IN OBAMA'S OWN WORDS ON ISSUE # 1

[sheepshead]

Do you see the people of Florida, Mississippi, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois fucking bitching that George Bush isnt there when they crawl out of their shelter and start to put their lives back together-Fuck No.

I heard Rush Limbaugh making this same argument on his show. It's quite a ridiculous comparison. In New Orleans you had a high concentration of poor people. New Orleans was struck by a friggin huricane that put a trapped, urban population under 8 feet of water in one day, people were left extremely vulnerable and the gov dropped the ball. the midwest flood victims generally had more time and resources to deal with their calamity.

ok, take then out, what about Florida, Andrew etc?

Gov dropped the ball, you're right the local government and state government. Do you know how much money NO gets as a port city as part of homeland security for just this very thing? It's shameful how it was handled down there and it has NOTHING to do with the president. I dont want the president cleaning up after hurricanes any more than I want him putting out a fire in my neighborhood.

[Partial]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.

And to follow up on Skin's point, this is a load of BS. You want the number 1 reason cost of living is going up? Well, look no further than 300,000,000 chinese entering the middle class. Take a good long look at India as well. Cost of natural resources is going up.

That is the kind of shit that Dems are far too short-sighted and ignorant to see. They'd rather blame Bush then get to the core of the issue. Personally, I'd rather control middle eastern oil by any means necessary than have us paying 400 USD/gallon to the China men in ten years.

[Deputy Nutz]

I thought the evidence indicated Tank = PackerFan#1.

I disagree that the question is biased. It's indisputable that current policies have been 100% effective at preventing repeats of 9/11. Obama just stated yesterday that he supported the Law Enforcement approach. And beyond that, it's a simple Yes or No--do you think the CHANGE is dangerously irresponsible--or was it irresponsibly dangerous? That seems pretty even handed to me.

My whole point is that THIS--preventing the mass murder of Americans and potentially the destruction of our whole way of life if it's multiple nuclear acts of terror--is far and away THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. And Obama is clearly and dangerously on the WRONG side of that issue.

High oil and gasoline prices, the economy in general--which really isn't that bad anyway, the national debt, social issues like gay marriage, really anything else you can name PALE INTO NOTHINGNESS in comparison to death of tens of thousands, maybe millions of Americans, not to mention the destructions of our rights and freedoms and our prosperity and enjoyment of life, ALL of which would be in serious jeopardy from significant acts of terror at home.

Could anybody possibly disagree with that?

I don't know if anyone else has brought this up, but the reason Obama and all the other Dems like Clinton can make these statements and plans to deal with the Terrorist is because they think they won't have to deal with them at all. They will cater to the terrorist by pulling out of Iraq, and the Middle East completely. Obama will not put pressure on terrorist, he won't hunt them down. He will lean on the poor policy of NATO in dealing with those that want to destroy our way of life. Simply, he is banking on the fact that the terrorist will have nothing to fear from his presidency, so in turn they will just leave us alone. It was the same with Bill Clinton. Al Quada grew leaps and bounds under his presidency, and the only thing he did was cut our military budget.

One thing that is currently bothering me right now is the insurgence of the Taliban in Afganistan. They are building up the size of their militia. You can't quite call it an army, but again. NATO is running some if not most of the operations in Afganistan and already the Taliban is growing in strength.

[Deputy Nutz]

Do you see the people of Florida, Mississippi, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois fucking bitching that George Bush isnt there when they crawl out of their shelter and start to put their lives back together-Fuck No.

I heard Rush Limbaugh making this same argument on his show. It's quite a ridiculous comparison. In New Orleans you had a high concentration of poor people. New Orleans was struck by a friggin huricane that put a trapped, urban population under 8 feet of water in one day, people were left extremely vulnerable and the gov dropped the ball. the midwest flood victims generally had more time and resources to deal with their calamity.

I am going to call "minor" bullshit on Harlan here. Have you seen pictures of Cedar Rapids Iowa? The whole city is under water, and no, these people didn't have significant notice since no one could really predict when the dams were going to give. Sure most got out and found safety. The difference is wealth, but also the fact that people did get out of dodge at moments notice instead of sitting back waiting to loot.

The other issue is that there are voters iand supporters n Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. You really can't say the same about New Orleans. White Bread Americans are little bit more important to the government.

[The Leaper]

You can praise RR for things he did well..restore pride, defeat the USSR (even if i and others dont' agree), etc...but, a fair and accurate assesment demands that he and the repub party be held accountable for his destructive policies as well.

This isn't any specific person's fault...it is everyone's fault, especially every member of the executive and legislative branch that has been in power since the late 1970s. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2...not one of them has made any real progress toward energy independence. Neither has a Congress that has largely been run by the Democrats for most of the last three decades. The notion that we shouldn't be allowed to drill for oil offshore given the current state we find ourselves in is STUPID...yet Pelosi and her crowd refuses to make meaningful strides toward achieving our independence from Middle East oil.

The American people need to toss career politicians out of office and return the power to the people, not special interests. That is the only way this nation will achieve any meaningful results going forward...in energy policy or anything else for that matter.

[The Leaper]

I heard Rush Limbaugh making this same argument on his show. It's quite a ridiculous comparison. In New Orleans you had a high concentration of poor people. New Orleans was struck by a friggin huricane that put a trapped, urban population under 8 feet of water in one day, people were left extremely vulnerable and the gov dropped the ball. the midwest flood victims generally had more time and resources to deal with their calamity.

This is one of the most idiotic statements I've seen made. The two situations are almost entirely comparable...and to be honest, the devastation in Iowa is far worse than anything New Orleans saw.

New Orleans saw Katrina coming days in advance Harlan. They did absolutely nothing to prepare for it. Your ignorance is alarming.

[The Leaper]

The difference is wealth, but also the fact that people did get out of dodge at moments notice instead of sitting back waiting to loot.

It is called preparation.

Iowa had this happen to them before, and put together a plan of action to combat it. They didn't sit around and wait for the federal government to bail them out.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Nice job, Tyrone.

It's all up to the government. Reagan taking the solar panels off prevented anyone from breakthrough research in solar energy. Without government, there can be no advancement in research and discovery. Jimma was all for Nuke plants. That's why he pushed for the construction of hundreds of new plants despite the thousands of dead lying in the streets following three mile island - and the lefty obstruction due to fears of a China Syndrome. Your cute little tag line about religions could easily apply to your religious faith in government - if only the liberal were in charge, all problems would be magically solved. I imagine that you really believe the same thing that Obama believes - that IF ONLY the Iraq war money had gone to engine research, we'd have an emission-free, non-oil burning engine powering all our cars, running on fuel that is obtained with zero environmental impact. Perhaps that's another throw back to the 70s - you'd fit in well on Fantasy Island. Still, I'm certain with enough tax money, the government will come up with the zero-point electrical energy engine based on the wish to have something like it, and Jimma Carter, sitting in his 54 degree living room in his sweater will be smiling.

1. No it isn't up only up to the gov't. HOwever my post was in response to Leaper's point about a cohesive energy policy.Hmm, who should determine the energy policy.

What? The gov't!! Shocking. You mean the Dep't of Energy would actually perform this..and lead us? Wow.

2. Soar panels. The point is that it makes a statement to the people. Let me dumb it down for you since it is obvious that is what it takes. When, a previously hat wearing country, saw JFK without a hat..voila..hat sales plummeted. Or, do you suppose the nation's interest in cowboy wear and brown suits was by accident when RR was prez.

What? You think that the country takes it's cues from the president? Shocking. that the man or woman we elect to lead us might have some cultural/social/etc. impact on the way we do things. I, for one, can't believe that.

3. Initiatives were started in the late 70s. They were abandoned or destroyed by RR. That can't be dismissed, no matter how you try. For example, ethanol research was started under Carter, but was killed by RR and cheap oil prices. Is ethanol the solution now..most likely not. But, who knows where we would be with 25 years of solid research.

Let me repeat..since it is fun to watch you ignore this part..since you have no answer.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

I always know when a conservative has lost an argument. They resort to sarcasm, cliches, and labeling people as living on fantasy island.

I fair and balanced post is what i gave..noting Carter's problems. You gave back...well,..not exactly sure. But, it wasn't even on the same playing field.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You can praise RR for things he did well..restore pride, defeat the USSR (even if i and others dont' agree), etc...but, a fair and accurate assesment demands that he and the repub party be held accountable for his destructive policies as well.

This isn't any specific person's fault...it is everyone's fault, especially every member of the executive and legislative branch that has been in power since the late 1970s. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2...not one of them has made any real progress toward energy independence. Neither has a Congress that has largely been run by the Democrats for most of the last three decades. The notion that we shouldn't be allowed to drill for oil offshore given the current state we find ourselves in is STUPID...yet Pelosi and her crowd refuses to make meaningful strides toward achieving our independence from Middle East oil.

The American people need to toss career politicians out of office and return the power to the people, not special interests. That is the only way this nation will achieve any meaningful results going forward...in energy policy or anything else for that matter.

Well, if it is everyone's fault..then it is definitely RR's..as he is part of everyone..he doesn't exist outside the subset.

But, pretty much what i would expect when someone actually calls game on the republican savior.

You can spin all you want...but, he led the cuts and rollbacks. The man at the top gets the credit..and the blame.

And, if it is everyone's fault..therefore, it is everyone's succes...funny, i never hear you, conservs, or repubs ever say the dems defeated communism...it is credited to RR.

Interesting how it works.

[BallHawk]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how?

[Gunakor]

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt?

Part of it. I don't see either side of the aisle in Washington jumping at the bit to reign in spending.

Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit?

The rise in the price in oil is directly attributable to the lack of a cohesive energy plan to reduce our dependance on oil after the last shitstorm in the late 1970s...so again, part of it. What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high? How will taking money away from the oil companies make prices any lower?

No, those problems didn't exist then.

Just because the problems currently presenting themself did not exist does not mean that previous administrations were not lax or ignorant of issues that lead to the problems we have now.

To claim the Bush administration alone is responsible for all of this is ignorant, and is precisely the kind of thinking that puts an inexperienced guy like Obama into office.

Washington has been broken for a long time, and some have talked about it at length long before now...but most have gleefully ignored the warning signs of a political system where power and special interests now rule instead of the will of the people. Hell, one of the biggest problems with our economy is our lack of savings, which has greatly helped reduce the value of the dollar. This is something that has been pointed to for decades, but you are going to sit here and tell me that all the blame belongs on Bush alone?

The point is, Leaper, that if nothing changes then, well, nothing changes. McCain strikes me as the guy who is unwilling to change what isn't working today, whereas Obama is trying to make changes. If we make the wrong changes now, then in 4 years we will have a chance to change again. But what is going on today isn't working, so change is necessary.

If the oil companies were to shave thier profits from 35% down to, say 10%, that money could be passed from the oil tycoon's pockets to the consumers at the pump. Tell ya what, Leaper. Check out how much gas costs at the pump in Mexico. I have a buddy who lives in southern California who makes the weekly trip down across the border to fill up on gas. Why? Because it is less than $3 per gallon in Mexico. Why such a disparity between thier prices and ours? They get thier gas from the same refineries that we do... So perhaps if the American oil tycoons that are currently controlling our nations economy would stop raping the consumer with a pitchfork at the gas pump, our economy would heal itself.

Now try to convince me that 10% of what BIG OIL makes isn't enough to live comfortably on...

[BallHawk]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how?

[Freak Out]

This is Hussein in 2007.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

[mraynrand]

Nice job, Tyrone.

It's all up to the government. Reagan taking the solar panels off prevented anyone from breakthrough research in solar energy. Without government, there can be no advancement in research and discovery. Jimma was all for Nuke plants. That's why he pushed for the construction of hundreds of new plants despite the thousands of dead lying in the streets following three mile island - and the lefty obstruction due to fears of a China Syndrome. Your cute little tag line about religions could easily apply to your religious faith in government - if only the liberal were in charge, all problems would be magically solved. I imagine that you really believe the same thing that Obama believes - that IF ONLY the Iraq war money had gone to engine research, we'd have an emission-free, non-oil burning engine powering all our cars, running on fuel that is obtained with zero environmental impact. Perhaps that's another throw back to the 70s - you'd fit in well on Fantasy Island. Still, I'm certain with enough tax money, the government will come up with the zero-point electrical energy engine based on the wish to have something like it, and Jimma Carter, sitting in his 54 degree living room in his sweater will be smiling.

1. No it isn't up only up to the gov't. HOwever my post was in response to Leaper's point about a cohesive energy policy.Hmm, who should determine the energy policy.

What? The gov't!! Shocking. You mean the Dep't of Energy would actually perform this..and lead us? Wow.

2. Soar panels. The point is that it makes a statement to the people. Let me dumb it down for you since it is obvious that is what it takes. When, a previously hat wearing country, saw JFK without a hat..voila..hat sales plummeted. Or, do you suppose the nation's interest in cowboy wear and brown suits was by accident when RR was prez.

What? You think that the country takes it's cues from the president? Shocking. that the man or woman we elect to lead us might have some cultural/social/etc. impact on the way we do things. I, for one, can't believe that.

3. Initiatives were started in the late 70s. They were abandoned or destroyed by RR. That can't be dismissed, no matter how you try. For example, ethanol research was started under Carter, but was killed by RR and cheap oil prices. Is ethanol the solution now..most likely not. But, who knows where we would be with 25 years of solid research.

Let me repeat..since it is fun to watch you ignore this part..since you have no answer.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

I always know when a conservative has lost an argument. They resort to sarcasm, cliches, and labeling people as living on fantasy island.

I fair and balanced post is what i gave..noting Carter's problems. You gave back...well,..not exactly sure. But, it wasn't even on the same playing field.

No, you talked about sweaters and that Carter had a solar panel on his roof. Now you parallel a president wear a hat to Carter having a solar panel. Tell me, did sweater sales go up after Jimma appeared in one? Again, the point is that you led with the government - with the implication that the reduction of government research necessarily doomed solar and ethanol research, ignoring the fact that there innumerable research paths the feds fund that lead to nothing (AIDS vaccine anyone?). Throwing money at a problem, specifically through the government is no guarantee of success - in most cases it leads to massive amounts of money spent for less gain than the private sector. Money in the private sector is no guarantee either. That's the point. Who knows though, Barak might ride around in his magical fuel cell car and that may result in the technology appearing out of thin air, because we wish it. But it's clear that your view is the government leading is the solution. As if there isn't enough 'solid research' going on with ethanol and solar.

[sheepshead]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how?

There's some left wing non-sense for ya. How about the fact that your ass hasnt been blown to bits already? Hmmm?