No worries. If she loses... she can just "REFUDIATE" the results of the election! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I HOPE we haven't "MISUNDERESTIMATED" her! :hellno::rofl::rofl:

Don't worry! According to HER... Shakespeare used to "coin new words" too!! :eek2::hellno:

 

out of context?? how do you mean? I addressed statements you made. It was NO way out of context, you may regret stating it but your regret does not change the facts. Obama is not the "change" that he orginally ran his campaign on. He is an african american, he is the first african american president but he is politics as usual, PERIOD.
Politics as usual in my book equal saying one thing and doing another. Operating under the primary rule that its, " Personal interests first and public servant, duty to country second..... if at all."

Just to make my position clear, I may be categorized as conservative and female but don't paint with a large brush as being just like all other conservatives. I don't blindly follow any party, campaign, man or woman. I am no more a Sarah Palin follower than I am an Obama follower.


I have no need to debate with you as it clear you already know it.


I love the constitution as well, friend. We are not a democracy, thank God, but a constitutionally governed republic.

You ignorance is showing. Those so-called tax cuts were not favoring married couples over singles but allowing legally married couples to be even with singles cohabitating (a growing trend) because for years married couples have been penalized by the tax code.

Feel free to disagree, as much as you like, but it is common knowledge to the entire country that if you choose to legally wed your baby daddy, you LOOSE all those hefty tax incentives/credits and benefits, for the poor .... single..... moms.


Please tell me where you have him promising that, his promises are so reliable.


You are allowed to change your mind. I'm sure you two will slap each other around and then kiss and make up. I wouldn't want to get in the middle of a bromance.:thumbsup:

 

Strategory:lol:

 

Sharlie said:

Let me see if I can explain it in a way that you will understand better.

I made a statement that Obama's policies were not SO MUCH more liberal than many previous presidents' were. YOU jumped on that and interpreted it to mean "politics as usual."

The CONTEXT of my statement was in Hoggie's rant about how all three branches of our government were careening downhill into Socialism or total chaos. My point was that SOME of these same policies had been advanced BEFORE.... and the commies didn't take over THEN! The only REAL difference is that this president is Black. And, I believe the rhetoric about socialism and such is a result of (perhaps LATENT) racism from those doing the most complaining. I don't remember anyone accusing Clinton or Carter or even Reagan of being a Socialist... though many of the policies were the same.

Obama did promise changes in the way government worked... FOR THE PEOPLE... instead of for the rich. I believe he is STILL working towards that. He has NOT had much help from the other party, and to some extent... there IS alot of "politics as usual" to get things done. That will probably NEVER change, although I believe he WANTED to change some of THAT, too.

So, if you thought WE AGREED on the fact that it was politics as usual, and the ONLY change was the color of his skin.... then you misunderstood my comment.... and missed the context of it.

The CONTEXT was that, although MANY of his proposals are liberal, they are not MORE so than other liberal presidents in the past... and none of THEM were feared as being a Socialist trying to take over the country.

As robertt likes to say: HE TOLD US what he wanted to do. Why is anyone surprised that he is DOING it? Apparently WE disagree on his MOTIVES. Unfortunately... there are only a FEW ways to make the sausage.

That is good to hear. My parents are conservative, and for years I thought that meant they always voted Republican. Until I found out that they had switched affiliations several times.... Independent at times... and even voted FOR some democrats!

I have alot of respect for some of the conservatives here who often show that they are not SOLD OUT to the GOP party line. And, conversely.... I don't like ALL Democrats!

When I talk about "conservatives" here on this board.... I don't mean ALL of you. That is why I try to remember to say "the collective you." I rail against the PARTY LINE... the TALKING POINTS I hear on FoxNews and from the majority of the (minority) leadership. But, if you don't want PAINT on you.... don't blindly repeat the talking points that SOME here do... right off the daily Foxnews rant! :roll:

If you disagree with something Obama has said or done.... express it that way. Don't just say that he's a Socialist and trying to take over the auto industry or whatever! Just as Mr. Ford has said that he "tunes me out" as soon as I "jokingly" or otherwise mention the stolen election of 2000... I immediately discount ANY comment here that includes the word "socialism."

Actually, I ASKED about the taxes some of you have seen in the bill because I haven't read all of it, and would like to know what is in contention. However, if PART of reforming healthcare and health insurance in this country INCLUDES taxing dangerous activites that are KNOWN to cause more disease, then I have an opinion on it. In the last few years, my pack of cigarettes has almost TRIPLED in price due to taxes on them! If "I" am going to be taxed for unhealthy activities.... well.... PAY for your tanning beds! :lol2:

What REALLY burns me up is the fact that I've been told that my taxes on cigarettes have gone up to pay for YOUR (the collective you) child's schooling and such! WHY???? I don't HAVE kids taking up school budget dollars. Why do I get taxed to pay for them? I would feel SOMEWHAT better if I knew my increased "sin taxes" were going to provide healthcare for the poor so I don't have to ALSO pay taxes to provide free healthcare in Emergency rooms! issedoff:

I pay ALL KINDS of taxes to support programs for those who have families and children! I pay for your "child tax credits." I pay INCREASED insurance premiums because I smoke. If I owned a home, I'd pay the SAME property taxes, ON ONE INCOME, that you pay for services geared towards "families" and child producers!

Don't GET me started on "taxation without representation!" :lol2::lol2:

I would be REAL interested in YOUR thesis of how this differs.

Webster says a Republic is "a state or nation in which the supreme power rests in ALL the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected by them."

And a Democracy is "government BY the people, either directly or through elected representatives." Also... "Majority rule" and "the acceptance and practice of the princiiple of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment."

Now, in the case of Prop 8 in California.... the Majority (mob) rule would dictate that gays can't get married. However... the principle of EQUALITY of rights and treatment would dictate that the LAW supercedes the mob.

BOTH of these legal positions stem from the definition and practice of DEMOCRACY... and the REPUBLIC (representatives) had no voice in the matter. So... are you SURE we have a Republican form of government?

And WHY do conservatives like to tout the word "republic?" Could it be that, as a MINORITY in this country, they want to be able to pay off the representatives to pass laws that support THEIR minority views?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The "republican" or representative form of government was established in an era when it was nearly IMPOSSIBLE for the average citizen to even TRAVEL to a polling place to cast their "democratic" vote. THAT is what representatives in Washington were designed for! But, TODAY.... the entire population has fairly easy access to a voting booth, and the INTERNET has completely dissolved any handicap of distance!

Serious question: Would you prefer "one person, one vote?" Or would you like to continue complaining about how our representatives are corrupted by special interests.... and politics as usual?

To some extent you are right. I have been divorced for 25+ years, and wasn't married long enough to even KNOW the differences. And that was WELL before the Bush tax cuts.

So... I did ALOT of reading today on the matter. And from what I've read... considering that Obama will NOT change the status or brackets for the middle class... I just don't see what all the fuss is about. But, I'm "up to speed" now if you'd like to have a rational discussion about it.

What? You mean you don't WANT to take responsibility for bearing a child? You want to maintain your "entitlements" that are paid for by the REST of us? PERHAPS... if you're POOR and SINGLE... you shouldn't have HAD that baby! Or at least not without MARRYING that "daddy" FIRST!

Besides... you are wrong. If you're THAT poor, you can marry that daddy and STILL receive the SAME tax breaks AND credits that you had before. And on top of THAT? You only need to pay ONE mortgage/rent payment each month!

As you say... it is common knowledge.

//////

I complained about fighting with RoadRunner (NOT ROADHOG!) you said:

I was talking about my highspeed internet service through my cable company. :roll: [I'm ASSUMING that you misread that.]


Hobo

 

I don't understand why you and other leftists want to bring out the race card when we criticize Obama. We can all see that he is black, but that isn't the reason most people criticize him and his policies. It is not any different that when people criticize Bush. I suppose they must have criticized him because he is white? Since you criticize Bush you must be a racist?

Obama would not have been elected had he not been black. That isn't being a racist. It is fact. He got a pass from the media because of his race. He was elected by blacks en masse because of his race and by whites who either disliked Bush or simply wanted a change. And before you get all excited about me making those statements I have had blacks tell me that race is the reason that they voted for Obama.

Having said that, most of us don't like Obama feel the way we do, not because of his race, but because of his policies and the way he is abusing his power. He has circumvented the constitution by putting in all those czars. He appointed these people in such a was as to bypass congress and the subsequent investigation and examination of their past. I doubt most of them could have passed a background check had that been allowed to happen. He has created his own little fifedom.

The actions that he has demonstrated, along with a complicit congress have made a mockery of our constitution. Let's look at some of the facts. He took office and began appointing all of his czars by bypassing the normal process of going before a congressional committee and the normal background investigation. He pushed through the largest spending and tax bill in history, violating our constitution. He pushed through the largest bailout of industry that has ever happened in this country, going against our constitution. He pushed through the largest tax increase that we will see (hopefully). He pushed through a health insurance bill (no, it isn't a healthcare bill) which allows you to be thrown in jail if you don't purchase IRS approved insurance. The way it works is that if you don't purchase their insurance then you are fined. If you don't pay the fine then you will be jailed. That is a tax increase. He plans to let the Bush tax credit bill die. That is also a tax increase. He has increased our deficit to the breaking point. In order to pay this deficit he will be forced to raise taxes.

Obama and company have taken over 2 of the largest auto manufacturing companies in the world. Obama and company have taken over some of the largest banking and insurance companies in the world. When the government takes over private enterprise that is called socialism. The so called private/public enterprises that we hear about is also socialism.
Think of the toll roads that have been leased to foreign companies. That wasn't his deal, but it is socialism nonetheless.

Obama acts like a dictator. It has nothing to do with his race. I remember hiim talking about "ruling", not "leading" our country. In a democracy we are lead, not ruled over.

It is unfortunate that the only way the left can shut critics down is to use the "race" card. When we disagree with you on the radical left we are called racists. Actually, we are Americans who are concerned about losing our way of life. Some of what is going on today started a number of years ago. This president has taken it to a new level.