yay again for our stupid president.......

[MrNeeds]

Fellow forum members. It was just brought to my attention that I used inappropriate and profane adjectives in my post(s) in violation of forum rules.

Please accept my apologies if you were offended. I shall use more caution on the future to avoid further embarrassment

Thank you, IDAHJO

nobody was offended, it is in the forum rules that swearing is not allowed, you got off lightly, i got 5 rep points deducted from my account thnx brink

 

[xbutterflyx]

:\ Me, as well. I did apologize previously to avoid anyone taking offense, and i relay that apology again.

 

[Zoloft]

When you talk politics, things always tend to get heated and out of hand. That's why in so many places politics and religion chat are flat out banned. I appreciate the fact it's allowed here, especially since it's unusual to find myself on the more left-hand-side of the topic, opposite of where I normally find myself. But, IMO, if anyone get offended easily, they should stay out of Political/Religious conversations in the first place, because they ALWAYS end up veering into "offensive" territory.

 

[xbutterflyx]

Well, the other thing is that inappropriate language is against the rules. It seems both idahjo and I were confronted about it, so we wanted to publicly apologize.

 

[mpcrsc562]

so, when you get under the surface, what is the real problem? is it because of his racial makeup that people have the problem? the same rationale that "black men sure can play ball but manage a team, naw."

the thing that gets me is that when W is in office for his 8 years, those in his party got nice and fat! now they wanna call for obama's head because of his plans to (try) to turn stuff around. the basic foundation of the republican party, as i understand them to be, i agree with! to remind of my earlier post, i voted for W twice, but enough was enough.

my analogy of this fracas is this: money does have to be spent up front. in other words: a person with no job is desperately looking to get a job. he or she does not have much in the way of income, except for unemployment insurance, and savings must be guarded carefully (if there is a savings). it doesn't make much sense for that person to spend $800 or some odd dollars for a new computer and printer. however, the person sees that investment as the potential to get applications and resumes out to more perspective employers in a shorter amount of time. mind you, he or she is spending money that he or she really doesn't have right now. when that person lands that job, and honestly, it could take some time; but when the job is got, that expenditure really does look like an investment even though it was spent at a time when he or she didn't have the money. (that person was practicing deficit spending).

corny analogy--maybe, but i believe that it was more on the mark than off. to repeat myself from the earlier post: i can at least give obama some time to see if he does turn stuff around or mess stuff up more. W had eight years to run stuff ragged--time is going to be required to turn it around.

and as far as obama going down in history as the worst president... we'll see. W has that distinction right now and obama will have to really, really, really, really, drop the ball to exceed W in his "greatness."

 

[echrada]

Nobody in the near future, far future or present is ever going to come near the monumental failure of Dubya Bush and his crony Tony Blair. They have led us to the brink together with our current enslaver Brown.

If only we in the UK were asked to vote on our next Prime Minister, I am sure that we would never have voted for Brown.

Barak Obama will not be a failure.

 

[echrada]

When you talk politics, things always tend to get heated and out of hand. That's why in so many places politics and religion chat are flat out banned. I appreciate the fact it's allowed here, especially since it's unusual to find myself on the more left-hand-side of the topic, opposite of where I normally find myself. But, IMO, if anyone get offended easily, they should stay out of Political/Religious conversations in the first place, because they ALWAYS end up veering into "offensive" territory.

I have to agree with you -peope who do not have the ability to debate in a mature, sensible manner, with appropriate language use, should not partake.

 

[idahjo]

I have to agree with you -peope who do not have the ability to debate in a mature, sensible manner, with appropriate language use, should not partake.

I would not be so quick to jump on a dog-pile of the 'tin hats'. To start with, there was a 'pounce' made and several 'bad' words were scooped up, and deleted with them the phrase, "screwed-up". That term is accepted nowadays by the FCC in public broadcasting. (they are one of the most regulated foul-word detectors we have here). My reprimand was reversed FYI

It would be appropriate to remind some here that the most closed-minded and quickest tempered people I have run into are NOT the Conservatives :eek: SO, who would that be then?

Even though I have mixed feelings about the ambitions of the whole Bush Dynasty, those who will not give any credit to 'W' for keeping Al-Qaeda out of here since 9-11 are foolish.

"You-know-Who' has achieved nothing meaningfully positive, but he can sure spend OUR money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Said 'money' is being created by the FED printing more DOLLARS thereby devaluating what is in your pocket!

Ever wonder why so many economists insist that "the economy will turn itself around if left alone"? Why was the BIG DEPRESSION under Roosevelt drawn out by governmnet intervention/ meddling?

Who are you 'gonna believe Educated Economists OR the Government? DUH!

 

[idahjo]

Nobody in the near future, far future or present is ever going to come near the monumental failure of Dubya Bush and his crony Tony Blair. They have led us to the brink together with our current enslaver Brown.

If only we in the UK were asked to vote on our next Prime Minister, I am sure that we would never have voted for Brown.

Barak Obama will not be a failure.

Interesting observation from the UK.

...Maybe not being from America, or maybe just not being old enough to recall characters such as 'Jimiah Peanut' (Carter), or possibly 'Trickie-Dickie' (Nixon) or L.B.J. you would say that?

 

[thepizzaman]

I have to agree with you -peope who do not have the ability to debate in a mature, sensible manner, with appropriate language use, should not partake.

I would not be so quick to jump on a dog-pile of the 'tin hats'. To start with, there was a 'pounce' made and several 'bad' words were scooped up, and deleted with them the phrase, "screwed-up". That term is accepted nowadays by the FCC in public broadcasting. (they are one of the most regulated foul-word detectors we have here). My reprimand was reversed FYI

It would be appropriate to remind some here that the most closed-minded and quickest tempered people I have run into are NOT the Conservatives :eek: SO, who would that be then?

Even though I have mixed feelings about the ambitions of the whole Bush Dynasty, those who will not give any credit to 'W' for keeping Al-Qaeda out of here since 9-11 are foolish.

"You-know-Who' has achieved nothing meaningfully positive, but he can sure spend OUR money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Said 'money' is being created by the FED printing more DOLLARS thereby devaluating what is in your pocket!

Ever wonder why so many economists insist that "the economy will turn itself around if left alone"? Why was the BIG DEPRESSION under Roosevelt drawn out by governmnet intervention/ meddling?

Who are you 'gonna believe Educated Economists of the Government? DUH!

hm....... i kinda agree

 

[mpcrsc562]

Even though I have mixed feelings about the ambitions of the whole Bush Dynasty, those who will not give any credit to 'W' for keeping Al-Qaeda out of here since 9-11 are foolish.

keepin' them out since 9-11? they never should have gotten here in the first place! credit? why? using that rationale, i could say that obama's strategy and defense for the united states far excels that of W because on obama's watch, there has not been any attacks on u.s. soil.

september 11, 2001 should not have been any different than any other september 11 before or after.

W's greatest accomplishment is keeping them from attacking again? that's greatness in its purest form!

 

[MrNeeds]

i think this thread needs a lock, its getting a bit out of hand. Politics can be a very touchy topic.

 

[idahjo]

keepin' them out since 9-11? they never should have gotten here in the first place! credit? why? using that rationale, i could say that obama's strategy and defense for the united states far excels that of W because on obama's watch, there has not been any attacks on u.s. soil.

september 11, 2001 should not have been any different than any other september 11 before or after.

W's greatest accomplishment is keeping them from attacking again? that's greatness in its purest form!

Hmmm? Using your thought process; If the current monitary debacle, "Ain't O.B.A.M.A.'s Fault", then 9-11-01 would be Clinton's "Fault"? And, if the monitary debacle corrects itself, O.B.A.M.A. gets the credit for it... but when the terrorists didn't strike again on 'W's' watch (they were being kept occupied on their own turf so's they did not have time to do a repeat performance) 'he' had nothing to do with it?
(just trying to get it straight)

As I recall some of the European countries that were not active in the Mid-East battles (with terrorists) were not so "lucky" during those years?

 

[idahjo]

i think this thread needs a lock, its getting a bit out of hand. Politics can be a very touchy topic.

LIFE is a "touchy subject"; SURVIVING is a "touchier subject". LEARNING is more important in this day and age than ever before!

What would you advocate, hiding our heads in the sand?

What is wrong with discussing the Local and World problems?

Who knows; discussion on the important subjects just may enlighten some of us, or we may learn something that changes our mind.

For instance: I voted for Bush both times, 'cause I thought he was better than the choices. (still do!) But, I have since doubted the direction that the last THREE Presidents have taken the country. Some of this thought process was brought about by discussing things with others. ..."Kicking things back and forth"!

Lighten up, for crying out loud!

 

[Romulinx2]

Nobody in the near future, far future or present is ever going to come near the monumental failure of Dubya Bush and his crony Tony Blair. They have led us to the brink together with our current enslaver Brown.

If only we in the UK were asked to vote on our next Prime Minister, I am sure that we would never have voted for Brown.

Barak Obama will not be a failure.

I hate politics, but I have to agree here.
I was born in the UK and have been living in the USA for over a year after marrying an American girl.

 

[MrNeeds]

Nobody in the near future, far future or present is ever going to come near the monumental failure of Dubya Bush and his crony Tony Blair. They have led us to the brink together with our current enslaver Brown.

If only we in the UK were asked to vote on our next Prime Minister, I am sure that we would never have voted for Brown.

Barak Obama will not be a failure.

I hate politics, but I have to agree here.
I was born in the UK and have been living in the USA for over a year after marrying an American girl.

i think i have a new friend :D

 

[mpcrsc562]

Hmmm? Using your thought process; If the current monitary debacle, "Ain't O.B.A.M.A.'s Fault", then 9-11-01 would be Clinton's "Fault"? And, if the monitary debacle corrects itself, O.B.A.M.A. gets the credit for it... but when the terrorists didn't strike again on 'W's' watch (they were being kept occupied on their own turf so's they did not have time to do a repeat performance) 'he' had nothing to do with it?
(just trying to get it straight)

As I recall some of the European countries that were not active in the Mid-East battles (with terrorists) were not so "lucky" during those years?

this one threw me for a loop... as far as keeping them occupied on their own turf, aren't the majority of casualties suffered in "keeping them occupied" belonging to united states forces? kinda screwy logic to me--we trade 4000+ lives in iraq to keep them occupied on their own turf? wow!

wasn't one of the major bragging rights belonging the united states is that we had never been attacked by an enemy on our own soil, or something like that? so, 9-11 happens on W's watch... it was his duty to make absolutely sure that no one else attacked again on his watch--that was his necessary and primary duty--keeping the american populace safe from foreign attack or invasion! the point i'm getting to is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

 

[idahjo]

Hmmm? Using your thought process; If the current monitary debacle, "Ain't O.B.A.M.A.'s Fault", then 9-11-01 would be Clinton's "Fault"? And, if the monitary debacle corrects itself, O.B.A.M.A. gets the credit for it... but when the terrorists didn't strike again on 'W's' watch (they were being kept occupied on their own turf so's they did not have time to do a repeat performance) 'he' had nothing to do with it?
(just trying to get it straight)

As I recall some of the European countries that were not active in the Mid-East battles (with terrorists) were not so "lucky" during those years?

this one threw me for a loop... as far as keeping them occupied on their own turf, aren't the majority of casualties suffered in "keeping them occupied" belonging to united states forces? kinda screwy logic to me--we trade 4000+ lives in iraq to keep them occupied on their own turf? wow!

wasn't one of the major bragging rights belonging the united states is that we had never been attacked by an enemy on our own soil, or something like that? so, 9-11 happens on W's watch... it was his duty to make absolutely sure that no one else attacked again on his watch--that was his necessary and primary duty--keeping the american populace safe from foreign attack or invasion! the point i'm getting to is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Mpcrsc562: Let’s you and me show those who say, “people cannot have a gentlemanly exchange of ideas regarding politics” that we can leave as friends; even if we may not agree. Personally, I welcome opinions different than mine and have interest in reasons that substantiate them.


Look at it this way: Those of us who joined the US Military joined knowing that WE MIGHT JUST DIE. Some of us did, and some of us did not. The purpose for joining used to be "to protect America and its citizens"... now, maybe, it has changed? I think not. Most of our GI's would rather fight elsewhere than have to do it here. The collateral civilian casualties there could have been Americans civilians HERE!

[Call me old-fashioned] I would rather fight in THEIR back yard and leave my family home here where it is safe. It would be really tough to have to report for duty some where else when a foreign army was attacking the city where your family was.

Stay with me now. You are ABSOLUTELY correct, "it shouldn't have happened in the first place".

Consider this: Oklahoma City, the Murrah Building, Clinton's watch. That case was closed with the (“main”) perpetrator, Timothy McVey being promptly eliminated. (He can never talk now, he's dead) The blame was placed on the crazy militias in this country. That was what Clinton needed to bring the hammer down on HIS major concern, the growing local militias. And that he did.

The connection to the middle-east was silenced. (Anyone who saw middle-eastern men there was 'officially mistaken') Ergo, case closed, local nuts to blame, no other conspirators. Clinton did not want any connections to Islam; he was too busy playing dodge ball with his critics. My point: If our government would have followed the trail of the Republican Guard (from first Gulf War) who was known to be relocated in America and working as janitors in the Murrah Bldg; 9-11-01 probably would NOT have happened.

I don’t recall ‘W’ standing at ground Zero saying, “It wasn’t my fault, I inherited the situation”! However, I could visualize someone else saying that…

(I know a lot more than that about OKC, but I will not bore you with that. For those who deny the possibility of what I said it is a waste of time and space.) ...Where's my Tin Hat?

 

[mpcrsc562]

actually, it is easier to speak on touchy subjects such as religion and politics in a forum such as this--because it is moderated. there is only so far someone can go without some type of action being taken against an offending poster. i'm cool with it.

the only thing i wanted to get across is that i'm tired of hearing people stating that the country has been safe since 9-11, because it is supposed to be [safe]! and, 9-11 should not have happened in the first place. if there was an islamic connection stemming from the oklahoma city bombing, i never knew--honestly, i never really knew much about the whole tim mcveigh thing anyway--other than he blew up that building.

 

[MrNeeds]

9-11 is just scare tactics, and the reason you celebrate patriots day is because of this fateful day, it stays as a constant reminder to all that there is a war going on and you will find that people will suddenly stop celebrating patriots day after this imaginary war is over (which it never will be because there is no figurehead, an invisible enemy = endless war), fetch me my tin hat please jeeves