator allows freedom and justice to prevail for brief periods of time, but the citizenry is still ultimately subject to the repressive whims of the next ruler.

Our founding fathers clearly understood the principles of freedom, and that is why they gave us Republic - a Republic in which the rule of law restricts government, not the people.

Once the lion is loosed from the cage - a process which really began with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, and really picked up steam with "The New Deal" in the 1930's - it was inevitable that more and more people would simply begin to clamour for more largesse - and government would predictably become the playground of the corrupt - hence, he who promises the most, wins.

Our founding fathers predicted all of this... go the way of democracy, and your enslavement draweth nigh. "... and to the Republic for which it stands"... long ago forgotten. It's truly sad to watch our country die like this.

I don't dabble in politcs or debate much these days... what's the point, I'm so far in the minority, and our demise is so obviously inevitable. Just hoping to live out my days w/o ending up in a gulag.

[HowardRoark]

Tell it to the people who got shot there. It's not a strawman in talks of government spending if we still have to pay for it. Just like social security, roads, bridges, WIC, EPA, offshore drilling or any other program that spends money is part of the discussion.

I'm talking about how guys like Obama get up and sanctimoniously talk about how Afghanistan is really where we need to be; not in Iraq! B.S. He doesn’t give a shit about Afghanistan. It just helps move the herd his way.

And why does the Federal Government have to be financially involved in off shore drilling? Last I heard; evil companies such as Exxon can take care of things like that.

[mraynrand]

Once the lion is loosed from the cage - a process which really began with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, and really picked up steam with "The New Deal" in the 1930's - it was inevitable that more and more people would simply begin to clamour for more largesse - and government would predictably become the playground of the corrupt - hence, he who promises the most, wins.

Where have I heard that before?

[packinpatland]

Tell it to the people who got shot there. It's not a strawman in talks of government spending if we still have to pay for it. Just like social security, roads, bridges, WIC, EPA, offshore drilling or any other program that spends money is part of the discussion.

I'm talking about how guys like Obama get up and sanctimoniously talk about how Afghanistan is really where we need to be; not in Iraq! B.S. He doesn’t give a shit about Afghanistan. It just helps move the herd his way.

And why does the Federal Government have to be financially involved in off shore drilling? Last I heard; evil companies such as Exxon can take care of things like that.


The key word here should have been 'needed'

[HowardRoark]

Tell it to the people who got shot there. It's not a strawman in talks of government spending if we still have to pay for it. Just like social security, roads, bridges, WIC, EPA, offshore drilling or any other program that spends money is part of the discussion.

I'm talking about how guys like Obama get up and sanctimoniously talk about how Afghanistan is really where we need to be; not in Iraq! B.S. He doesn’t give a shit about Afghanistan. It just helps move the herd his way.

And why does the Federal Government have to be financially involved in off shore drilling? Last I heard; evil companies such as Exxon can take care of things like that.


The key word here should have been 'needed'

My point exactly. That sounds great, but is meaningless.

[packinpatland]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

[LL2]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

But it is what you said. Typical of Liberals...they do not want to be taken for what they say.

[HowardRoark]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

I’m not spinning anything. If you can honestly say that you were advocating an escalation of the war in Afghanistan 5 years ago, more power to you. But that’s not what is happening here. Obama and his flock are running around saying Iraq is bad, and we need to be focused on Afghanistan….or should have been focused there.

I stand by my statement. It’s Bullshit. I see it clear as day. Show me some speeches where Obama was advocating ramping up the war effort in Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago. I will gladly change my position.

The fact of the matter is that Obama said that his position on Iraq was basically the same as Bush’s position back then. His big epiphany came when he found it to be a wedge issue in the primaries. He knew that he could get all the dailykos and moveon.org crowd by saying he was always against the war and that we should immediately get out. He knew he could back Hillary into a corner. It worked. Even when all the evidence has shown that the Surge has worked, he has dug in his heels and sticks by his plan (not a very good characteristic of a leader by the way….digging in one’s heals in the face of changing data).

Now he has found a new little wrinkle that seems to be resonating with the masses…..”We needed to be focused on Afghanistan, not in Iraq!”

I’m happy for you Barack….that and a nickel will get you, um, I guess the Presidency of the United States of America.

[wist43]

Once the lion is loosed from the cage - a process which really began with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, and really picked up steam with "The New Deal" in the 1930's - it was inevitable that more and more people would simply begin to clamour for more largesse - and government would predictably become the playground of the corrupt - hence, he who promises the most, wins.

Where have I heard that before?

Certainly not in a public school :cry:

[HowardRoark]

Once the lion is loosed from the cage - a process which really began with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, and really picked up steam with "The New Deal" in the 1930's - it was inevitable that more and more people would simply begin to clamour for more largesse - and government would predictably become the playground of the corrupt - hence, he who promises the most, wins.

Where have I heard that before?

Certainly not in a public school :cry:

Coming soon!!! $10,000,000,000.00 for Early Childhood Education. Bahh, bahhh.

http://pix.alaporte.net/pub/d/15644-1/Baby+Sheep+Suckling+Mom.JPG

[mraynrand]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

I’m not spinning anything. If you can honestly say that you were advocating an escalation of the war in Afghanistan 5 years ago, more power to you. But that’s not what is happening here. Obama and his flock are running around saying Iraq is bad, and we need to be focused on Afghanistan….or should have been focused there.

I stand by my statement. It’s Bullshit. I see it clear as day. Show me some speeches where Obama was advocating ramping up the war effort in Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago. I will gladly change my position.

The fact of the matter is that Obama said that his position on Iraq was basically the same as Bush’s position back then. His big epiphany came when he found it to be a wedge issue in the primaries. He knew that he could get all the dailykos and moveon.org crowd by saying he was always against the war and that we should immediately get out. He knew he could back Hillary into a corner. It worked. Even when all the evidence has shown that the Surge has worked, he has dug in his heels and sticks by his plan (not a very good characteristic of a leader by the way….digging in one’s heals in the face of changing data).

Now he has found a new little wrinkle that seems to be resonating with the masses…..”We needed to be focused on Afghanistan, not in Iraq!”

I’m happy for you Barack….that and a nickel will get you, um, I guess the Presidency of the United States of America.

I think your anger towards Barack derives from a fundamental absence of empathy.

[retailguy]

I think your anger towards Barack derives from a fundamental absence of empathy.

Nah. He doesn't have "selective hearing disorder", and he can see the Emperor's teflon suit that he borrowed from Bill Clinton.

[mraynrand]

"The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity."

"It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty…"

[texaspackerbacker]

If you like living like thumb sucking little girls who wet their panties every time someone says boo, keep thinking like this. If you want to live like Americans should, grow a set, or better yet grow a brain and get some perspective.
The last month has proved that a handful of greedy unregulated bankers can do far far far more economic damage than Bin Laden ever could hope to do, and the number he murdered was on par with the two months worth of domestic murders. Simply put, terrorists can't destroy America. The real damage to America from terrorism is from the overraeaction of people like you, and an administration willing to push fear to trash the constitution, and without the constitution, America is nothing.

The real way to stop the terrorists is through competent police/intellegence work and international cooperation. Can there be any doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama will be far better at gettign international cooperation than Bush / McCain?

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

That's just laughable, MS.

The courageous thing to do is just let terrorism in America happen? You sound just like piece-of-shit Obama.

The WORST thing that can happen from terrorism is having one or several of our cities taken out by nukes--or barring that, areas of them made uninhabitable by dirty bombs. Even just a series of conventional terrorist bombs at malls and sporting events would have a horrendous effect on our way of life and enjoyment of life. And you--and the sick fucks your side puts up as candidates--would just LET IT HAPPEN!

And you actually have the GALL to spout John Kerry's "police approach" to terrorism? Sheesh!

The way to prevent terrorism is exactly the way we have prevented terrorism since 9/11--all the things that left wing America-hating extremists like Obama are against. And if that means depriving terrorists from foreign countries of OUR Constitutional protections that they are NOT entitled to anyway, and which they seek to destroy, then so be it!

There must be something in the Texas water that creates right-wingers who can't comprehend above things beyond "The Pet Goat" level. Al Queda just loves people like you, easily frightened and really stupid. I'll just call you Bin Laden's bitch from now on.

If you want to prevent these pissants from nuking us, secure the goddamn nukes. Fully fund Nunn-Lugar (and it's follow-up Lugar-Obama) instead of cutting it like shit for brains Bush did.

Of course you'd obviously rather tie up intelligence resources listening in to our troops' phone-sex calls home, and pretend it makes us safer.

I'll give you points for passion and effort--not being a pathetic loser like most of our forum leftists--who lack either the brains or genitalia to even try and defend their indefensible positions.

Unfortunately for you, though (and FORTUNATELY for America), you're playing a LOSING hand.

The simple INDISPUTABLE fact is that what we have been doing has been 100% successful in preventing repeats of 9/11 or worse. You want to play the "fear" card? It's the sick God damned America-haters of the left that are afraid (I'll leave it up to you whether that includes you or not). The leftists are SO AFRAID that the policies of the good guys will continue to be successful that they diverted (very successfully) the whole political discussion to this contrived pseudo-crisis of the economy. And our illustrious candidate was dumb enough to play right into their hands by NOT hammering away at the extreme likelihood of Obama letting the terrorists hit us--and based on everything your piece-of-shit Dem/lib candidate has eveer said and voted for, he indeed would forsake everything that has been so successful in favor of the idiotic Kerry Police Approach--which you were so kind as to trot out. You're a regular Joe Biden, MS. With friends like you and Biden, Obama doesn't need enemies.

Unfortunately, though, for our side--and indeed, for all of America, Obama has some much more effective friends--the leftist mainstream media--that have clearly outplayed our side this time around at the game of politics.

It's looking pretty damn bad for the good guys at this point, and that means trouble and a high probability of disaster for all of America.

And as for "fear" of the terrorists taking out some of our cities or otherwise successfully carrying out acts of terror on Obama's watch, only a damned fool would NOT be fearful about thousands, possibly millions of Americans getting killed, about damage to our economy done by terrorism that makes the current pseudo-crisis look like nothing, and about the prospect of our freedom passing away in the aftermath of grievous terrorist hits.

That's what Bush has prevented; That's what McCain's continuation of those policies would continue to prevent; And THAT'S what Obama would put at EXTREME RISK by what? By that dirty word, CHANGE, of course..

[MJZiggy]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

I’m not spinning anything. If you can honestly say that you were advocating an escalation of the war in Afghanistan 5 years ago, more power to you. But that’s not what is happening here. Obama and his flock are running around saying Iraq is bad, and we need to be focused on Afghanistan….or should have been focused there.

I stand by my statement. It’s Bullshit. I see it clear as day. Show me some speeches where Obama was advocating ramping up the war effort in Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago. I will gladly change my position.

The fact of the matter is that Obama said that his position on Iraq was basically the same as Bush’s position back then. His big epiphany came when he found it to be a wedge issue in the primaries. He knew that he could get all the dailykos and moveon.org crowd by saying he was always against the war and that we should immediately get out. He knew he could back Hillary into a corner. It worked. Even when all the evidence has shown that the Surge has worked, he has dug in his heels and sticks by his plan (not a very good characteristic of a leader by the way….digging in one’s heals in the face of changing data).

Now he has found a new little wrinkle that seems to be resonating with the masses…..”We needed to be focused on Afghanistan, not in Iraq!”

I’m happy for you Barack….that and a nickel will get you, um, I guess the Presidency of the United States of America.

The detail you're missing is that 5 years ago, they all thought things were pretty well under control in Afghanistan and it needed not much more than a peacekeeping force while the new government took hold. The problem is that since then, the Taliban has made a resurgence that Bush pretty much ignored (because he was busy with Iraq) until it became more of a serious issue.

[SkinBasket]

The detail you're missing is that 5 years ago, they all thought things were pretty well under control in Afghanistan and it needed not much more than a peacekeeping force while the new government took hold. The problem is that since then, the Taliban has made a resurgence that Bush pretty much ignored (because he was busy with Iraq) until it became more of a serious issue.

:roll:

I'm sure Barack sent a letter to a colleague detailing the imminent threat the Taliban posed last April. So now they engage in some criminal activity which pales in comparison to what happens in Chicago every week and it's a pandemic.

[sheepshead]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

I’m not spinning anything. If you can honestly say that you were advocating an escalation of the war in Afghanistan 5 years ago, more power to you. But that’s not what is happening here. Obama and his flock are running around saying Iraq is bad, and we need to be focused on Afghanistan….or should have been focused there.

I stand by my statement. It’s Bullshit. I see it clear as day. Show me some speeches where Obama was advocating ramping up the war effort in Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago. I will gladly change my position.

The fact of the matter is that Obama said that his position on Iraq was basically the same as Bush’s position back then. His big epiphany came when he found it to be a wedge issue in the primaries. He knew that he could get all the dailykos and moveon.org crowd by saying he was always against the war and that we should immediately get out. He knew he could back Hillary into a corner. It worked. Even when all the evidence has shown that the Surge has worked, he has dug in his heels and sticks by his plan (not a very good characteristic of a leader by the way….digging in one’s heals in the face of changing data).

Now he has found a new little wrinkle that seems to be resonating with the masses…..”We needed to be focused on Afghanistan, not in Iraq!”

I’m happy for you Barack….that and a nickel will get you, um, I guess the Presidency of the United States of America.

The detail you're missing is that 5 years ago, they all thought things were pretty well under control in Afghanistan and it needed not much more than a peacekeeping force while the new government took hold. The problem is that since then, the Taliban has made a resurgence that Bush pretty much ignored (because he was busy with Iraq) until it became more of a serious issue.


Democrat talking points garbage. I love this, I want to end a war just to start another one. The amazing thing is people are really buying this trash.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But, in your warped rubric..obama's sick grandma is just a clever political gambit...as is his devotion to her.


Now you're just making things up. I never mentioned his Grandmother's illness.

You said they were hiding him away....exactly when he is visiting his grandma. What else are we to infer from your statement.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wist,

I could actually take you seriously, but when you start using Machiavelli as an example of a leftist....well, you just lose all credibility.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hoosier]

Wist,

I could actually take you seriously, but when you start using Machiavelli as an example of a leftist....well, you just lose all credibility.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wist got thrown out of the Alaska Independence Party for being too far out there. From where he's standing out in right field Machiavelli and Mao look pretty much identical.

[MJZiggy]

Democrat talking points garbage. I love this, I want to end a war just to start another one. The amazing thing is people are really buying this trash.

No, dip. The distinction is that you end a war BEFORE we START another one--particularly one that could have waited. There was nothing out there that said that Saddam had to be attacked immediately. And before you say it, that crap had been going on for 30 years and no one even considered it among the reasons to immediately go in. There was business to be taken care of first.

Didn't your mama ever tell you to finish playing with one toy before you take out another?

[mraynrand]

But, in your warped rubric..obama's sick grandma is just a clever political gambit...as is his devotion to her.


Now you're just making things up. I never mentioned his Grandmother's illness.

You said they were hiding him away....exactly when he is visiting his grandma. What else are we to infer from your statement.

I was talking about Biden. They hid him (Biden) after he said that Obama was going to face a crisis.

[texaspackerbacker]

Afghanistan: Things started turning to shit when we put more reliance on the damn Europeans to actually shoulder some of the real military burden. Predictably, they weren't up to it. Secondarily, things got worse there as they got better in Iraq, as the terrorist enemy withdrew forces from Iraq where they were getting their asses kicked.

Regarding Machiavelli, his whole philosophy was that government is justified in anything it does to perpetuate itself and increase its power. Can anybody honestly claim that isn't the perfect description of the present-day American left? Higher taxes on the people, more intrusion and regulation of people's lives, co-opting of the media, the educational establishment, and the entertainment community, those are INDISPUTABLY leftist principals--as well as Machiavellian tools.

[MJZiggy]

Regarding Machiavelli, his whole philosophy was that government is justified in anything it does to perpetuate itself and increase its power. Can anybody honestly claim that isn't the perfect description of the present-day American left? Higher taxes on the people, more intrusion and regulation of people's lives, co-opting of the media, the educational establishment, and the entertainment community, those are INDISPUTABLY leftist principals--as well as Machiavellian tools.

Wiretapping, search without cause, indefinite imprisonment...

[swede]

Regarding Machiavelli, his whole philosophy was that government is justified in anything it does to perpetuate itself and increase its power. Can anybody honestly claim that isn't the perfect description of the present-day American left? Higher taxes on the people, more intrusion and regulation of people's lives, co-opting of the media, the educational establishment, and the entertainment community, those are INDISPUTABLY leftist principals--as well as Machiavellian tools.

Wiretapping, search without cause, indefinite imprisonment...

...of terrorists...and people surreptitiously communicating with terrorists.

How do you happen to miss that distinction? Why do you want to protect them and not us? Do you really loathe America that much?

[MJZiggy]

I only missed that distinction because George didn't make it. I don't want to protect anybody, but the assertion that the left is the only one who wants increased government power and ignores George's whole presidency which has been nothing but a play for more power be it in fighting terror or whatever other reason he can make up is being a bit ungracious, no?

[mraynrand]

I only missed that distinction because George didn't make it. I don't want to protect anybody, but the assertion that the left is the only one who wants increased government power and ignores George's whole presidency which has been nothing but a play for more power be it in fighting terror or whatever other reason he can make up is being a bit ungracious, no?

no.

[MJZiggy]

So Bush is allowed to make an 8-year power grab, but the left are the ones wanting more power for the government? Interesting.

[mraynrand]

So Bush is allowed to make an 8-year power grab, but the left are the ones wanting more power for the government? Interesting.

Yes, interesting and true - except for the 8 year power grab. If Bush had simply want to consolidate republican power, he could have done tons of things differently. Zig, it's not an insult, but the truth is that you're just naive about a great many things. For example, ask yourself whether the State Department and CIA are in line with what most think of as Bush policies (the so-called 'Bush Doctrine' which includes unilateralism, the right to attack nations harboring terrorists, and the policy of attacking before being attacked, if attack is considered eminent, and the policy of supporting democracies, by forcefully removing corrupt governments if necessary). Do you know the answer? Has Condi Rice been promoting the 'Bush Doctrine?'

[texaspackerbacker]

Regarding Machiavelli, his whole philosophy was that government is justified in anything it does to perpetuate itself and increase its power. Can anybody honestly claim that isn't the perfect description of the present-day American left? Higher taxes on the people, more intrusion and regulation of people's lives, co-opting of the media, the educational establishment, and the entertainment community, those are INDISPUTABLY leftist principals--as well as Machiavellian tools.

Wiretapping, search without cause, indefinite imprisonment...

...of terrorists...and people surreptitiously communicating with terrorists.

How do you happen to miss that distinction? Why do you want to protect them and not us? Do you really loathe America that much?

Exactly, Swede.

To be even more precise, these seemingly Machiavellian things Ziggy refers to are NOT on The Prince's own citizens, but on our enemies--non-citizens to whom Habeus Corpus and OUR due process rights do NOT apply.

And Ziggy, you seem to be believing your side's bogus rhetoric. Bush didn't make the distinction between the terrorist enemy and American citizens? Blatantly FALSE!

[wist43]

Wist,

I could actually take you seriously, but when you start using Machiavelli as an example of a leftist....well, you just lose all credibility.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wist got thrown out of the Alaska Independence Party for being too far out there. From where he's standing out in right field Machiavelli and Mao look pretty much identical.

Simply put, I agree with our Founding Fathers... I agree with what they wrote in the Constitution.

By todays standards, yes, the Constitution is a radical, right wing document. I don't have a problem standing by it.

You guys on the other hand, have no problem voting for a guy, who will swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but whom everyone knows despises the very premise of the document, i.e. the limitation of government.

America used to be the beacon of freedom around the world b/c our government was neatly boxed in, and prevented from imposing the will of the majority, or the will of an oligarchy upon the people, upon anybody... Sadly, that is no longer the case.

What you, and the rest of my former fellow Americans, fail to realize, is that once we abandoned the principles of freedom, once we said the Constitution no longer mattered, freedom was dead. What we're seeing now are simply the death throes of our once free society.

That's what America is supposed to be about, if nothing else - freedom.

The election of a radical leftist like Obama is predictable. The citizenry has been conditioned - dumbed down - to accept the message, to accept the lie.

It's hard not to be emotional about seeing my country die, and my freedom with it - but, unlike the average Republican (I am not a member of the Republican Party) I've known for many years, so it's a bit easier for me to take than for some. For others, the election of a radical like Obama is opening their eyes, and they're angry about it, but really the battle was lost decades ago.

[mraynrand]

Wist,

I could actually take you seriously, but when you start using Machiavelli as an example of a leftist....well, you just lose all credibility.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wist got thrown out of the Alaska Independence Party for being too far out there. From where he's standing out in right field Machiavelli and Mao look pretty much identical.

Simply put, I agree with our Founding Fathers... I agree with what they wrote in the Constitution.

By todays standards, yes, the Constitution is a radical, right wing document. I don't have a problem standing by it.

You guys on the other hand, have no problem voting for a guy, who will swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but whom everyone knows despises the very premise of the document, i.e. the limitation of government.

America used to be the beacon of freedom around the world b/c our government was neatly boxed in, and prevented from imposing the will of the majority, or the will of an oligarchy upon the people, upon anybody... Sadly, that is no longer the case.

What you, and the rest of my former fellow Americans, fail to realize, is that once we abandoned the principles of freedom, once we said the Constitution no longer mattered, freedom was dead. What we're seeing now are simply the death throes of our once free society.

That's what America is supposed to be about, if nothing else - freedom.

The election of a radical leftist like Obama is predictable. The citizenry has been conditioned - dumbed down - to accept the message, to accept the lie.

It's hard not to be emotional about seeing my country die, and my freedom with it - but, unlike the average Republican (I am not a member of the Republican Party) I've known for many years, so it's a bit easier for me to take than for some. For others, the election of a radical like Obama is opening their eyes, and they're angry about it, but really the battle was lost decades ago.

People on the left are so stupid, they don't even realize that Dubya is a big government liberal, close in many ways to JFK, except that Bush looks like he will win in Iraq while JFK (with the help of many others) flubbed up Viet Nam.

[MadScientist]

Simply put, I agree with our Founding Fathers... I agree with what they wrote in the Constitution.

By todays standards, yes, the Constitution is a radical, right wing document. I don't have a problem standing by it.

What you, and the rest of my former fellow Americans, fail to realize, is that once we abandoned the principles of freedom, once we said the Constitution no longer mattered, freedom was dead. What we're seeing now are simply the death throes of our once free society.

That's what America is supposed to be about, if nothing else - freedom.

It's hard not to be emotional about seeing my country die, and my freedom with it - but, unlike the average Republican (I am not a member of the Republican Party) I've known for many years, so it's a bit easier for me to take than for some. For others, the election of a radical like Obama is opening their eyes, and they're angry about it, but really the battle was lost decades ago.

People on the left are so stupid, they don't even realize that Dubya is a big government liberal, close in many ways to JFK, except that Bush looks like he will win in Iraq while JFK (with the help of many others) flubbed up Viet Nam.
No moron, W is a big government right-winger. More in line with the classic definition of fascism. However that term has become synonymous with nazism, which I'm not accusing the Bush admin of being.

The constitution is very liberal in terms of personal liberties (assuming you include the bill of rights, which puts many of the handcuffs on government that you seem to like). The changes away from the minimal government really picked up with Lincoln (certainly a socialist by today's standards), although there are some earlier threads.

Weather you agree with the changes or the philosophies behind them, what would America be like without them. I suspect that at some point there would have been another revolution, and the power and influence of America would be far less.

[bobblehead]

In a democracy, no one is safe and everyones property is up for grabs. He who promises the most goodies, usually wins.

Is it any surprise then, that a filthy piece of garbage like Barack Obama can come along and simply spew platitudes from the Communist Manifesto, spit on the Constitution itself, and surf his way to the oval office on a tidal wave of ignorance???

Of course in America, under our Constitution, we are not supposed to be a democracy, and not one syllabal of what either McCain or Obama utters is Constitutional, but what does that matter??? The Constitution was abandoned decades ago.

Does anyone remember that crap about the Constitution being a "living document" being taught in high school??? All that means is that the Constitution as a restrictive document, a document that restricts government, a document that acts as bell weather against the encroachments of government on our freedoms, no longer exists.

The Constitution was designed to restrict government, not people... that principle has been turned on its head by the liberal elite - the liberal elite that direct both parties.

Absent legal restraint, absent understanding on the part of the governed about the proper role of government - governments become nothing more than vast robberies.

Our freedoms will not likely survive another generation here in the U.S... Our founders predicted it all - warning that should we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking we were a democracy, that we deserve neither freedom nor prosperity.

Debate at this point between socialist party A, and socialist party B, is little more than debate over how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just a matter of time.

I had hoped to be able to live out my days w/o seeing our country implode, but at 45, and the prospect of a left wing nut like Obama being elected, the writing is on the wall.

The building blocks of tyranny from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Barack Obama should be easy to see - it's obvious to anyone who is educated about the principles of freedom. Sadly, there are so few of us.

Good job of telling it like it is, wist. The fact that you made it perfectly clear in an earlier post that you see the filthy piece of garbage as by far, the worst alternative, though, gives you credibility that people intending to waste their vote on Bob Barr just don't have.

Tyrone, your analogy of Obama bin Biden with Reagan/Bush the Elder is wrong. Obama and Biden are extremely like-minded--the first and third worst liberal voting records in the Senate. Bush the Elder was philosopically, a completely different kind of Republican than Reagan.

Aside from the fact that Bush's "conversion" would be much better characterized as "stepping into the light" than "selling his soul", you have the question that nobody can really answer except the man himself: Was Bush the Elder merely recognizing political reality and giving lip service to Reaganomics and other conservative principals? Or was he really won over to the wisdom of that viewpoint by the great success of the Reagan presidency?

Tex...if one guy is gonna cut off your pecker and the other guy is gonna cut off your nuts which one do you vote for?? I mean, your tied up and those are your choices...oh yea, there is a 75 pound woman who is going to untie you if she wins the fight...she won't win, but I bet you cheer like hell for her.

[MJZiggy]

So Bush is allowed to make an 8-year power grab, but the left are the ones wanting more power for the government? Interesting.

Yes, interesting and true - except for the 8 year power grab. If Bush had simply want to consolidate republican power, he could have done tons of things differently. Zig, it's not an insult, but the truth is that you're just naive about a great many things. For example, ask yourself whether the State Department and CIA are in line with what most think of as Bush policies (the so-called 'Bush Doctrine' which includes unilateralism, the right to attack nations harboring terrorists, and the policy of attacking before being attacked, if attack is considered eminent, and the policy of supporting democracies, by forcefully removing corrupt governments if necessary). Do you know the answer? Has Condi Rice been promoting the 'Bush Doctrine?'

So you're saying Bush wrote a whole doctrine and everyone's ignoring it? :shock:

[swede]

Is that a serious question? The term "Bush Doctrine" was an invention of the punditocracy, not a position paper written by the administration.

It is a vaporous term with little utility to the grown ups who actually conduct the foreign policy of the nation. Media talking heads swing the term like the apes from 2001: A Space Odyssey, hoping to hit somebody with it.

I know why the enraged bird sings.

[MJZiggy]

Is that a serious question? The term "Bush Doctrine" was an invention of the punditocracy, not a position paper written by the administration.

It is a vaporous term with little utility to the grown ups who actually conduct the foreign policy of the nation. Media talking heads swing the term like the apes from 2001: A Space Odyssey, hoping to hit somebody with it.

I know why the enraged bird sings.

And yet forms some basics of Bush policy...

[wist43]

Simply put, I agree with our Founding Fathers... I agree with what they wrote in the Constitution.

By todays standards, yes, the Constitution is a radical, right wing document. I don't have a problem standing by it.

What you, and the rest of my former fellow Americans, fail to realize, is that once we abandoned the principles of freedom, once we said the Constitution no longer mattered, freedom was dead. What we're seeing now are simply the death throes of our once free society.

That's what America is supposed to be about, if nothing else - freedom.

It's hard not to be emotional about seeing my country die, and my freedom with it - but, unlike the average Republican (I am not a member of the Republican Party) I've known for many years, so it's a bit easier for me to take than for some. For others, the election of a radical like Obama is opening their eyes, and they're angry about it, but really the battle was lost decades ago.

People on the left are so stupid, they don't even realize that Dubya is a big government liberal, close in many ways to JFK, except that Bush looks like he will win in Iraq while JFK (with the help of many others) flubbed up Viet Nam.
No moron, W is a big government right-winger. More in line with the classic definition of fascism. However that term has become synonymous with nazism, which I'm not accusing the Bush admin of being.

The constitution is very liberal in terms of personal liberties (assuming you include the bill of rights, which puts many of the handcuffs on government that you seem to like). The changes away from the minimal government really picked up with Lincoln (certainly a socialist by today's standards), although there are some earlier threads.

Weather you agree with the changes or the philosophies behind them, what would America be like without them. I suspect that at some point there would have been another revolution, and the power and influence of America would be far less.

I tend to agree about Lincoln... not a good president given that he stomped all over the Constitution. No need to comment futher, as it is just a useless can of worms.

That notwithstanding...

It always gets my attention when anyone tries to associate "right wing" with "big government" and then proclaim it to be fascist or nazi.

Any "ism", be it Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, or any other ism... is left wing. They teach that circular political spectrum crap in the schools... nonsense, enough to make you dizzy.

Anyway... the political spectrum is linear. Left-to-Right:

Monarachy - Oligarchy - Democracy - Republican - Anarchy

Since Monarchy/Dictatorship (Rule by one) really doesn't exist it can be thrown out. They don't exist b/c what they are, are really oligarchies, and the ruling group has simply put a front man up. It is the oligarchy that rules.

Throw out too, Anarachy (no government), simply b/c it doesn't exist either... in a vacuum, order will be restored and some group with struggle their way to the top and some form of the middle three governments will emerge.

Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, and Communism, are all variaties of the same fruit - totalitarianism. And all are oligarchies, all are left wing.

Doesn't matter what the party line is, who the victim group is, who the vilified group is, what the cause is (social justice, racial purity, national pride, improved working conditions), they don't matter. What they all have in common, is that they are governmental control systems. All use government to control the population, i.e. totalitarian - just pick a flavor.

There is no such thing as a "big government right winger". By definition, right wing means less government, limited government, republican government. The Republican Party and the people they put forward don't stand for any of those things. You get some lip service along those lines, but at the end of the day, the Republican Party is committed to big government. Certainly not as zealously as the Dems... the Republicans do have to deal with a more conservative, much better informed base than do the dems; but, nonetheless, they continue to build government at all levels at an alarming rate.

Yes, there are people in the Republican party that stand for the principles of constitutionally limited government, but they are a minorty in the party, and they are never allowed any standing - witness Ron Paul.

The full explaination would be much more entailed and complex of course, but suffice it say that any group that seeks to weild the power of government to its own ends, is left wing.

Futhermore, given that Democracy is nothing more than a transitional form of government, one that usually goes the way of anarachy, and out of anarchy rises some form of totalitariansim, you can throw democracy out as a viable form too - Madison's Federalist Paper #10 talks about this (I believe it is number 10 - don't quote me, but i'm sure if you read #10, Madison will open your eyes to what is happening today)

Actually, come to think of it... the Federalist Papers might be a pretty good read right about now, as we watch our nation struggle in its death throes. Haven't read them in a while... think maybe I'll dig my copy out, and read them again :)

[texaspackerbacker]

In a democracy, no one is safe and everyones property is up for grabs. He who promises the most goodies, usually wins.

Is it any surprise then, that a filthy piece of garbage like Barack Obama can come along and simply spew platitudes from the Communist Manifesto, spit on the Constitution itself, and surf his way to the oval office on a tidal wave of ignorance???

Of course in America, under our Constitution, we are not supposed to be a democracy, and not one syllabal of what either McCain or Obama utters is Constitutional, but what does that matter??? The Constitution was abandoned decades ago.

Does anyone remember that crap about the Constitution being a "living document" being taught in high school??? All that means is that the Constitution as a restrictive document, a document that restricts government, a document that acts as bell weather against the encroachments of government on our freedoms, no longer exists.

The Constitution was designed to restrict government, not people... that principle has been turned on its head by the liberal elite - the liberal elite that direct both parties.

Absent legal restraint, absent understanding on the part of the governed about the proper role of government - governments become nothing more than vast robberies.

Our freedoms will not likely survive another generation here in the U.S... Our founders predicted it all - warning that should we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking we were a democracy, that we deserve neither freedom nor prosperity.

Debate at this point between socialist party A, and socialist party B, is little more than debate over how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just a matter of time.

I had hoped to be able to live out my days w/o seeing our country implode, but at 45, and the prospect of a left wing nut like Obama being elected, the writing is on the wall.

The building blocks of tyranny from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Barack Obama should be easy to see - it's obvious to anyone who is educated about the principles of freedom. Sadly, there are so few of us.

Good job of telling it like it is, wist. The fact that you made it perfectly clear in an earlier post that you see the filthy piece of garbage as by far, the worst alternative, though, gives you credibility that people intending to waste their vote on Bob Barr just don't have.

Tyrone, your analogy of Obama bin Biden with Reagan/Bush the Elder is wrong. Obama and Biden are extremely like-minded--the first and third worst liberal voting records in the Senate. Bush the Elder was philosopically, a completely different kind of Republican than Reagan.

Aside from the fact that Bush's "conversion" would be much better characterized as "stepping into the light" than "selling his soul", you have the question that nobody can really answer except the man himself: Was Bush the Elder merely recognizing political reality and giving lip service to Reaganomics and other conservative principals? Or was he really won over to the wisdom of that viewpoint by the great success of the Reagan presidency?

Tex...if one guy is gonna cut off your pecker and the other guy is gonna cut off your nuts which one do you vote for?? I mean, your tied up and those are your choices...oh yea, there is a 75 pound woman who is going to untie you if she wins the fight...she won't win, but I bet you cheer like hell for her.

Gosh, I guess in that case, I'd have no choice except to .............. vote for Bob Barr!

Seriously, Bobblehead, your scenario is FLAWED. The only consequence of the policies, views, and positions of either McCain or Obama that would be tantamount for America to amputation of genitalia would be major terrorist hits on American soil--repeats of 9/11 or worse.

Government power grabs, redistribution of wealth schemes, left wing activist judicial appointments, economy dampening tax increases, etc.--all of which only apply to ONE of the candidates anyway--are all situations which America has endoured and survived to varying degrees before. Massive terrorist hits--the taking out of whole cities, stadiums full of people, etc., or even a series of lesser but continuing terrorist hits--bombings at malls, sports events, etc., each killing maybe dozens instead of thousands or millions--either of those prospects--would screw this country up beyond repair--not just the deaths, not just the terrible economic consequences, but the inevitable suspending of basic rights and freedom that would occur in the aftermath. And any intelligent person knows, that scenario is a helluva lot more likely with an Obama presidency--which is what you risk by wasting your vote on Bob Barr.

Granted, there are a lot of negatives about McCain, but those are literally NOTHING compared to the CHANGE that Obama would bring us.

[mraynrand]

Futhermore, given that Democracy is nothing more than a transitional form of government, one that usually goes the way of anarachy, and out of anarchy rises some form of totalitariansim, you can throw democracy out as a viable form too - Madison's Federalist Paper #10 talks about this (I believe it is number 10 - don't quote me, but i'm sure if you read #10, Madison will open your eyes to what is happening today)

Yep, that's in #10. Madison rejects pure Democracy. It's the 'faction' letter, and describes how a republic can disperse and dilute the effect of local loons - an argument in favor of a republic and in favor of the United States. But, like a democracy, a government and a people are only as good as their underlying morals. If all the representatives are corrupt and not those "whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations" as Madison wrote, then a republic will be as useless as a pure democracy.

[wist43]

Anyone else catch Judge Napolitano (spelling) on Fox News a while ago??? Speaking on the issue of Constitutionality??? I guess he wrote a piece in the WSJ about it, not sure if today or not??? Maybe somebody else saw it???

Anyway,

Talking about how the bailout and most of Congresses interventions into the marketplace are unConstitutional. It is truly rare for anyone to raise the Constitution as an issue - maybe Obama's egregious power grab rhetoric is waking people up???

Of course, the Constitution is our only defense, or at least an informed electorates proper understanding of the Constitution is... the dirty little secret.

Don't worry, I don't hold out any hope... just found it interesting :D

[wist43]

Futhermore, given that Democracy is nothing more than a transitional form of government, one that usually goes the way of anarachy, and out of anarchy rises some form of totalitariansim, you can throw democracy out as a viable form too - Madison's Federalist Paper #10 talks about this (I believe it is number 10 - don't quote me, but i'm sure if you read #10, Madison will open your eyes to what is happening today)

Yep, that's in #10. Madison rejects pure Democracy. It's the 'faction' letter, and describes how a republic can disperse and dilute the effect of local loons - an argument in favor of a republic and in favor of the United States. But, like a democracy, a government and a people are only as good as their underlying morals. If all the representatives are corrupt and not those "whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations" as Madison wrote, then a republic will be as useless as a pure democracy.

Yes, I dusted off my copy of the Federalist Papers last night and began reading thru them again... I've read them so many times, and have so many passages highlighted that I get thru them pretty quickly.

My favorite quote:

"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

Great stuff

The day is coming I fear, when possession of such inflamatory rhetoric might land me in the gulag.

[HowardRoark]

CAVEAT!!!!!!! I really hope what I am going to say now doesn’t happen, it would be a disaster.

I notice a whole lot of ingredients coming together at the same time that could create a very combustible time in our history. The economy is tanking. Unemployment is getting higher and will go much higher than most people think. There is an undercurrent of fear out there; people are not sure where they will live or how they will feed their kids. As we all remember from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, when people do not have a base level of comfort (food and shelter) they can get a little crazy. There is also a big undercurrent of class warfare too. And lastly, the whole race card. Take a look at the headlines you have been reading lately; more and more you hear about how cities are making plans for rioting if Obama does not win. And the worst case of them all……..if some nut case on the Right does something once Obama is elected. It will make the Rodney King Riots look like a walk in the park.

It’s all out there right now……right below the surface. I hope it does not happen.

Sorry for the crazy bump here (an interesting subject anyway), but....I told you. Better get the water and canned goods stored in the basement.


US recession, 1st black president, 'fuel extremism'

Apr 14 04:51 PM US/Eastern


Right-wing extremists in the United States are using economic worries and the election of the first black US president as recruiting tools, the US government warns in a new report.
Fears of possible new restrictions on firearms, as well as troubled veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violence attacks," warned the US Department of Homeland Security.

But DHS said in a secret April 7 advisory for local law-enforcement officials that threats so far had been "largely rhetorical" and had "not yet turned to attack planning."

The department said it "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits" who could someday resort to attacks.

"The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers fo rightwing radicalization and recruitment," according to the report.

The document, clearly marked as not for release to the media, was obtained by the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy and made available on the organization's web site.

The report said one "primary concern" for law enforcement officials was the "high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists" who fear potential future restrictions on firearms.

The department did not name any active rightwing extremist groups, but did refer to the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 people dead at the hands of US Army veteran Timothy McVeigh, who was later executed.

Increased government scrutiny in the wake of what was the worst terrorist attack on US soil until the September 11, 2001 attacks as well as economic growth put rightwing extremist groups on the wane, according to the report.

But "despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years," according to the department.

Some extremist groups are using Obama's perceived support for reforming US immigration in a way that could lead to US citizenship for some undocumented immigrants, expansion of social programs for minorities, and firearms curbs, to recruit or radicalize members.

And the Internet access boom has boosted extremist access to bomb-making know-how, weapons training, and the ability to reach out to a broad audience of like-minded people, according to the report.

The Department of Homeland Security, created in direct response to the September 11 attacks, declined to comment on the report.

[HowardRoark]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

I’m not spinning anything. If you can honestly say that you were advocating an escalation of the war in Afghanistan 5 years ago, more power to you. But that’s not what is happening here. Obama and his flock are running around saying Iraq is bad, and we need to be focused on Afghanistan….or should have been focused there.

I stand by my statement. It’s Bullshit. I see it clear as day. Show me some speeches where Obama was advocating ramping up the war effort in Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago. I will gladly change my position.

The fact of the matter is that Obama said that his position on Iraq was basically the same as Bush’s position back then. His big epiphany came when he found it to be a wedge issue in the primaries. He knew that he could get all the dailykos and moveon.org crowd by saying he was always against the war and that we should immediately get out. He knew he could back Hillary into a corner. It worked. Even when all the evidence has shown that the Surge has worked, he has dug in his heels and sticks by his plan (not a very good characteristic of a leader by the way….digging in one’s heals in the face of changing data).

Now he has found a new little wrinkle that seems to be resonating with the masses…..”We needed to be focused on Afghanistan, not in Iraq!”

I’m happy for you Barack….that and a nickel will get you, um, I guess the Presidency of the United States of America.

The detail you're missing is that 5 years ago, they all thought things were pretty well under control in Afghanistan and it needed not much more than a peacekeeping force while the new government took hold. The problem is that since then, the Taliban has made a resurgence that Bush pretty much ignored (because he was busy with Iraq) until it became more of a serious issue.

(clearing throat)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is your point?

[HowardRoark]

What is your point?

Obama lied.

[MJZiggy]

1. Why is this in the RR?

2. Everything I've ever heard out of Obama has indicated that he thought Afghanistan was being treated as the ugly stepchild and that needed to be rectified. I haven't heard anything recently to indicate differently.

[retailguy]

What is your point?

Obama lied.

And people died.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is your point?

Obama lied.

How so?

[HowardRoark]

1. Why is this in the RR?

2. Everything I've ever heard out of Obama has indicated that he thought Afghanistan was being treated as the ugly stepchild and that needed to be rectified. I haven't heard anything recently to indicate differently.

Part of what you say is true, but now, even empty words mean nothing. Action is needed. And he doesn't even have empty words, he is expossed.

Maybe he can use the word "bogus" somehow to explain how it is Bush's fault.

[retailguy]

1. Why is this in the RR?

2. Everything I've ever heard out of Obama has indicated that he thought Afghanistan was being treated as the ugly stepchild and that needed to be rectified. I haven't heard anything recently to indicate differently.

Part of what you say is true, but now, even empty words mean nothing. Action is needed. And he doesn't even have empty words, he is expossed.

Maybe he can use the word "bogus" somehow to explain how it is Bush's fault.

are there any bush admin members that they can announce a big investigation against and divert attention again?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. Why is this in the RR?

2. Everything I've ever heard out of Obama has indicated that he thought Afghanistan was being treated as the ugly stepchild and that needed to be rectified. I haven't heard anything recently to indicate differently.

Part of what you say is true, but now, even empty words mean nothing. Action is needed. And he doesn't even have empty words, he is expossed.

Maybe he can use the word "bogus" somehow to explain how it is Bush's fault.

Yes, clearly action is needed. Let's invade Nigeria.

[SkinBasket]

1. Why is this in the RR?

2. Everything I've ever heard out of Obama has indicated that he thought Afghanistan was being treated as the ugly stepchild and that needed to be rectified. I haven't heard anything recently to indicate differently.

Part of what you say is true, but now, even empty words mean nothing. Action is needed. And he doesn't even have empty words, he is expossed.

Maybe he can use the word "bogus" somehow to explain how it is Bush's fault.

Yes, clearly action is needed. Let's invade Nigeria.

Or instead, let's wait until Nigera holds their next elections, which will indictae how the political winds are blowing, and let that guide our decision on how best to put our nation's soldier's lives at risk in the name of greater international political popularity. Because that's what's at risk here right?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. Why is this in the RR?

2. Everything I've ever heard out of Obama has indicated that he thought Afghanistan was being treated as the ugly stepchild and that needed to be rectified. I haven't heard anything recently to indicate differently.

Part of what you say is true, but now, even empty words mean nothing. Action is needed. And he doesn't even have empty words, he is expossed.

Maybe he can use the word "bogus" somehow to explain how it is Bush's fault.

Yes, clearly action is needed. Let's invade Nigeria.

Or instead, let's wait until Nigera holds their next elections, which will indictae how the political winds are blowing, and let that guide our decision on how best to put our nation's soldier's lives at risk in the name of greater international political popularity. Because that's what's at risk here right?

No, you are right...Obama should call Luxembourg, sri lanka, the hebrides and attack...the coalition of the billing.

[SkinBasket]

http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/Bored-Baby-1284.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm gonna stop, cause this thread will get us in trouble.

[HowardRoark]

Obama is bogus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vpCBpTbEds

[HowardRoark]

Just hit the newswires....Obama votes "Present" in Afghanistan war.

[MJZiggy]

http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/Bored-Baby-1284.jpg

Fantastic!