# Barack Obama study- Agree or Disagree?



## dbarabians

Our President is a remarkable man.
The essay is good and I believe that you have captured the hope and promise that his message delivers to the world.
The office of the President of the United States requires a complex and intelligent person. He is after all the most powerful person on earth. Obama's decisions have lasting affects on not only the USA but the world.
I am a proud supporter. However I do not always agree with him. Shalom


----------



## azwantapaint

I just hope he's a one term wonder....


----------



## Whisper22

I honestly don't think Obama is a very good speaker at all. He says "uhhhh" way too much. I also think his personality isn't very respectable, he's cocky and arrogant. I think his language of positivity has done nothing but give false hope. "He also uses language of positivity as a way of persuasion and self glory" YES HE DOES. The only part he has played in religion is ridding the constitution of if. JMO.


----------



## tinyliny

vogue,
are you asking for commentary on the quality of your essay, as a piece of expository writing, or whether or not we agree with you? or just what we think of Presidant Obama?
if you want to read a very robust discussion of the President, go to this thread and you can hear some powerfully worded and powerfully differing points of view:

http://www.horseforum.com/general-off-topic-discussion/united-states-problems-117324/


----------



## tinyliny

Whisper22 said:


> I honestly don't think Obama is a very good speaker at all. He says "uhhhh" way too much. I also think his personality isn't very respectable, he's cocky and arrogant. I think his language of positivity has done nothing but give false hope. "He also uses language of positivity as a way of persuasion and self glory" YES HE DOES.* The only part he has played in religion is ridding the constitution of if. JMO.*





_REally? There used to be religion in the constituion?_


----------



## Whisper22

I don't know why I said constitution, although religion IS referenced in the constitution, I meant government.


----------



## Missy May

Well, if you added "much like hitler", you would have it nailed!


----------



## dirtroadangel

Missy May said:


> Well, if you added "much like hitler", you would have it nailed!


I would think he's good at speaking. He gets lots of practice.
As my grandma used to say," The emptiest cans rattle the most".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OkieGal

I think your writing is excellent. 
But.....I don't like him one bit.
I agree with azwantapaint, I hope he's a one-term president.
I don't like how he runs things. I don't see him as a president, just someone who fills in the blank. IMO.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SEAmom

I agree. I hope he's just a lackluster one-hit wonder. I only agree with 3 things where he's concerned - support gay marriage, support the right for a woman to choose in abortion, and the end of "don't ask, don't tell". That being said, and knowing little about the assignment itself other than the subject, it's a decent essay. I do like the in-depth look at the speech. Perhaps go a little more in-depth, if possible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kevinshorses

The president doesn't write one word of his speeches and judging from his delivery most of the time he doesn't read them beforehand either. I think he's a joke and his speeches are full of class warfare and blame. I feel like he's an apologist and believes that our country needs to be subservient to other countries. I certainly hope that he doesn't get re-elected.


----------



## equiniphile

Agreed, kevin. I think we voted him in because we were so desperate for change, but no one considered what we were changing to.


----------



## Allison Finch

kevinshorses said:


> The president doesn't write one word of his speeches



*Show me any president who does. Or any candidate, for that matter.*



> and judging from his delivery most of the time he doesn't read them beforehand either.



*At least he can pronounce the words correctly, unlike his predecessor. *



> I think he's a joke and his speeches are full of class warfare and blame. I feel like he's an apologist and believes that our country needs to be subservient to other countries. I certainly hope that he doesn't get re-elected.


*Wow, we couldn't disagree more.
*


----------



## kevinshorses

Allison Finch said:


> *Show me any president who does. Or any candidate, for that matter.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At least he can pronounce the words correctly, unlike his predecessor. *
> 
> 
> 
> *Wow, we couldn't disagree more.*


No president or canidate writes his own speeches and I really have no problem with that. The OP seemed to be giving the president all the credit for the language in the speeches and he really doesn't deserve it. I think Roosevelt wrote the speech he delivered after the Pearl Harbor attacks but that was probably one of the last great speeches written by the president. Even the great "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech given by Kennedy (who would be a republican if he was alive now) was writen by someone else. So while I'm all in favor of giving a president credit for the substance of a speech or the delivery of a speech I'm not going to praise him for the language in a speech because he didn't write it. I will ,however, condemn him to burn on the alter of public opinion if he says something completely false or offensive but that's pretty unlikely to happen with as many people that read the speeches behorehand.


You can't blame Bush for Obama's speaking style. he brought that with him from Chicago.

Allison- I really respect you as a horseman and as a person. Your views on the President couldn't suprise me more and I hope that we can debate politics and still stay friendly with one another. We are all shaped by our lives and our predjudices and we make choices accordingly. It's something that is and should be a very personal matter and deserves to be given great thought. I wouldn't give a spit for someone that didn't get a little heated up about politics and/or religion. That kind of person is an empty vessel at best and a parasite at worst. I think the best thing we can teach our kids is how to argue without anger and how to develop an opinion but still be willing to hear facts and digest them.

I'm never going to be a fan of Obama but I don't believe he's any more of a Muslim than he is a Christian. I think like a lot of politicians he only worships power and I wouldn't want to blame any church for that. I don't care where he was born although I think that should have been figured out long before he ran for president. I also don't care that he's black. i don't believe race matters nearly as much to most people as the press would have you believe. I don't hate Barrack Obama because he's black. i don't really hate him at all. I think he's a **** poor president and he's bad for our country but that because he's WRONG not because he's black.


----------



## OkieGal

^^^
Kevin, your last paragraph is perfection.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May

Um.... Abraham Lincoln wrote his own speeches. If you would like to be "shown" old Abe, there is this rather large and extremely well executed likeness called the Abraham Lincoln Memorial. Perhaps you have heard of it??


----------



## kevinshorses

All presidents wrote thier own speeches until around the middle of the last century then they started doing press conferences every day instead of when they had something important to say.


----------



## Missy May

Vogue24 said:


> Im British, and recently for a controlled assesment in English class, we were asked to study and write about Barack Obama, It would be interesting to see how many of you Americans agree? And what are you opinions of him as president? I only have half of the 'assesment.' Figured people would get bored with the entire thing! :wink:



Well, I think they would get bored stiff with the "whole thing" because it has no substance, it is nothing more than the validation of an opinion. If one studies something, at least in the way generally accepted by most academia, they study dolcumentation that is available, they don't blind themselves to half or more of the facts available. If the first sentence were something along the lines of, "in my opinion, Pres O B is the greatest leader ever to have arrived in the US oval office", then it would qualify as an "excercise" in writing - but not as an excercise is preparing a paper where study of the subject was also required.


----------



## dirtroadangel

And don't forget the beauty of teleprompters.
If talk is everything then he's a good president.
Don't matter how many times you say it don't make itthe truth.
As someone mentioned earlier Hitler was a poignant speaker.

I did't vote for Obama find it hard to believe he beat Mcann
some one who has served his country with honor.
I have been a democrat for years. Hubert Humphrey. Jfk Ella Grasso Tip O' Neil those were thee Democrats. Not these guys.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

Allison Finch said:


> At least he can pronounce the words correctly, unlike his predecessor.


This is just one example but I think it's kind of a biggy, and I'm sure there have been many more. There was a speech he gave where he spoke about our corpsmen and he actually pronounced the "p". Thats a military term and since he's supposed to me our Commander and Chief, you would think he would know that.


----------



## Allison Finch

dirtroadangel said:


> I did't vote for Obama find it hard to believe he beat Mcann
> some one who has served his country with honor.


So, you want Romney? Neither he nor any of his FIVE sons have served this country in the military.

Santorum did not serve this country in any military service.

Gingrich received a draft deferment during the Vietnam War owing to the fact that he was studying at the time in Tulane University and he had children.

Paul served two years as a flight surgeon, but never saw combat. At least he didn't dodge his draft. However, he is on the record declaring he will close all foreign military bases. That'll sure keep us safer....



So, all of you who believe being a conservative candidate means they have truly sacrificed for their country need to look for other candidates, IMO.


----------



## dirtroadangel

Good point. But Obama has less experience then they do.
He was a community organizer and junior senator who' s voted mostly as present. 
Hek I would like to see his school records.
This whole thread is a joke.
Just looking fora rise.
Facts would make your argument more effective.
Serving this country honorably lends itsrlf to character.
The saddest thing is our children and grandchildren will pay for this for a long time.
Do you agree with Pelosi and balance the nudget in 20 years????
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

Whisper22 said:


> This is just one example but I think it's kind of a biggy, and I'm sure there have been many more. There was a speech he gave where he spoke about our corpsmen and he actually pronounced the "p". Thats a military term and since he's supposed to me our Commander and Chief, you would think he would know that.


I don't think pronouncing the "p"was a mistake.
He has no respect for our service men and women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

This is a President that according to some can't do anything right.
His citizenship, race, religion, and political leanings are all questioned to place doubts in the minds of the voters.
He is at least offering solutions and not just rhetoric.
Thanks to the right wing pundits that have nothing positive to say about anyone that disagrees with them, political confusion is now the norm.
There is no justification in comparing the man to Hitler. This is ridiculous. if one cannot find something solid to base their arguments on then they result to name calling.
The Cheney administration proved that governing without critical thought is the recipe for disaster.
The economy is improving, Jobs are being created, and everyone should be covered by Healthcare in the near future. The bailouts have worked and still are. We are leaving an unnecessary war in Iraq, and closing down one in Afganistan. This should help lessen the deficit and improve the economy.
He will most likely be elected to a 2nd term. Unfortantely the discourse will only intensify. That though is the beauty of America and its people.
No one person has the ability to do longterm and lasting damage to this great country of ours. Shalom


----------



## dirtroadangel

dbarabians said:


> This is a President that according to some can't do anything right.
> His citizenship, race, religion, and political leanings are all questioned to place doubts in the minds of the voters.
> He is at least offering solutions and not just rhetoric.
> Thanks to the right wing pundits that have nothing positive to say about anyone that disagrees with them, political confusion is now the norm.
> There is no justification in comparing the man to Hitler. This is ridiculous. if one cannot find something solid to base their arguments on then they result to name calling.
> The Cheney administration proved that governing without critical thought is the recipe for disaster.
> The economy is improving, Jobs are being created, and everyone should be covered by Healthcare in the near future. The bailouts have worked and still are. We are leaving an unnecessary war in Iraq, and closing down one in Afganistan. This should help lessen the deficit and improve the economy.
> He will most likely be elected to a 2nd term. Unfortantely the discourse will only intensify. That though is the beauty of America and its people.
> No one person has the ability to do longterm and lasting damage to this great country of ours. Shalom


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

You named alot of good things but where are the facts. We have been out of Iraq awhile based solely on what Bush had set up obama just let it happen. 

you don't think numbers can't be played and how many people just quit looking for work.
Was checking out his voting record. Wow
Do you think Solyndra was a success ¿? Do you feel that to be able to vote you shouldn't have to proved who you are???
I do blame Bush for ending up with him.
Let's talk about what he's done to benefit our country has to be actual tho. no words Actions.
NO MORE BLANK CHECKS.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May

dbarabians said:


> There is no justification in comparing the man to Hitler. This is ridiculous. if one cannot find something solid to base their arguments on then they result to name calling.


Hilter isn't a "name", he was a person with a rather well documented history - the vast majority in germany rallied behind him and thought he could do no wrong, he was charismatic, spoke well, he made a lot of similar promises, was a socialist, made up "facts" out of thin air, felt some were more equal than others, and persecuted those that disagreed...etc., etc.,.


----------



## Whisper22

WOW, my husband just showed me this video on abcnews.com. Obama is basically selling the United States up the river to the Russians. How incredibly arrogant do you have to be to say "After my election...", either that or it's rigged and those of use that don't want to see him come back have absolutely no chance. Complete scum.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...se-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/


----------



## kevinshorses

Obama said during the last election that if he didn't make the economy better than it was under Bush then he shouldn't get re-elected. he's got a hell of a long ways to go. If you apply his economic policy to your household finances you will go broke and end up in prison. Our country is absolutely BROKE. This is not only Barracks fault. It doesn't really matter whose fault it is. We need it fixed and Barracks policies have gotten us further in debt than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. George W ran up too much debt in his 8 years in office but Obama not only doubled what George ran up but he doubled the ENTIRE national debt. In 3 years. Obama said that it was unpatriotic for a president to run up the debt like Bush did. What did he do when he conned his way into office? Spent more money in two years than any other president. Money we didn't have to spend. Money that is being borrowed from China. China is using the interest paid on this money to build up and modernize thier military and develop natural resources in Africa. If China ever gets the power that this country has we will be in for a World War unlike any that has ever been fought before. Obama is an even bigger disaster in the middle east. He has been lukewarm in his support of Isreal and pretty weak in condemnation of Iran. He allowed us to be chased out of Iraq rather than withdraw from a position of strenght. Iraq is going to revert to radical Islamic rule in the near future and all the blood that was shed there will be for naught. The exact same thing is happening in Afganistan. He called and personally apologized to Karzi about the Koran burning. That was a terrible decision that will only lead to more rioting when the next affront to Islam happens. Barrack Obama bowed down to a Saudi king. he is the only U.S. President to do something like that. I'm sure Al Queda recruited many good human bombs because of that picture. Either he is a fool that can't judged what effects his actions will have on the world or he is purposely weakening our countries place in the world. It doesn't matter much to me which one it is because I don't think he should be re-elected either way.

I said this in the other thread about politics and I'll say it again here. I predict that when Romney stands up on a stage next to Obama and they start to debate Obama will look like the little kid wearing his daddies suit and Romney will look like the president. I predict that Romney will win 40 states maybe even 45. I may be wrong. I didn't think there was any way this country would elect the junior senator from Illinois to be president but here we are.


----------



## Missy May

I don't know Kevin, I agree w the first part...but I am no fan of Romney - it will pain me if I have to vote for him. I will if for no other reason than I can't stand seeing the country champion hate and divisiveness with cloak and dagger "tolerance and understanding" tactics. Its to much.


----------



## Ink

I by no means think Obama is perfect, but given the alternatives that Republicans are offering up as candidates, I think he's the lesser of two evils. It's times like these I wish we had a decent third party option. 

I do like how people love to point out that Obama hasn't "done anything" during his presidency. Technically it's not the President's job to make policy. He can help influence it or veto it, but ultimately congress has to vote it through. Legislative branch makes the laws, Executive branch enforces them, and Judicial branch interprets them (basically lol). That's the beauty of our government and that whole system of checks and balances. What, I'm getting at, is the President can't do jack unless congress backs him up (again basically lol). SO the blame doesn't rest entirely on Obama. It has as much to do with the fact that the good folks in congress persist in acting like five year-olds who don't know the meaning of the word compromise on so many issues as it does anything else.


----------



## kevinshorses

The Democrats ran congress for the first two years of the Obama presidency. Even now they run half of Congress. He should have at least gotten a budget passed. For the first two years there was no need for compromise because the dems could get everything they wanted. Where did that lead the country? Remember how Republicans had to get to the "back of the bus" while Obama drove us out of the ditch? How's that coming?


----------



## BaileyJo

Missy May said:


> Hilter isn't a "name", he was a person with a rather well documented history - the vast majority in germany rallied behind him and thought he could do no wrong, he was charismatic, spoke well, he made a lot of similar promises, was a socialist, made up "facts" out of thin air, felt some were more equal than others, and persecuted those that disagreed...etc., etc.,.


OMG...seriously. 

You really need to read up on your Hitler history to know what else he did. This is the behavior of 99% of the politicians - but being a mass murderer is not (ie orchestrating the killing of over six million people or did not not learn about that piece of his history). So your comparing Obama to Hilter is nothing short of ludicris. Any of said "persecutions" by Obama couldn't even possibly be on the same spectrum. Honestly, it's a slap in the face to those were were truly persecuted (and died) and "those who are made less equal than others" during WWII.


----------



## kevinshorses

Missy May said:


> I don't know Kevin, I agree w the first part...but I am no fan of Romney - it will pain me if I have to vote for him. I will if for no other reason than I can't stand seeing the country champion hate and divisiveness with cloak and dagger "tolerance and understanding" tactics. Its to much.


I'd like a more conservative caniddate than Romney or rather a more conservative Romney, but I have no trouble supporting him. Like him or not unless he gets struck by lightning or hit by a bus he's going to be the nominee. Given the three choices I think he's the right one. Santorum couldn't get re-elected to senate and Gingrich would still be in congress if it wasn't for his ethics violations. It's unfortunate that Rick Perry proved to be such a dope and Michelle Bachman couldn't have stuck it out a little longer.


----------



## kevinshorses

BaileyJo said:


> OMG...seriously.
> 
> You really need to read up on your Hitler history to know what else he did. This is the behavior of 99% of the politicians - but being a mass murderer is not (ie orchestrating the killing of over six million people or did not not learn about that piece of his history). So your comparing Obama to Hilter is nothing short of ludicris. Any of said "persecutions" by Obama couldn't even possibly be on the same spectrum. Honestly, it's a slap in the face to those were were truly persecuted (and died) and "those who are made less equal than others" during WWII.


 
I feel the same way. I also felt that way when Congressmen and women where saying the same things about Bush.


----------



## Faceman

Ink said:


> I by no means think Obama is perfect, but given the alternatives that Republicans are offering up as candidates, I think he's the lesser of two evils. It's times like these I wish we had a decent third party option.
> 
> I do like how people love to point out that Obama hasn't "done anything" during his presidency. Technically it's not the President's job to make policy. He can help influence it or veto it, but ultimately congress has to vote it through. Legislative branch makes the laws, Executive branch enforces them, and Judicial branch interprets them (basically lol). That's the beauty of our government and that whole system of checks and balances. What, I'm getting at, is the President can't do jack unless congress backs him up (again basically lol). SO the blame doesn't rest entirely on Obama. It has as much to do with the fact that the good folks in congress persist in acting like five year-olds who don't know the meaning of the word compromise on so many issues as it does anything else.


I can't tell you how wrong you are, and it saddens me that people today know so little about how our system works. 

The power of the Presidency extends far beyond "checks and balances" we all learned in about the 4th or 5th grade, or watched on Schoolhouse Rock. The power of Executive Order alone is immense, but perhaps the single biggest power the President has is imposing his or her management style (i.e. political policy) in running the hundreds of goverment agencies. With NO change in regulations, an agency can change its positions to mirror the administration that is in charge. Agency heads are politically appointed positions - when an Administration changes, it's out with the old appointees and in with the new - and they are not only selected by the President to match his politics, but serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time for any reason.

Agency regulations are established by the Code of Federal Regulations. But each agency has a quite liberal leeway in how it interprets the CFR and translates it into Standard Operating Procedure - enough leeway to be well within a swing from a conservative interpretation to a liberal interpretation or vice versa.

Despite our system of "checks and balances", there is nothing "level" about the three branches of goverment. The power of the Presidency far exceeds the others...not even close...


----------



## Vogue24

Thankyou for all your comments, much appreciated and im sure it will help me in my further understanding of Barack Obama. I did not post this thread for an 'uprise' I did it because I was genuinly interested. The reason why my writing is 'one-sided' is becasue we were asked to choose an opinion (positive and negative) and I can assure you, many people opted to write negatively about Barack Obama. Thanks to the people who said they enjoyed my writing style.


----------



## Ink

Faceman said:


> I can't tell you how wrong you are, and it saddens me that people today know so little about how our system works.
> 
> The power of the Presidency extends far beyond "checks and balances" we all learned in about the 4th or 5th grade, or watched on Schoolhouse Rock. The power of Executive Order alone is immense, but perhaps the single biggest power the President has is imposing his or her management style (i.e. political policy) in running the hundreds of goverment agencies. With NO change in regulations, an agency can change its positions to mirror the administration that is in charge. Agency heads are politically appointed positions - when an Administration changes, it's out with the old appointees and in with the new - and they are not only selected by the President to match his politics, but serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time for any reason.
> 
> Agency regulations are established by the Code of Federal Regulations. But each agency has a quite liberal leeway in how it interprets the CFR and translates it into Standard Operating Procedure - enough leeway to be well within a swing from a conservative interpretation to a liberal interpretation or vice versa.
> 
> Despite our system of "checks and balances", there is nothing "level" about the three branches of goverment. The power of the Presidency far exceeds the others...not even close...



I was more referring to the budgeting, tax codes, and health care plan and other such things that have to be pushed through congress first. Specifically the whole debt fiasco a while back that resulted in our credit score dropping. You certainly have a valid point though, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not nearly as well versed in the current political goings-on as I probably should be. Then again, neither are the majority of Americans today. That's probably why our founding fathers didn't believe the mass population could be trusted to select good leaders. They'd probably be rolling over in their graves if they say the way things were being run today :lol:

But I digress, I was just wanting to point out that it's not all on the president.


----------



## kevinshorses

The president is usually the leader of his party so when a president has the majority of both houses of congress in his party then whatever happens can and should be laid squarely in his lap.


----------



## Ink

kevinshorses said:


> The president is usually the leader of his party so when a president has the majority of both houses of congress in his party then whatever happens can and should be laid squarely in his lap.


Usally, but not always. There can still be division within a political party. Although I agree that if the President does have congress behind him, there's no excuse; I don't think that was always the case with Obama's administration. I think this might be one of those instances where we'll have to agree to disagree though. I believe there's saying about discussing religion and politics? :lol:


----------



## Missy May

BaileyJo said:


> OMG...seriously.
> 
> You really need to read up on your Hitler history to know what else he did. This is the behavior of 99% of the politicians - but being a mass murderer is not (ie orchestrating the killing of over six million people or did not not learn about that piece of his history). So your comparing Obama to Hilter is nothing short of ludicris. Any of said "persecutions" by Obama couldn't even possibly be on the same spectrum. Honestly, it's a slap in the face to those were were truly persecuted (and died) and "those who are made less equal than others" during WWII.


I respectfully disagree. Hitler's history did not start and end in 1945 when Hitler's murdering spree was fully realised. The matter at hand was an essay. What Hilter did is _now_ fully known and long since agreed to be evil. However, he did not come to power as a result of just the admiration he recieved from his dogs and wife, nor did he rally the people by saying he was going to exterminate jews, first thing. Nope, he got support for promising political "change", and, among other things, jobs, financial reform (banks), implementing the government initiated and run production of he "people's car", and for his plan and execution for mass reconstruction/perfect of the freeway infrastructure. MANY, youth and old alike, during his reign thought he was "the one"....and no doubt many wrote essays about how perfect he was in every way, ain't that lovely? The comparison was that this essay echos those written about Hitler in the late 1930's early 40's, and he had all sorts of admiration for similar reasons - spoke well, wanted to spread his ideas to "indeed the world", etc.,. This is not difficult to verify at all b/c germany was and is a very literate country. Yes, they said the same thing about Bush but there were no real comparisons - it takes dupes to create a stalin, tung, or hitler. 
One can _compare_ the UK to the US, that doesn't mean they are unaware of the vast differences in land mass or that there is no similarity. BTW, I didn't like Bush too much, but I can definitely say we didn't "traded up".
Any persecution of any sort of any law abiding citizen by any US president is not acceptable. If allowed to go unchecked and indeed even supported - history (as in the _whole_ history, start to finish) tells us it does not "voluntarily" get better.


----------



## Missy May

Vogue24 said:


> Thankyou for all your comments, much appreciated and im sure it will help me in my further understanding of Barack Obama. I did not post this thread for an 'uprise' I did it because I was genuinly interested. The reason why my writing is 'one-sided' is becasue we were asked to choose an opinion (positive and negative) and I can assure you, many people opted to write negatively about Barack Obama. Thanks to the people who said they enjoyed my writing style.


Oh, well that explains it! So, I take back what I said. So sorry. You will have to let us know what grade you get on your essay!


----------



## Joe4d

nothing wrong with having an opinion and presenting an essay of those opinions. As far as writing concerns it doesnt matter what side of issue I believe in I can grade a paper as good or bad basied on its merrits.
The paper you wrote has some fatal flaws.
You are presenting opinions as facts. Stating Barak Obama is well respected isnt a fact it is your opinion. Yet you present it in your paper that it is.
Many people have no respect for a person who basically lied his *** off to get elected, then the day after the election forgot everything he said.


----------



## Ink

Vogue24 said:


> The reason why my writing is 'one-sided' is becasue we were asked to choose an opinion (positive and negative) and I can assure you, many people opted to write negatively about Barack Obama. Thanks to the people who said they enjoyed my writing style.



Actually, when you're writing a persuasive piece, it's sometimes good to at least acknowledge the opposing argument. Recognizing that the world isn't always black and white typically makes for a stronger argument. I like to do this in my thesis statement, but you don't _have_ to, just so long as it comes fairly early on in the paragraph. You're basically saying "sure there are other points of view, but this is what I think and here's why I'm right.



Vogue24 said:


> President Obama talks in a contemplative, genuine and honest tone in most of his speeches, especially in his inaugural speech. His dialect and choice of tone argues his point in a more persuasive way.


These first two sentences are setting up your paper, telling your audience that you'll be focusing on President Obama's public speaking skills and that you think they are effective. Your first sentence more or less states a fact that leads you into your thesis statement in which you express your opinion. If you were going to acknowledge that there are differing opinions you could say something like:

Although several of President Obama's policies have caused controversy throughout his term, one must acknowledge the president's charismatic way of speaking. This is especially evident in his inaugural speech, in which his contemplative, genuine, and honest tone serve to better argue his point. 

As a rough example. I noticed a few grammatical errors in your writing too. Just make sure you proofread one more time before handing it in! Overall a very good start. Good luck with your paper.


----------



## Saddlebag

JoeD - all politicians lie their *** of to get elected, it's not just Obama. It's the whole damned works. We would better understand our politics if we studied how unions work. It's not about the populace but keeping the cats at the top wealthy. Our elections, both Canada and US are a joke. It's all about protectionism of the enclave.


----------



## Whisper22

I'm just curious if any watched the video of Obama talking to Medvedev in that link I posted or if anyone already knew about it, what your thoughts on that might be?


----------



## dirtroadangel

No one person has the ability to do longterm and lasting damage to this great country of ours. Shalom[/QUOTE]

So do uou think this huge deficit is a right wing conspiracy?
His first 2 years he submitted a budget voted down 100%
by his own party. Now he doesn't even bother to submit one.

Benjamin Netannahu is a wonderful leader for the Jewish people.
Obama wants him to surrender more of what little the Israelis have. 
Then they can really bomb Israel.

Please let's here the solutions he has and doesnt involved another blank check. I thought we were supposed to get the roads snd infrastructure done the first time but this time for sure.


Sure I would love to have health insurance I can't afford the price tag. They won't deny you it if you have preexisting conditions it will just cost everything you have that's how they get out of it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May

Whisper22 said:


> I'm just curious if any watched the video of Obama talking to Medvedev in that link I posted or if anyone already knew about it, what your thoughts on that might be?


Well, I am sure you can guess what mine are! :lol: So, I won't waste the ether ink!:wink:


----------



## dirtroadangel

Well in a way am relieved he won't be making any decisions since it's election year. Can't screw us up any more til he's real elected.
I

would like to know what everyone's opinion idea on the Fisker electric car remember. We gave them 1/2 billion to make these expensive cars and soon as they got the $ moved to Finland
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

Missy May, as the grandson of a holocaust survivour I am fully aware of the reality and history associated with the Nazi and Hitler.
My grandfather spent years and lost most of his family, his home and his dignity.
Such remarks render the deaths of the 6 million jews meaningless.
Obama is no Hitler.
We in the USA have a system of checks and balances established in the constitution. This assures that each branch of our government is independent and has oversight from the other 2.
About the state of Isreal. The solution to the problems must be solved unilaterally. 
I became a citizen of Isreal and have served my required time in the IDF.
Isreal has been at war for over 6 decades and has lost many lives.
Jews greet and say goodbye with the word Shalom. It means Peace. It is a blessing millions of Isrealis desire. As a Jew, an American and an Isreali, peace is something that I want in the futrue for my grandchildren should they choose to live in the land of Isreal.
The former policies of the USA and Isreal have not worked at least Obama has the courage ot bring other ideas to the table. Shalom


----------



## azwantapaint

OP, you wrote your essay quite well.
I am sorry that the topic is so polarizing, but that is what it is.
Unfortunately, modern society being what it is, has been headed towards a day of reckoning.
I had hoped it wouldn't happen in my lifetime, but my hopes seem to become more and more dashed every day.
It makes me very sad to say these things, too.
I stood on the front lines in the USMC, and it was an amazing experience.
That was almost 15 years ago.
Today, as i sit here in my backyard, unwinding from a busy day, i contemplate things i see.
Too many things hurt my heart.
To the point where I ask myself, why did i put MY life on the line, and what the heck did i stand up for, when the majority of the inherent American values i love so dearly have either faded or vanished?
When a man could feed his family, own a modest house, own a car, and want for little other than the love of his family when he got home?
When speaking His name in public was greeted with "amen" instead of ridicule?
When people waved as they drove down the street, because everyone knew everyone?
When kids could play outside safely until dark?
When kids got in a fight on the playground, got their butts whooped, shook hands, and it was over with?
When neighbors lent a hand to those who needed it, due to illness, family crisis, or death of a loved one?
All these things i ponder, and as i gaze out upon what i see today, i cry inside.
Babies having babies, kids with zero respect for themselves, others, and authority figures, people getting sues for the stupidity of others, greed based business practices, and a government that serves itself more than it serves the people.
I weep.
My heart aches.
It makes me really question whether i want to bring children into this mess.
Which really sucks, as my girlfriend and i would adore a couple little tricycle motors rolling around.
So, i ask you, in more of a rhetorical sense than anything, what have YOU done today to make America a better place?


----------



## Missy May

dbarabians said:


> Such remarks render the deaths of the 6 million jews meaningless.
> Obama is no Hitler.


To forget _how_ it happened renders the entire incident meaningless, which did not exclusively include jews, btw. And, I didn't say Obama was Hitler, ever, and don't appreciate your implying that I did.

I guess I just can't argue with the expert on Nazi Germany that you represent yourself to be, soooo I guess you must be right, Hilter was a horrible speaker, had no support, had no charisma, told the truth on a consistant basis, and didn't energize the people with the promise of hope of change. And, all of Germany hated him and never wrote a nice word about him. My mistake. Did he breath air? Could we agree _that_ was a similarity?

Besides, _everyone_ knows Tung is his cabinet's favorite, not Hitler!


----------



## dirtroadangel

so you agree with obama that Israel should relinquish more land?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

Missy May I am no expert. I am also aware that over 25 million people perished during WW2.
I however fail to see how this administration can be such a failure.
I also volunteer and donate my time and money to ensure that Obama will remain President.
When the Republican Party disavows the policy of party before country I may take a second look.
Until then we can agreee to disagree. You have your opinion and I have mine. We are both allowed to voice them. That is what makes this country the greatest. Shalom


----------



## kevinshorses

Missy May said:


> To forget _how_ it happened renders the entire incident meaningless, which did not exclusively include jews, btw. And, I didn't say Obama was Hitler, ever, and don't appreciate your implying that I did.


 
I think it's important to draw the parrelels between our leaders and the leaders of the past. There are a lot of similarities between Obama and Hitler. I'm sure the same could be said about other world leaders. They have a similar philosophy on the role of government. Both are/were socialists, support unions, government funded healthcare, and government run auto industry.


----------



## clip clop

OkieGal said:


> I think your writing is excellent.
> But.....I don't like him one bit.
> I agree with azwantapaint, I hope he's a one-term president.
> I don't like how he runs things. I don't see him as a president, just someone who fills in the blank. IMO.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree. There were a lot of voters that voted for him that has never voted before because they wanted to see a "change". They never cared about politics a day in their life! He had a way of speaking during the elections that made a lot of people like him and what exactly the change was he was refering to I haven't saw it yet.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

Dirtroadangel, I hope i spelled that right, The policy of the USA is and has been for over 30 years to establish a 2 state solution.
There are over 4 million Arabs in West Bank and Gaza. Another 1 million are citizens of Isreal.
Isreal is and needs to remain a Jewish state. It is a democracy. These are important to all Isreali's. With over 5 million Arabs if a 2 state solution is not reached Isreal will cease to be a democracy and Jewish. This I and many other Jews and Isrealis find intolerable.
Will the answer be easy? No. The 4 million people that reside in those territories require a place to live. It is not feasible to do as they did in biblical times and wipe out every man woman and child that occuppied the land. The Jews require a homeland so do those Arabs. Shalom


----------



## dirtroadangel

Thank you for the reply. 
How csn you compromise with people that want you dead?
All the aids that went to the paledtians filled arafat's coffers and fueled the continuing attacks on Israel.I wish when Israel kicked their butts 50 plus years ago they had gotten them out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag

"We in the USA have a system of checks and balances established in the constitution. This assures that each branch of our government is independent and has oversight from the other 2."

What is perceived of checks and balances is part of the charade to protect the enclave. Your president and our prime minister are merely high paid mouth-pieces. They say only what their party allows. Obama is a brilliant man who knows what the US needs but that would make waves because it would require major changes. Wouldn't you people like a medical system like ours? Everyone gets care without being turned away or losing their home. He wants this to happen in the US but there is always a great hue and cry, with shouts of communism. He doesn't want war, but others do. This isn't about protecting the US, it's about government contracts and keeping the US oil companies making huge profits.


----------



## SEAmom

No, I don't want that medical system. I never did. I understand that the fines are unenforced, but that doesn't matter. I would like to see an alternative where people are still insured with pre-existing conditions without this particular system in place. I want the government less involved with every aspect of my existence. 

As a side note, I have friends up there and they hate the system. I hear about the complaints every time one of them or their kids are sick or have to go in for routine checkups.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kevinshorses

Saddlebag said:


> Obama is a brilliant man who knows what the US needs but that would make waves because it would require major changes. Wouldn't you people like a medical system like ours? *Nope. I don't want any part of your health care system.*Everyone gets care without being turned away or losing their home. He wants this to happen in the US but there is always a great hue and cry, with shouts of communism. *Because it is communism* He doesn't want war, but others do. This isn't about protecting the US, it's about government contracts and keeping the US oil companies making huge profits. *The oil companies are publicly traded and owned by each of us via 401K and mutual funds. They should be trying to make huge profits. The government makes more off the taxes than the oil companies make in profit*.[/QUOTE]
> 
> My comment are in red.


----------



## Faceman

Ink said:


> I was more referring to the budgeting, tax codes, and health care plan and other such things that have to be pushed through congress first. Specifically the whole debt fiasco a while back that resulted in our credit score dropping. You certainly have a valid point though, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not nearly as well versed in the current political goings-on as I probably should be. Then again, neither are the majority of Americans today. That's probably why our founding fathers didn't believe the mass population could be trusted to select good leaders. They'd probably be rolling over in their graves if they say the way things were being run today :lol:
> 
> But I digress, I was just wanting to point out that it's not all on the president.


And on that point you are so right. The majority of Americans simply don't know how the system works, and as a result are not very well informed voters. I don't blame the people - at least most of the time. People aren't stupid, but no one can know something if they aren't exposed to it. Our educational system just doesn't teach how our system works. It teaches the very basic theory, but like everything else the theory is pretty far removed from the reality. IMO Political Science and Personal Finance should be required courses for both Juniors and Seniors in high school to help prepare them for life...


----------



## kitten_Val

Saddlebag said:


> What is perceived of checks and balances is part of the charade to protect the enclave. Your president and our prime minister are merely high paid mouth-pieces. They say only what their party allows. Obama is a brilliant man who knows what the US needs but that would make waves because it would require major changes. Wouldn't you people like a medical system like ours? Everyone gets care without being turned away or losing their home. He wants this to happen in the US but there is always a great hue and cry, with shouts of communism. He doesn't want war, but others do. This isn't about protecting the US, it's about government contracts and keeping the US oil companies making huge profits.


I completely disagree that Obama is "brilliant". I don't find him being even bright, plus he's dishonest. As for the medical system like in Canada - I'm not positive it's all that good (based on my cousin's experience, who's a Canadian citizen). 

Sure, I DO want to be people with pre-conditions to be accepted by insurance (and from my understanding it'll be a case starting 2014), however I do NOT want government institute full of doing nothing people (who can't be even fired) to look after medical regulations and alike. I think the medical reform should be done, but the way it was suggested makes my head hurt.


----------



## Faceman

Saddlebag said:


> What is perceived of checks and balances is part of the charade to protect the enclave. Your president and our prime minister are merely high paid mouth-pieces. Perhaps that is true with your PM - I don't know as I am not informed enough about Canadian politics to have an opinion, but it is certainly not true of our President. They say only what their party allows. Uninformed comment - Obama has been at odds with his party since he took office - which is why they accomplished nothing other than Obamacare the first two years of his administration when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. He has been at odds with his own party almost as much as he has with the Republicans. Obama is a brilliant man who knows what the US needs but that would make waves because it would require major changes. Wouldn't you people like a medical system like ours? Not only is my answer NO, but NO is the answer for the majority of Americans as demonstrated by poll after poll. We studied the Canadian socialized medicine system and rejected it. We don't like your system and don't want it. Everyone gets care without being turned away or losing their home. He wants this to happen in the US but there is always a great hue and cry, with shouts of communism. Everyone in the US has access to medical care. You have been listening to too many fairy tales. There are thousands of hospitals, clinics, and professionals that serve not only those who can't afford medical insurance or care, but those too lazy to work for it. He doesn't want war, but others do. Name one influential American that "wants war". No one wants war - that is a silly and uninformed comment. People differ in when they think war is necessary, but no one "wants" it. Good grief. This isn't about protecting the US, it's about government contracts and keeping the US oil companies making huge profits. That is so absurd I can't even offer a civil comment.


That is probably the most uninformed post of this thread. Like Kevinshorses, I'll insert my comments in red.

I think it is good, as the OP requested, that opinions of others besides Americans be expressed, and I hate to argue about opinions as long as those opinions are informed, but when those opinions are based upon fantasy and no where near reality, it is incumbent on us that we defend the US from ignorant accusations, and the facts need to be pointed out. 

If I, as an American, made some silly comment like slavery was rampant in Canada, or the Canadian healthcare system refused to provide healthcare to widows and orphans, I would expect Canadians to do the same and correct me...


----------



## .Delete.

My father is a radical republican, also is an active member of the tea-party. He often calls me and warns me about the government. Like for example the Occupy and how they are a distraction from whats really going on in the government. Its constantly "the sky is falling because the democrats are brining it down!!" 

Im not near as radical as my dad but i will agree that Obama is a socialist and a liar. I also support the global warming conspiracy theory, along with i think we should drill drill drill.


----------



## FlyGap

President Obama is a SOCIALIST. He is, HE IS.

As far as your paper goes Op I totally understand the tone and the topic. But it is wrong. IF you feel like handing in a good paper keep working out your argument and you should do fine. But your argument is not based on the actual feelings of the majority people in this country or mine.

Obama is NOT an encouraging speaker. Never in my lifetime have I witnessed a public official throw out so many snide underhanded crippling remarks. His slams have done nothing but divide this country, give businesses headaches and worries, and degrade successful individuals making them out to be greedy and non contributing members of our society. He is also recently encouraging the racism debate after this whole POOR shooting. I feel for the family 1,000%. But you don't see the president commenting on how many other minority kids are being shot and killed EVERY DAY by each other! More so than the atrocities and attacks of racism. Oh! people lock up your kids, the racists are out to get them! He picks up on a piece or a topic when he feels like his post is being threatened. Often times blowing up one incident to cover up others or to lure in a wavering group of his supporters. He bashes one group to get support from another never in an uplifting manner.

Furthermore, he is capitalizing on our capitalist society to implement his socialist ideals which is so hypocritic it's laughable. And doing it in a rude, non uplifting way.

This healthcare business is such a pile of baloney I cannot believe people have not already torn down the capitol. It is called OBAMA CARE for a reason people! He implemented the whole thing, and he's not powerful? It's just congress and the senate? He didn't organize the 50+ pound document? Malarky.
His power is what thwarted the naysayers and melded the rest to huddle under his wing. If not, wasn't it obvious what he did!? Calling them out, publicly bashing them in the media. Thankfully people saw and did not agree with his attempts and voted out those "under his wing" as he will be in the next election.
As for those who support it, they are the ones who will benefit the most. You get votes, other people picking up your tag, and far lesser quality of care. WHY does innovation and quality occur? WHAT increases the standards of care? CAPITALISM and MONEY. What brings down cost? Competition in the market. If the GOV would only have provided a 1 page document opening up state lines for insurance competition we would not be having this discussion and the President would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. INSTEAD, my insurance rates have MORE than doubled, of course you cannot be denied but can you afford it if you are, NO. Soon we will all be groveling to the gov trying to get assistance, waiting in lines (like they are in the UK), and up the creek.
My DH has a preexisting condition. We pay out the WAZOO for his insurance. And it just keeps going up and up. If he goes 6 months without we can get it for free. BUT THE REASON IT KEEPS GOING UP IS BECAUSE OF THE GOV!!!
They need to just GET out of things, worry about opening trade, developing our infrastructure, and securing our borders. THEIR ONLY JOB! 
Why the HECK do we not have a rail system? It's green and if left to capitalism and competition it's affordable. But left to Obama's plans we have stupid "green" cars and bankrupt solar companies. Ya think those CEO's are hurting that got all the money to start up those solar businesses? Nope. Oh, but that's the problem with capitalism! BOGUS! That's the fault of the GOV not letting it happen naturally and protecting our trade from the crap from China. But you won't hear the president who's "such a great speaker" eat that!

No I don't agree with your paper, but good luck!


----------



## Missy May

Saddlebag said:


> "We in the USA have a system of checks and balances established in the constitution. This assures that each branch of our government is independent and has oversight from the other 2."
> 
> What is perceived of checks and balances is part of the charade to protect the enclave. Your president and our prime minister are merely high paid mouth-pieces. They say only what their party allows. Obama is a brilliant man who knows what the US needs but that would make waves because it would require major changes. Wouldn't you people like a medical system like ours? Everyone gets care without being turned away or losing their home. He wants this to happen in the US but there is always a great hue and cry, with shouts of communism. He doesn't want war, but others do. This isn't about protecting the US, it's about government contracts and keeping the US oil companies making huge profits.


Well, Canada, Saudi, Iran, etc., have no shortage of oil and gas companies, clearly you think only _they_ should be allowed to make money - rendering your statement as mere intolerance and hate speech:shock:...it makes me uncomfortable.

The day Canadians stop coming to the US for medical care - we WILL have a system like _yours._ Keep it.


----------



## gigem88

I think he is a baffoon and his voice just grates on my nerves! Of course, I'm not all that thrilled with a lot that are in office right now.


----------



## Allison Finch

> The oil companies are publicly traded and owned by each of us via 401K and mutual funds. They should be trying to make huge profits. The government makes more off the taxes than the oil companies make in profit.



I just couldn't ignore this as I am ignoring so much being spouted here. You are very mistaken on the way the oil companies are operating and even more so on the amount of taxes they are paying. In the years that they did pay taxes, it was at a lower rate that you pay and a fraction of the rate that other companies are paying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...y-pay-in-taxes/2011/05/11/AF7UNutG_story.html

How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009

But then, who could argue that they (and other major corporations) have been effectively running this country for years and are not likely to give that up regardless of who wins the election. America, keep bending over the oil barrels.


----------



## dirtroadangel

Have you all heard about the Nancy Reagan movie?????????
Guess who is playing Nancy????????????
Hanoi Jane
Don't worry she's reformed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Allison Finch

And, this was added....why?


----------



## Missy May

Allison Finch said:


> I just couldn't ignore this as I am ignoring so much being spouted here. You are very mistaken on the way the oil companies are operating and even more so on the amount of taxes they are paying. In the years that they did pay taxes, it was at a lower rate that you pay and a fraction of the rate that other companies are paying.
> 
> How much do oil companies really pay in taxes? - The Washington Post
> 
> How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009
> 
> But then, who could argue that they (and other major corporations) have been effectively running this country for years and are not likely to give that up regardless of who wins the election. America, keep bending over the oil barrels.


Because they are publicly traded, one can read the miles of SEC reports they have to file. Paying "no tax" is not the same as "writing off expenditures", which is what they do. Do you? If they don't reinvest or have business expenses, they can't write off. Exploration is expensive, as is R&D, all of which mean - jobs. There are plenty of loop holes that need to be closed, but specifically, which ones do you take exception with? 

Large corporation have been run _out_ of this country, and their off-shore oil rigs with them, so you don't have to worry about evil US corporations running the US, Chinese companies, maybe. That is better, I am sure, since they are so much more "community" minded.


----------



## FlyGap

"I just couldn't ignore this as I am ignoring so much being spouted here."

I find this comment to be very offensive. Please lets keep things civil.
I completely dig everything you have to say. I look into and feel every comment you offer. I respect your opinions and you for that matter.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss President Obamas speeches and whether or not we agree in regards to OP's paper. Yep, it gets off topic because we all have an opinion. We need to not tear others down, like he does.


----------



## tinyliny

I am just curious here. From where do you get most of your information regarding US and world affairs and current events or government doings , such as have been mentioned here?

from family? from TV? if so, which channel? Do you read a periodical? if so, which? Do you listen to radio? which show?


----------



## .Delete.

My dad listens to Rush L. as much as he can. I basically grew up listening to Rush
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

Allison Finch said:


> And, this was added....why?


Freedom off speech baby.........
Have we decided what Obama is doing right......
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May

tinyliny said:


> I am just curious here. From where do you get most of your information regarding US and world affairs and current events or government doings , such as have been mentioned here?
> 
> from family? from TV? if so, which channel? Do you read a periodical? if so, which? Do you listen to radio? which show?


Aren't you suppose to go first, Tiny?

By process of elimination I do not watch TV, ever, and I don't listen to radio news unless I have a storm concern.

My sources are primarily from the internet, multiple sources, especially financial pages. I never take someone's "word for it", I verify it - and not with "more opinion". If there is no objective evidence to be had, it is opinion, period. I am well versed in statistical techniques and can usually spot bs "data" when I see it, and...again...easily "verify" it is bs, or not. And, youtube! It is great, if some report states, "during an interview, so and so said"...you can verify that by watching the actual interview, "gov track" for bills that are cited, etc.,.


----------



## kitten_Val

dirtroadangel said:


> Have you all heard about the Nancy Reagan movie?????????
> Guess who is playing Nancy????????????
> Hanoi Jane
> Don't worry she's reformed.


What is so funny or not funny about it? 

Not being sarcastic at all, just didn't get the point, so curious.


----------



## kitten_Val

tinyliny said:


> from family? from TV? if so, which channel? Do you read a periodical? if so, which? Do you listen to radio? which show?


tiny, I mostly read. And not just US sites, but also European ones (and in several languages :wink: ). I have almost no time for TV news unfortunately (and listen to radio just on my commute).


----------



## Speed Racer

dirtroadangel said:


> Freedom of speech baby.........


You seem to forget that freedom of speech isn't really something you have on a _moderated_ forum. :lol:

As far as 'Hanoi Jane', I certainly hope 45 years from now people aren't calling up things YOU did when you were younger and more foolish. Anyone younger than 60 doesn't have any idea what Jane Fonda did as a young woman, anyway. The only thing they really know her for are her exercise videos.


----------



## Missy May

kitten_Val said:


> What is so funny or not funny about it?
> 
> Not being sarcastic at all, just didn't get the point, so curious.


She is a traitor, not at all what comes to mind when you think of the Reagans.


----------



## Missy May

Speed Racer said:


> You seem to forget that freedom of speech isn't really something you have on a _moderated_ forum. :lol:
> 
> As far as 'Hanoi Jane', I certainly hope 45 years from now people aren't calling up things YOU did when you were younger and more foolish. Anyone younger than 60 doesn't have any idea what Jane Fonda did as a young woman, anyway. The only thing they really know her for are her exercise videos.


Well, I am a lot younger than 60, and I am fully aware of what she did.

Yes, lets forget the suffering of POW's, past, present and future - who cares, Jane is nifty.


----------



## Speed Racer

Missy May said:


> She is a traitor, not at all what comes to mind when you think of the Reagans.


She was young, stupid, and idealistic. What exactly did she do that was 'traitorous'? I don't believe she took arms up against her fellow Americans. There were quite a few people who voiced their displeasure at the Vietnam war. She wasn't the only one.

What_ exactly _did Jane Fonda have to do with POWs? Seriously?

I don't care about Jane Fonda one way or the other, but y'all making her out to be Satan Incarnate is ridiculous and more than a little hypocritical, considering she wasn't the _only_ celebrity acting like an *** over the war at the time. 

You want to know what I find unforgivable? The American people who would spit on, curse at, or even physically assault those in the military who came home from that war. I may not have agreed to what we were doing over there, but those military personnel didn't deserve such treatment.


----------



## Missy May

Speed Racer said:


> She was young, stupid, and idealistic. What exactly did she do that was 'traitorous'? I don't believe she took arms up against her fellow Americans. There were quite a few people who voiced their displeasure at the Vietnam war. She wasn't the only one.
> 
> What_ exactly _did Jane Fonda have to do with POWs? Seriously?


Well, gosh I don't know...showing how wonderfully the enemy was treating the POW's (taking the enemy's word for it, since they must have been honest folk), and how horrible the US service men were comes to mind.


----------



## kevinshorses

As long as Jane Fonda can read her lines and the movie is well done and not left leaning I could care less that she is in it. I doubt I'll see it anyway. If it's some kind of leftist history revision that shows Nancy running the country while Ronald takes a nap then I won't be too happy with it.


----------



## Whisper22

Speed Racer said:


> She was young, stupid, and idealistic. What exactly did she do that was 'traitorous'? I don't believe she took arms up against her fellow Americans. There were quite a few people who voiced their displeasure at the Vietnam war. She wasn't the only one.
> 
> What_ exactly _did Jane Fonda have to do with POWs? Seriously?


Do you really not know, or do YOU just percieve it as being not a big deal? 

What exactly did she do? She turned over letters written by the POW's explaining the real conditions they were living in, and turned them over to their captors. I would call that a traitor. There is a difference between not agreeing with war and trying to stop it, and then completely turning your back on your fellow Americans. That was not something she had to do. Young and stupid or not, she SHOULD be held accountable and she DOESN'T deserve that part.


----------



## dirtroadangel

Let it be your sister , your daughter your son that's dealt with it.
And then they come home and another fight is on....
Having to deal with people who have noclue and I include myself in 
Then fast forward 30 years.........
I pray you neverr ecperience it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Allison Finch

To answer Tiny's question.

I watch CNN, BBC and Fox equally. I read several newspapers including a pretty darn conservative one that is local. I listen to Rush and conservative radio stations as well as NPR.

I make a huge effort to learn both sides of an arguement. I am, however, more liberal than "conservative" although I am very conservative on a few issues.

I am sorry a poster was offended by my impatience with some of the posts here. They just appear to gather all their information from a very narrow information pool, and it does bother me. But, That is *MY* problem, not theirs. People have a right to educate themselves any way they want to.


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> I just couldn't ignore this as I am ignoring so much being spouted here. You are very mistaken on the way the oil companies are operating and even more so on the amount of taxes they are paying. In the years that they did pay taxes, it was at a lower rate that you pay and a fraction of the rate that other companies are paying.
> 
> How much do oil companies really pay in taxes? - The Washington Post
> 
> How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009
> 
> But then, who could argue that they (and other major corporations) have been effectively running this country for years and are not likely to give that up regardless of who wins the election. America, keep bending over the oil barrels.


I'm not sure how to respond to that post. Let me just say that you are looking at a very narrow slice of the pie. Income taxes are virtually inconsequential in the big picture when you are dealing with a corporation this size.

I won't even attempt to address all the myriad of taxes Exxon pays, but will just mention one. Turn your calculator on and cipher up how much Exxon pays into Social Security on its 82,000 employees each year. Or Chevron on its 62,000 employees. Tax is not limited to income tax. The amount of tax a company like Exxon pays a year is staggering.

Don't get me wrong - I am retired from the oil exploration business, and know first hand both the good and bad about big oil, and you won't normally find me defending oil companies. But I will always defend the truth, be it good or bad. We should base our judgments and opinions on factual data - we won't all come to the same conclusion of course, but to intimate that Exxon, or any other large company, pays little or no tax is a bit far fetched.

Personally, my opinion, and this will make all my conservative friends grind their teeth to the gums, is that I feel the oil industry should be regulated to a degree. while much of the hatred of the oil industry is based upon emotions rather than facts, oil is a lifeblood of our economy, and I don't see how any reasonable person, be they conservative or liberal, can rationalize and condone record profits during a long and deep recession. And note I said profits, which is AFTER reinvesting revenues in exploration and R & D. In short, there does come a time when an industry such as the oil industry that can at its whim and quest for profit effect an economic catastrophe, must exercise a bit of restraint for the common good, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. While I am a capitalist to the core, I also have a measure of common sense and understand it is not prudent for a nation to be held hostage by profiteers...


----------



## dirtroadangel

Speed Racer said:


> You seem to forget that freedom of speech isn't really something you have on a _moderated_ forum. :lol:
> 
> My Freedom of Speech is something I will have Always.......
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

Speed Racer said:


> She was young, stupid, and idealistic. What exactly did she do that was 'traitorous'? I don't believe she took arms up against her fellow Americans. There were quite a few people who voiced their displeasure at the Vietnam war. She wasn't the only one.
> 
> What_ exactly _did Jane Fonda have to do with POWs? Seriously?
> 
> I don't care about Jane Fonda one way or the other, but y'all making her out to be Satan Incarnate is ridiculous and more than a little hypocritical, considering she wasn't the _only_ celebrity acting like an *** over the war at the time.
> 
> You want to know what I find unforgivable? The American people who would spit on, curse at, or even physically assault those in the military who came home from that war. I may not have agreed to what we were doing over there, but those military personnel didn't deserve such treatment.


Oh my...although we agree on most things, we are way far apart here. Jane Fonda was a traitor, pure and simple. You may want to research the issue a bit closer. Yes, many people were against the war. Heck, I was even against it, although I served during the war because my country called - whether for the right reasons or the wrong reasons. But not everyone fraternized with the enemy and provided the enemy with information. 

In my opinion she deserved to be shot as a traitor.

And I find it disgusting that anyone would even consider her to play the role of Nancy Reagan. That would be right up there with Hitler playing the part of a former Israeli prime minister...


----------



## dbarabians

The problem with the Republican Party of today is that even Reagan couldn't pass the scrutinity to get nominated today.
He may have pandered to the religous right but he was no social conservative.
As governer of California he was against an antigay amendment, he raised taxes and he was pro choice. He was also pragmatic enought o work with a Democratic controlled congress and compromised for the good of the nation. Something the current crop of contenders has no interest in.
I do not care how far left or right you are you must govern from the center.
Elections are won not by the fringe but by the moderates.
As a citizen of Isreal which was created as a Social democracy. I assure you that this country is in no danger of becoming Socialist.
Calling something a name does not make it so.
In the USA our system of checks and balances is working. On view today in the Supreme Court. The ruling will either affirm or deny that the legislative and executive branch are in compliance with our revered Constitution. Rightfully so. Long live the USA. Shalom


----------



## FlyGap

I love that dbarabians^
I so hope you are right.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kitten_Val

Missy May said:


> She is a traitor, not at all what comes to mind when you think of the Reagans.


Oh, I see... Lol!


----------



## kitten_Val

Speed Racer said:


> You want to know what I find unforgivable? The American people who would spit on, curse at, or even physically assault those in the military who came home from that war. I may not have agreed to what we were doing over there, but those military personnel didn't deserve such treatment.


It's kinda getting OT, but what do you All think about the dad of the (killed) soldier, when he dragged and burned NJ flag (because the flags in the state were brought down for Whitney Houston)?


----------



## dirtroadangel

I was no fsn of Reagan with his trickle down economics.
Are you happy with nancy pelosi charlie rangel hsrry reid?
Am still waiting to hear what actual things you can say that obama did? Shouldn't he come up with a budget?
I can't think of another president who hasn't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Adonai Acres Ronaldo

mmmm very interesting. I dont know much about the way that the US Government system works... i find it all very very confusing.
I used to think that Americans should just be grateful that they dont have Julia Gillard as a leader (because most of the gerneral public arent too keen on her anymore because of broken promises that are costing) but now im def not saying that. Your political situation over there is just as unstable and devided as ours! which i guess shouldnt be that much of a surprise.
Anyway its interesting to hear all of these different points of view
As for the whol "Hitler"/"Obama" thing i dont think it would be correct to compare their deeds as Obama hasnt been around as long but things never stay the same and you dont know what will happen tomorrow
Often you can only see things in hindsight


----------



## Faceman

Adonai Acres Ronaldo said:


> As for the whol "Hitler"/"Obama" thing i dont think it would be correct to compare their deeds as Obama hasnt been around as long but things never stay the same and you dont know what will happen tomorrow
> Often you can only see things in hindsight


Well you are right...it isn't correct, and honestly it is inappropriate. We shouldn't be comparing our President to Hitler - or Genghis Khan for that matter.

While I vehemently disagree with Obama's policies, it is counterproductive to make such a comparison as all it does is give his supporters fodder and make us conservatives look like wackos. Sure, there are some similarities between Hitler and Obama, but there are similarities between ANY two people. Having worked under the Bush administration, I can tell you he used a Gestapo-like management style in running the federal government, but I certainly don't compare him to Hitler any more than Obama. 

Obama does not believe in the "American way"...free enterprise, individual freedom, and earning your own way, which is why he has been, and continues to be, destructive to our way of life and everything that this country is and represents, and which is why he should be criticized. But name calling and making comparisons to Satan's spawn is not criticism - such tactics are never ways to win a debate or argument...


----------



## dirtroadangel

History is in the making today.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kait18

kitten_Val said:


> It's kinda getting OT, but what do you All think about the dad of the (killed) soldier, when he dragged and burned NJ flag (because the flags in the state were brought down for Whitney Houston)?


off topic i know but i agreed with him... he had every right to do what he did to the Jersey's flag. Yes whitney died she was also a drug addict...sorry not a great role model, so what do we do we give her a flag at half mast to honor her... she has no right to be honered she did not die for our country.

ok my rant over... as you see i am very disgusted with my state for lowering the flag for her even though i did love her music


----------



## dbarabians

Once again the executive offfice of the presidency doesnot and cannot work independetly of the other 2.
I beleive that healthcare is a right. I believe that someone who chooses not to invest in healthcare is relying on the government anyway to furnish it for them.
I support the Affodable Healthcare Act an it is unlikey to be overturned in its entiriety. The federal government is already providing and ensuring healthcare for those that do not qualify or have the funds to do so.
I know people that drive luxury cars and own horses take vacations and refuse to ensure that they have adequate healthcare.
We as Americans already pay into a mandatory retirement and healthcare It is called Social Security and Medicare.,
As faceman pointed out the Cheney adminstration was run and operated as a dictatorship.
I also think that Obama has restored the image of the USA in foriegn policy and is ending an needless war in Iraq and winding down another.

The Bailouts worked. Jobs are being created. The Auto industry is booming. Unemployment is going down and another grat depression has been avoided.
The sink or swim mentality of certain members of congress would have resulted in millions of hungry, homeless, and uninsured.
I begrudge no one an education healthcare or something to eat.
I believe that everyone has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There are many of us that will not agree on this matter. However this debate in informative and necessary.
Dialogue is what is important not rhetoric.
Responding in anger and frustration because some do not agree lessens our debate. Everyones point is valid and important to them. That is good and reminds me why I live here in the USA.
Where else can we so freely express our opinion? 
Shalom


----------



## kevinshorses

dbarabians said:


> The federal government is already providing and ensuring healthcare for those that do not qualify or have the funds to do so.* So why do we need a massive new entitlement?*
> I know people that drive luxury cars and own horses take vacations and refuse to ensure that they have adequate healthcare. *So how does the government have the right to force them to purchase anything?*
> We as Americans already pay into a mandatory retirement and healthcare It is called Social Security and Medicare.,*Look how well that's run! That right there is the best arguement against Obamacare that there could be.*
> As faceman pointed out the Cheney adminstration was run and operated as a dictatorship. *Have a little dignity. It's the Bush administration and it's over. Move on!*
> I also think that Obama has restored the image of the USA in foriegn policy and is ending an needless war in Iraq and winding down another.* And bowing to foriegn kings and undermining our allies.*
> 
> The Bailouts worked. Jobs are being created. The Auto industry is booming. *I don't think so.* Unemployment is going down *Nope *and another grat depression has been avoided. *Why did Gietner say today that unemployment is at crisis level?*
> The sink or swim mentality of certain members of congress would have resulted in millions of hungry, homeless, and uninsured.
> I begrudge no one an education healthcare or something to eat.* It's not federal governments job to steal from one person and give to another and call it charity. States can take care of all three of those issues much more efficently than the federal goverment.*
> I believe that everyone has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.* So do I. I don't believe they have a right to any of that without a little work. *
> There are many of us that will not agree on this matter. However this debate in informative and necessary. *Yes it is.*
> Dialogue is what is important not rhetoric.
> Responding in anger and frustration because some do not agree lessens our debate. Everyones point is valid and important to them. That is good and reminds me why I live here in the USA.
> Where else can we so freely express our opinion? *I couldn't agree more!*
> Shalom


My comments in red.


----------



## kait18

can i ask possible a silly question?? why does everyone think the war was not needed?? if i remember correctly our home soil was attacked by terrorist who come from another country... and with that attack came deaths to innocent people 9/11... which was not the only attack in our country nor around the world

we went in looking for nuclear power which i still believe they have but since we didn't act right away they had the time to hide it... and in this process of searching for already moved weapons we looked for osama bin laden and eventually caught him..

do i think we should be rebuilding there country..hell no but do i think we should pull out all troops hell no... why because once we do all those moved weapons will come back and guess what since we are considering lowing our nuclear developments we might as well kiss America good bye, because you really think terrorists aren't going to use those weapons against us first... 

ok now what am i missing that makes this war so bad other than us rebuilding there country???


----------



## Ink

kait18 said:


> can i ask possible a silly question?? why does everyone think the war was not needed?? if i remember correctly our home soil was attacked by terrorist who come from another country... and with that attack came deaths to innocent people 9/11... which was not the only attack in our country nor around the world
> *
> Because Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Bush used the gung-ho let's go get 'em attitude that many Americans had in the aftermath of that tragedy to finish the war his daddy started. Going into Afghanistan where the responsible party was known to be hiding was justified. Invading Iraq, not so much.*
> 
> we went in looking for nuclear power which i still believe they have but since we didn't act right away they had the time to hide it... and in this process of searching for already moved weapons we looked for osama bin laden and eventually caught him..
> 
> *Um... I think you're getting a few middle eastern countries confused here. Iraq is the one we invaded a few years ago on supposed suspicion of them "developing nuclear weapons." Iran is the one that's been causing controversy recently with their nuclear activities. And I'm not sure where exactly the ended up finding Osama (could someone enlighten me?)*
> 
> do i think we should be rebuilding there country..hell no but do i think we should pull out all troops hell no... why because once we do all those moved weapons will come back and guess what since we are considering lowing our nuclear developments we might as well kiss America good bye, because you really think terrorists aren't going to use those weapons against us first...
> 
> *Yeah, actually sticking around to help rebuild and set up a new government in Iraq was kind of necessary. We couldn't just go in, over throw Saddam, and say "You're welcome! See you later" without some serious backlash.*
> 
> ok now what am i missing that makes this war so bad other than us rebuilding there country???


My comments in red. I hope that answers your question.


----------



## Missy May

Well, just so we don't forget, there is/will be 16,000 people attached to the US embassy in Iraq, and they don't work for free. Sixteen THOUSAND.


----------



## kait18

thank you... but to be honest i think it is/was necessary to go into the other neighboring countries. it wasn't just afghansitan that had terrorists who attacked us... these terrorist are all over the world especially in those neighboring areas who have close ties to eachother.

and who cares about the backlash it seems like thats all this country cares about is what others think of us!!! 

and when has there ever in any war have the wining country rebuilds the country it beat unless they were taking it as there own property... we are turning the country back over to the same people who don't believe in our ways anyway so why waste our time building it back up. just doesn't make sense to me to rebuild there country when there country can't even be civil to its own people...


----------



## Faceman

kait18 said:


> can i ask possible a silly question?? why does everyone think the war was not needed?? if i remember correctly our home soil was attacked by terrorist who come from another country... and with that attack came deaths to innocent people 9/11... which was not the only attack in our country nor around the world


Pretty much what Ink said - at least on that particular issue. 911 was an attack primarily by Saudis based out of Afghanistan...so Bush attacked Iraq. Sort of like beating your son because your dog pooped on the floor.

We were, and are, absolutely justified in Afghanistan, and chasing terrorists wherever we can find them, and also going after those that harbour them. But invading Iraq was an unjustified preemptive move, and a person would have to be blind to not see it was a personal vendeta. That is not to say the world isn't better off without Sadaam, but it was unjustified nonetheless. We can't, or at least shouldn't, go around the world invading countries we don't agree with and deposing or assasinating their leadership. Sovereignty should not be a right of some and withheld from others. We either recognize sovereignty or we don't...if we demand it for ourselves, other countries have the same right.

But liberals should not assume Bush is indicative of what we conservatives seek in a leader, just as (I hope) reasonable liberals don't see Obama as representing a reasonable liberal view. Bush was no better than Obama in that neither one of them can come close to spelling economics, and both have become laughing stocks around the world. We are in dire need of a better nomination process. We should be nominating well qualified people that have the skill sets necessary to do the job and not go off half cocked on some personal agenda. Although as a conservative I obviously disasgree with his politics, Clinton was the last President we had that met those criteria...


----------



## kait18

thank you faceman for giving me that persepective that does make sense

ps sorry for derailing just wanted a better understanding as when most of this was happening i was in high school and didn't pay much attention to it until junior year in college


----------



## Missy May

As far as health care goes, why not look at what the costs are actually derived from, and _not_ how to just pay them for everyone? We look at oil profits, but not hospital and dr. profits???
Most all medical schools receive federal dollars, so the taxpayer is assisting in the education of dr's. 
Far more people highly qualified students want to go to med school than get "selected and accepted". If you are "more equal", your chances are higher, but still - the number of graduates is artificially kept low.
Potential legal cost literally make a procedure 5-10 and more times what it would ordinarily be (how much did you pay to have your dog neutered, for example - 15K, 20K or 170.00?). Notice the vast majority in the senate and, indeed, the president are lawyers.
Hospitals are owned and operated by corporations, take a close look at a medical bill...do ya really think a single night in a hospital is worth what they charged? What is their profit margin? No one in congress cares, its all those evil oil companies we have to worry about....they just feel the taxpayer should pay whatever the hospitals are charging, and let it rip. Notice, both houses are exempt....its that good!
US manufactured pharmas are a tenth the cost _across the border_!!! Why? Ya can't sue!! 
Insurance is regulated, and has been for eons, such that it is far from dictated by a "free market" - it cannot cross certian state lines, you cannot get the best premium on a "free market" basis.
These problems do not take 2300 pages of a CFR cut and paste collage monstrosity to address.


----------



## Faceman

You aren't derailing, just asking meaningful questions. The topic is agreement or disagreement with Obama, but to evaluate a President you have to evaluate how he handles situations and how he compares to other Presidents in somewhat similar circumstances. History is a great teacher if we would all just listen...


----------



## busysmurf

But liberals should not assume Bush is indicative of what we conservatives seek in a leader, just as (I hope) reasonable liberals don't see Obama as representing a reasonable liberal view. Bush was no better than Obama in that neither one of them can come close to spelling economics, and both have become laughing stocks around the world. We are in dire need of a better nomination process. We should be nominating well qualified people that have the skill sets necessary to do the job and not go off half cocked on some personal agenda. Although as a conservative I obviously disasgree with his politics, Clinton was the last President we had that met those criteria...[/QUOTE]

The only problem I see with your statement is that the people that would be PERFECT for the job are smart enough not to take it!:wink:


----------



## bsms

Just thought I'd point out that we patrolled Iraq as part of the cease-fire at the end of GW1, and that Iraq was shooting at us quite regularly. I flew a lot of hours over Iraq during 'peacetime', and I couldn't count how many times I was shot at.

In a war on terrorists, national lines don't mean much. No, the government of Iraq did not attack NYC, although they were shooting at us regularly. However, it was sponsoring terror attacks, and supporting the ideology. That is one of the problems in fighting terrorists - the usual rules of nationality don't apply.


----------



## kevinshorses

I think the U.S. and our allies were absolutely justified in going into Iraq. I think it should have happened earlier. Hussien (the iraqi not the Kenyan) was thumbing his nose at the world and trying to develop weapons of mass destruction be it nuclear, biological or chemical. There was plenty of time for all evidence of these weapons to be hidden, sold or destroyed. Even with all the time they had we still found evidence of a nuclear weapons program and thousands of shells either filled with chemical weapons or capable of being filled with chemical or biological weapons. All the equipment to build a nuclear warhead will fit in a semi trailer or two. Iraq is about the size of California. How about you give me a year and unlimited funds to hide two semi trailers in California and then see how hard it is to find them. 

Going into Iraq and Afganistan took all the fun out of harboring terrorists and contibuted to successes in other countryies as well. I don't think the wars have been run very well. Afganistan should have been a much smaller affair and we should have a continuing presence in Iraq. We are allowing ourselves to be chased out of these contries and it will weigh heavily on our foriegn relations for many years.


----------



## kitten_Val

kait18 said:


> why does everyone think the war was not needed??


At least NOT with Iraq (the terrorists were from the different country). And besides Iraq had been a stopping power for Iran (not anymore). 

Personally I don't believe into forcing the democracy (or anything else for that matter) to the country that clearly doesn't need and doesn't want it. And both wars in Afghan and Iraq clearly proved that.


----------



## Missy May

Afghanistan is a loser country, always has been, always will be - Alexander the Great was among the first to notice!
We don't fight wars...we tie soldiers hands behind their back, build compounds, and worry about collateral damage and spend kabootles on teaching "tolerance" (Helloooo Ft. Hood). If you want to fight a war - get it on, if you want to police, don't go. I haven't seen any 9/11 type activity in Biejing...probably won't...b/c the enemy KNOWS they would let loose, and then some - get their costs back by taking resources, and most likely occupy w/o "tolerance" classes - forever!
As far as Afghanistan goes, terrorists are not uniform militaries, so they are all "civilians" (collateral damage conundrum, eh?). So, read them there rights in the "battle field", assign them a lawyer? 
When we first went into afghanastan...Iran put their military might on the border, not, as the news would have you believe b/c they are war mongering nut cases - but b/c they have a HUGE illegal alien problem w Afghanstan...and wanted to ensure it didn't get far worse! 

I wish we would worry about _our _own borders, which is 100% constitutional - and stop all police actions, which are not.


----------



## dirtroadangel

[
I know our soldiers have to miranda the people and drones just nlow up the family.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

Bring them all home.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

bsms said:


> Just thought I'd point out that we patrolled Iraq as part of the cease-fire at the end of GW1, and that Iraq was shooting at us quite regularly. I flew a lot of hours over Iraq during 'peacetime', and I couldn't count how many times I was shot at.


I understand, but I have to play devil's advocate here. What would WE do if they were flying around over the U.S.? Sovereign borders do include air space. I hope no one thinks I am trying to defend the Sadaam regime - farthest thing from my mind. But a country does have the right to fire on aircraft from another nation that are violating its air space. We would do exactly the same - with the exception we would have knocked their behinds out of the sky instead of just pot-shotting at them. I realize that fly zones are imposed in such situations, but if the international community imposed a fly zone over the U.S., we wouldn't tolerate it any more than Iraq did. Again, I am not defending them - just saying...


----------



## Faceman

kevinshorses said:


> I think the U.S. and our allies were absolutely justified in going into Iraq. I think it should have happened earlier. Hussien (the iraqi not the Kenyan) was thumbing his nose at the world and trying to develop weapons of mass destruction be it nuclear, biological or chemical. There was plenty of time for all evidence of these weapons to be hidden, sold or destroyed. Even with all the time they had we still found evidence of a nuclear weapons program and thousands of shells either filled with chemical weapons or capable of being filled with chemical or biological weapons. All the equipment to build a nuclear warhead will fit in a semi trailer or two. Iraq is about the size of California. How about you give me a year and unlimited funds to hide two semi trailers in California and then see how hard it is to find them.


I'm spending all my time being a devil's advocate...:-|

One does have to ask some philosophical questions here. The very first one is are we really so egotistical that we feel we have some God given right to have weapons of mass destruction but another country doesn't? What gives us that right? Don't get me wrong - I don't want Iraq, Iran, and Korea et al to have them either, but are we really justified in invading, deposing, and killing, because we have different values? What if we were on the other side of the fence? What if the majority of the international community were pro Iraq and Iran and anti U.S., and the nations that do have WMD's decided we were the ones that shouldn't have them?

I'm just posing some philosophical questions here that demonstrate why there are two sides of these kinds of issues. Both have valid arguments. 
As a conservative, you know what my position is for the most part, although I am a moderate, but I understand the other side too...


----------



## Allison Finch

Well said, Face.

I am no supporter of the terrorists. However, one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Great Britain saw George Washington, Patrick Henry and Paul Revere as terrorists....we see freedom fighters.

If ANY country saw fit to invade this country and "determine" our future, I would take up my rifle and be one heck of a guerrilla fighter. It is MY country!! How could I think that they would feel any different? That said, you attack my country and we can determine where the suspects are, be ready for me to come at you.

Afghanistan did support and protect and train the very people who attacked us. That is enough to put you on my radar. Iraq did not. It had oil, and it ****ed the Bush family off (more the former than the latter). We had no business there. It has been shown that we citizens were purposely duped by the administration into seeing a risk that was never there, solely in an effort to justify our being there. Certainly not worth the thousands of American lives sacrificed there, IMO.


----------



## dirtroadangel

.
When the Republican Party disavows the policy of party before country I may take a second look.
And the democrats don't what do you think they were doing behind the closed doors no republicans was invited. Or telling us you just have to vote for the bill to know what's in it
Asking again do you feel we don't need to bring ID when you vote?
something tells it would be ok as long as it benefitted your party.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

Allison Finch said:


> Well said, Face.
> 
> I am no supporter of the terrorists. However, one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Great Britain saw George Washington, Patrick Henry and Paul Revere as terrorists....we see freedom fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan did support and protect and train the very people who attacked us. That is enough to put you on my radar. Iraq did not. It had oil, and it ****ed the Bush family off (more the former than the latter). We had no business there. It has been shown that we citizens were purposely duped by the administration into seeing a risk that was never there, solely in an effort to justify our being there. Certainly not worth the thousands of American lives sacrificed there,
> I do agree it was hasn't been worth the price our men and women have paid. But everyone believed Iraq had weapons the whole world did.
> He did have the chemical labs on wheels with which he killed 100,000 of the northern Iraqis the Kurds. To me that was weapons of mass destruction. SADam was given 23 chsnces to cooperate as well as countless un resolutions which he chose to ignore. Not as simple as just all Bush's fault.
> Unfortunately Osama was trained by us.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

Faceman said:


> ...But a country does have the right to fire on aircraft from another nation that are violating its air space...


Not under the terms of the cease-fire. We retained the right to patrol from the air.


----------



## bsms

Iraq & Gulf War 2:

It was a strategic gamble. Like any gamble, the risk of failure was there from the beginning - as well as a potential reward. 

In Japan after WW2, we created a democracy out of nothing. Had we been successful at doing so in Iraq, it would have dramatically changed the face of the Middle East, and created a plausible hope for reforming a very screwed up part of the world. That we failed to create a democracy there isn't the same as saying it wasn't worth trying.

Another thing it did for us was concentrate many of the most extreme on the battlefield. If you asked me in Oct 2001 if we could go 10+ years without a major terrorist attack in the USA, I'd have said no. Iraq is a big part of why we have. It gave the most militant terrorists a place to go fight us - but our fighting was done by soldiers and marines. We killed tens of thousands, maybe more - and many of those were folks who would have been glad to come here and attack us at home. Fortunately, they weren't smart enough to stay on their game plan - maybe because they realized the threat a democratic Iraq would be to their goals.

We did not entirely succeed in Iraq, but neither did we entirely fail. I certainly would credit GWB for thinking big - something his successor seems unable to do, apart from big apologies. And GWB was much better at letting us FIGHT. My son returned from Afghanistan in December, and says we're fighting with both hands tied behind our backs. He is in the California Army Guard, and will leave when his contract allows him to do so.


----------



## kait18

Faceman said:


> One does have to ask some philosophical questions here. The very first one is are we really so egotistical that we feel we have some God given right to have weapons of mass destruction but another country doesn't? What gives us that right?


i would have to argue our right to have them over everyone else is after ww2 everyone looked to the US for support... 

if other countries are so dependent on us then that gives us the right to protect ourselves and others from starting another world war.

another reason i think we should be allowed and no one else is our government atleast not yet is based on freedoms. if no one else had the weapontry (sp) then no one would be on edge wondering if some socialist/communist country is going to let one rip... 

just my way of thinking...


----------



## dirtroadangel

bsms said:


> Iraq & Gulf War 2:
> 
> It was a strategic gamble. Like any gamble, the risk of failure was there from the beginning - as well as a potential reward.
> 
> In Japan after WW2, we created a democracy out of nothing. Had we been successful at doing so in Iraq, it would have dramatically changed the face of the Middle East, and created a plausible hope for reforming a very screwed up part of the world. That we failed to create a democracy there isn't the same as saying it wasn't worth trying.
> 
> Another thing it did for us was concentrate many of the most extreme on the battlefield. If you asked me in Oct 2001 if we could go 10+ years without a major terrorist attack in the USA, I'd have said no. Iraq is a big part of why we have. It gave the most militant terrorists a place to go fight us - but our fighting was done by soldiers and marines. We killed tens of thousands, maybe more - and many of those were folks who would have been glad to come here and attack us at home. Fortunately, they weren't smart enough to stay on their game plan - maybe because they realized the threat a democratic Iraq would be to their goals.
> 
> We did not entirely succeed in Iraq, but neither did we entirely fail. I certainly would credit GWB for thinking big - something his successor seems unable to do, apart from big apologies. And GWB was much better at letting us FIGHT. My son returned from Afghanistan in December, and says we're fighting with both hands tied behind our backs. He is in the California Army Guard, and will leave when his contract allows him to do so.


Well put God Bless Your Son
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tinyliny

bsms said:


> Iraq & Gulf War 2:
> 
> It was a strategic gamble. Like any gamble, the risk of failure was there from the beginning - as well as a potential reward.
> 
> *In Japan after WW2, we created a democracy out of nothing. Had we been successful at doing so in Iraq, it would have dramatically changed the face of the Middle East, and created a plausible hope for reforming a very screwed up part of the world. That we failed to create a democracy there isn't the same as saying it wasn't worth trying.*
> 
> Another thing it did for us was concentrate many of the most extreme on the battlefield. If you asked me in Oct 2001 if we could go 10+ years without a major terrorist attack in the USA, I'd have said no. Iraq is a big part of why we have. It gave the most militant terrorists a place to go fight us - but our fighting was done by soldiers and marines. We killed tens of thousands, maybe more - and many of those were folks who would have been glad to come here and attack us at home. Fortunately, they weren't smart enough to stay on their game plan - maybe because they realized the threat a democratic Iraq would be to their goals.
> 
> We did not entirely succeed in Iraq, but neither did we entirely fail. I certainly would credit GWB for thinking big - something his successor seems unable to do, apart from big apologies. And GWB was much better at letting us FIGHT. My son returned from Afghanistan in December, and says we're fighting with both hands tied behind our backs. He is in the California Army Guard, and will leave when his contract allows him to do so.


 
Japan is a monoethnic society. they are all the same religion (minus a tiny minority of Christians), and consider themselves to be the same race. 
Iraq is divided into two , large and long time warring faction of Islam that have not gotten along in centuries. AND, they also have tribal affiliations in some areas, so they lack the ethnic unity of Japan. 
Very hard to create a democracy in a tribal society, like Afghanistan or Somalia or Saudi Arabia and others.


----------



## Faceman

bsms said:


> We did not entirely succeed in Iraq, but neither did we entirely fail. I certainly would credit GWB for thinking big - something his successor seems unable to do, apart from big apologies. And GWB was much better at letting us FIGHT. My son returned from Afghanistan in December, and says we're fighting with both hands tied behind our backs. He is in the California Army Guard, and will leave when his contract allows him to do so.


Thanks for bringing that up, as that is one of the differences between a liberal (Obama) and a conservative (Bush), and one of my pet peeves. Liberals often seem to be more concerned about the rights and welfare of the enemy than they do thier own troops. It didn't used to be that way...it started in the Vietnam war where I served, and we came home to find we were the bad guys in our liberal minded society of the late 60's. I think that attitude has been attenuated somewhat in recent years - IMO mainly due to the large part the reserves have played in recent conflicts rather than the careerists, but nonetheless the radical segment of the liberals seem content to increase foodstamps and welfare for those too chicken sh*t to serve, while withholding needed funds to keep our troops safe, and seem to be more concerned with providing soccer fields for captured terrorists than acknowledging the sacrifices our troops and their families make to protect them from the very terrorists they pamper...

That was my opinion/editorial for the day...sorry for the tangent, but you hit a soft spot...


----------



## Cinder

I don't agree with the kid burning the NJ flag, but that's because I don't agree with anyone burning any flags. What you're burning is more than just fabric, it is a symbol, and in many cases an extremely potent symbol that is important to many people. To me it is extremely offensive and not at all a way to solve your problems or make a point. Though I do agree that putting the flags at half mast for Whitney Houston wasn't a good decision, and disrespectful to the people who sacrifice their lives for this country. 

I disagree to using the word "terrorists" to describe all of Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/etc. To me you are not just being over-generalizing when you do that, but also racist, to a point. Iraq and the countries like it have families just like we do. Yes, they have terrorists and crazy people in their country. So do we. If you're going to bring up that some individuals use religion as a cover to attack and harm people, I'd like to point you all to the Crusades, the "holy wars". The honors kids at my High School went on a field trip last week. We went to a Christian (Protestant) church, then a Hindu temple, and then an Islamic Mosque. The man who talked to us was not only extremely respectful but also funny and passionate about his religion. He talked a lot about the terrorist attacks perpetuated by people of his religion and made it very clear that most Muslims disagree with it. In ELA we are required to read many books but the most recent is a graphic novel named "Persepolis" about the Islamic Revolution and the events surrounding it. It focuses on a young girl and her feelings growing up around all the craziness. 

I believe Obama is neither horrible nor great. He has made a lot of mistakes, but he has also done some good. Yes, Obama is actually a person, just like you or me, who is capable of doing good AND bad. He is not Satan and is not God descending down from Heaven to pull miracles out of his butt. Bush had plenty of time to mess up this country and Obama is left with the mess. It is a little unfair to expect TOTAL change in just four years. It's also important to remember that EVERYTHING is not SOLELY Obama's fault. Decisions made by our government in general have complicated consequences and he is not an Almighty God who can do whatever he wants. I'm not sure if the system of "checks and balances" we're taught about is really as fair as it's sometimes said to be but I also do not think that one branch can outweigh another a ton when a whole system was made just to make sure that didn't happen.

Getting off topic but on the topic of education...yes, the public school education isn't the best but it isn't as horrible as some people say it is. At least the teachers in my school try their best to teach us about the world. For example, my Global teacher on our government system:
"Oh, you guys are so cute. Listen up guys, our system has its issues. Here they are". 
They make sure that we know BOTH SIDES to an argument and how to recognize when a source is biased. They leave us to form our own opinions, and contrary to what some people believe, they do not constantly feed us information about how very Great and Speshul our country is and we should all shed a single tear every day just for the sheer joy of being led by such people. 

Things kind of suck right now for a lot of people. But this is NOT the first time that has happened, and certainly won't be the last. We are AMERICANS and as such we will get through it. When I stand up to say the pledge and remain standing for a moment of silence I don't do it while hating this country, or even disliking it in general. We have some GREAT people and I think it is important to remember that. I stand by the opinion that when we need to, we can unite and help each other like nobody's business. I live in Buffalo and thus I got to enjoy some nice snow storms in my life, nothing too terrible but we've had some nice ones. My neighbor let us borrow a generator he had for the duration of a long storm (otherwise we would've had absolutely no power for about a week). Other people braved the snow to check up on others and make sure they were okay. Stuff like that. Even though I was young when it happened, I hear tales of amazing unity after 9/11. So I can't help but roll my eyes when people talk about how SUPER AMAZING the old days were- I'm sure you feel nostalgic about them, and I respect that. Look around you, however, and you'll see people being nice and helping other human beings just like they did 50, 60, 100 years ago. Miracles are happening every day. Technology is getting better every day. Yes, things are changing but that is the way the world works. Embrace it and you'll see that things aren't so end-of-the-world horrible. 

Sorry if this sounds weird or unorganized but I have to get off the computer soon.


----------



## dbarabians

The war in Irag was and still is a distraction in the global war on terror.
Saddam may have been a tyrant to his own people but he was no threat to the world.
Losing thousands of Americans and tens of thousands returning wounded plus spending trillions of dollars cannot be justified.
Only history will tell.
The money and time as well as the effort by our government and others could have been spent on Iran and North Korea. True threats to us and the rest of the world.
Bush for all his posturing and tough talk refused Isreal the help and military assistance in taking out Irans nuclear weapons. All the while refusing to negotiate or engage Iran or N Korea.
What frustates me the most about this war in Irag is that if Bush had followed the example of his father and his advisers during the first gulf War this may have been avoided. The war resulted in the confusion and occupation that was predicted in the first war. Almost to the letter.
The 2nd Bush administration was guilty of being long on conviction and short on critical thinking. The loss of lives and the suffering of wounded will IMO never be justified in this war.
Great debate by the way. There are some good points presented very inteligently by both sides. Shalom


----------



## FlyGap

I think everyone should look at him as an employee. Which he is and all the other people in office.

Personally I would Impeach him. He has sworn to uphold and protect the constitution, which he hasn't. He has worked the papers, bent the rules, and tried every possible way to worm out of what he "swore" to do.
If he were my personal employee I would have fired him the second he took the lovely "billion dollar boat ride", the first time he went out in public under MY company's name and bashed it, and countless other reasons I'm too tired to name.

Bush was bad. I did not like him one bit. BUT, where would we be right now if Gore had gotten in? Never will know but I'm sure it wouldn't have been any prettier or possibly MUCH MUCH worse.

Property values in my area are skyrocketing. Lovely, self sustaining farms, surrounded by national forest, far... far... far away from civilization. Even the birds know how far to fly off when a bad winter is coming. Prepare for the worst and pray for the best.

Peace


----------



## Missy May

Cinder said:


> I disagree to using the word "terrorists" to describe all of Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/etc. To me you are not just being over-generalizing when you do that, but also racist, to a point. .


I don't believe I have ever heard a single person call all citizens of the countries you named "terrorists"....ever, ever. 

As far as racist, you lost me. Agianst which race, the arab or caucasian countries you named?

What should you call _members_ of an organization, regardless of where they reside, that is not a uniformed military and primarily uses terrorist tactics to plan execute terrorize attacks on civilian centers of their "enemy" ? Freedom fighters, as another poster suggested? Freedom from what?

Afghanastan, as a whole, did not willingly "support the terrorists" that attacked us, it was taken over by terrorist after the Russian conflict - and not by way of elections. This is why no one calls their _entire_ civilian population "terrorists". Iran - again...nope, I think most people are aware of their history..but most don't fool themselves into believing it is an entirely _peaceful_ legalistic society, either. Iraq, same - people know the history. 

Personally, I could care a less what Iran does, obtains, has, or is in the process of obtaining. If one doesn't believe they understand mutual distruction, then they must believe they (Iranss leaders) are islamic terrorists...ooops, there is that word again...Okay, how about islamic freedom fighters wanting to send a gift that keeps on glowing?


----------



## bsms

dbarabians said:


> The war in Irag was and still is a distraction in the global war on terror.
> Saddam may have been a tyrant to his own people but he was no threat to the world...


Try telling that to Kuwait. Or Iran (roughly 500,000 dead). Or Saudi Arabia.

Try telling it to the United Nations, which which gave Iraq until 15 January 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait.

He was a reduced threat because of GW1, but no one - including Saddam, I think - knew how much reduced. One of the reasons the Chinese, Russians, British and Americans ALL thought he was working on nukes is because Saddam may have thought it as well...it seems his advisers were not very good at telling him the truth, since that could get one killed.

Of course, Saddam COULD have opened Iraq to inspections, but he did not. 

Any student of history can tell you that one side rarely knows what the other side is doing in the months prior to a war. I spent much of my life with access to classified information, and often enough it was wrong. But a leader cannot wait for perfect information, because it never comes. You have to make do with the best that you have.

Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon made a great many screwed up guesses about Vietnam. That made them human, not monsters. My Dad died there in April '72, in a war he thought was a waste of time and lives. I read Nixon's book about Vietnam (Amazon.com: REAL PEACE AND NO MORE VIETNAMS (Richard Nixon Library Editions) (9780671706203): Richard Nixon: Books), and will admit the problem was a lot more complex than what most news accounts lead one to believe.

I don't think anyone had ever tried something like the War on Terror before. An unidentified and unidentifiable enemy in multiple countries, often funded by our supposed allies...how does one stop them from coming here and attacking thousands of our civilians again?

If I had the answers, I'd run for President. I will say that for all our errors and screw-ups, we haven't had any successful mass attacks against American civilians. I don't know if that is sufficient justification or not. Either way, it isn't a simple problem.


----------



## Cinder

> I don't believe I have ever heard a single person call all citizens of the countries you named "terrorists"....ever, ever.


Well:



> I am no supporter of *the terrorists.* However, one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Great Britain saw George Washington, Patrick Henry and Paul Revere as terrorists....we see freedom fighters.
> 
> If ANY country saw fit to invade this country and "determine" our future, I would take up my rifle and be one heck of a guerrilla fighter. It is MY country!! How could I think that they would feel any different? That said, you attack my country and we can determine where the suspects are, be ready for me to come at you.
> 
> *Afghanistan did support and protect and train the very people who attacked us. That is enough to put you on my radar. Iraq did not.* It had oil, and it ****ed the Bush family off (more the former than the latter). We had no business there. It has been shown that we citizens were purposely duped by the administration into seeing a risk that was never there, solely in an effort to justify our being there. Certainly not worth the thousands of American lives sacrificed there, IMO.





> In a war *on terrorists*, national lines don't mean much. N*o, the government of Iraq did not attack NYC, although they were shooting at us regularly. However, it was sponsoring terror attacks, and supporting the ideology. That is one of the problems in fighting terrorists - the usual rules of nationality don't apply.*


Sorry if I misunderstood anybody, looking back at bsms' comment "the usual rules of nationality don't apply" is probably suggesting the opposite of what I originally thought. I thought I saw one or two more comments talking about "terrorists" and then immediately going on to mention Iraq. Looking back at it, I do think I misunderstood. Also, sorry about my use of the word "racist", that is not really what I meant. I meant that from what I thought people were saying they seemed unfairly biased toward some or all of the countries I listed. I probably should've just said that instead.


----------



## kait18

Cinder said:


> I don't agree with the kid burning the NJ flag, but that's because I don't agree with anyone burning any flags. What you're burning is more than just fabric, it is a symbol, and in many cases an extremely potent symbol that is important to many people. To me it is extremely offensive and not at all a way to solve your problems or make a point. Though I do agree that putting the flags at half mast for Whitney Houston wasn't a good decision, and disrespectful to the people who sacrifice their lives for this country. .


the flag is more than a symbol, and that is why i think the father resorted to such extremes. every day our media is blasting non sense about celebrities doing this or that and really its not important to anyone nor does it affect any of us normally. ex months on end hearing about micheal jacksons death blah blah... i am sorry he was a great singer to but you know what the only media covering he should have gotten was a quick note to everyone saying he has passed and ruling of his death and no more. and his media coverage ticked off alot of military families. the only difference is a state did not recognize his death as an honorable... which it shouldn't be , why bc he also was not military and was an addict

now when it comes to the real hero's of our country what type of respect do they get for fighting a war (whether good/or bad) and die for our country?
they don't even get there names announced on the media to even recognize they died for our country. nope parents of the fallen soldiers have to listen to bs on the media talking about some celebrity who was a drug addict. and then to top it off listen to our stupid govenor christy saying he will lower the flag in honor of her death. he just symbolized to millions by lowering our flag that being a drug addict celebrity means just as much as any fallen soldier and that its ok to use drugs... 

which symbol would you rather a state hold there morals/respect to?? a drug addict who has a flag lowered or a father who disagrees that the action of lowering that flag is like spitting on every fallen soldier from new jersey or elsewhere.


----------



## wetrain17

equiniphile said:


> Agreed, kevin. I think we voted him in because we were so desperate for change, but no one considered what we were changing to.


 
I certainly did NOT vote him in. I knew it was going to be a mistake.


----------



## kevinshorses

wetrain17 said:


> I certainly did NOT vote him in. I knew it was going to be a mistake.


Same here! Don't blame me.


----------



## dirtroadangel

Bush for all his posturing and tough talk refused Isreal the help and military assistance in taking out Irans nuclear weapons. All the while refusing to negotiate or engage Iran.
So what is obama doing to make these things better He could be doing his job there's a thought he had his hands full. And let's remember Bush was in office 8months
After a 2 term president thanks to janet reno and her assitant
screwing up the 9 branches of intelligence so they could communicate with each other. Having one ofthe terrorists
computers but couldn't looks in it or transfer the info.
Even within the Fbi.
More then 1 can play the blame game.

Son do you agree with the idea people shpuldnt have to present Ids when they vote?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

couldnt. communicate within the branches I meant
We might have violate somebodys civil rights
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kitten_Val

kait18 said:


> the flag is more than a symbol, and that is why i think the father resorted to such extremes. every day our media is blasting non sense about celebrities doing this or that and really its not important to anyone nor does it affect any of us normally. ex months on end hearing about micheal jacksons death blah blah... i am sorry he was a great singer to but you know what the only media covering he should have gotten was a quick note to everyone saying he has passed and ruling of his death and no more. and his media coverage ticked off alot of military families. the only difference is a state did not recognize his death as an honorable... which it shouldn't be , why bc he also was not military and was an addict
> 
> now when it comes to the real hero's of our country what type of respect do they get for fighting a war (whether good/or bad) and die for our country?
> they don't even get there names announced on the media to even recognize they died for our country. nope parents of the fallen soldiers have to listen to bs on the media talking about some celebrity who was a drug addict. and then to top it off listen to our stupid govenor christy saying he will lower the flag in honor of her death. he just symbolized to millions by lowering our flag that being a drug addict celebrity means just as much as any fallen soldier and that its ok to use drugs...
> 
> which symbol would you rather a state hold there morals/respect to?? a drug addict who has a flag lowered or a father who disagrees that the action of lowering that flag is like spitting on every fallen soldier from new jersey or elsewhere.


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Allison Finch

I just want to thank everyone here for being able to give their opinions and statements in such a civil and respectful way!!!

This forum has, traditionally, been wary of any political debates. It is always assumed that people's great passions will cause such debates to spiral out of control. This debate has shown that we can respect each other and be able to agree to disagree.

I am so proud of this forum. Hopefully, it will show that we are able to handle dicey debates in the future, too. Why not?

Let's look at each other, smile, and debate on.....


----------



## tinyliny

Allison Finch said:


> I just want to thank everyone here for being able to give their opinions and statements in such a civil and respectful way!!!
> 
> This forum has, traditionally, been wary of any political debates. It is always assumed that people's great passions will cause such debates to spiral out of control. This debate has shown that we can respect each other and be able to agree to disagree.
> 
> I am so proud of this forum. Hopefully, it will show that we are able to handle dicey debates in the future, too. Why not?
> 
> Let's look at each other, smile, and debate on.....


 
Amen! When this thread started I thought it would be a firefight, but it's been pretty decent.


----------



## NdAppy

Kait - I just want to point out that it varies by the area if the news announces soldier's deaths or not. Here they are announced and mourned. We have lost more than a few NDANG members. I have heard/seen the soldiers talked about and mourned in my local area. But then the mind set of ND toward our serving military is definitely one that is not shared by my home state/home town (CA). Even the deaths of soldiers that are not related to the war (friends who have died in the past year due to various reasons) are very much mourned by the community and seems to have a fairly large impact. We have freedom riders (blanking on their name right now) that is a group is 200 plus motorcyclist that go all over the state for military functions in appreciation for the military (they serve in part in an honor guard type system). 

Sorry if that was kind of rambling, working right now and my brain is fried. :lol:


----------



## Faceman

tinyliny said:


> Amen! When this thread started I thought it would be a firefight, but it's been pretty decent.


Well I'm locked and loaded, but those liberal varmints are sneaky and quick, and I haven't been able to get a good bead on them...


----------



## tinyliny

neener neener neener!


----------



## kait18

NdAppy said:


> Kait - I just want to point out that it varies by the area if the news announces soldier's deaths or not. Here they are announced and mourned. We have lost more than a few NDANG members. I have heard/seen the soldiers talked about and mourned in my local area. But then the mind set of ND toward our serving military is definitely one that is not shared by my home state/home town (CA). Even the deaths of soldiers that are not related to the war (friends who have died in the past year due to various reasons) are very much mourned by the community and seems to have a fairly large impact. We have freedom riders (blanking on their name right now) that is a group is 200 plus motorcyclist that go all over the state for military functions in appreciation for the military (they serve in part in an honor guard type system).
> 
> Sorry if that was kind of rambling, working right now and my brain is fried. :lol:


 
your forunate, the men and women from your community can be honored in such a way. I can say in jersey i have never once seen a soldier mourned via the media... thats why i think in this case it was justified.. if it wasn't from all the friends i have in the military i wouldn't know of any fallen soldiers... which is sad because i truly do respect every military individual from veterans to currently serving.


----------



## dirtroadangel

tinyliny said:


> neener neener neener!


Love your humor Faceman
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NdAppy

kait18 said:


> your forunate, the men and women from your community can be honored in such a way. I can say in jersey i have never once seen a soldier mourned via the media... thats why i think in this case it was justified.. if it wasn't from all the friends i have in the military i wouldn't know of any fallen soldiers... which is sad because i truly do respect every military individual from veterans to currently serving.


Yep and that is why I said it varies. I'm originally from So Cal. Never would have heard a word about it either down there unless you are/are directly connected to the military.


----------



## kait18

i personally think there should be a either a quick runoff of names before or at the end of the news show or have a continuous banner at the bottom of the screen showing names of the fallen soldiers..so that everyone can see


----------



## AQHSam

Faceman said:


> Well I'm locked and loaded, but those liberal varmints are sneaky and quick, and I haven't been able to get a good bead on them...


I bet it drives you NUTS that the largest cities (Kansas City and St. Louis) that impact the Missouri senate and congress are filled with liberal "help help help me" goody goodies!

When I first moved down here I was shocked by the conservatism of my neighbors and community. Then I saw how liberal the state's voting turned out! :shock:


----------



## Faceman

AQHSam said:


> I bet it drives you NUTS that the largest cities (Kansas City and St. Louis) that impact the Missouri senate and congress are filled with liberal "help help help me" goody goodies!
> 
> When I first moved down here I was shocked by the conservatism of my neighbors and community. Then I saw how liberal the state's voting turned out! :shock:


 
Yup, SW Missouri is one of the most conservative strongholds in the country...but most of us tend to be reasonable conservatives with at least some social conscience. We are also extremely intelligent and good looking.

I don't mind KC and Stl - they pay the bulk of the state's taxes, much of which goes to our infrastructure down here, and historically outstate Missouri, which is predominantly conservative, balances out the big city folks...we are one of the most balanced states historically...


----------



## AQHSam

Faceman said:


> Yup, SW Missouri is one of the most conservative strongholds in the country...but most of us tend to be reasonable conservatives with at least some social conscience. We are also extremely intelligent and good looking.
> 
> I don't mind KC and Stl - they pay the bulk of the state's taxes, much of which goes to our infrastructure down here, and historically outstate Missouri, which is predominantly conservative, balances out the big city folks...we are one of the most balanced states historically...


hahahaha - very nice point of view!


----------



## dbarabians

Dirtroadangel, I like your name. I live on 2 miles of dirt/gravel road. My nearest naeighbor is town so Im kinda jealous about the name. LOL
Do I think people need to show some form of ID when voting? I have no problem with that. I do however suspect that the Voter ID bills are being used to stifle voters.
I also do not think that it is a priority especially here in Texas. A lot of time was spent on this and not on school finance, the state economy, or education reform. Those problems here I find far more pressing.
Thanks for reading my posts about Isreal.
I come by my beliefs through my upbringing, my experiences, and my religion. Sometimes they are all in conflict with one another. LOL
My religion commands that I feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and nurse the ill. 
This is the reason most Jews vote for the Democratic Party. About 75% of them.
Diortroadangel I have enjoyed reading your post and I like that fact that you are standing by your convictions. There is nothing wrong with that. Shalom


----------



## dirtroadangel

Greatings everyone
Thanks Dsarabians for the reply hope all is well in Texas.
One of my beefs has been Obama not coming with a budget ---- well he does try....
His new budget was
voted on by the house because after the first failure Harry Reid won't touch it.
412-0. Heard it on a talk show had to double check ......
The internet is getting much more restricted..
When you specifically Google it some references comes up....
I'd like to nail this one down...
Records are records they can't lie.....
I google what the house has voted this month that's how I accessed it....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kevinshorses

dbarabians said:


> My religion commands that I feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and nurse the ill.
> This is the reason most Jews vote for the Democratic Party. About 75% of them.
> Diortroadangel I have enjoyed reading your post and I like that fact that you are standing by your convictions. There is nothing wrong with that. Shalom


Christianity teaches the same thing. Charity is the true love of Christ. However if I take money from you and give it to someone else that isn't charity, that's STEALING. The government shouldn't be in the charity business.


----------



## Missy May

Okay, before we get to far on this feel good charity stuff, I had 4 measly carrots, and someone stole 1. Honestly!!!


----------



## kevinshorses

But if they gave it to someone with no carrots then isn't that okay?


----------



## dbarabians

Kevin ensuring that someone can have something to eat, clothes on theback, and somewhere to sleep maintains the inner security of this country. Providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare to assure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity ... is that not in the constitution?.
If this country in all its greatness and wealth allows millions to die from hunger or illness we will not survive for long.
For the first 25 years of its existence the State of Isreal doubled its population by receiving millions of refugees. Most arrived without a dime with only the clothes on their backs. 
This was not charity it was a moral obligation by Isreal and the Jews worldwide to feed clothe and shelter those that needed it. Isreal grew and prospered and is now a vibrant modern country with the hightest standard of living in the region.
The good of the community is vital to the health of the individual.
I fail tosee how this country with all its resources and opprotunities can turn tits back on any of its citizens.
This is a complicated issue.
Do people abuse the good intentions of many? Yes Many more though are deserving and thier very lives depend upoun these programs.
Missy I hope you get yopur carrots back. LOL Shalom


----------



## Missy May

kevinshorses said:


> But if they gave it to someone with no carrots then isn't that okay?


Heck, No! Let them and the ether horse they rode in on starve!


----------



## Missy May

dbarabians said:


> Kevin ensuring that someone can have something to eat, clothes on theback, and somewhere to sleep maintains the inner security of this country. Providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare to assure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity ... is that not in the constitution?.
> If this country in all its greatness and wealth allows millions to die from hunger or illness we will not survive for long.
> For the first 25 years of its existence the State of Isreal doubled its population by receiving millions of refugees. Most arrived without a dime with only the clothes on their backs.
> This was not charity it was a moral obligation by Isreal and the Jews worldwide to feed clothe and shelter those that needed it. Isreal grew and prospered and is now a vibrant modern country with the hightest standard of living in the region.
> The good of the community is vital to the health of the individual.
> I fail tosee how this country with all its resources and opprotunities can turn tits back on any of its citizens.
> This is a complicated issue.
> Do people abuse the good intentions of many? Yes Many more though are deserving and thier very lives depend upoun these programs.
> Missy I hope you get yopur carrots back. LOL Shalom


Ok, db...I sure hope that there "its back" was a typo!!!
And, you forgot to mention, western technology helped a bit to make isreal what it is, today.
Besides that, other people deciding they know better than I do what to do with my carrots is not "individual freedom", AND it is taking property. Turning one's back on citizens in need is one thing, but depriving others of their property to give citizens far more than they need or deserve is another. There are people in this country that are 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients....and they are far from "thankful" for what they get, they believe they are "entitled" to it and should get more!

Why don't people simply adopt families in need in perpetuity - and let the rest of the population be free not to?


----------



## dirtroadangel

People need a hand up not a hand out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

Yippee once again Obama has a losing proposal.
To bad he couldn' t borrow something from Romney the way he did with the healthcare plan.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

I don' t think when they said common welfare that meant welfare for all.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

Dirtroadangel. not in the same way we view it today.
If 10% of the population cannot take care of itself that is aburden on the rest of us. If that population were working and contributing to the economy then we would not have the financial problems today.
I volunteer with a homeless shelter as a counselor. I do both indidual and group sessions.
Most homeless people work they are not on the street begging. They have simply lost the ability to provide themselves shelter.
What they need is access to affordable housing , healthcare, and someomne to guide them back into financial stability.
Because we in this country have a large population of people that do not work they consume the biggest amount of the funds available.
Funds that might be able to get someone a house and food for a short time to enable them to get on their feet and stay there.
Government assistance programs have the potential to work by providing that hand up.
I would rather err on the side of caution than allow someone to go hungry or homeless.
I would rather give too much than not enough. Shalom


----------



## dirtroadangel

But we can't give whst we don't have...
I'm all for tsking care of ourselves before other countries.
By bringing jobs back to US. We can make others life better.
It does become s a fine line...
So many times I have seen those you help end up resenting you.
Whrther it's a person or a country..
God Blessfor your work sounds likr you are on the front lines...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

Dirtroadangel we are agreeing that there is a problem. We just have to find the solution.
The answers are not written in stone.
Helping the working poor become financially independant would improve the economy and ease the burden the rest of us shoulder. Shalom


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Dirtroadangel. not in the same way we view it today.
> If 10% of the population cannot take care of itself that is aburden on the rest of us. If that population were working and contributing to the economy then we would not have the financial problems today.
> I volunteer with a homeless shelter as a counselor. I do both indidual and group sessions.
> Most homeless people work they are not on the street begging. They have simply lost the ability to provide themselves shelter.
> What they need is access to affordable housing , healthcare, and someomne to guide them back into financial stability.
> Because we in this country have a large population of people that do not work they consume the biggest amount of the funds available.
> Funds that might be able to get someone a house and food for a short time to enable them to get on their feet and stay there.
> Government assistance programs have the potential to work by providing that hand up.
> I would rather err on the side of caution than allow someone to go hungry or homeless.
> I would rather give too much than not enough. Shalom


At some point it is prudent to cease sweeping issues under the rug to be politically correct, accept reality, and see the world as it reall is.

I admire you for working with the homeless, but the reality is there is a segment of the population that is not interested in earning a living and would rather be taken care of by the labors of others, and that segment is growing.

We have pumped billions of welfare into Appalacia and the ZMississippi Delta as well as publicly funded housing, hospitals, and schools, and the affect has been.....nil. We have instituted welfare to work incentives, and the affect has been.....nil. We have funded counseling, job training, education, and the affect has been.....nil. We have doled out food, clothing, fans, heaters, weatherstripping, medical care, housing, transportation, just about everything that can be given we have given, and the affect has been.....nil. Sure, there are individual successes, but overal the situation has, if anything, gotten worse.

People will improve their lot in life when they put forth the effort to do so - Uncle Sam's handouts do nothing other than foster further irresponsibility - as history well demonstrates...


----------



## FlyGap

As long as it's free, why work for it?
Why would ANYONE get up in the morning at 5am, drag their multiple children to expensive daycare, work for very little because they did not take advantage of the endless opportunities of a great education or work for pennies developing a skill in a trade, pay for said children's healthcare, work for a home in which to house said children, when it could alllll be handed to you?
No one cares where the money comes from, remember the phrase "Obama Money?" Remember the question "Where does the money come from?" and the response "From Obama!". I'm not saying he created the mess we are in, but he is making it worse.

The idea is: Provide assistance to those that want it, and you'll get assistance into the office of power you desire. Ramifications: Take it away and you are dead in the water.

What did our Country do before we had all these handouts and free "programs?" Our country became THE GREATEST PLACE ON EARTH to work and live and raise a family. We were a society that valued a day's hard work, pride in providing for your family, pride in raising successful and contributing members of society. Now millions of people don't even give a ****.


----------



## dirtroadangel

What did we do before????
Such a good question... My father during the depression went to workin the CC camps building the roads that connectUS today then he went to WW II. CAME BACK 6 years later wearing a triple width of his foot.
He went thru the Battle of the Bugle He only told me of how he would cross german lines and steal their horses Loved that's one..
My brother PFC gained a silver star nd bronze nd a purple heart in 69'
.Never underestimate the potential of people's determination....
But to create steei you must have fire. 
God Bless Our troops
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

I wish I could answer your question.
I do not think the sink or swim mentality of the Teaparty will work.
Education is the key to success.
The GI bill enabled millions of people to improve their lives and increase the middle class in this country. Veterans programs helped millions buy homes and open small businesses.
If we could fund similar programs for the working poor and the middle class I think we could see very good resualts and a good return on our investments.
Instead we give tax breaks to the rich and enable the very poor. I find that very troubling. Shalom


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> I wish I could answer your question.
> I do not think the sink or swim mentality of the Teaparty will work.
> Education is the key to success.
> The GI bill enabled millions of people to improve their lives and increase the middle class in this country. Veterans programs helped millions buy homes and open small businesses.
> *If we could fund similar programs for the working poor and the middle class I think we could see very good resualts and a good return on our investments.*
> Instead we give tax breaks to the rich and enable the very poor. I find that very troubling. Shalom


I would strongly disagree with that liberal policy.

The "sink or swim" mentality worked perfectly well in this country for 200 years. It is the liberal entitlement policy that has failed. 

The GI bill does not help pepole start small businesses. There is a program under VA benefits that permits assistance, but it has never been funded. The only small business assistance available to veterans is counseling and outreach through SBA, which is available to everyone - not just vets. The Small Business Development Center program, partially funded by SBA, has received some grant money in recent years for special outreach efforts in counseling and education to vets, but again, the services are available to everyone - not just vets. As the Veterans Affairs Officer with SBA, which is a collateral duty, I always felt rather frustrated that the government did not fund a program to help vets. 

As to the bolded statement, I'm not sure where you have been, but we have already sunk billions unpon billions into those type programs to no avail. I have to take exception to the policy of the liberals who insist on throwing good money after bad to garner votes and further their personal agendas.

As to your last statement, you seem to be ignoring the facts. The facts are a matter of public record and are not secret. Why liberals choose to ignore them is beyond me...

* The top 1% of income earners pay 33.7% of all federal income tax

* The top 5% of income earners pay 53.8% of all federal income tax

* The top 50% of income earners pay 100% of all federal income tax

Because I have a social conscience, and recognize that there are people in need and always will be, I support a progressive tax system as we have. But good grief, what in the world do you liberals want? Already the country is being supported by only half the workforce, and the top 1% of income earners pay 1/3 of the cost. Where does it end? Do you want the 1,000 richest people in the the country to support the other 300 million?


----------



## doubleopi

Faceman said:


> Where does it end? Do you want the 1,000 richest people in the the country to support the other 300 million?


Look how well that worked for California. They just left. I bet the rich will leave the US too if we try to make them support everybody!

ETA: I agree with your position Faceman, just adding on.


----------



## FlyGap

I agree. I personally do not support a progressive tax system.
WHY on earth do people feel like if someone makes more they should pay a higher %? THEY ARE PAYING MORE, BY MAKING MORE. Thus providing MORE.

Too many times I've heard people say they can't take a promotion or a different job because it will put them in a higher tax bracket and they can't afford to be there.


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> * The top 1% of income earners pay 33.7% of all federal income tax
> 
> * The top 5% of income earners pay 53.8% of all federal income tax
> 
> * The top 50% of income earners pay 100% of all federal income tax



While that looks convincing and I see that all the time on Fox News, it doesn't tell the whole story.

Yes they pay a lot of tax, BUT what they won't tell you here, is that they still are not paying their SHARE. They pay a lot because they make even more. What is a true reflection of what they are currently paying is what PERCENTAGE/tax rate are they paying? THAT is the real question here. 


Warren Buffet on His Effective Tax Rate vs. His Staff • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control


Flat tax anyone? It will never happen, believe me.


----------



## kevinshorses

Warren Buffest doesn't earn much of a salary. He makes his money off of capital gains which are taxed differently than income. I'm also in favor of the flat tax and I agree it's unlikely to happen but I think it's not the rich that will stop it. There is almost a voting majority in this country that effectively pay NO taxes. Once the scale tips a bit further more and more of the burden of a cradle to grave nanny state philosophy will be shifted to businesses and wealthy individuals. Those people will leave this country and take thier businesses with them. Enviromentalists and Unions along with progressive liberals have driven many manufacturing jobs out of this country and they very likely will never return. The only way to stop this from happening is to reform the corporate tax structure to make it a good business decision for companies to stay here.


----------



## FlyGap

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, yep, even higher than Communist China. Bring jobs back to America, start with that. Lower the CTR to at least be competitive, raise the GDP, open things up, and get rid of the unions and you'll make more.
Or just take more from the rich, reduce jobs, lower the GDP, that's gonna work?

I agree that all the tax loop holes are set up by the big guys, a VERY large percent of what they save goes into campaigns to keep THEIR ball rolling.


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> While that looks convincing and I see that all the time on Fox News, it doesn't tell the whole story.
> 
> Yes they pay a lot of tax, BUT what they won't tell you here, is that they still are not paying their SHARE. They pay a lot because they make even more. What is a true reflection of what they are currently paying is what PERCENTAGE/tax rate are they paying? THAT is the real question here.
> 
> 
> Warren Buffet on His Effective Tax Rate vs. His Staff • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control
> 
> 
> Flat tax anyone? It will never happen, believe me.


Well, my numbers come from IRS - not FOX.

I guess that depends upon what you mean by "share". As I stated, I support a progressive income tax because there certainly are people in need, and I do feel there is a degree of responsibility for those of us who are very well off financially to recognize we have an obligation to society. But a progressive tax system does have a point of diminishing returns. The best way (IMO) to grasp these kinds of concepts is to extrapolate. If you extrapolate a progressive tax, someone at the very top will be paying 100% tax - which is rather silly. The point of diminishing returns on taxing the rich is the point beyond which the taxes become so outlandish they become a disincentive to invest, which would mean no new jobs created, a loss of existing jobs, and an economic impact throughs stocks, municipal bonds, and other investments, that would bring the country to its knees. In short, "share" realistically should mean dollars, not percent of income. I don't have the data base to do the math, but if income taxes were percent-progressive based solely upon income, I would guesstimate the top 1% of the people would be paying 60% - 75% of all the tax, which is absurd by any reasonable standard - liberal or conservative. You can't have 1% of the people carrying 70% of the load...that would just put us into a downward spiral that would make matters progressively worse. Fewer and fewer jobs would mean more and more entitlements, which would mean more tax revenues needed, which would mean fewer and fewer jobs, causing more entitlements...and so on and so on.

This is pretty simple economics...there is no reason to expect the average Joe to understand economics, but for Heaven sakes, the President and/or the staff he/she assembles should at least have a basic understanding. But as I said earlier or in another thread somewhere, neither the Bush nor the Obama administration have/had any concept of even the basics...or if they did, they are ignoring them for political purposes. I don't want to get into a big political debate, but the foundation for the recession we are in was laid in the Clinton Administration, the Bush administration was so economically incompetent it didn't recognize the path we were on and did nothing to attenuate it, and the Obama administration is so incompetent it has made matters far worse.

We need a leadership that doesn't play politics with the lives and welfare of the American people and does what is in the best interest of the country. Honestly I wouldn't really give a hoot if it were a Republican or Democrat, man or woman, Christian, Jew, or Muslim. There was a time when whether our leadership was liberal, moderate, or conservative, they disagreed with one another, but they always stayed within the boundaries of what was in the interest of the country. Somewhere along the line something has gone terribly wrong...

To parody Tennyson...

Wackos to right of them, 
Wackos to left of them, 
Wackos in front of them 
Volley'd & thunder'd; 
Storm'd at with shot and shell, 
Boldly they rode and well, 
Into the jaws of Death, 
Into the mouth of Hell 
Rode the six hundred.


----------



## dirtroadangel

What about half of the people who submit Irs tax forms owe °c federal tax snd some qualify for earned income tax credits.

To appreciate something you have to work for it.
Nothing handed to you is ever valued.
What happened to the days of ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.
Again this country is broke.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May

Here is a chart, source IRS, a bit out-dated. I don't think the IRS works for a news station, although news stations don't have to pay for their multi million dollar broadcast license...so it might be a conspiracy, who knows.

One could argue all day long whether the top !% is paying a "fair percentage" of income. The fact remains that just focusing on the top 1%, as is predictable, doesn't tell you anything. The top 50% would be more informative. 

I think the chart is highly "uninformative" because, among other things, it doesn't show the bottom percentiles (i,e., lowest 1, 5, 10 and 25 % income). And, I do not believe welfare is considered "income", but I may be wrong.

The chart also doesn't tell you what, exactly, is the range of income for either the top or bottom 50%? This number is known w extreme accuracy to the penny by the fed, as they know the dollar amount that changed hands in the US to the penny at any given time with a 72 hour delay. But, oddly, the figure is not simply published on a daily basis. Why guess?

Just as a side note, there is a reason the rich are getting richer and the "lower income" is claiming new members daily...it is called - Asia, the imports from which are not taxed at the same rate Asian countries, in turn, tax ours - by a long shot.

Either way, I am all for VAT tax and vast reduction in the IRS.


----------



## tempest

FlyGap said:


> Bring jobs back to America, start with that.
> 
> I agree that all the tax loop holes are set up by the big guys, a VERY large percent of what they save goes into campaigns to keep THEIR ball rolling.


Jobs won't come back to America because it costs more for businesses to produce things in America. The goal of all businesses is to have the lowest total cost possible and as long as it cost more to produce things in America, businesses will stay away.

I don't disagree with you on the last part.


----------



## kevinshorses

If we lowered the corporate taxes then it would be faesible for businesses to stay in this country. It's not the cost to manufacture that has driven these companies out of the country. It's the regulation and oppressive taxes that have driven them away. Ease some of the regulation and drastically lower the corporate tax rate and then you'd see businesses that are here already stay here and those that left would come back. We can make anything right here in the U.S. as cheaply as anywhere else with just as high of quality if the unions and the government would stay out of the way.

Many times it's more expensive to manufacture a product oversees by the time the materials are shipped to the factory, the product is made and shipped back here to be sold but because of the decrease in taxes and regulation it's more cost effective to do it that way.


----------



## FlyGap

I watched a report the other day that showed a few international American companies moving back to the states. Why?
Because the cost of living and operating in China, Japan, and India is increasing due to population and their middle class. So that is a good thing.
Of course this was only three companies! So, lower the CTR and you will have a faster exodus.


----------



## Missy May

Well, if we taxed imports from Asia at a reasonable rate - or at minimum the equivalent of what they tax ours, as I said above, it would accomplish three things 1. Much higher tax revenue
2. Return of jobs to this country
3. offset the cost their imports costs the US _taxpayer_

These imports end up in US refuse, and are moved to their final destination on our rails and roads at a huge cost to the taxpayer, they are manufactured w/o having to meet any EPA, OSHA, and other regulations. Instead of doing away w the regulations, which will never happen, I would prefer we just tax them an "all applicable US regulations equivalent" on top of import tax! If its good enough for USA manufacturers, its good enough for foriegn manufactured products entering the US. Especially the EPA compliance costs. If the world's environment ends at our borders, then fine...don't tax their products. 
China holds fast to its "3rd world" status so it can be exempt from acres of environmental, financial and trade rules, among other things. If it is so 3rd world, have ya seen their navy, lately? How about their non-existant deficit?
Do I think any corporation from any country will pollute if it increases their profits to do so, and they can get away with it? Hands down..YES. And, they are!


----------



## FlyGap

JUST NOW! JUST NOW!
The President said that the Judicial branch, if they overturned Obama care, would be unprecedented in overturning a bill passed by a democratically elected congress!
Implying that because the congress is made up of elected officials, that the unelected Justices should not have a say in the matter.

CHECKS AND BALANCES! PEOPLE!

Obama Care is under fire, the President is now bashing the Judges PUBLICLY. They are the ones who keep Congress and the Senate under control and operating UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.


----------



## kevinshorses

Nothing suprises me about him anymore. He also said that if he can't get what he wants through congress then he and Joe will just have to find a way around them. What a BOZO. His latest budget didn't get a single vote in Congress so I guess he has managed to get some bipartisanship co-operation happening.


----------



## Missy May

FlyGap said:


> JUST NOW! JUST NOW!
> The President said that the Judicial branch, if they overturned Obama care, would be unprecedented in overturning a bill passed by a democratically elected congress!
> Implying that because the congress is made up of elected officials, that the unelected Justices should not have a say in the matter.
> 
> CHECKS AND BALANCES! PEOPLE!
> 
> Obama Care is under fire, the President is now bashing the Judges PUBLICLY. They are the ones who keep Congress and the Senate under control and operating UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.


And, I am sure he won't mention that it wasn't _really_ passed on the "up and up", to begin with! And, he figures his supporters are so ignorant, or died in the wool dupes, that they won't realize that a LOT of things have been overturned in the past - nor do they have a clue of how the "checks and balances" of this democratic republic work - so he can freely run his mouth to those that want him to be king. But, I wouldn't want anyone to think I am comparing him to Hitler.


----------



## FlyGap

I Lol'ed!
Yep, this is still a republic, whether or not he likes it.


----------



## Faceman

FlyGap said:


> JUST NOW! JUST NOW!
> The President said that the Judicial branch, if they overturned Obama care, would be unprecedented in overturning a bill passed by a democratically elected congress!
> Implying that because the congress is made up of elected officials, that the unelected Justices should not have a say in the matter.
> 
> CHECKS AND BALANCES! PEOPLE!
> 
> Obama Care is under fire, the President is now bashing the Judges PUBLICLY. They are the ones who keep Congress and the Senate under control and operating UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.


As I said when this thread first started, Obama does not embrace our country, our culture, or our political and economic system. He never has. There is nothing wrong with change now and then, but he wants to change our entire way of life.

There have been lots of Presidents that have had legislation and laws they supported overturned by the Supreme Court. But this is the first one I have seen use the bully pulpit in advance to try to influence the Court through public opinion.

I guess that is his M.O. - remember when he went with his wife and Oprah to Denmark to get the 2016 Olympics in Chicago? The IOC thumbed their noses at him...way to go...:lol:

He absolutely cannot accept that people can disagree with him or what he wants. He evidently thinks his desires are some sort of mandates from Heaven, and what everyone else wants is wrong...that's why Obamacare got crammed through against the wishes of the majority of people in the U.S. He doesn't believe in majority rule any more than he believes in the Supreme court. I only hope that history judges him for what he is...


----------



## kevinshorses

As long as we can keep him alive until January he will go down as the worst president EVER. Jimmy Carter can rest easily. If he were to be assasinated the country would probably get remaned for him. Obama is the first president I'd take a bullet for!


----------



## dirtroadangel

Faceman said:


> As I said when this thread first started, Obama does not embrace our country, our culture, or our political and economic system. He never has. There is nothing wrong with change now and then, but he wants to change our entire way of life.
> 
> There have been lots of Presidents that have had legislation and laws they supported overturned by the Supreme Court. But this is the first one I have seen use the bully pulpit in advance to try to influence the Court through public opinion.
> 
> I guess that is his M.O. - remember when he went with his wife and Oprah to Denmark to get the 2016 Olympics in Chicago? The IOC thumbed their noses at him...way to go...:lol:
> 
> He absolutely cannot accept that people can disagree with him or what he wants. He evidently thinks his desires are some sort of mandates from Heaven, and what everyone else wants is wrong...that's why Obamacare got crammed through against the wishes of the majority of people in the U.S. He doesn't believe in majority rule any more than he believes in the Supreme court. I only hope that history judges him for what he is...



What does God and Obama not have in common?
God doesn' th think he is Oba
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel

What does God and Obama have in common?
Neither one of them have birth cetificates.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

Aw, those kinds of jokes ruin a political thread where people are expressing their opinions, and are why political threads get closed. Got to give you a "boo-hiss" on that...


----------



## dirtroadangel

Faceman said:


> Aw, those kinds of jokes ruin a political thread where people are expressing their opinions, and are why political threads get closed. Got to give you a "boo-hiss" on that...


Faceman I totally apologize and hope that this thread doesn't suffer from my disrespect as well as lack of forum responsibilty
I have been a bit of a well you knowe what lately....
I will leave this thread to more capable then I...
Apologizes to all that don't share my views...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians

I don't see the man as the worst President ever that is a ridiculous statement. He has only been in office 3 years and the economy is improving. Millions have access to healthcare that did not and more will be covered in the future. Unemployment is down. Interest rate are improving. People are buying more houses. The NYSE closed higher than it has since 2008. Osama is dead. The war in Iraq is over.
Sounds like a successful presidency to me. He got my vote in 08 and will get it in 2012. Long live Obama. Shalom


----------



## Faceman

Well, I won't make a list of his failures - too long for a forum, and won't repeat his anti-American policies, which have already been discussed.

The latest of course is his GSA Administrator resigned today. When it was revealed she spent over $820K on a training conference that could have been accomplished via computer, for 300 employees in Vegas in 2010, Obama had to ask for her resignation. He is at least smart enough to know that kind of publicity wouldn't fly in an election year. Of course he didn't do anything about it in 2010 or 2011...:hide:

I've always equated his incompetent appointees with Bush, but the way things are developing his may even be worse.

For the record, she was brought into government under Clinton while working at Ben & Jerry's of all places - notorious for being wacko radical liberals.

Perhaps that is why liberals want to tax the rich even more - to pay for their lavish conferences in Vegas on taxpayer dollars...


----------



## FlyGap

All I have to say to that is "BILLION DOLLAR BOAT RIDE"!
Can I get an AMEN!?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May

dbarabians said:


> I don't see the man as the worst President ever that is a ridiculous statement. He has only been in office 3 years and the economy is improving. Millions have access to healthcare that did not and more will be covered in the future. Unemployment is down. Interest rate are improving. People are buying more houses. The NYSE closed higher than it has since 2008. Osama is dead. The war in Iraq is over.
> Sounds like a successful presidency to me. He got my vote in 08 and will get it in 2012. Long live Obama. Shalom


Unemployment is down? From what start point? From what statistics? How are wages fairing?

Millions have access? Which millions didn't, prior?

The fed has NOT changed interest rates, how could they be "improving"? The Fed lends at the window to banks, not citizens. Banks charge interest (which is going up, not down), or - they just sock it away in bonds _and_ make free money off the taxpayer like they did "bail out money". The later was _initiated _by Bush, whom I didn't care for either, but who was not as bad as Obama. It seems Obama supporters think he walks on water, no room for improvement. In general, his supporters don't seem to be able to be objective...but not to extremes Germany supported Hilter, of course. 

The NYSE reflects the value of the dollar, except for a _tiny_ percentage that _can_ be slightly delayed due to ADR's and the like. The dollar has gone _down__, as have wages._ So, oil is up and will stay there unless we drain our strategic supplies (whereby artificially and temporarily changing the "real cost" of oil). When and if the dollar goes up AND we build new refineries, oil will go down. 

How is your grocery bill doing? How about gas at the pump?? Dollar goes down, commodities go UP. Obama, being the mesiah that he is and far more of an intellect than any other president in many peoples eyes...ASKED the exchange commission to try to slow down futures trading. HELLO??? They can trade in milliseconds as much as they want to all day long, globally, WITHOUT taking delivery.....IT IS the _law_, signed into law by Clinton called the commodities futures modernization act. Bush was bashed for mispronouncing WORDS? This guy (a lawyer) doesn't know what laws commodities are traded under?? No big deal, we don't need to eat, drive or wear clothes, not a problem. Oh, and the president CAN affect US strategic grain stores....and he did, we sold them. Again, how is that grocery bill doing? Beef plummeting in your area, is it? 

Lower wages, higher commodities, higher healthcare costs, way higher college tuition costs. Yes, well...if this is better, I hope it doesn't get any "better" than this!

Did you see how he handle that enviromental massacre...where millions of _innocent_ sea going creatures died a slow death - needlessly? All of his supporters were _so_ pleased! I think I even heard them saying, "live long, Obama!!!".


----------



## Missy May

FlyGap said:


> All I have to say to that is "BILLION DOLLAR BOAT RIDE"!
> Can I get an AMEN!?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


AMEN, Flygap! Amen!


----------



## Missy May

dirtroadangel said:


> Faceman I totally apologize and hope that this thread doesn't suffer from my disrespect as well as lack of forum responsibilty
> I have been a bit of a well you knowe what lately....
> I will leave this thread to more capable then I...
> Apologizes to all that don't share my views...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:thumbsup:

That took grace and courage, come on...no one here is more capable than _that_, me excluded - of course:wink:. I, for one, think Dirtroad should feel welcome to jump back in!


----------



## QOS

I do not profess to be up on all laws and decisions made by the president. I do listen to radio, TV and read on the internet.

I have never seen a president that is so blatant in his contempt for the American way of life and the values most American's hold so dear. I feel that part of that is because he wasn't raised in America...he spent many of his formative years in Indonesia with his highly liberal mother who certainly didn't instill in him the love of this great country. I really thought they were toast when his wife said "for the first time in my life I am proud to be an American". :shock: The FIRST time in her life? I have always been proud to be an American. My grandparents left their home country, The Cayman Islands, British West Indies, to come to America when they were young adults. They met in Florida!! My other grandfather was from Slovenia - my great grandfather said he came to America from Europe because "no one can get along with the Serbs". They were listed as Croats on documents and he had lost his entire family in wars. 

So I am a second generation American on both sides and I have always been proud of my country and yet we have a president that seems to want to bring down everything that is exceptional about The United States of America.

It pains me to hear him apologizing for our country to other countries...and bowing to the Saudi King. Saints preserve me...what is wrong with him?

I did listen carefully to what he had to say when he first came on the scene. He lost my vote when he said he wanted to limit what CEO's could make! Good grief - that is taking away capitalism. Bill Ayers said his dream is to do away with capitalism.

I wonder if most people realize that if capitalism goes away they may end up like the serfs in Russia. Thanks but no thanks. I like my freedoms. A long line of people fought and died to give me these freedoms.

*Thomas Jefferson: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”*

I don't want the government to have that kind of control over my life. I think Obama is a very scary president and can't wait to see the back of him.


----------



## Horse Poor

I'm tired of the term "fair share". If it's fair for someone to be drug tested to work and earn a paycheck, then it should be fair for someone getting welfare to pass a drug test too. What ever happened to personal responsibility? I didn't have more children than I could afford. Would I have liked more children? Sure, but I couldn't afford it. I bought a house I could afford. I would have liked a bigger house with more land, but I couldn't afford it. Is it fair to ask those of us who are responsible to bail those who aren't out? I don't think so. My son is working and saving to go to college because I can't afford to send him. Yet, one of his co-workers dropped out of college that was paid for with a government grant. Can my son qualify for a government grant to go to college? Nope. And there's no special interest group that I can go to either. In short, if I have to live within my means and by the rules, then I think it only fair that the Government does the same!


----------



## dbarabians

Missy May, we may never agree about poliitcs but your post about Dirtroadangel was right on the money. You got my vote. Shalom


----------



## Faceman

I agree - no one should feel they can't or shouldn't contribute. We all get passionate about what we believe in, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that has to carefully edit what I say...it is not always easy to remain civil and not offend anyone when discussing issues about which people are very passionate...


----------



## dbarabians

Lets all remember we are not enemies we just disagree sometimes.
What is amazing is how much we are in agreement. The differences are in the solution.
This is a great thread. Great discussion. It has been civil and intelligent.
If the horse forum ever has a convention there are several people I would like to meet. Shalom


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Lets all remember we are not enemies we just disagree sometimes.
> *What is amazing is how much we are in agreement. The differences are in the solution.*
> This is a great thread. Great discussion. It has been civil and intelligent.
> If the horse forum ever has a convention there are several people I would like to meet. Shalom


 
The statement I bolded is true for the most part here, and is historically true in politics. Historically, we have all wanted the same ends...it has just been the means to those ends that people disagree about.

However, that is exactly why there is such a violent backlash against Obama. For the first time in history, at least that I am aware of, we have a person in power that wants a different end...something different than the very foundation on which this country was built and on which it prospered. While some change is always good, there is the old country saying "dance with the one who brung you". We need change in our healthcare system, we need a lot of changes, but we need to change within the boundaries of democracy, free enterprise, and freedom. Obama obviously is intent upon stepping outside of those boundaries. This is not a socialist country, nor is it a communist country, nor is it an aristocracy or dictatorship or monarchy. Just because he pulled the wool over enough people's eyes to get elected doesn't grant him the right to throw out the constitution, the supreme court, ignore the will of the majority, and follow his whims to create Obamaland, or whatever he might want to call a nation based upon his political beliefs...


----------



## FlyGap

I agree wholeheartedly with you Faceman.
Never once did the current president bash the Constitution or elude to the fact (to the mass public) that he disregarded this country's foundation. He also swore to uphold it.
He has now come out along with his supporters and STATED that it is an antiquated document that should be used as a guideline. 
I fear for the people that do not respect the single most unprecedented government document in history. 

I am listening to the man right now, he is stating that if the healthcare discussion or cap & trade and a multitude of other issues were brought up 15 years ago it was the Republicans that proposed the original ideas. Those were the people that led him to believe these things were right. Now he is being bashed as a Socialist. It is the breakdown of the Republican party that is the problem. Whaaa? I guess I'm just one of the STUPID'S out there that struggles to follow him and should just allow him to run things, pass things, and figure it out later.
Campaigning much?


----------



## FlyGap

How many of the President Obama supporters here are Capitalists?
What do you define as Capitalism?


----------



## dbarabians

Flygap I assure you that I am a capitalist.
Becuase my parents insisted that I receive an education and taught financial responesbility to me I am secure financially.
I have benefited from those Bush tax cuts.
Labeling the man a communist or socialist does not make him one.
The trickle down economics of the republican party is not working.
The top 10% of the country are doing well.
It is the dwindling middle class that is of concern. Shalom


----------



## kevinshorses

The liberals said that Reagans trickledown economics wouldn't work either. He cut the top tax rate and INCREASED the amount of income to the government by giving those folks at the top more of thier money back and allowing them to expand thier businesses. Also the middle class is not shrinking. It's actually expanding because more rich folks are being forced into the middle class. I want to be in the top 10% someday so I won't support a heavier burden on the top 10%. Hell they're already paying way more of thier share.


----------



## dbarabians

Kevin Reagan raised taxes. Increased the size of the federal government and the increased the federal deficet.
I don't think that raising taxes is a bad thing.. At the least it should remain an option. Shalom


----------



## Missy May

There is no such thing as "trickle down economics". It is a label long used by democrats against republicans. It was used w Reagan when he wanted to cut the highest wage earner's taxed from 70%, that is _seventy_ percent. It _was_ cut - by a democrat house.
Since "trickle down economics" is purely a democrat party mirage, I would say it IS working exactly as the democrats planned - a fabricated, non-existant thing they have convinced voters is an evil "rich republican plan". Again, it was a democrat majority that passed the cut named above _while_ they postured and pretended to be against the evils of "trickle down economics" - all the world is a stage, no? How many democrat politicians are poor , I wonder. 
Like I always feel I have to say b/c the "them and us" mentality is so prevalent these days, I have _no_ party. I have a constitution and I expect public servants to serve the public in accordance _with_ that document...regardless of how many voters they can pander to with "more entitlements", or "less privacy", or TARP, etc., etc., etc.,. I measure their actions equally - by the confines of the constitution - and not by how lovely they can read out loud.


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Kevin Reagan raised taxes. Increased the size of the federal government and the increased the federal deficet.
> I don't think that raising taxes is a bad thing.. At the least it should remain an option. Shalom


Raising taxes is NOT a bad thing when it accomplishes something constructive.

Reaganomics rebuilt our military. Our stockpiles of weapons, equipment, and vehicles in the middle east were rusting and in non-working order. You should know that if you were a participant in the Gulf War, or at least paid attention to it. When Reagan came into office our military had deteriorated to an absolute joke.

Reaganomics created jobs and turned the economy around.

What kind of proof do you need?

Raising taxes IS a bad thing when all it accomplishes is increasing entitlements to those who are irresponsible and lazy. Raising taxes IS a bad thing when it discourages private investment, thus job creation, and sends American jobs overseas.

How many times must we suffer through depressions and recessions caused by liberal politics and be bailed out by conservative politics for the light bulb to click on? The only time liberal politics worked was when FDR employed Keynesian economics during the Great Depression, but that was a totally unique situation - plus much of the government spending was in exchange for actual work (*gasp*) in the CCC, TVA, etc., so infrastructure projects were accomplished. NOTHING is accomplished with handouts, and never has been.

Raising taxes and increasing handouts is counterproductive. Simple logic proves it, simple economics proves it, and history proves it. Sometimes I think half the population is just plain blind and deaf - either that or is just content to sit there and watch TV waiting for the mailman to deliver their government check...



As an aside, Missy I have to disagree. By whatever term you want to call it, there is a trickle down economics...the liberals just have to give it a silly simple name their sheeple can identify with. Trickle down economics is what creates jobs - always has, and always will. Trickle down economics is nothing more than increasing corporate profit so that profit can be used for expansion, diversification, and innovation - all of which create new jobs and expand the economy...


----------



## FlyGap

The only time Capitalism fails is when the government gets involved.
There is nothing about welfare that supports Capitalism. Capitalism is the foundation of our country. It is the driving force that filters the intelligent, hardworking, potentially successful members of our society to the top which in turn supports the rest and allows others to do the same. As soon as the gov gets involved with their regulations, taxes, and reforms they stifle the economy trying to provide a "level playing field". The ONLY time I feel like the gov should get involved is when there is an obvious monopoly in a certain arena that is DIRECTLY impacting society in a negative way.

I "come from money", new money. My family worked their way up the ranks and became extremely successful business people. Now the gov wants to take MORE of their money because there are other people who haven't and won't work as hard as they have. Pelosi JUST stated in her argument for Obama care that we should provide free healthcare to "people like artists, authors, and freelancers". Well, I'm an artist and this sounds GREAT, but the money is coming from the people like my parents that came from trailer houses and with no formal educations who went on living the American dream and provided for their families. So if all people had so much handed to them WHY ON EARTH would they work to get ahead? So coming from such a family I too was instilled with an incredible work ethic, no handouts from them! At 17 my parents moved to Europe and left me high and dry. BEST THING EVER for me. My brother on the other hand was never made to work a day in his life, his home, his children, his everything has been provided for. He and others feel entitled and are sticking out their hands instead of becoming innovative successful members of society. 

Now, I worked up the ranks in the largest company in the world. Decided it wasn't for me and struck out on my own. If I had it so easy I wouldn't be where I am at now. I'm an Artist. So if I had all the public assistance they want to make available do you think I would have been and still am working 24/7 for peanuts trying to establish myself? Nope. The gov and their "uplifting" politics stifles. Just the other day Obama was campaigning and repeated the "bootstrap" rhetoric stating that Republicans believed that one must "lift themselves up" and how that concept is "unfair" and hasn't worked throughout American history. Stating "how is it working for you?" Well, it's working **** fine for me. It would for others too if their only other option would be to starve.


----------



## Missy May

Well, faceman, the value of FDR's policies are still argued today. I, for one, am not a fan. 
The depression could have been avoided if banks were not allowed to lend far, far more than their assets. Sound familiar? It should, the measure put in place during the depression to prevent that form happening again (glass steagal act) was removed under Clinton...the sky was the limit, _again_. And, of course, Russian wheat didn't help during the depression....since it wiped out the then remaining real estate strong hold - farm land. Sound familiar?


----------



## Faceman

Missy May said:


> Well, faceman, the value of FDR's policies are still argued today. I, for one, am not a fan.
> The depression could have been avoided if banks were not allowed to lend far, far more than their assets. Sound familiar? It should, the measure put in place during the depression to prevent that form happening again (glass steagal act) was removed under Clinton...the sky was the limit, _again_. And, of course, Russian wheat didn't help during the depression....since it wiped out the then remaining real estate strong hold - farm land. Sound familiar?


Oh, I agree...most of FDR's programs should have had sunsets on them and should have been disolved when the depression was over. And proper measures and actions could have prevented the depression. All I am saying is his actions were appropriate in the situation, albeit they should have been temporary. Social Security is really the only program that evolved out of that era that I support, although it should have been done differently, of course. Social Security needs to stay, but it needs some substantial tweaking. It also needs a law in place that is hard wired so Congress and the POTUS can't raid it. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A TRUST FUND YOU IDIOTS! If the Social Security trust fund had never been raided, there would be tons of money in it and you young folks wouldn't have to be contributing so dang much to support me.

As for the history of the depression and the similarities to our current recession as their cause, well it should be obvious just from this thread alone that we as a society just don't learn from history. You know, all schools still require history as far as I know, but they don't really instill in our kids the REASON history is important...so they grow up not paying any attention to it. We be not smart sometimes...:?


----------



## Missy May

Faceman said:


> It also needs a law in place that is hard wired so Congress and the POTUS can't raid it. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A TRUST FUND YOU IDIOTS! If the Social Security trust fund had never been raided, there would be tons of money in it and you young folks wouldn't have to be contributing so dang much to support me.


Interestingly, I had a conversation w a reasonably, actually very, intelligent individual the other day that believed that most working people will get more out of SS than they paid in! Whoa! I wondered how many other people believe this w/o doing the extremely simple math required to figure out ... WRONG, you will probably never see as much as you paid in?? And, like you said, SS should have loads and loads of money!! Its amazing what people believe!!!


----------



## dbarabians

Hey everyone just came in to grab a bite to eat and the electicity is back on!!!
Faceman I think the policies of FDR still have a place in our future. Some of them are used by many as a crutch not temporary as the were meant to be. 
I have had many clients that generation after generation are dependent on the government for most if not all of their needs.
Assistance programs should be temporary and should be used to ease the indidual back into the workforce and independence.
Social Security is valuable and vitally important. Shalom


----------



## Faceman

Missy May said:


> Interestingly, I had a conversation w a reasonably, actually very, intelligent individual the other day that believed that most working people will get more out of SS than they paid in! Whoa! I wondered how many other people believe this w/o doing the extremely simple math required to figure out ... WRONG, you will probably never see as much as you paid in?? And, like you said, SS should have loads and loads of money!! Its amazing what people believe!!!


Most people get far more than they have paid into it. It will only take me 3 1/2 years to get back what I paid in.

HOWEVER - that does not include what my employers put in, and doesn't include the interest that what I and my empoyers put in would have earned. I started contributing to Social Security in 1964, and started drawing it in 2010, so some of my contributions were in there for 46 years, 45 years, 44 years, 43 years, and so on. Plus, it doesn't account for the depreciation of the dollar. A dollar in 1964 was worth a heck of a lot more than a dollar today. So even though it seems you get back more than you paid in.....not really. 

And Social Secuirty is NOT an entitlement program...no program that is fully paid for by its recipients is not an entitlement, and Social Security is self funding - or at least would be if Congress would keep their mitts off of it.

The math is complex, but if all Social Security contributions by employees and employers had been put into even very safe investments with virtually no risk and modest returns, the Social Security Trust Fund would be overflowing with money. But IOU's from Congress earn no interest. 

I depart a bit from my fellow conservatives in that I don't support a Social Security system that permits people to manage their own private Social Security programs. While in theory it would obviously be far better, the fact is that a large number of people would screw it up, and end up broke and on welfare in their old age, so we will be paying for them anyway. The intent of Social Security is not a "savings" program, and it was never intended to be one - it is a program where each generation pays for the old age of the preceding generation. But the indirect affect is that it is a forced savings program that insures old people won't starve to death or be homeless. And with a large portion of the population, forced savings is the only way they will end up with anything.

There are some things about Social Security that a lot of young people don't know. For one thing, Social Security is itself progressive. I don't mind that personally as I have plenty of income without Social Security, but it is something people need to understand. For example Mrs. Face only made about 60% of what I made in our lifetime, but her Social Secuirty income will be about 80% of mine. So it is weighted higher for lower income earners.


----------

