GMAN said:

Boy, you SURE did! I've been avoiding answering THIS "manifesto" as well, but I guess I have no other challenges at the moment. I'm home sick today, so I'm bored. I WILL say, GMAN, that I enjoy our debates immensely. I know that I can easily get out of hand, but YOU so rarely do! You must have the patience of Job.... if somewhat lacking in the wisdom of Solomon.

Although I meant, and usually DO, more than just what appears on the surface.... you are probably right that I was basing that on the Patriot Act. Interesting that because we BOTH adhere so strictly to the constitution in our "own" ways, that we would both object to Dubya's actions. But, more to the point, I was saying that you HAD the right to say such inflammatory things, but that it was neither wise, respectful, nor any more relevant than when you originally said it. You asked the question.... I answered it.

I don't SEE this. What have they done to silence the opposition? I know that "I" would not have stood for ARMED people at a demonstration! I don't care if they had a permit or not! That is bad security.... and IMHO.... a HUGE deference on Obama's part to Constitutional rights! The Tea Party AND FoxNews operate with full impunity... and are even covered by what you call the "lamestream media."

As for the Conservative talk shows and the fairness doctrine? I am not really FOR using that ancient legislation to "level the playing field." There are reasons that conservative talk shows have high ratings and AirAmerica went broke.... but, it has little to do with being CORRECT. There is a question on the floor (by rrobert, I believe,) about this.... and I will give my opinion on it in time. It won't be taken well by most here on the board no matter HOW much I try to ameliorate the facts. But, TO ME... the question is not whether they have the right to their air time, or whether there should be equal time allotted for liberal talk, but whether ANYONE should be allowed to spew hateful speech and MISINFORMATION about the other party and their policies.

How can we ever expect to get along in this country, and find the "centrist" way (which HAS to be the case) if we allow people to LIE about what the other party says or does.... and stir up revolutionary feelings by playing on their basic beliefs and the fact that they aren't really checking this information for themselves???

And how is that different from what Dubya did to win popular consent for his war in Iraq? He not only co-opted the media... he coerced the head of the CIA! And WHO really profited most from his war of aggression (I believe that's what we called Hitler's war)????? Big Business.... Military Industrial Complex. GEE..... does that ring of Fascisim to you? Oh that's right.... you DIDN'T mention Mussolini, did you? I'll tell you ONE of the biggest differences between Obama and all the DICTATORS you love to mention..... Obama is trying to keep us OUT OF WARS.... and PROTECT us from a government ruled by BIG BUSINESS.

BOTH of those statements cut BOTH ways. But, I don't disagree that we need a FREE press (as long as it is responsible) to give the public BOTH sides of the story.

How many people do you talk to each day that are not either your conservative friends OR truck drivers that are, by nature, conservative?

I can't argue with ALL of this... but, I do with SOME. The particulars of Lobbyist legislation, limited but progressive transparency on website of legislation and information, and an ATTEMPT to reach across the aisle are there but are very hard to itemize and make any great point of. Let's just say that he was overly optimistic about his ability to get things done without a complete STONEWALL from the Party of "NO!" :lol2: I'm DISAPPOINTED.... but, I don't feel LIED to.

So did Bush!

Required because of the mess left to him by BUSH!

Not really true when you parse out the "bailout bill" that was passed under BUSH!

I'd be less than frank if I didn't admit that I am worried about this. But, it is really hard to tell what is truth when BOTH sides are distorting the facts and the "so called" neutral CBO is just "guessing." BUT.... you HAVE to look at the RADICAL precipice our economy was at when he took office! This was NOT just your Daddy's cyclical "recession!" I don't blame Bush entirely for the mess. It was like a Tsunami that few people saw coming.... especially while they were busy bombing "brown people" (as Carlin used to say) in foreign countries! :lol2:

It's not really a question of whether or not it is fair... but, whether or not they GAINED those riches in a FAIR manner. He is not trying to take from the rich (or as YOU believe... the MIDDLE CLASS...) to give to the POOREST.... (the ones "you guys" think are worthless scum who won't work at the NONEXISTENT jobs).... it is a matter of returning our economic system and our Free Market system to a more fairly balanced system where the MIDDLE CLASS, who BUYS most of the goods in this country, still HAVE a job and an income that they can USE to buy those goods without having to DROP their insurance coverage!

Since it is very difficult to force businesses to create jobs, it falls on relieving families of medical care costs that are bankrupting them so that they can continue to pay for groceries, cars, travel, homes, and Happy Meals!

You know Gman.... I can actually SEE your point here. And if I thought that YOU thought that YOU were one of those "rich Jewish business owners" .... I could understand your fear. But, you aren't.... HE isn't.... and I can't! It will take me some time.... but, I'm sure I can find OTHER instances in World History that APPEAR as coincidental as this... but, turned out for the betterment of that civilization and mankind in general. Off the top of my head.... and I could be wrong without checking.... but, Alexander the Great comes to mind!

And I find it interesting that you continue to repeat this, WITHOUT being able to substantiate it with a link, when it has been discussed thoroughly on all media outlets INCLUDING Foxnews.... and, it has been attributed ONLY to a statement by Ms. Jarret (one of his advisors) who clearly chose bad verbiage.... and has NEVER been attributed to Obama himself! But, hell.... FACTS be DAMNED! You're going to keep repeating it as long as it gives you a "woodie!" :hellno::lol2:

Well... I've heard those numbers, too! Of course.... ONLY on FoxNews! So, I did some googling and research on polls, polling, how they ask their questions, and all that stuff! I spent HOURS on it recently. I've got about 10 links that I would like to give you (and I might when I have time,) but.... I couldn't find that number ANY FRIGGIN WHERE!!!! Not even on the FOXNews polls!!! So.... I ask you.... WHY are so many "talking heads" on FoxNews quoting that figure when it can't even be found ANYWHERE using GOOGLE??? :hellno:

Oh yeah.... I know.... it's because they KNOW that they can get away with saying it, cuz people like you will believe them and it will STICK!!! :hellno:

We MUST be living on different planets... cuz, I remember a BAILOUT of AIG, but not a "takeover." I remember a "bailout" of ONE car company (which we own some stock in) and a selloff of the other. [Do you remember the bailout of Chrysler back in some Republican day?]

And MOST of the money we loaned to the banking industry has been PAID BACK WITH INTEREST!!! Where are your friggin EARS when these FACTS are being told every day on both mainstream media AND even on the fringe network Foxnews??? You've drank so much of the Koolaid, that it's hard to even discuss this with you! Obama has not "taken over" ANY industry in this country!!! And he has NO PLANS to take over the healthcare industry! He's NOT going to pull the plug on Grandma... and he's NOT going to "mix races" with your daughters! Sheesh! :hellno:

Man... I just don't have the energy to fight all of this! The unemmployment "slide" started under Bush. The LARGEST numbers of job losses were in the last months of Bush's admininstration and the first few months of the next year.... even BEFORE Obama was elected! The numbers have been trending DOWN ever since! Losing a few tens of thousands of jobs in a month is MUCH better than losing the 6-7 HUNDRED thousands of jobs we were losing as the Bush "reign" transitioned into the Obama "clean up" mission!

In case you haven't noticed (and someone on another thread asked where we are today vs. a year ago....) we were losing about 600,000 jobs a month when Bush left office. That number is now in the TENS of thousands. The stock market was at a low of about 7 thousand.. when Obama took office (or shortly after as things shook out) and NOW is back up to highs that are just under the "ballooned" historical highs that got us where we are! A report that came out just a day or two ago, showed that the GDP rose by something like 5 or 6 % in the last quarter of 2009..... the LARGEST improvement in six years!!! Just WHAT the F*CK do you guys WANT as an indicator of the fact that we are climbing out of this really BAD recession??? :eek2::eek2::hellno::moon::moon::moon:

I don't see ANY proof that he has "attacked" organized religion. He has REVERSED some things that the Moral Majority (where ARE they now?) had snuck INTO our government under that idiot BUSH. ONE point is this.... HITLER has been DEAD for years!!! And the U.S. has done just FINE until the last 8 years when the religious fanatics tried to hijack the constitution and the government! NIXON .... not even REAGAN..... tried to impose as much "religion" into our federal government as was done under bush..... and OBAMA has done less to remove it than Clinton did!

Yeah, I remember that, and I will do the research necessary to prove you wrong! Unless you are willing to ACCEPT defeat.... do your OWN googling and find me some proof to back up your position.

Damn I am getting tired of arguing with a brick!

Although I am not sure I agree that it is the BIGGEST cost to healthcare... I agree that it is a major contributor and needs to be addressed. I WISH he had done more in this regard, but there IS a provision in the bill to start controlling this. Not the best of things.... but, progress!

First of all.... I HOPE you had good insurance! MILLIONS don't!! But, these UNECESSARY and multiple tests are part of what Obama wants to do away with.... without causing more risk to doctors! I agree that we need tort reform to go along with this reform.... and I admit I am displeased that it has not been given higher regard.

Yes there is. Just not as much as we'd like.... and your GOP friends wouldn't mention it.

Okay GMAN.... I'm NOT wanting to get personal here. I don't think you or your wife are old enough to be on Medicare.... and certainly not on Medicaid. So.... this is your PERSONAL insurance policy. Since you are an o/o.... this is not even a company (partially) paid policy. Right?

So.... since nothing has changed yet under Obamacare.... this "redundancy" is part of the way things have been for a long time. Or at least, the changes have been mandated by your PRIVATE insurance company.... raising THEIR costs AND yours! THIS is what is happening all over the country and in part is leading to middle class Americans either dropping their insurance or going broke!

HOW can you DEFEND this "status quo?" :eek2:

I feel your pain, but I disagree. I believe these things are EXACTLY what will be addressed under Obamacare.

And THIS is where you lose ALL relevancy and consideration from me. I don't waste time on "conspiracy theorists."

I SEE this point, and I am aware of the "malpractice lawyer" lobbyists. I just don't see why you single out THEM and not the lobbyists for the Insurance Companies that have bought and paid for the votes against reform by the "Party of NO!"

And to make matters worse.... the conservative leaning SCOTUS has ruled (against ALL PRECEDENT) that the big insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and all their PACS can spend ALL THE MONEY they want to influence congressional elections in the near future! :hellno:

 

I'm afraid you really missed on that one. Do a little research for yourself. But, you'll have to really do some looking because it's not easy to find. Take a look at the MAJOR contributors to his campaign. Why do you suppose the health insurance is MANDATORY? Look at his major contributors, and then look at their occupation and mission in life.

Now you know why the financial institutions got bailouts, and the taxpayer that needs it still has not gotten one. Pull your head out of the sand, will you? Do a little research beyond your favorite news media.

"FAILURE SHALL NOT BE REWARDED". AIG execs contributed to his campaign, then nothing was said when they got their "REWARD FOR FAILURE". They weren't rewarded for failure. They were rewarded for contributing to a successful campaign. And, that reward was many times over. Want to see just how far the undercurrent runs behind the scenes? Do your own research on the subject. Unless you are so hypnotized that it won't make any difference to you. What better way to make sure the insurance industry is a complete success? Mandatory insurance, that's how. Not ruled by big business?

 

Windwalker said:

"Fear not, for I am WITH THEE always." :smokin:

.....and:

"Success Is Its Own Reward."



:smokin:

 

I doubt it. There is a big difference between us. It is:

I've known where you stand, and now you know where I stand. And, I hardly think you're standing with me.

 

Windwalker said:

Well, that wasn't exactly what I meant by my cryptic response... but... do you really? Granted I don't claim to be a Conservative, but things aren't always as black and white as they seem.

Well, I hate to admit it sort of.... but, I guess I'm a fence sitter then. :lol:

A "centrist" doesn't have such a strong opinion about guns themselves. I like them... not IN LOVE with them. Don't believe in a total ban on them, but see the need to control some of the more deadly varieties, OR the people who can own them.

Changing this to something I can relate to.... smoking. I'm a smoker. But, if I DIDN'T smoke, I would still support the rights of those who DO to light up in public, at least SOME areas of restaurants, CERTAINLY in bars! NOT on a crowded subway train, but YES on the open air boarding platform.

I personally find homosexuality repugnant. I would PREFER that "they" tone it down and not be so flagrant about it in public. But, as a Constitutionalist, who believes in "equal protection under the law," I don't like the fact that our laws provide TAX and other Benefits for those who live in a Biblical "union" and deny such to those who are lifelong "roommates." Of course, for that matter, I don't like the fact that I lose out on some of those bennies by being UNMARRIED.

I believe in being as "self reliant" as possible. I am not happy about the welfare system or situation in our country. I supported Clinton's "Welfare to Work" program but I DON'T support the Conservative view of "cut them off and let them die!"

I don't agree with the fairness doctrine. I don't believe in censorship based on political view. I like (and listen to) many of the personalities on FoxNews. But, I don't like the overall bias and agenda of that network, and the flat out lies that they spread. I can't listen to Conservative talk radio, but I can't stand more than a few minutes of Liberal talk, either.

Well, I don't go to church. But, I don't campain to have any reference to God or religion squelched. I don't have a problem with the 10 Commandments being displayed in public places, (or Christmas displays, etc.) but I don't want children TAUGHT (in public schools) that there is a God and we should OBEY his laws. I'd PREFER that schools teach kids about ALL religions and the effects and impacts they've had on history. Religious "teaching" or indoctrination should be done at home or IN THE CHURCH! I support a voucher program to allow taxpayers to send their kids to parochial schools if they prefer.

A Centrist just wants the industry to play fair so that insurance and healthcare are affordable to all. Since they WON'T, he wants someone to DO something about it! He realizes that he is already paying for those who use the emergency room as a primary care provider, and wants a better system.

A Centrist will discuss it, wonder if there is a "flip side" version of it for liberals, and marvel at the way Conservatives see everything so black and white.

 

They problem with the Boy Scouts and the Boy's Choir? Girls, they need girls, its that simple.
I mean who needs to sword fight when you could have a couple of boxes girl scout cookies. I know this is a serious topic, so I don't mean to make light of it. I would personally like to see all phedophiles drown, but until that becomes a legal way of dealing with them. I say we fix the institutions that gave them the opportunities to harm children.

 

I can see it now. She goes out on a date with a really nice guy and they start talking about their younger days... "I was a boy scout," she says... His eyebrows climb up into his hairline...:roll:

His first thought... "When was the surgery done???":hellno:

 

First of all she would most like say I was a girl scout or just plain scout.

Noway, he would want to see her merit badges and then see about getting some tagalongs.:thumbsup:

 

And, if he goes camping, and she decides to go along, she'd be a bit more realistic than DEVILED EGGS on a CRYSTAL PLATTER.

Now, don't get me wrong. I can eat deviled eggs all day long, every day and never get tired of them. But, they don't survive well in an ice chest, and dumping the water does not get rid of all the mess. And, that doesn't even get into the diving in the lake to retrieve the crystal platter that slipped out of her hands when she was rinsing it off.

And, when the scouts went on a camping trip, (I was a boy once) the leaders would really have to be on their toes.

Of course, this is all assuming that the leaders are of a mind to work for the kids benefit, rather than their own agenda. Otherwise girls, as well as boys, would be put at risk. How many pedophiles are hetro, rather than homo or bi, where the boys are safe, but girls would be put at risk?

 

Naw, it was just the overall tone of the thread in general. It was getting a little too uncivil. You know I don’t like to lock threads if it can be avoided. Hell, I don't even like to drop the ban-hammer on people. You're living proof of that, latte-boy. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!!

You know, you keep saying that and I keep telling you, I don’t believe I ever said that. I know for a fact that I have said many times and on several boards and in many discussions that Palin would energize the base and she did. She would prevent McCain from getting completely destroyed in the election. She did. It was closer than it would have been without her. I know I also said that it was a shrewd move on McCains part and I still believe that. Problem is, it was too little, too late and while she galvanized the base, it drove away too many of the independents. Hindsite is 20/20. But again, I don’t believe I ever said that McCain would win because of her. Find the thread(s) and link my quote(s) and I’ll own it.