Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
2008 U.S. Presidential Election
Topic Started: Feb 22 2007, 05:49 AM (37,421 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mia Culpa
Oct 4 2008, 02:38 AM
When this election began 100 years ago both sides said they'd stick to the issues and not get into personal attacks. When is this going to start? While Obama and McCain sometimes talk about issues their supporters are talking about children's names, fathers' religions, wives' medications, his racist preacher, her witch-hunting preacher, he's an elitst, she's a redneck, Jesus was a community organiser and Pontius Pilate was a governor, Jesus was a maverick and Pontius Pilate was an elitist, Nobama, McSame. Mocking Alaska is petty at best.

What's really sad in the personal attacks against Obama, McCain and Palin is nobody's talking about Biden. Poor guy.

Each side complains about the hypocrisy of the other but they're blind to their own hypocrisy. McCainers complained that Obama doesn't have enough experience and now they support Palin. Obamites said experience doesn't matter and now they complain about Palin. Obamites complain that Palin called Biden Joe but had no problem with Obama calling McCain John. McCainers called Obama a rock star and now they've gotten their own. McCain's an idiot for saying Iraq borders Pakistan but Obama was just tired when he said America has 60 states. Both sides criticise what the other does and rationalise it when they do the exact same thing.

That's not change, that's more of the same.

I think American elections last too long. People have too much time to rant and rave about meaningless things. Our elections last less than a month. We don't have time to attack a candidate's choice of wristwatch.
Great post Mia, as usual.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

I agree, Mia - we start and tolerate this election crap for way too long here in the U.S. But that's how we US. Americans are - hell, Christmas stuff was put out before September 1. It's just ridiculous - I'm all for limitations before we all get burnt out and say to hell with everything. Over saturation, over analysis, over-doing just about everything. Ugh.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Oct 4 2008, 02:41 AM
Point the second:

If Obama's half the demigod his supporters claim and McCain's just going to perpetuate a failed administration why do the so-called experts think this election will be so close?

After Bush's 8 years of spectacular failure Obama should win in a landslide. With the American economy in collapse Obama should win in a landslide. After 5 years of unpopular war Obama should win in a landslide. If it were Reagan or Roosevelt they'd get 99% of the vote. So why will Obama be lucky to get 54%?
Two, or possibly three things:

1: You can fool some of the people all of the time. A lot of the time, that "some" is all you need.

2: Because of term limits, this year's Republicans get to throw last year's Republicans under the bus. Amusing as it is to see the Republicans running on a "throw the bums out" platform, they can, at a stretch, claim the actions of the current administration were nothing to do with them. If anyone thinks that's too much of a stretch for anyone to fall for, see point one. No-one ever said the Republicans didn't have balls.

3: I don't even want to say it.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Go on, say it.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mindy
Member Avatar

JeffLynnesBeard
Oct 4 2008, 03:09 AM
Go on, say it.
yes, say it, maverick. :yes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I will say it and it makes me sick. It is called racism.

Look at the predicted maps. McCain will easily carry the south. Obama has to win elsewhere if he wins. Some of the electoral college maps have Obama with 264 electoral college votes if the election were held today and 111 votes still in the toss up range. I live in a toss up state and if our 9 votes go the correct way, they put Obama over the top.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

October 1, 2008
Electoral Map Update: Swing state trends in Obama's direction
Obama gains ground in CNN’s latest electoral map update.
Posted: 04:14 PM ET

(CNN) – Barack Obama’s fresh edge in new CNN/Time/Opinion Research Corporation polls released Wednesday are resulting in gains on the CNN Electoral Map. Minnesota, and its 10 electoral votes, from toss up to lean Obama. Missouri, with 11 electoral votes up for grabs, is shifting from lean McCain to toss up. With those moves, CNN estimates that if the presidential election were held today, Obama would win states that total 250 electoral votes and John McCain states totaling 189 electoral votes, with 99 electoral votes still up for grabs. Two-hundred and seventy electoral votes are needed to win the White House. Obama has a 61 electoral vote advantage over McCain, up from a 40 point lead the previous CNN Electoral Map.

In Minnesota, where the Republican convention was held a month ago, 54 percent of those questioned are backing Obama, and 43 percent support McCain — a major jump over the 2 point advantage Obama held over McCain in last month’s poll. And the Illinois senator appears to erased McCain’s edge in Missouri — site of Thursday’s VP debate — where 49 percent of those polled are backing Obama and 48 percent supporting McCain. One month ago, Obama was down 5 points to McCain in the last poll. The only other new poll in Missouri, a Research 2000 survey, indicates McCain ahead by one point.

Posted Image

“At this point, the state polls are starting to reflect the same movement we’ve seen in the national polls over the last couple of weeks,” said CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib. “Obama has been on an upward swing ever since the meltdown on Wall Street. The economic crisis is reinforcing the country’s desire for change, which is in turn helping the Democrats. If the current trends hold and McCain loses traditional red states like Florida and Virginia, it is hard to see how he can get to 270 electoral votes on Election Day.”

The CNN Electoral Map takes into account a number of factors, including the most recent state polls, voting trends, and campaign ad spending and events in the particular states. The CNN/Time Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation polls were conducted September 28-30, with 940 registered voters and 770 likely votes in Florida, 929 registered voters and 849 likely voters in Minnesota, 951 registered voters and 744 likely voters in Missouri, 924 registered voters and 684 likely voters in Nevada, and 925 registered voters and 684 likely voters in Virginia all questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points in Florida, Minnesota and Missouri, and 4 percentage points in Nevada and Virginia.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Very similar website:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5

Obama 264
McCain 163
Toss Up 111

If this map is accurate, McCain pretty much has to win all the Toss Up states. I know that is still possible and I also know there will be surprises between now and Election Day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6453
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar



http://www.wthefilm.com/




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retrollama
Member Avatar

Roger Ebert critiques the VP debate from a "performance" perspective:

"You Didn't Ask About the Debate, But..."
What a long, strange trip it's been....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
From the Roger Ebert article:

A very different sort of unanticipated moment took place during the debate. Biden said, "I know what it's like to be a single parent raising two children." He did not know if his sons would survive the auto accident that took his wife and daughter. For a moment, he lost his composure. Looking at the moment again, I believe, as I did at the time, that it was genuine emotion, and not stagecraft.

It could not have been anticipated by Palin. The next camera angle was above and behind her. She paused. The silence seemed to anticipate words of sympathy and identification from her. But Biden had ended in a sentence using the word "change," and her response, reflecting no emotion at all, cued off that word and became a talking point about McCain. This felt to me, at worst, insensitive and callous. At best, that she had not fully heard Biden. In either event, her response troubled me. If a man had responded in that way to such a statement from a women, he would be called a heartless brute.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
maccascruff
Oct 4 2008, 05:24 AM
I will say it and it makes me sick. It is called racism.

Look at the predicted maps. McCain will easily carry the south. Obama has to win elsewhere if he wins. Some of the electoral college maps have Obama with 264 electoral college votes if the election were held today and 111 votes still in the toss up range. I live in a toss up state and if our 9 votes go the correct way, they put Obama over the top.
I simply think southern and midwestern states are largely conservative. There are huge African American populations in the south as well.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Oct 3 2008, 04:07 AM
The count is 79.

I didn't count. I just decided that's the number. That's because I'm a decisive maverick with a six-pack*.




*not the good kind
Ah but what about the hockey mom status?!?
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Monkey Chow
Oct 3 2008, 02:34 PM
Bill
Oct 3 2008, 02:01 PM
Okay, for a start you're 20 years adrift with your elections.

Secondly, you talk as if you knew in 2000 that there was going to be an attack in 2001. If so, then why the f*ck didn't you tell anyone.

Thirdly, you don't get a pass by saying "just my opinion." If that's your opinion, then back it up. Explain to me how if it weren't for junior in the White House, Linda would be wearing a burkha. Lay out the cause and effect.

FACT:
The Bush administration was warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that they would be spending a lot of their time on al Qaeda. Not only did Bush ignore those warnings, they deliberately took counter-terrorism OFF the agenda.
Is that the behaviour of people who want to protect Americans? I submit not.
Sorry, yes, 2000, typo. I simply had a feeling at the time there would be some serious world events in the form of warfare over time that would require someone with intestinal fortitude to respond to. Maybe I got it from booking the odds that, among all the crazies in the world, one of them was bound to require military action. Maybe from reading Revelations or watching stuff on Nostradamus, who knows. Anyway, as everyone has heard, we got attacked Sept. 11, 2001 and I didn't then and don't now trust Al Gore to defend my family in a military action and I fear we could have lost under his leadership. Simply my opinion. Let's face it, Al Qaeda was looking to destroy the US completely that day and came much closer than I would like to think about. And they like women in burkhas.

Fact, Clinton did little to nothing about Al Qaeda and also advised Bush Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

And, back to the debates, Sara Palin rocked.
Talk about twisting, the fact still stands that Clinton warned the Bush administration that an attack from Al Qaeda would happen. It was the Bush administration who chose to do nothing with either Clinton's or anyone else's memorandums. NOTHING! Not even when one of the memorandums that hit Rice's desk had as a headline that an attack was imminent.

As for the burka comment that, my friend, is clearly a scare tactic. In that tactic the terrorists have already won.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DIc8jdra0o

Funny, but sadly true. :-/




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
It is sadly true. I sure hope the American people will wake up. My mail in ballot arrived today and I have cast my vote for OBAMA/BIDEN!!!! Now I can work on get others to do the same.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
So if Obama wins it's because Americans made the courageous choice to do what's right for all of humanity. If he loses it's because Americans are stupid and racist.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
BeatleBarb
Oct 4 2008, 02:44 AM
I agree, Mia - we start and tolerate this election crap for way too long here in the U.S. But that's how we US. Americans are - hell, Christmas stuff was put out before September 1. It's just ridiculous - I'm all for limitations before we all get burnt out and say to hell with everything. Over saturation, over analysis, over-doing just about everything. Ugh.
You should come here. We never put out christmas stuff.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
beatlechick
Oct 4 2008, 08:33 PM
Monkey Chow
Oct 3 2008, 02:34 PM
Bill
Oct 3 2008, 02:01 PM
Okay, for a start you're 20 years adrift with your elections.

Secondly, you talk as if you knew in 2000 that there was going to be an attack in 2001. If so, then why the f*ck didn't you tell anyone.

Thirdly, you don't get a pass by saying "just my opinion." If that's your opinion, then back it up. Explain to me how if it weren't for junior in the White House, Linda would be wearing a burkha. Lay out the cause and effect.

FACT:
The Bush administration was warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that they would be spending a lot of their time on al Qaeda. Not only did Bush ignore those warnings, they deliberately took counter-terrorism OFF the agenda.
Is that the behaviour of people who want to protect Americans? I submit not.
Sorry, yes, 2000, typo. I simply had a feeling at the time there would be some serious world events in the form of warfare over time that would require someone with intestinal fortitude to respond to. Maybe I got it from booking the odds that, among all the crazies in the world, one of them was bound to require military action. Maybe from reading Revelations or watching stuff on Nostradamus, who knows. Anyway, as everyone has heard, we got attacked Sept. 11, 2001 and I didn't then and don't now trust Al Gore to defend my family in a military action and I fear we could have lost under his leadership. Simply my opinion. Let's face it, Al Qaeda was looking to destroy the US completely that day and came much closer than I would like to think about. And they like women in burkhas.

Fact, Clinton did little to nothing about Al Qaeda and also advised Bush Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

And, back to the debates, Sara Palin rocked.
Talk about twisting, the fact still stands that Clinton warned the Bush administration that an attack from Al Qaeda would happen. It was the Bush administration who chose to do nothing with either Clinton's or anyone else's memorandums. NOTHING! Not even when one of the memorandums that hit Rice's desk had as a headline that an attack was imminent.

As for the burka comment that, my friend, is clearly a scare tactic. In that tactic the terrorists have already won.
Really, where does that fact stand? The burkha comment is simply my what if theory of Gore vs. Bush which means nothing.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Mia Culpa
Oct 5 2008, 03:12 AM
So if Obama wins it's because Americans made the courageous choice to do what's right for all of humanity. If he loses it's because Americans are stupid and racist.
:rofl: B)
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Oct 5 2008, 03:12 AM
So if Obama wins it's because Americans made the courageous choice to do what's right for all of humanity. If he loses it's because Americans are stupid and racist.
Somewhat a black and white viewpoint, eh, Mia?
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Monkey Chow
Oct 5 2008, 12:14 PM
Really, where does that fact stand? The burkha comment is simply my what if theory of Gore vs. Bush which means nothing.
Quantify how that would have happened. Show me the cause and effect. Explain the logical process you went through to arrive at such a thesis.

Your theory would be laughed out of court.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Bill
Oct 5 2008, 12:57 PM
Monkey Chow
Oct 5 2008, 12:14 PM
Really, where does that fact stand? The burkha comment is simply my what if theory of Gore vs. Bush which means nothing.
Quantify how that would have happened. Show me the cause and effect. Explain the logical process you went through to arrive at such a thesis.

Your theory would be laughed out of court.
That's what I was saying. It's a theory concocted in my mind based on my personal assessment of Al Gore. That is all. What do you want to argue about now?
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Well for a start, you didn't state it as a theory at first, you stated it as fact.

Secondly, you're never going to get away with saying something so outlandish without being asked to back it up.

The sky is green.
Hey, it's just my personal theory.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
My statement was you WOULD be wearing a burkha. The previous statement was IF Al Gore was elected instead of George Bush, all WOULD be right with the world, or something to that effect. As I am sure you know, there is no way to prove or disprove something that may have happened or might still happen if something else had happened instead of what really happened. All I can say is my assessment of Al Gore is that he is not the guy I want to depend on in a fight. I will say that I am somewhat more confident with Obama in a war situation than Gore and a great deal more confident with McCain in a war situation than Gore. Economically, the best hope is a conservative cabinet.
Edited by Monkey Chow, Oct 5 2008, 02:54 PM.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Well, I'm sorry for asking about the thought processes that bring you to such a conclusion. I take an interest in such things.

Personally, I prefer leaders who know how to avoid war situations, both through diplomacy and through preventative measures like counter-terrorism. My reading of history is that the Bush administration condemned their country to Sept 11 and subsequent war by ignoring the warnings of the previous administration and taking counter-terrorism off the agenda.

That's my theory/opinion and I can back it up if anyone wants me to.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
That is what I asked you to do in post #2523. The suspense is killing me.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

That post was me asking you for evidence to support your case. What are you talking about? :-/
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
#2520 that you quoted in #2523.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

That was you replying to Cathy. Instead of speaking in code, you could save us both the trouble and just ask me a question.

If it was about what Clinton did or didn't do about al Qaeda, you should read the 9/11 report.
Edited by Bill, Oct 5 2008, 03:21 PM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

9/11 Commission Report page 265
 
Attorney General Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA in May and by (Acting FBI Director, Thomas) Pickard in early July about the danger. Pickard said he met with Ashcroft once a week in late June, through July, and twice in August. There is a dispute regarding Ashcroft's interest in Pickard's briefings about the terrorist threat situation. Pickard told us that after two such briefings Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore. Ashcroft denies Pickard's charge. Pickard says he continued to present terrorism information during further briefings that summer, but nothing further on the "chatter" the U.S. government was receiving.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
I have read that. It took you until page 265 to find this. Let's break it down:

9/11 Commission Report page 265
Attorney General Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA in May and by (Acting FBI Director, Thomas) Pickard in early July about the danger. DANGER OF WHAT, SPECIFICALLY? Pickard said he met with Ashcroft once a week in late June, through July, and twice in August. There is a dispute regarding Ashcroft's interest in Pickard's briefings about the terrorist threat situation. Pickard told us OBJECTION, HEARSAY Sustained that after two such briefings Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore. Ashcroft denies Pickard's charge. FAILURE TO CARRY YOUR BURDEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE Pickard says OBJECTION, HEARSAY SUSTAINED he continued to present terrorism information during further briefings that summer, but nothing further on the "chatter" the U.S. government was receiving.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Ah, and suddenly the critical thinker comes out.

Where was he when I asked him to back up his own untestable assertions? :whistle:

Perhaps what I should have said all along was OBJECTION, SPECULATION.

Evidently, it's not fair to indict the Bush administration on sworn statements but it is fair to indict a would-be Gore administration on nothing more than unfounded assumptions.
I declare a mistrial.

It's your turn for the last word. In future, I shall know better than to ask people for evidence to back up their assertions. :roll:
Edited by Bill, Oct 5 2008, 04:32 PM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Monkey Chow
Oct 5 2008, 04:10 PM
I have read that. It took you until page 265 to find this.
You want to nitpick over what page it was printed on? What page should it have been? :roll:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Bill
Oct 5 2008, 04:20 PM
Ah, and suddenly the critical thinker comes out.

Where was he when I asked him to back up his own untestable assertions? :whistle:

Perhaps what I should have said all along was OBJECTION, SPECULATION.

Evidently, it's not fair to indict the Bush administration on sworn statements but it is fair to indict a would-be Gore administration on nothing more than unfounded assumptions.
I declare a mistrial.

It's your turn for the last word. In future, I shall know better than to ask people for evidence to back up their assertions. :roll:
I told you the Gore opinion was an opinion and speculation on my part, like three different times. You told me you had proof Bush knew Al Qaeda was going to attack and the above was what you offered. It's a beautiful day and I'm going back to the lake. Have a nice day.
Edited by Monkey Chow, Oct 5 2008, 04:42 PM.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Don't misrepresent me. I never said I had proof Bush knew al Qaeda were going to attack. What I said was that there were clear warnings which the administration ignored and the commission report confirms that, not just in the passage I quoted but in many others too. I'll point them out of you really want.

All I asked were what grounds you had for such speculation. It was a genuine question. Nothing personal, but I had expected something a little more than words to the effect of "I just think so," from someone as clearly intelligent as yourself.

Enjoy yourself at the lake. I really should be in bed.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queenbee
Member Avatar
Moderator
Monkey Chow
Oct 5 2008, 02:52 PM
My statement was you WOULD be wearing a burkha. The previous statement was IF Al Gore was elected instead of George Bush, all WOULD be right with the world, or something to that effect. As I am sure you know, there is no way to prove or disprove something that may have happened or might still happen if something else had happened instead of what really happened. All I can say is my assessment of Al Gore is that he is not the guy I want to depend on in a fight. I will say that I am somewhat more confident with Obama in a war situation than Gore and a great deal more confident with McCain in a war situation than Gore. Economically, the best hope is a conservative cabinet.
One of reasons I voted for Bush was because I just couldn't see Gore pressing the red button. When Gore *supposely* lost the election and he didn't handle it too well. How would he be able to handle the presidency? When Bush ran the second time, I only voted for him because of Colin Powell. If I knew Colin Powell was going to step down, I would never have voted for Bush.

Even if I like McCain, I wouldn't vote for him because I don't like *folksy* Palin.

PEACE and love to my friends, Judy

When the Power of Love over comes the Love of Power, the world will know Peace.
-Sri Chinmnoy Ghose

Till me meet again ~ I Love you Mike! You were one of a kind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
And that "folksy" attitude of hers sure doesn't go anywhere to show her qualifications to be vice president, does it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Monkey Chow
Oct 5 2008, 12:14 PM
beatlechick
Oct 4 2008, 08:33 PM
Monkey Chow
Oct 3 2008, 02:34 PM
Bill
Oct 3 2008, 02:01 PM
Okay, for a start you're 20 years adrift with your elections.

Secondly, you talk as if you knew in 2000 that there was going to be an attack in 2001. If so, then why the f*ck didn't you tell anyone.

Thirdly, you don't get a pass by saying "just my opinion." If that's your opinion, then back it up. Explain to me how if it weren't for junior in the White House, Linda would be wearing a burkha. Lay out the cause and effect.

FACT:
The Bush administration was warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that they would be spending a lot of their time on al Qaeda. Not only did Bush ignore those warnings, they deliberately took counter-terrorism OFF the agenda.
Is that the behaviour of people who want to protect Americans? I submit not.
Sorry, yes, 2000, typo. I simply had a feeling at the time there would be some serious world events in the form of warfare over time that would require someone with intestinal fortitude to respond to. Maybe I got it from booking the odds that, among all the crazies in the world, one of them was bound to require military action. Maybe from reading Revelations or watching stuff on Nostradamus, who knows. Anyway, as everyone has heard, we got attacked Sept. 11, 2001 and I didn't then and don't now trust Al Gore to defend my family in a military action and I fear we could have lost under his leadership. Simply my opinion. Let's face it, Al Qaeda was looking to destroy the US completely that day and came much closer than I would like to think about. And they like women in burkhas.

Fact, Clinton did little to nothing about Al Qaeda and also advised Bush Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

And, back to the debates, Sara Palin rocked.
Talk about twisting, the fact still stands that Clinton warned the Bush administration that an attack from Al Qaeda would happen. It was the Bush administration who chose to do nothing with either Clinton's or anyone else's memorandums. NOTHING! Not even when one of the memorandums that hit Rice's desk had as a headline that an attack was imminent.

As for the burka comment that, my friend, is clearly a scare tactic. In that tactic the terrorists have already won.
Really, where does that fact stand? The burkha comment is simply my what if theory of Gore vs. Bush which means nothing.
Try looking at the testimony set forth in front of Congress a couple of years ago and reading the 9/11 transcripts.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Mia Culpa
Oct 5 2008, 03:12 AM
So if Obama wins it's because Americans made the courageous choice to do what's right for all of humanity. If he loses it's because Americans are stupid and racist.
That part I don't want to believe but working some of the election I am hearing of people who can not vote for Obama because he is black. Sad but true. Hell there are even people who still believe that he is Muslim, not like there is anything wrong with that but people are still ignorant these days.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Oct 5 2008, 04:22 PM
Monkey Chow
Oct 5 2008, 04:10 PM
I have read that. It took you until page 265 to find this.
You want to nitpick over what page it was printed on? What page should it have been? :roll:
Since it appears he is not satisfied with that page than perhaps this entire section should be read! http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch6.pdf

Clinton has gone on record stating that his administration could've done more, duh, but he did alert Bush as to what was to happen.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Queenbee
Oct 5 2008, 06:12 PM
Monkey Chow
Oct 5 2008, 02:52 PM
My statement was you WOULD be wearing a burkha. The previous statement was IF Al Gore was elected instead of George Bush, all WOULD be right with the world, or something to that effect. As I am sure you know, there is no way to prove or disprove something that may have happened or might still happen if something else had happened instead of what really happened. All I can say is my assessment of Al Gore is that he is not the guy I want to depend on in a fight. I will say that I am somewhat more confident with Obama in a war situation than Gore and a great deal more confident with McCain in a war situation than Gore. Economically, the best hope is a conservative cabinet.
One of reasons I voted for Bush was because I just couldn't see Gore pressing the red button. When Gore *supposely* lost the election and he didn't handle it too well. How would he be able to handle the presidency? When Bush ran the second time, I only voted for him because of Colin Powell. If I knew Colin Powell was going to step down, I would never have voted for Bush.

Even if I like McCain, I wouldn't vote for him because I don't like *folksy* Palin.
That's what I was saying, or trying to. Generally, I come to message boards to have a good time and release some of my daily pressure. At least I used to. I was expressing my opinion on Gore, that I don't think he was the guy to have in charge when things got tough. I also think his challenge to the election in 2000 was incredibly detrimental to the US and probably told our enemies we were vulnerable. Sadly, we were.

Whatever Bush did or didn't do doesn't matter in this election. What matters now is what happens going forward. There are huge challenges ahead for whomever is Pres.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Queenbee
Oct 5 2008, 06:12 PM
One of reasons I voted for Bush was because I just couldn't see Gore pressing the red button.
You say that like it's a bad thing. How does the desire to destroy the world qualify one to be president?
Does anyone remember the principle of mutually assured destruction? (the most appropriate acronym ever) It means that if it comes to actually pushing the button, we're all dead anyway. And yes, I do mean we.

Quote:
 
When Gore *supposely* lost the election and he didn't handle it too well. How would he be able to handle the presidency? When Bush ran the second time, I only voted for him because of Colin Powell. If I knew Colin Powell was going to step down, I would never have voted for Bush.


Sorry, but you should have seen that coming. By 2004, it was clear that they weren't going to listen to Powell whether he was in the cabinet or not.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Well, if this election campaign has taught us anything, it's that no-one is ever responsible for their actions, nor should they ever be held accountable for their incompetence or compliance.

Not even OJ had the balls to try that defence.
"It doesn't matter who stole the goods, the important thing is that I know where they are."
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose
Member Avatar
Well, here's another clue for you all, the Walrus was Paul...
I'm quite proud of the fact that I NEVER voted for George W. Bush.

Posted Image Posted Image

"I'm in awe of McCartney. He's about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he's never let up... He's just so damn effortless." ~ Bob Dylan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Rose
Oct 6 2008, 01:16 AM
I'm quite proud of the fact that I NEVER voted for George W. Bush.
And I approve of this message! :giggle:
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
And so do I. And I am proud to say that I am glad that Gore challenged the results. He rightfully won that election and I don't think we would be in the multitude of messes we are in now. I like to think that Gore would not have invaded Iraq.

Now that McCain/Palin are bringing up the past attacks and saying they are going on the attack, I hope Obama will do the same thing. Kerry's passive approach to the attacks in 2004 probably cost him the election.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Jacaranda
Oct 5 2008, 12:39 PM
Somewhat a black and white viewpoint, eh, Mia?
My thoughts exactly.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Monkey Chow
Oct 6 2008, 12:20 AM
Generally, I come to message boards to have a good time and release some of my daily pressure. At least I used to.
No reason to stop. Only a few people here take everything so seriously. Most people probably don't participate in these political discussions because they just want to talk without having to present a sworn affidavit. Maybe that's why the thinking and venting threads are so popular. Nobody can ask you to prove you're really thinking that.

And yes that was pure conjecture on my part. I have no written evidence or links to any website that back up my undocumented speculation.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Rose
Oct 6 2008, 01:16 AM
I'm quite proud of the fact that I NEVER voted for George W. Bush.
I can beat that. I've never voted for any American in any election.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Mia Culpa
Oct 6 2008, 04:08 AM
Rose
Oct 6 2008, 01:16 AM
I'm quite proud of the fact that I NEVER voted for George W. Bush.
I can beat that. I've never voted for any American in any election.
will I am shame to say. I never voted. Reason , I never could think on who I really wanted for president
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

2008-10-04 You Betcha Tina Fey Returned to 'SNL' (11:40)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
otlset
Oct 1 2008, 08:39 PM
Heh heh, I'm beginning to suspect I'm becoming very unpopular here already because of my views. However, I remain cordial and respectful of others' opinions.

And I'd like to add, now that I'm thinking about it, that should Obama win the election next month, as a patriot I will accept the decision of the majority and pull together with the rest of the country (which I hope does also) in support of him. He will be my president too and without sacrificing my hard-won and hard-learned conservative principles (I was actually very liberal earlier in my life), I would look forward to doing what I can with him to bring the country back to greatness. As I say, he will be my president then, and I will support him as such as all Americans need to come together.

Welcome to the club... :rofl: :boogie:

Thank you for this post. In the past, I have also said that out of respect for the office of the Presidency, I support whomever is in office...even if I might not like the choice. There is not any "perfect" president; and there will be no magical solution no matter who gets in office. Our country needs to focus more on what our commonalities are rather than our differences to work out these big problems that face us!

I am wholeheartely and unashamedly a conservative and as such, will vote for McCain/Palin, an unpopular position on this board. Most here don't agree with me, but that's okay. ;)

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Dorothy
Oct 6 2008, 04:40 AM
will I am shame to say. I never voted. Reason , I never could think on who I really wanted for president
That's no excuse. There's always a least-worst option. There's always a lesser of two evils. If you can't vote FOR one of them, then vote AGAINST the worst one.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThirdHarmony
Member Avatar

Mind if I barge in?

I've kept a certain distance from this thread during the last six months or so for lack of spare time, but I've been following everything surrounding the election very closely for the last year - probably too much for my own good (considering the disappointment of last time). Anyhow, it is now lingering so close that I can't keep away any more. Now, barring some extreme "october surprise" - it certainly looks as if Obama is thankfully breaking away distinctly in the polls.

But what I can't help but noticing are these assertations of "support for the president - whoever he may be". It is to me a foreign concept that any elected politicians would somehow be above criticism just because they have been elected. And if that is not what is meant by these assertations (after all, which recent president hasn't been utterly engorged with criticism from the opposition?) - then what does this "support" actually mean? That you will not work against his/her decisions or policies even though you may disagree with them? Or is this "support" a way of saying "I agree to obey the laws of the land"?

I have been furious with just about every government in my country at one point or other, including the ones I helped vote into office. I have at one time helped vote out of office a party I previously voted for (they started promoting incomptetent officials). Surely any "support" is earned through an assessment of the actions of the government and not through the act of being elected?

Edited by ThirdHarmony, Oct 6 2008, 10:55 AM.
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
My opinion has always been that if you don't vote, you have given up your right to complain. That means I always have voted, even if it has been for the worst of two evils.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
otlset

Welcome to the club... :rofl: :boogie:

Thank you for this post.

[/quote]

Thanks. I felt I needed to explain this to help dispel the "evil" connotations most here seem to have of conservative Republicans. I realize such innocents suffer from a peculiar kind of brainwashing/hypnosis, and mostly due to youth and/or inexperience and through no fault of their own, have been raised and nurtured since early childhood through formal instruction, and most importantly, youthful peer-pressure and the need to be "popular" among them, the liberal/idealistic notions of that period in their lives.

I am confident however, that as in my own case, most of these innocents here on this board as well as other venues in life will gradually "awaken" to the virtues of conservatism, mostly as they see more and more the inequities of their own hard work and efforts supporting the government through taxes, compared to those who take from the government, rightfully or not (the "not" I've seen too much of so far in my life, and I'm SICK of it).

Conservatism came to me when I finally woke up and realized there are two kinds of people in America: those who work hard, follow the rules, and whose taxes support the government, and those either can't or WON'T work hard and who take from the government and do not contribute to it. I'm more than willing for my taxes to care for those who "can't" support themselves on their own. I object strongly however to paying for and supporting the numerous slugs and leeches who blame everyone but their able-bodied selves for their miserable condition. I know well of these people -- my own older brother and his "friends" are among them.

Yes they'll either learn the hard way eventually, or else they'll get a job in entertainment, government, or academia. :D

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Bill
Oct 6 2008, 06:30 AM
Dorothy
Oct 6 2008, 04:40 AM
will I am shame to say. I never voted. Reason , I never could think on who I really wanted for president
That's no excuse. There's always a least-worst option. There's always a lesser of two evils. If you can't vote FOR one of them, then vote AGAINST the worst one.
This year I am voting. I know whom I am voting for. Even though I do not believe anyone’s vote's count. Special after What I saw that went on with the votes. I say that bush really was not the winner. Therefore, they claim that they have to recount votes. Sure, right. In addition, no one thought that was funny?

My opinion was Al core was really the winner.

Yes, I have no complaints…

I am just as happy as ever sitting on my perch.
Edited by Dorfliedot, Oct 6 2008, 07:37 PM.
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queenbee
Member Avatar
Moderator
Queenbee
Oct 5 2008, 06:12 PM
One of reasons I voted for Bush was because I just couldn't see Gore pressing the red button.
You say that like it's a bad thing. How does the desire to destroy the world qualify one to be president?
Does anyone remember the principle of mutually assured destruction? (the most appropriate acronym ever) It means that if it comes to actually pushing the button, we're all dead anyway. And yes, I do mean we.

It's not a matter of standing up to press the red button, it's a matter of making the right decision, the courage to press or not to press IF the time comes. I just couldn't see Gore in that position. Yes you are correct, if the time comes when we press that button, it's DOOMSDAY for all of us.

Quote:
 
When Gore *supposely* lost the election and he didn't handle it too well. How would he be able to handle the presidency? When Bush ran the second time, I only voted for him because of Colin Powell. If I knew Colin Powell was going to step down, I would never have voted for Bush.


Sorry, but you should have seen that coming. By 2004, it was clear that they weren't going to listen to Powell whether he was in the cabinet or not.

Apparently I was wearing my blinders at the time. Too much on my plate ~ no excuse. Now why can't Colin Powell run for presidency ~ because he's too smart!

PEACE and love to my friends, Judy

When the Power of Love over comes the Love of Power, the world will know Peace.
-Sri Chinmnoy Ghose

Till me meet again ~ I Love you Mike! You were one of a kind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
ThirdHarmony
Oct 6 2008, 10:51 AM


But what I can't help but noticing are these assertations of "support for the president - whoever he may be". It is to me a foreign concept that any elected politicians would somehow be above criticism just because they have been elected. And if that is not what is meant by these assertations (after all, which recent president hasn't been utterly engorged with criticism from the opposition?) - then what does this "support" actually mean? That you will not work against his/her decisions or policies even though you may disagree with them? Or is this "support" a way of saying "I agree to obey the laws of the land"?

I have been furious with just about every government in my country at one point or other, including the ones I helped vote into office. I have at one time helped vote out of office a party I previously voted for (they started promoting incomptetent officials). Surely any "support" is earned through an assessment of the actions of the government and not through the act of being elected?

Thanks for your post. Seeing that I'm one of the people who said I would "support" whomever is in office, please allow me to expound.

Some have said (here and out "there") that if so-and-so (aka the opposition) gets into office, they're moving to Canada or somewhere else. I think that is an absurd notion because as Americans, we should not tuck tail and run just because we don't like who is president at the time. I think the country should unite; get to work, and try to look for commonalities rather than fight each other for every point they can score for "their party." This is the main type of "support" that I'm talking about.

I think Obama will probably be elected :-/ . If he is, then as president, I will respect his position in office. What it doesn't mean is that I will agree with all the decisions he will make; just like I didn't agree with all the decisions Bush has made. I don't see everything "black and white;" As an American, I still have the right to voice, fight, and vote for my views; regardless of whom is in office. When Clinton "ruled the land" I had no choice in that, but I respected his position as the president of this country.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Oct 6 2008, 06:30 AM
Dorothy
Oct 6 2008, 04:40 AM
will I am shame to say. I never voted. Reason , I never could think on who I really wanted for president
That's no excuse. There's always a least-worst option. There's always a lesser of two evils. If you can't vote FOR one of them, then vote AGAINST the worst one.
Or write one in. Not a great idea but at least you have voted. My late stepdad was known to have been voting for Goofy or Mickey Mouse because that is what he thought of the candidates. I do vote the lesser of two evils sometimes. My belief is that if you don't vote..................you don't have a leg to stand on to complain about what is happening in the world. You didn't vote your voice.

Dotty, I am proud to see that you will be voting this year. :yahoo:
Edited by beatlechick, Oct 6 2008, 10:54 PM.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
ThirdHarmony
Oct 6 2008, 10:51 AM
Mind if I barge in?

I've kept a certain distance from this thread during the last six months or so for lack of spare time, but I've been following everything surrounding the election very closely for the last year - probably too much for my own good (considering the disappointment of last time). Anyhow, it is now lingering so close that I can't keep away any more. Now, barring some extreme "october surprise" - it certainly looks as if Obama is thankfully breaking away distinctly in the polls.

But what I can't help but noticing are these assertations of "support for the president - whoever he may be". It is to me a foreign concept that any elected politicians would somehow be above criticism just because they have been elected. And if that is not what is meant by these assertations (after all, which recent president hasn't been utterly engorged with criticism from the opposition?) - then what does this "support" actually mean? That you will not work against his/her decisions or policies even though you may disagree with them? Or is this "support" a way of saying "I agree to obey the laws of the land"?

I have been furious with just about every government in my country at one point or other, including the ones I helped vote into office. I have at one time helped vote out of office a party I previously voted for (they started promoting incomptetent officials). Surely any "support" is earned through an assessment of the actions of the government and not through the act of being elected?

Great post here! There have been 2 Presidents of the US that I, unhappily, can say I could not support. Those 2 were Richard Nixon and Dumbya. I had hoped that Dumbya would've been close to his father, even though I did not like his platform, but he has not even come close.

Two years ago when most of the US Congress and Senatorial seats was up for re-election I cautioned my friends about pinning all their hopes on a mainly Democratic House and Senate. I told them that things will not change like they want it to and not to expect great changes. Oh well!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
otlset
Oct 6 2008, 06:39 PM
I am confident however, that as in my own case, most of these innocents here on this board as well as other venues in life will gradually "awaken" to the virtues of conservatism, mostly as they see more and more the inequities of their own hard work and efforts supporting the government through taxes, compared to those who take from the government, rightfully or not (the "not" I've seen too much of so far in my life, and I'm SICK of it).
Who are you talking too?!? Most of us here are far from being the "innocents" you are projecting.

Quote:
 
Conservatism came to me when I finally woke up and realized there are two kinds of people in America: those who work hard, follow the rules, and whose taxes support the government, and those either can't or WON'T work hard and who take from the government and do not contribute to it. I'm more than willing for my taxes to care for those who "can't" support themselves on their own. I object strongly however to paying for and supporting the numerous slugs and leeches who blame everyone but their able-bodied selves for their miserable condition.


Most people that I know do work hard, follow the rules, and pay taxes. I have worked with many that could not work and needed help for their families. Unfortunately, we are very likely to see that happening on a grander scale today. I remain awake and more liberal than I was before Dumbya's administration. He and the likes of McCain have reawakened the need to want to help out the people that are just below me.

Quote:
 
Yes they'll either learn the hard way eventually, or else they'll get a job in entertainment, government, or academia. :D
I know you're making a bad joke here, you are right?, but even the entertainment business is hurting. I, however, do not work any of those jobs. I work with a company that deals with insurance companies and Medicare. We're hurting, financially, and none of us think our jobs will hold out to much longer.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mindy
Member Avatar

So I basically get the impression that conseratives think that liberals are lazy leeches and ignorant? :ponder: Only conservatives are hard-working individuals? I don't think conservatives are coming across as evil, they're coming across as somewhat arrogant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThirdHarmony
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 6 2008, 08:24 PM
Thanks for your post. Seeing that I'm one of the people who said I would "support" whomever is in office, please allow me to expound.

Some have said (here and out "there") that if so-and-so (aka the opposition) gets into office, they're moving to Canada or somewhere else. I think that is an absurd notion because as Americans, we should not tuck tail and run just because we don't like who is president at the time. I think the country should unite; get to work, and try to look for commonalities rather than fight each other for every point they can score for "their party." This is the main type of "support" that I'm talking about.

I think Obama will probably be elected :-/ . If he is, then as president, I will respect his position in office. What it doesn't mean is that I will agree with all the decisions he will make; just like I didn't agree with all the decisions Bush has made. I don't see everything "black and white;" As an American, I still have the right to voice, fight, and vote for my views; regardless of whom is in office. When Clinton "ruled the land" I had no choice in that, but I respected his position as the president of this country.
Thanks for clarifying, Heidi. :)

I won't delve deeper into the semantics of the meaning of "respecting the presidents position in office" - but I think I get the general idea of what you are saying.

Of course, all of us who are living in free democracies in different countries around the world have the right to voice our views regardless of who is in office - and we certainly do.
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

otlset
Oct 6 2008, 06:39 PM


Thanks. I felt I needed to explain this to help dispel the "evil" connotations most here seem to have of conservative Republicans. I realize such innocents suffer from a peculiar kind of brainwashing/hypnosis, and mostly due to youth and/or inexperience and through no fault of their own, have been raised and nurtured since early childhood through formal instruction, and most importantly, youthful peer-pressure and the need to be "popular" among them, the liberal/idealistic notions of that period in their lives.

I am confident however, that as in my own case, most of these innocents here on this board as well as other venues in life will gradually "awaken" to the virtues of conservatism, mostly as they see more and more the inequities of their own hard work and efforts supporting the government through taxes, compared to those who take from the government, rightfully or not (the "not" I've seen too much of so far in my life, and I'm SICK of it).

Conservatism came to me when I finally woke up and realized there are two kinds of people in America: those who work hard, follow the rules, and whose taxes support the government, and those either can't or WON'T work hard and who take from the government and do not contribute to it. I'm more than willing for my taxes to care for those who "can't" support themselves on their own. I object strongly however to paying for and supporting the numerous slugs and leeches who blame everyone but their able-bodied selves for their miserable condition. I know well of these people -- my own older brother and his "friends" are among them.

Yes they'll either learn the hard way eventually, or else they'll get a job in entertainment, government, or academia. :D

So many stereotypes, so little time!

What it comes down to is this:
If there were any candidates running under a conservative banner who genuinely represented conservative values, rather than a discredited religious-right, military-industrial ideology, then I wouldn't have a problem.

If you seriously think that the Republican party in 2008 represents the true conservative values of small government and fiscal restraint, then it is you who are the innocent.

Brainwashed?
Don't be so condescending and insulting!
In fact, that last dig about academia gives you away. It's funny, is it not, how the best-educated people tend to veer away from "conservatism" as it's espoused by the Republican based these days.
Too bad you're not an academic yourself. If you were, you might be able to defend your position without resorting to ill-informed stereotypes and insults.

The problem with a lot of people who call themselves conservatives these days is that if their politics matched their principles, they would be Democrats.
Edited by Bill, Oct 7 2008, 12:48 AM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Oct 7 2008, 12:38 AM


The problem with a lot of people who call themselves conservatives these days is that if their politics matched their principles, they would be Democrats.
Can you explain that one, please? :blink:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Oct 6 2008, 10:25 PM

Dotty, I am proud to see that you will be voting this year. :yahoo:
Yes, Dorothy...good job! :clap:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
beatlechick
Oct 6 2008, 10:42 PM
otlset
Oct 6 2008, 06:39 PM
I am confident however, that as in my own case, most of these innocents here on this board as well as other venues in life will gradually "awaken" to the virtues of conservatism, mostly as they see more and more the inequities of their own hard work and efforts supporting the government through taxes, compared to those who take from the government, rightfully or not (the "not" I've seen too much of so far in my life, and I'm SICK of it).
Who are you talking too?!? Most of us here are far from being the "innocents" you are projecting.

Quote:
 
Conservatism came to me when I finally woke up and realized there are two kinds of people in America: those who work hard, follow the rules, and whose taxes support the government, and those either can't or WON'T work hard and who take from the government and do not contribute to it. I'm more than willing for my taxes to care for those who "can't" support themselves on their own. I object strongly however to paying for and supporting the numerous slugs and leeches who blame everyone but their able-bodied selves for their miserable condition.


Most people that I know do work hard, follow the rules, and pay taxes. I have worked with many that could not work and needed help for their families. Unfortunately, we are very likely to see that happening on a grander scale today. I remain awake and more liberal than I was before Dumbya's administration. He and the likes of McCain have reawakened the need to want to help out the people that are just below me.

Quote:
 
Yes they'll either learn the hard way eventually, or else they'll get a job in entertainment, government, or academia. :D
I know you're making a bad joke here, you are right?, but even the entertainment business is hurting. I, however, do not work any of those jobs. I work with a company that deals with insurance companies and Medicare. We're hurting, financially, and none of us think our jobs will hold out to much longer.
I am far, far from innocent. I worked hard until my recent firing and I do pay taxes. I am a retired civil servant and I earned my pension by years of hard work. I pay taxes on that, too. Do you realize that jobs are being lost every day and it is not because people are lazy. It is the economy.

What is wrong with working for the government? Who do you think is going to make the rules work if there are no government employees?

I didn't like Nixon, but I can't stand Dubya. Didn't from the first time I saw him on television and still can't. Look at what he has done to this country. This country cannot take four more years of Republican policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 7 2008, 01:39 AM
Bill
Oct 7 2008, 12:38 AM


The problem with a lot of people who call themselves conservatives these days is that if their politics matched their principles, they would be Democrats.
Can you explain that one, please? :blink:
Smaller government: The Bush administration and Republican congress has greatly increased both government bureaucracy and intrusion into people's lives.

Taxation: Tax cuts are all well and good but not when you massively increase spending at the same time. Not even fiscal conservatives think it's a good idea to cut taxes during war time. In fact, it was because of war that income tax was first introduced in the US. That brings us to,

Fiscal responsibility: The Bush administration has spent money like a drunken sailor and encouraged business to as well. That is not conservative. They have also turned a blind eye to reckless activity on the market assuming that whatever the market does is right. I'm sure I don't need to explain what happened next. And that brings us to,

Welfare: Welfar for those who deserve it, not just want it. Okay, so the reckless idiots who screwed up on Wall St playing with other people's money deserve a trillion dollar bailout, but someone with a disability but still works as much as they can doesn't deserve government run health care? That doesn't sound like conservative values to me.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Bag O' Nails
Oct 7 2008, 01:41 AM
beatlechick
Oct 6 2008, 10:25 PM

Dotty, I am proud to see that you will be voting this year. :yahoo:
Yes, Dorothy...good job! :clap:
thank you!
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

http://s3.zetaboards.com/Strawberry_Fields/single/?p=114125&t=261938

Excuse the large font. It's a side-effect of the board change-over and I don't have the ability to fix it any more.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
HollyGolightly
Oct 6 2008, 10:56 PM
So I basically get the impression that conseratives think that liberals are lazy leeches and ignorant? :ponder: Only conservatives are hard-working individuals? I don't think conservatives are coming across as evil, they're coming across as somewhat arrogant.
Please don't lump all conservatives into the same basket because someone voices their own opinions.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 7 2008, 01:41 AM
beatlechick
Oct 6 2008, 10:25 PM

Dotty, I am proud to see that you will be voting this year. :yahoo:
Yes, Dorothy...good job! :clap:
Me three! B)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mindy
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 7 2008, 02:13 AM
HollyGolightly
Oct 6 2008, 10:56 PM
So I basically get the impression that conseratives think that liberals are lazy leeches and ignorant? :ponder: Only conservatives are hard-working individuals? I don't think conservatives are coming across as evil, they're coming across as somewhat arrogant.
Please don't lump all conservatives into the same basket because someone voices their own opinions.
Sorry for that, but unfortunately she is not the only conservative I have heard speak that way lately, and I am offended by those kind of comments.
Edited by Mindy, Oct 7 2008, 02:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Oct 7 2008, 02:13 AM
HollyGolightly
Oct 6 2008, 10:56 PM
So I basically get the impression that conseratives think that liberals are lazy leeches and ignorant? :ponder: Only conservatives are hard-working individuals? I don't think conservatives are coming across as evil, they're coming across as somewhat arrogant.
Please don't lump all conservatives into the same basket because someone voices their own opinions.
That was otlset doing that, not Holly.

Stereotypes are bad on any level. Since our new friend was presuming to speak for all conservatives, then the arrogance of his statement reflects on all he claims to speak for. Not that it should. His statement is arrogant and ignorant in its own right. :lol:

Arrogant is the last word I'd use to describe you, Heidi.
Well, maybe the second last. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Oct 7 2008, 02:21 AM


Arrogant is the last word I'd use to describe you, Heidi.
Well, maybe the second last. ;)
Now Bill, don't go soft on me! :rofl: :giggle:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Ooh-err, Matron! :giggle:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Bill
Oct 7 2008, 02:07 AM
Taxation: Tax cuts are all well and good but not when you massively increase spending at the same time. Not even fiscal conservatives think it's a good idea to cut taxes during war time. In fact, it was because of war that income tax was first introduced in the US. That brings us to,

Fiscal responsibility: The Bush administration has spent money like a drunken sailor and encouraged business to as well. That is not conservative. They have also turned a blind eye to reckless activity on the market assuming that whatever the market does is right. I'm sure I don't need to explain what happened next. And that brings us to,

Welfare: Welfar for those who deserve it, not just want it. Okay, so the reckless idiots who screwed up on Wall St playing with other people's money deserve a trillion dollar bailout, but someone with a disability but still works as much as they can doesn't deserve government run health care? That doesn't sound like conservative values to me.
You can't have a war that costs what Iraq is costing and have tax cuts at the same time. I was taught in college that you can't have war and butter. That was during Viet Nam, but the economic policy that I was being taught holds true today. Bush tried to give the US both and you can't do that without ending in the economic mess we find ourselves in today.

I know people who are disabled and I will never begrudge them any benefits they receive from the government. What else are they supposed to do. My friend Carol left a disabled son. His SSI payment is not really enough to support him (it was about $250 per month), but it gave him Medicaid, which covered his health costs. I will never begrudge him those benefits.

Now the tramp that lives above me and is collecting welfare--I begrudge her that. She is capable of having a man living there who deals drugs. She also is able bodied and could be working. It is actually illegal for her to have a man living with her and collect welfare. I do not begrudge the WIC money they get for their children because those kids are innocent victims of the sins of their parents.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
otlset
Oct 6 2008, 06:39 PM
Thanks. I felt I needed to explain this to help dispel the "evil" connotations most here seem to have of conservative Republicans. I realize such innocents suffer from a peculiar kind of brainwashing/hypnosis, and mostly due to youth and/or inexperience and through no fault of their own, have been raised and nurtured since early childhood through formal instruction, and most importantly, youthful peer-pressure and the need to be "popular" among them, the liberal/idealistic notions of that period in their lives.

I am confident however, that as in my own case, most of these innocents here on this board as well as other venues in life will gradually "awaken" to the virtues of conservatism, mostly as they see more and more the inequities of their own hard work and efforts supporting the government through taxes, compared to those who take from the government, rightfully or not (the "not" I've seen too much of so far in my life, and I'm SICK of it).
You don't find that a little condescending? Isn't that as bad as liberals calling conservatives evil?
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
If it were Obama/Palin versus McCain/Biden who would you vote for?
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Oct 7 2008, 05:29 AM
If it were Obama/Palin versus McCain/Biden who would you vote for?
Excellent question.

If Obama had chosen Palin, I think that would negate everything he ever said about sound judgement. If McCain had chosen Biden, it would tell me that he was still the McCain of pre-2007, who I had far more respect for than the erratic, pandering McCain of 2008.
So in that unlikely scenario, I'd be supporting McCain.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mia Culpa
Oct 7 2008, 05:29 AM
If it were Obama/Palin versus McCain/Biden who would you vote for?
Obama/Palin. I like Palin, I just don't agree with her ideology and think she is unqualified for President, but Obama is much younger and healthier than McCain.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Mia Culpa
Oct 7 2008, 05:29 AM
If it were Obama/Palin versus McCain/Biden who would you vote for?
I would have to hurl first, than after that look at who is running for the President and not the vp. Since a snowball would have a better chance in hell than Obama picking Palin, I would still vote Obama. Hypothetically it would be Obama, I don't like McCain now or before but less respect for him now.
Edited by beatlechick, Oct 7 2008, 07:00 AM.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Bill
Oct 7 2008, 02:07 AM
Bag O' Nails
Oct 7 2008, 01:39 AM
Bill
Oct 7 2008, 12:38 AM


The problem with a lot of people who call themselves conservatives these days is that if their politics matched their principles, they would be Democrats.
Can you explain that one, please? :blink:
Smaller government: The Bush administration and Republican congress has greatly increased both government bureaucracy and intrusion into people's lives.

Taxation: Tax cuts are all well and good but not when you massively increase spending at the same time. Not even fiscal conservatives think it's a good idea to cut taxes during war time. In fact, it was because of war that income tax was first introduced in the US. That brings us to,

Fiscal responsibility: The Bush administration has spent money like a drunken sailor and encouraged business to as well. That is not conservative. They have also turned a blind eye to reckless activity on the market assuming that whatever the market does is right. I'm sure I don't need to explain what happened next. And that brings us to,

Welfare: Welfar for those who deserve it, not just want it. Okay, so the reckless idiots who screwed up on Wall St playing with other people's money deserve a trillion dollar bailout, but someone with a disability but still works as much as they can doesn't deserve government run health care? That doesn't sound like conservative values to me.
You are right. Bush has behaved like a Democrat. Spend spend spend. It doesn't work. How is Obama going to fix that by spending more?
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Reality will set in once Obama is elected and he will see that more money cannot be spent.

Another federal agency is being constructed now to run the bailout program. More government.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
otlset

Heh heh, you guys should welcome my "diversity" to the board! -_-. My "culture" is as valid as yours is!

I realized some would consider my views, based on my own life's experiences, as condescending. Yet it is difficult to express it any other way. I like directness.

And really, to me what I wrote of my experience was not NEARLY as condescending as Obama has been to those who would like to know about his relationship (as an indication of character, which can shed light on what he might do once he's in office) when he describes William Ayers as:

"just a guy from the neighborhood".

Really.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
The jehovah witness said, they don't vote. We only rule under god. and he is already a ruler.
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LadyMacca
Member Avatar
-Imagine-
Obama 110%
-Liz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThirdHarmony
Member Avatar

A bit of silliness in the midst of all the anxiety surrounding the financial crisis crept into the local news here today. They were talking about the recent Gallup study which showed only 9% of Americans are pleased with the current situation. A typo resulted in the accidental omission of the "% of" - causing the following statement:

"...only 9 Americans are pleased with the current situation."

"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

maccascruff
Oct 7 2008, 05:10 PM
Reality will set in once Obama is elected and he will see that more money cannot be spent.

Another federal agency is being constructed now to run the bailout program. More government.
That's right. For everything that we know now, neither candidate knows the true state of the books and won't until one of them takes office. The question is who you trust to make calm, rational decisions when he finds out what the Bush administration has been hiding.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

ThirdHarmony
Oct 7 2008, 10:20 PM
A bit of silliness in the midst of all the anxiety surrounding the financial crisis crept into the local news here today. They were talking about the recent Gallup study which showed only 9% of Americans are pleased with the current situation. A typo resulted in the accidental omission of the "% of" - causing the following statement:

"...only 9 Americans are pleased with the current situation."

I don't think that was a typo. ;) :no:

Those 9 are the CEOs who bailed out with their golden parachutes before the rest of us got stuck with the bill. :nono:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Bill
Oct 8 2008, 12:42 AM
maccascruff
Oct 7 2008, 05:10 PM
Reality will set in once Obama is elected and he will see that more money cannot be spent.

Another federal agency is being constructed now to run the bailout program. More government.
That's right. For everything that we know now, neither candidate knows the true state of the books and won't until one of them takes office. The question is who you trust to make calm, rational decisions when he finds out what the Bush administration has been hiding.
And neither one will know until they actually see what is happening.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Oct 7 2008, 05:34 AM
Mia Culpa
Oct 7 2008, 05:29 AM
If it were Obama/Palin versus McCain/Biden who would you vote for?
Excellent question.

If Obama had chosen Palin, I think that would negate everything he ever said about sound judgement. If McCain had chosen Biden, it would tell me that he was still the McCain of pre-2007, who I had far more respect for than the erratic, pandering McCain of 2008.
So in that unlikely scenario, I'd be supporting McCain.
Really?

So you'd vote for the "older" version of McCain before Obama?

I thought you were all gung-ho on Obama's idealisms and policies...so what's the reasons for a change of opinion to the "old" McCain?
Edited by Bag O' Nails, Oct 8 2008, 01:59 AM.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Well Heidi, you really need to go back and read what I've said about McCain in the past, and also pay close attention to the part of my comment that you didn't bold. It's only McCain's behaviour over the last 18 months that has made me lose respect for him.

I was working with Mia's premise. If Obama threw away his principles the way McCain has, and McCain didn't, then I'd support McCain. That's just common sense.

In reality, Obama hasn't behaved as recklessly as McCain which is why I still support Obama. Nothing has changed. I always said an Obama/McCain race was the best possible outcome. It hasn't been nearly as good as I had hoped, but at least one candidate hasn't let me down.

I'd be interested to know your answer to Mia's hypothetical question.
Edited by Bill, Oct 8 2008, 02:52 AM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I thought it was an excellent debate.

People are going to talk about who "won" the lack of a "knockout punch" and all that garbage but really, this was the kind of campaigning I'd been hoping to see in the wider campaign.

It was unfortunate when they both began to repeat points they had made in the previous debate. McCain should have known better than to talk about telegraphing your strategy when he knew Obama was going to come back with a "bomb Iran" song again. McCain tried to justify it by saying it was a private joke with a veteran - dude, it's on YouTube. Not very private.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

I had less patience with this debate for some reason. I felt McCain was campaigning rather than debating. Enough of the rhetorical "my friends" crap. I felt Obama warmed up as he went along and I appreciated his answers on prioritizing issues, rather than the expected McCain response of saying we can work on it all at once. And if the social security issue is so fixable according to McCain, why hasn't he spoken up before about it before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

McCain contradicted himself by saying he could do both things at once after bragging about "suspending" his campaign to work on the economic crisis (even though it took him 22 hours to fly from New York to Washington and showed up after the deal was in the can).

Check out Obama's body language though. He is cool. I'm not talking Fonzie cool, I mean calm and collected. He continued to look at McCain and smile respectfully even when McCain was distorting Obama's words. So many other candidates from both parties would be shaking their heads or rolling their eyes or sulking in some way, but Obama didn't miss a beat. To be fair, McCain didn't do any of that either, but I was impressed at how Obama hasn't flinched no matter what has been thrown at him. To me, that indicates either a cool head, great discipline, or both. Good qualities to have in a leader.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

Yes, Bill - Obama exhibits a presidential temperament - calm, cool and confident (sounds like a deoderant ad :P ) assertive, but not aggressive or rattled. I think this is very important. I don't like "in your face" antics. He never seems really rattled or thrown off course.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"