Obama Youth?

[tyflier]

First, I never cried foul in regards to him not being able to do it in 6 months. Here is a news flash, HE keeps backing up the time line. He beat that dead horse into the next month and kicked it into the next century during the campaign. Obama is the one who said he had a stategy to have us out in less than a year (I think, I may be off a little), but he keeps backing that up now.

Truth is, if all the Obama supporters feel Bush was that evil AND intelligent, then he would still be in office if he wanted. Heck, if he could convince congress to go to war with bogus info, then surely he could convince them to do away with term limits right? Seriously, you give him too much credit!

Secondly, I haven't stated we should pull out either, but it is hard to take a party serious when all during hte last House, Senate and Presidential campaigns they keep saying we can get us out, it was all the Republicans fault, but once they get in, they can't do it. That tells me one of two things, ethier they didn't have a clue wht they were talking about and actually had/have no real strategy OR they just said what it took to get votes????

dc

Did you actually read what you quoted, or did you just see my name and figure you had an argument against it? Because really...your reply doesn't address any of the REAL reasons why we are still there...

And the last thing in the world I would bestow upon G-Dubya Bush is intelligence...on ANY level...

 

[starsevol]

Semantics? Really? If "they" chose to call it a Depression...would it help? Our financial institutions are in ruins, requiring bailouts from the government(initiated under Bush). Our medical facilities are in a shambles compared to other "developed nations". Our education system is an absolute dsaster. And yes...our debt is now higher than it has ever been in history. You know what it takes to fix these things? MONEY. So yea...it IS justifiable.

You wanna make your money and keep your money. So do I. That's why I am AGAINST large financial institutions being allowed to "self-regulate"...we know where that gets us. That's why I am AGAINST large insurance companies being allowed to charge whatever they want, increaser those rates on average by 12% every year, and still refuse to pay for services based on "pre-existing" (uhh...we are human. we all start to die at the moment of birth. ALL conditions are pre-existing). That's why I am AGAINST the richest 2% of the nation getting tax breaks and tax cuts and tax credits every year(because I have to pick up the slack). That's why I am AGAINST privatizing profits while publicizing debt(thanks again, Bush administration).

See...if you want a society with services, institutions, regulations, law enforcement and a military...you gotta pay for that. If you want a society with educated people that are healthy, viable, able to contribute, able to work and able to be responsible citizens...it costs money. If you want a prison system that actually works, criminals off the street, and the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...it costs money. That money comes from taxes.

Funny how taxes effect change, and help us get out of debt, but everyone complaining about the debt, the money spent to effect change, and the policies to effect change don't want to pay taxes. How's that for irony?

Here, let me put it simply. Basically, what I keep reading over and over again in this thread is, "I want change. But don't expect ME to pay for the change, because if I have to pay to make changes...it's socialism. I want you to change everything that I supported for the last 8 years, and if it doesn't change this moment, you aren't doing your job. I want to live in an economically stable society where I get to keep my money when I make it, but if you try to regulate business practices to protect the country from unscrupulous businesses, it's socialism".

Hopeless. A hopeless lot that cannot see the forrest because there are too many damn trees in the way...

Or maybe it's OK if you have to give every penny you make to someone that runs a different corporation(like medical insurance or ENRON), as long as that money isn't used to help someone that might actually need a little help...

Sorry, there is NO WAY to justify spending more money than every single President has EVER spent.
Let me break this down...Obama has spent MORE than Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland. McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush COMBINED!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is throwing money at a problem, ALWAYS the first solution that liberals come up with?

 

[Camby]

Did you actually read what you quoted, or did you just see my name and figure you had an argument against it? Because really...your reply doesn't address any of the REAL reasons why we are still there...

And the last thing in the world I would bestow upon G-Dubya Bush is intelligence...on ANY level...

Yes I read it, hell I wrote it, they're called synapses!

Also, I have no issues with you. Truth is, on a few occasions when I first started posting on this site that you seemed to try and "pick a fight" with me but maybe that was because I was "new". No hard feelings towards you.

I wasn'ttrying to address the REAL issues as you called it. Maybe I misinterpreted your quote to me when you said I cried foul. I am mearly making the point, that the Democrats could not have been so blind and stupid tht Bush was able to convince them to start a war and stay there. Then I made the point that when the elctions rolled around, the dims all started beating that dead horse about how they were dupped and they could get us out of Iraq in no more than 12-16 months. Now we are looking at 2 more years. Just pointing out they either lied or are clueless.

If you want me to address the "real" issue, then I agree with you, no matter how we have arrived in this war (for the record, I didn't FULLY support it. I had reservations), we are there and it would be a huge travesty to abandon those people now and would open us up to potential future homeland dangers. How would I get us out? I have no real idea but I am not sure at this point we can be out within the next 5 years at best. Make you feel?better?

dc

 

[mike17l]

Semantics? Really? If "they" chose to call it a Depression...would it help? Our financial institutions are in ruins, requiring bailouts from the government(initiated under Bush). Our medical facilities are in a shambles compared to other "developed nations". Our education system is an absolute dsaster. And yes...our debt is now higher than it has ever been in history. You know what it takes to fix these things? MONEY. So yea...it IS justifiable.

You wanna make your money and keep your money. So do I. That's why I am AGAINST large financial institutions being allowed to "self-regulate"...we know where that gets us. That's why I am AGAINST large insurance companies being allowed to charge whatever they want, increaser those rates on average by 12% every year, and still refuse to pay for services based on "pre-existing" (uhh...we are human. we all start to die at the moment of birth. ALL conditions are pre-existing). That's why I am AGAINST the richest 2% of the nation getting tax breaks and tax cuts and tax credits every year(because I have to pick up the slack). That's why I am AGAINST privatizing profits while publicizing debt(thanks again, Bush administration).

See...if you want a society with services, institutions, regulations, law enforcement and a military...you gotta pay for that. If you want a society with educated people that are healthy, viable, able to contribute, able to work and able to be responsible citizens...it costs money. If you want a prison system that actually works, criminals off the street, and the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...it costs money. That money comes from taxes.

Funny how taxes effect change, and help us get out of debt, but everyone complaining about the debt, the money spent to effect change, and the policies to effect change don't want to pay taxes. How's that for irony?

Here, let me put it simply. Basically, what I keep reading over and over again in this thread is, "I want change. But don't expect ME to pay for the change, because if I have to pay to make changes...it's socialism. I want you to change everything that I supported for the last 8 years, and if it doesn't change this moment, you aren't doing your job. I want to live in an economically stable society where I get to keep my money when I make it, but if you try to regulate business practices to protect the country from unscrupulous businesses, it's socialism".

Hopeless. A hopeless lot that cannot see the forrest because there are too many damn trees in the way...

Or maybe it's OK if you have to give every penny you make to someone that runs a different corporation(like medical insurance or ENRON), as long as that money isn't used to help someone that might actually need a little help...

Flat tax (no income, just sales tax) would solve any and all of these problems. The only candidate in the last election that had that notion is Huckabee, hopefully he has a chance in a few years.

And for the record, I did not agree with the Bush bailouts any more than I did with the Obama bailouts.

 

[Camby]

Anyone remember during the debates, many times Obama would hold up the right hand with the index finger half folded and look directly intot the camera and say "let there be no doubt, there will be tough choices to be made".

I wonder how many of his supporters realized those tough choices meant we either except or get mad at the fact he was going to tax us into oblivion? I imagine a good number of them, well, at least enough that his ratings have dropped around 20+ % right?

Also, you want a true indicator of what the WORLD thought about our election results then look at what the stock market did the following day. There wasn't that huge jump in points due to overwhelming optimisim was there? Like it or not, people were hoping for a change and we are danged sure getting it now no matter if we had the chance to grab something and brace or not.

dc

 

[starsevol]

Anyone remember during the debates, many times Obama would hold up the right hand with the index finger half folded and look directly intot the camera and say "let there be no doubt, there will be tough choices to be made".

I wonder how many of his supporters realized those tough choices meant we either except or get mad at the fact he was going to tax us into oblivion? I imagine a good number of them, well, at least enough that his ratings have dropped around 20+ % right?

Also, you want a true indicator of what the WORLD thought about our election results then look at what the stock market did the following day. There wasn't that huge jump in points due to overwhelming optimisim was there? Like it or not, people were hoping for a change and we are danged sure getting it now no matter if we had the chance to grab something and brace or not.

dc

Yeah, tell me about it. I bought stock in 3 companies the day before the election, believing that the stock market would be up the next day because the "people" were happy. HUGE mistake!

 

[starsevol]

Flat tax (no income, just sales tax) would solve any and all of these problems. The only candidate in the last election that had that notion is Huckabee, hopefully he has a chance in a few years.

And for the record, I did not agree with the Bush bailouts any more than I did with the Obama bailouts.

I wholeheartedly agree with every word of this....

 

[Pruddock]

KJ - It really is an awesome feeling I will have to agree with that. Not sure if I could do it on a day in, day out basis and not wind up a (even more) sinacle bastard than I already am lol.

Now, since we're onto the bailout (not sure why we're there when this is a discussion of the ORIGINAL Obama speech. The revised one was very general and nothing new so I'd say thanks for the inspiration but I need to do some math) I just want to make a prediction and laugh when it happens. I'm calling it right now that the bottom hasn't even fallen out of our economy yet people. If you really understand economics (and not POLITICAL economics) then you understand the proven cyclical nature of how an economy works.

Let's remember that the banks actually failed during the Clinton administration and the Dems (Barney Frank, the wiley old fart) offered to help them out AS LONG AS they gave out loans and housing loans to those who could not afford them otherwise. This is where every economist, businessman, and politician in the world should have gone, "Wait... what?" but they didn't. Banks decided to capitalize and make some money putting them at fault as well, but this deal should NEVER have been offered in the first place.

So, the bottom SHOULD have fallen out there but we dump money into banks and we're rolling again under a false pretense. Then we get backhanded last year with the crash of AIG and Frannie and Freddie... wait a minute I think we've heard of them before. That's right! They took the money and gave it to people who couldn't pay it back to them! Didn't see that coming!

So now we're heading down and the economy is finally starting to crash as it SHOULD. In a sad attempt to try and win some votes everybody decides to pass the first spending bill saying "Look, I voted to save us!" when in fact they screwed us more. We dump more and MORE money into the economy and start seeing Wall Street even out, then make an EXTREMELY quick climb back out of the hole to where it is now. During this time, jobs continue to decrease, profits are still not being reported, and major companies are still wondering why they're not making money.

Reason - THE ECONOMY WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO FAIL AND BE REBUILT!!!

So, we can say we haven't given BO enough time, and we can say that Bush ruined the world with a grin and a stutter, or we can realize that our government in totality needs to sit and spin. I, personally, vote for option 3 and warn the rest of you about what needs to happen. The more you prolong it (and this has been PROVEN!!!) by dumping money into the economy that is not doing anything because it is backed by debt, the worse the fallout is going to be!

It's like letting a kid ride his/her bike with training wheels. It helps at first but sooner or later they need to come off, the kid has to fall, and learn to ride the bike for his/her self. Correct? Now, lets never ever take the training wheels off and allow the kid to go faster and faster and get larger and larger with those same, small training wheels on. Sooner or later they're going to break under the immense wait and if that kid is going to fast and is too big, it's gonna do A LOT more damage then if you'd taken them off and allowed him/her to learn to ride on their own. (just made that up on the spot and I liked the analogy lol)

So, I hope that BOTH parties choose to stop spending money and allow things to happen.


Chris - I just wanted to address one thing you said. You stated that our medical system is in shambles or something to that effect. You obviously do not work in the medical system and have no appreciation for it. I ask you to please visit the hospital in almost any other country in the world the same way you would attempt to here and see what happens.

PR

 

[ForkedTung]

So you reply back to my post, continue with the "funny" insults and then it's:

I am calling a truce or taking my ball and going home or whatever you want to call it.

You post your infantile tirades (your word) calling out other members for their posts and when someone responds to your school-yard bullying it's " I'm going home"? As for what I would call it...very simply and unequivocally ,
A cop-out.

Arguing with you is like arguing with my 12 year old daughter, there is no logic to it, it irritates me because she knows that if she keeps saying the same thing over and over I will eventually become bored and leave her to her illogical thoughts. Difference is though, I can ground her, you I can only unsubscribe from.

You sound like a wonderful father ( read: deep sarcasm and sympathy for your daughter). I guess everyone that doesn't agree with you is illogical although that's been pretty apparent from most of your posts.

Here's a quote for you that you could use for your signature;

If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory.,

Heck you could even preface your posts with it...at least the 'Died of a Theory' part.

Guess who wrote it?

The guy in your signature that you find so admirable as to publicly identify him with yourself ( hence 'your guy')
Jefferson Davis wrote that gem.

***I apologize to the members for allowing Camby and myself to take this thread off track. I will not respond to any more of his posts directed at myself, but would accept a PM from him if he would like to take this further.

 

[ForkedTung]

Flat tax (no income, just sales tax) would solve any and all of these problems. The only candidate in the last election that had that notion is Huckabee, hopefully he has a chance in a few years.

I'm all for it! I've always been a 'Flat-Taxer'.

 

[ZoologyGirl]

I did not take this as directed at me but since you quoted me I am curious which of your groups you perceive me to be apart of.

Honestly I don't know, like you said it wasn't directed at you (i'm glad you knew that because none of it was directed at you or anyone in particular). I didn't read this whole thread, so I'm not even sure where you even stand on the issue...for, against, neutral, whatever. I was only referring to your quote in the first paragraph I wrote, playing devil's advocate. The rest of my post is meant to be a seperate thought process.

 

[Camby]

So you reply back to my post, continue with the "funny" insults and then it's:
You post your infantile tirades (your word) calling out other members for their posts and when someone responds to your school-yard bullying it's " I'm going home"? As for what I would call it...very simply and unequivocally ,
A cop-out.

You sound like a wonderful father ( read: deep sarcasm and sympathy for your daughter). I guess everyone that doesn't agree with you is illogical although that's been pretty apparent from most of your posts.

Here's a quote for you that you could use for your signature;

If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory.,

Heck you could even preface your posts with it...at least the 'Died of a Theory' part.

Guess who wrote it?

The guy in your signature that you find so admirable as to publicly identify him with yourself ( hence 'your guy')
Jefferson Davis wrote that gem.

***I apologize to the members for allowing Camby and myself to take this thread off track. I will not respond to any more of his posts directed at myself, but would accept a PM from him if he would like to take this further.

Yeah I apologize to. For the record, I only "called out" two members, you and the other one, no more. I have enjoyed reading everyone elses comments. As far as a cop out and me calling a truce, it is because you bore me, you aren't offering anything productive to this discussion (my thoughts, can't speak for others). You just continue to keep bringing up Jefferson Davis :headbang:. Correct me if I am wrong, but you started the "insinuated" attack towards me by calling out my signature. You keep saying I look up to and admire Jefferson Davis. The fact is, I actually believe in that statement in my signature, plain and simple, that is it. I truly belive Does that imply I admire him as a being at whole? Apparently to you it does, but that is your thoughts, you jumped to that conclusion without verifying. Truth is I really do not give Davis much thought in the whole scheme of the War of Northern Agression. He was for the most part a weak leader. There are many more people on both sides from that era that I admire much more. Again, I just like the quote and believe in it's statment. Don't know what to tell you, if you don't like it, don't scroll as far down when you read my posts...shrug?

The "take the ball home" comment was sarcasm, sorry it fell short on you. I will be more blunt to you in the future since it is obvious you require that (that was sarcasm also, I deep down think you understood the whole take the ball home comment...pst, what is proper etiquette to show I am trying to whisper this to you?).

I guess everyone that doesn't agree with you is illogical. No, again, you are to thick to undersatnd anything I have said. I will listen to others points of view, but I want some substance. You offer no data, no facts, no anything, you simply agree or disagree with others. I think you just enjoy seeing your words in print rather than actually learning. Trust me, I am the first to admit when I am wrong about something or have misinterpreted a comment.

Other than that, I am not going to say anything on your fatherhood comment except that I do not respect you enough to continue that aspect of the discussion.

Don't bother checking your PM inbox, I do not plan to PM you. I know enough to understand I do not like you and have become bored with you. I think the feeling is recipocal, so why would I waste my time? You have proven you have nothing to offer me or at the very least, I am just to conservative for your to get at with your comments.

I was enjoying the path the discussion was taking prior to you and I getting into it. I have no hard feelings against TyFlier, I was concentrating on his and many others points. It doesn't mean they have changed my point of view, but I can talk with them and discuss things. With you I can't. Maybe it is just me and I am completely at fault, but you seem to bring out the bad in me only, no good :shrugs: One thing I agree with you on, we need to stop (you can have last word if you want, I promise not to respond) with each other and get back to the original discussion topic. OKFT, fire way, I will leave you alone.

dc

 

[Camby]

Signature

Sorry, forgot one thing. I tried following the address in yoursignature but www.buckeyeriverreptiles.com doesn't work. At least not for me. When I copied and pasted that into my browser, I was re-directed to a search engine. From the search engine I clicked the link to www.buckeyeriverreptiles.com and it said the page wasn't available. A google search offered me 2-3 different urls to your other sites I guess (didn't want to follow them). Those otehr urls are not listed in your signature. If I am correct, then maybe you should concentrate more on yoursignature rather than on mine???

Just an observation, if I am wrong, then egg on my face I guess no problem right?

 

[Roy Munson]

I'd like to think that I know enough about Daryl and Kyle to accept that they're both good guys. I like political discussion, except when it seems to make foes out of people who might otherwise get along. You guys don't need to be QUITE so aggressive.

 

[ForkedTung]

I'd like to think that I know enough about Daryl and Kyle to accept that they're both good guys. I like political discussion, except when it seems to make foes out of people who might otherwise get along. You guys don't need to be QUITE so aggressive.

True, True Dean! But I'm sure you can imagine/empathize as well with what a burden it is to be right all the time...lol. I thought I was wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken...

 

[KJUN]

I wrote this to continue a debate....but it mainly turned into a history review....lol.

The guy in your signature that you find so admirable as to publicly identify him with yourself ( hence 'your guy') Jefferson Davis wrote that gem.

Do you even realize that Ole Jeff Davis was AGAINST succession from the union? He urged for the preservation of the union. He only served once it happened, anyway, because he did believe that each state was sovereign. Since the constitution WAS designed as a treaty among sovereign states, can you blame him for that? You call the man who tried to keep the union together (until it split up against his wishes) and believed in the constitution according to its original intent a traitor? I have to ask - a traitor to WHAT exactly? Maybe he was a racist - I can't argue that. However, so was Lincoln....and probably ~99% of the whites in the US at the time. Even the whites running the underground railroad didn't generally consider the escaped slaves "good enough" to eat at the family table so to speak. Being against slavery and being a racist were NOT mutually exclusive.

With all that said, the man is in no way brilliant nor a good leader. He was a horrible micro-manager of people under him and within his country. He printed excess money to pay for bills ignoring run-away inflation. He put bad people in important jobs because he liked them. For the record, I'm still talking about Jeff Davis no matter HOW much this sounds like I am describing Obama now. LOL.

Oh, and the brother-against-brother thing wasn't unique to that war of civil unrest. That seems to be the case in practically any such war. It'll be like that in the next one if things get that bad. (There I go again using an IF-THEN statement knowing full well that people will misunderstand it.....LOL.)

Now, since we're onto the bailout (not sure why we're there when this is a discussion of the ORIGINAL Obama speech. The revised one was very general and nothing new so I'd say thanks for the inspiration but I need to do some math)

BINGO. Some people claim, "See - there was nothing to get mad about!" but if there wouldn't have been the uproar, then there would have been. The revised speech was seemingly due to the public uproar. Personally, I'm PROUD of what Americans did to cause Obama to change his speech. I haven't heard it (yet), but what I have heard about it makes it sound like a good speech. Great. The original intended one DESERVED the outrage, though. I'm proud of people that raised hell after seeing through his insidious plans.

Let's remember that the banks actually failed during the Clinton administration and the Dems (Barney Frank, the wiley old fart) offered to help them out AS LONG AS they gave out loans and housing loans to those who could not afford them otherwise. This is where every economist, businessman, and politician in the world should have gone, "Wait... what?" but they didn't. Banks decided to capitalize and make some money putting them at fault as well, but this deal should NEVER have been offered in the first place.

Shhhhh! Don't talk about the Fair Housing Act that led to this since the Democrats voted it in. Don't talk how "their" law made banks give loans to people with low pay and poor credit. Don't talk about how BUSH'S administration warned about this and the bipartisan Congress (might have been dominated by Dems by then - I'm not sure) ignored the warning. Don't talk about that. After all, IT IS ALL BUSH'S FAULT! Everything - even what the dems did - is Bush's fault. The Democrats passing the largest spending bill in history without even reading it is all Bush's fault. Bush screwed up a lot, but even the things other Parties did is HIS FAULT! Get that through your thick skull, P!

'Flat-Taxer'.

A flat tax is an over-simplification that can not work in an overly complex society - like ours - unless you give up all hopes for equality in payments (and that usually ends up with pressure to overhaul the system into something new). Supporting a true flat tax just shows the lack of knowledge by the supporter. Wasn't Huckabee (spelling) pushing a sales tax? If so, that is not a flat tax. Again, flat taxes don't work. If you try to fix it with exceptions, then it is no longer a flat tax! Realize the "poor" will have to pay a higher percentage than they do now to cover for the lower percentage paid by the "wealthy" - unless the boost to the economy from such a system was LARGE and permanent. "Large" is an unlikely result, and no economy can grow permanently as long as resources are fintie...and all resources eventually "become" finite.

The sales tax might work. though. I'd like to see exceptions on food and medications (at least generic medications). In other words, no tax on the BARE necessities. Maybe even a lower tax on "utility" clothing or something. HOWEVER, the sales tax could generate as much money for the gov as the needed, and people that make more (who spend more) WOULD pay more. The "rich" wouldn't be able to buy exceptions. The poor wouldn't have to pay it. If they can't afford that TV with the tax on it, they just don't buy it. They don't REQUIRE a TV, anyway. People that DON'T want to support the regime could just NOT buy things. Save it, invest it, burn it, but more food - whatever. You'd KNOW what you were paying as you paid it. It wouldn't be stolen from you since you don't HAVE to buy luxury items, etc. Would it hurt some businesses? Sure - maybe. BUT if one takes home more money, then they can SPEND more money. It should come pretty close to balancing out in the end, anyway.

I DO support a sales tax. I do not support a true flat tax - I don't believe it is sustainable even in the short term.

OT: Do y'all realize that the division of the IRS that handles inheritance tax LOOSES money? it is negative. It costs us more to collect inheritance taxes than we make. If it was repealed, we could save money AND people could keep Daddy's earnings. Of course, the idea of the inheritance tax was NEVER for the revenue. The real purpose (which isn't hidden - this is not paranoia...just truth) should be pretty obvious to everyone.

why I find the outrage over the Obama speech a little overblown.

The outrage was over the parts he choose not to say....thankfully. I'm proud that it apparently resulted in a change. The speech he did give sounds like it WAS a good one...and I'm glad. I'm also VERY glad that a number of schools choose to educate their kids instead of showing it no matter what it said. The only time I EVER remember watching the "news" in school was when the Challenger blew up. That's about the way I think it should be, too......unless they are shown as comparisons (different speakers) in an unbiased social studies class.

Oh, and why did the "Great Emancipator" take two years to draft the Emancipation Proclomation? If the war was being fought over slavery, why wasn't that article drafted almost immediately after SC secceded? Not that you will, but dig and you will find that answer also. You can never trust ANY politician of ANY party.

Can I guess? I'd guess that it was because he really wasn't fighting to end slavery. Lincoln had no goals about ending it - he just wanted the FIGHT among the states to end - when he got elected. He himself said he didn't know what to do. He did NOT say, we will end slavery. Maybe it was partially because he himself had said "blacks are not the equal of white." Lincoln isn't the good guy history has made him look like. (FYI for those that don't know it, the great southern heros like Lee and Jackson didn't really support slavery - they just felt it was in God's hands to end. They fought because they couldn't go against their homeland - they did not fight to KEEP slavery as a policy. Before thinking otherwise, people that attack these guys should at least TRY to find out the slavery situation on Lee's farm when the war started......and what he had been doing years previously.)

Oooooo, and don't forget that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a SINGLY slave - and Lincoln new it. Read it. It freed slaves in lands owned by a foreign government (the CSA). It didn't free a single slave in the union OR in lands in the CSA that were currently under USA control. Repeat - Lincoln only "freed" slaves in an area that they had no governmental control over. Ha! If he really wanted to free slaves, why didn't he just say he was freeing them on ALL lands that were ever part of the USA whether in the state of rebellion or not. Think about that while chewing your cud.

The problem with the deomcratic party is tht they do not operate under the premisis of a "democracy". It is either their way or no way, maybe they should change their party name to the "dictator" party?

It sounds like you are referencing Ted Kennedy's replacement now....lol. Funny how the Dems want an election when republican is in charge and an appointee when the governor is a Dem. Wait - THAT IS BUSH'S FAULT, TOO! (I'm practicing to sound like a Democrat when the census man from ACORN comes by!)

Yes...based on lies and false "intelligence", which the Party in power KNEW were lies, false, and outdated, yet failed to mention until AFTER they were out of office and out of power.

When I see something in my sleep, I call them dreams.

Yes, deary. In order to drag our country out of the DEEPEST FINANCIAL PIT IN HISTORY...it took some cash. At least you got THAT part right... oke:

That method NEVER worked before. Why should it have worked this time? (Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time is insanity.) Something else has had to pull us out by our bootstraps. (Hint: FDR and war...........) Sooo, Bush spends money and it crashes us. Obama spends money and it saves us. That makes sense! I get it now.

what I keep reading over and over again in this thread is, "I want change.

Come on. Where do you see the anti-Obama people saying they wanted this expensive change? I was pretty much happy with the status quo as a bare minimum. If I want change (and I do), it is the opposite of what Obama is doing. I want less government. I want less spending. I want everything that costs less. ...and yes, I do want to pay for that...and I do believe it will be the best for the country in the long run. Realize that almost half of the people that voted did so in support of a platform basically supporting the status quo. Now, you say those are the ones screaming for change? The only change most of us seem to be pushing for is one away from Obama's run away printing machines!

 

[Pruddock]

As another poster so eloquently put it in this thread your words do absolutely nothing for your cause other than lower yourself in the eyes of fellow debaters and show me that you feel threatened and or dumbfounded by my statements.

I'm claiming copyright to that statement Forked and I'm coming after you for it :nyah: lol

 

[tsst]

Honestly I don't know, like you said it wasn't directed at you (i'm glad you knew that because none of it was directed at you or anyone in particular). I didn't read this whole thread, so I'm not even sure where you even stand on the issue...for, against, neutral, whatever. I was only referring to your quote in the first paragraph I wrote, playing devil's advocate. The rest of my post is meant to be a seperate thought process.

lol Actually I think the post you quoted was my first post in this thread.

I guess I am kind of mixed on this issue. I don't really think any politician (rep, dem, president, congressman, senator, foreign or domestic) and their beliefs need to be injected into our daily school activities past the point of normal curriculum. I don't however have an issue with an outside of school publicly broadcast speech encouraging kids to stay in school, like a PSA. I didn't care for the initial phrasing involved, i.e. the 'help me' part rather than help our country. Especially when combined with videos of public icons declaring their servitude. Whether we like it or not our kids tend to idolize actors/actresses, sports figures, etc.

My daughter is 17 and asks many questions in general. When she asks about politics I tell her very simply to disregard the party involved and decide whether she agrees or disagrees solely on the merit of the topic or issue at hand, period. She is strong minded enough to disagree with me on some topics and we discuss why. But I never try to pressure change in her opinion for the simple reason of conforming with mine and to that end I don't want Demi Moore doing it either.

 

[ForkedTung]

My daughter is 17 and asks many questions in general. When she asks about politics I tell her very simply to disregard the party involved and decide whether she agrees or disagrees solely on the merit of the topic or issue at hand, period.

What an excellent way to look at it, I think we've all probably been guilty of the complete opposite at times with a complete disregard to out own biases.

 

[tyflier]

...Now, since we're onto the bailout (not sure why we're there when this is a discussion of the ORIGINAL Obama speech. The revised one was very general and nothing new so I'd say thanks for the inspiration but I need to do some math) I just want to make a prediction and laugh when it happens. I'm calling it right now that the bottom hasn't even fallen out of our economy yet people. If you really understand economics (and not POLITICAL economics) then you understand the proven cyclical nature of how an economy works.

Let's remember that the banks actually failed during the Clinton administration and the Dems (Barney Frank, the wiley old fart) offered to help them out AS LONG AS they gave out loans and housing loans to those who could not afford them otherwise. This is where every economist, businessman, and politician in the world should have gone, "Wait... what?" but they didn't. Banks decided to capitalize and make some money putting them at fault as well, but this deal should NEVER have been offered in the first place.

So, the bottom SHOULD have fallen out there but we dump money into banks and we're rolling again under a false pretense. Then we get backhanded last year with the crash of AIG and Frannie and Freddie... wait a minute I think we've heard of them before. That's right! They took the money and gave it to people who couldn't pay it back to them! Didn't see that coming!

So now we're heading down and the economy is finally starting to crash as it SHOULD. In a sad attempt to try and win some votes everybody decides to pass the first spending bill saying "Look, I voted to save us!" when in fact they screwed us more. We dump more and MORE money into the economy and start seeing Wall Street even out, then make an EXTREMELY quick climb back out of the hole to where it is now. During this time, jobs continue to decrease, profits are still not being reported, and major companies are still wondering why they're not making money.

Reason - THE ECONOMY WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO FAIL AND BE REBUILT!!!

So, we can say we haven't given BO enough time, and we can say that Bush ruined the world with a grin and a stutter, or we can realize that our government in totality needs to sit and spin. I, personally, vote for option 3 and warn the rest of you about what needs to happen. The more you prolong it (and this has been PROVEN!!!) by dumping money into the economy that is not doing anything because it is backed by debt, the worse the fallout is going to be!

It's like letting a kid ride his/her bike with training wheels. It helps at first but sooner or later they need to come off, the kid has to fall, and learn to ride the bike for his/her self. Correct? Now, lets never ever take the training wheels off and allow the kid to go faster and faster and get larger and larger with those same, small training wheels on. Sooner or later they're going to break under the immense wait and if that kid is going to fast and is too big, it's gonna do A LOT more damage then if you'd taken them off and allowed him/her to learn to ride on their own. (just made that up on the spot and I liked the analogy lol)

So, I hope that BOTH parties choose to stop spending money and allow things to happen.


Chris - I just wanted to address one thing you said. You stated that our medical system is in shambles or something to that effect. You obviously do not work in the medical system and have no appreciation for it. I ask you to please visit the hospital in almost any other country in the world the same way you would attempt to here and see what happens.

PR

The only post that makes more sense than I have in my pocket in the entire thread. Partisan politics is not the way to solve our current situation. The blame game isn't going to work, because every president is partly to blame. Bailouts aren't going to work. And closing your eyes and pretending it will all go away isn't going to work. We all need to sit back and take a long, hard look at all the lines of BS we have been spoon fed from both sides of the fence over the last 15-20 years of "prosperity"...

Peyton-

By our medical system being in a shambles, I was not referring to the level of care available, as we have the most educated and highest paid medical resources in the world, well with the ability to provide a top-notch level of care to every citizen of the country.

I was referring to the fact that medical expenses in this country aer higher than any other nation in the world, medical insurance rates are higher than any other nation in the world, and the "dividing wall" between those that recieve QUALITY care and those that recieve BARE MINIMUM care is money. And this is the only country where that happens.

Absolutely they have the ability to provide the highest level of care for every citizen...they just don't. I can only get high quality treatment if I can afford to pay some insurance company a couple grand a month, or afford to take out a second mortgage to cover a broken leg. Otherwise, I am stuck sitting in a dirty, dingy clinic surrounded by 200 sick and dying people with open wounds, bacterial infections, and worse until some overworked and underpaid intern can see me and tell me there is nothing he can do but put a cast on it or a stitch in it. That is a shambles, and it is a distinct failing of our medical institutions. And it is because our insurance companies have gone "self-regulated" for so long. And the moment someone tries to put in regulations to control them...people scream about socialism...

I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and say that there aren't very many people on this forum that have had to make the choice between the electric bill and food on the table. I'm gonna go further and say that there aren't very many people on this forum that have had the distinct displeasure of their father splint and cast their own arm because they couldn't afford insurance or treatment.

Better yet...a show of hands...how many have ever had to wonder when they went to bed at night if they were going to be able to find enough work to make enough money to put dinner on the table tomorrow?

There's an old saying...Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. Well...I ain't judging anyone in this forum, but my simple observation is that there are very few participating in this post that have ever in their lives had to worry about making ends meet. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most of the people participating in this thread have never, since birth, been a part of a family whose income fell below the poverty level...

Call it a hunch, but people that have had need don't typically refuse others that are IN need...The rest call us lazy, dirty liberals, no good, and social leeches. C'est la vie...I'm out...