# United States Problems



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

I think we need a president that won't keep raising the debt limit and doesn't have the attitude of "We need to spend money to make money".

I think we need a president that's better at being accountable.

I think we need a president that's a little less narcissistic.

I think we need a president that's at least honest about his citizenship. That's JMO.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

We need a President that believes in America and the system that made us what we are. I have seen many Presidents come and go in my lifetime - some liberal, some conservative, some Democrat, and some Republican, but this is the first one I have seen that has turned his back on our country, our culture, and our economic system. He has done a pretty fair job of tearing down what it took us 200 years to build. Hopefully the sheeple will vote with their eyes open this time around...


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

I think we need a president that isn't so beholden to special interests or at least isn't beholden to the ones whose interests run contrary to those of our country. I'd like to see a president that can take critisism without throwing a fit. I think our country is far stronger and better off than what is being portrayed. We're in a deep hole debt wise but we have a big shovel to dig our way out if we can just get the right leadership to get it done. 

I want a president that will stand up to our enemies and stand by our allies and know the difference. The way Obama swooned over the "arab spring" was disgusting. Anyone with half a brain could see that Egypt changing leaders wasn't going to bode well for our interests in the middle east. Then the fool suggests that Isreal shrink its borders to an indefensible position. We need a president that doesn't bow down to any other leaders and doesn't make personal apologies for burning some already desecrated Korans.

Most importantly I think we need a president that doesn't think that our country needs to fundamentally change. I want a president that will respect the constiution and recognize that the purpose of the document was not to restrict the citizens but to restrict the government. If we don't take power away from the federal government now it may soon be too late and we'll end up like the european socalists.

I want a president that values freedom above security. I don't need the government to look after me from cradle to grave. I need the government to get the hell out of my way and allow me the freedom to succeed or fail depending on myself.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

Faceman said:


> We need a President that believes in America and the system that made us what we are. I have seen many Presidents come and go in my lifetime - some liberal, some conservative, some Democrat, and some Republican, but this is the first one I have seen that has turned his back on our country, our culture, and our economic system. He has done a pretty fair job of tearing down what it took us 200 years to build. Hopefully the sheeple will vote with their eyes open this time around...


I would have "liked" this but there was no like button. Liberal conspiracy? I think so.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

It's not only electing a president, but how the majority thinks as a whole. 

The three people above(including myself) seem to have the same way of thinking....but however we seem to the minority.


----------



## tlkng1 (Dec 14, 2011)

Actually, in this case I can't put all the burden on the President unless it is the burden of doing nothing. Congress is the problem right now with the two parties refusing to compromise on anything. It is either, we do it our way or not at all. If the President would just for once stand up in front of congress and proverbially knock some heads topgether and say look, quit the schoolyard squabbling as the country is in trouble, MAYBE things would get done.

The other issue is the crooked poiliticians we have in congress. Several are known tax cheats,cheatung in ways that would have the rest of us nearly in jail, and all they got was a wink and a pat on the shoulder. We know there have been ethics violations but all Ihave seen was a lowly little open session censure and even then the politician said it was too severe a penalty that he was "embarrassed." He should have been booted out the door.

We can't afford a straight liberal that wants to give everything to everyone and be dipped the consequences or a straight conservative who wants to lock everything up tight and say..."mine..all mine...". We need a moderate who is willing to compromise.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I think the number one problem is campaign finance reform. The ruling of two years ago that made corporations have the same rights of free speech as a "person", and its' spawinging of the "Super PAC's" , who raise million, nea, billions of dollars to back the candidate that will support their narrow coroporate interests (screw the American people) is the biggest threat to our democracy in decades, if ever!


----------



## CLaPorte432 (Jan 3, 2012)

I think we need government officials that don't embezzle our money. We'd probably be alright if it wasn't for the people stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from us.

And I don't think that anyone can make changes in just 4 years of office, we should have at least 10 year terms. 4 years just doesn't cut it, especially when we put different people in every 4 years that have different ideas. Nothing ever gets done.


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

I really dont think it matters. All democracies are doomed to failure. Its inevitable. The masses figure out how to vote themselves handouts. The have nots will continue to vote for the guy which gives them the most with no thought of the greater good. Just look at whats going on in Greece. The average Americans dont even have a basic understanding of how our government works or what it is supposed to do. The expect a president to just fix all their problems. 
So the person that can actually be a good leader and make the tough decisions wont get elected.


----------



## robohog (Nov 24, 2011)

Everytime i hear the "Birther" thing i think of this Skit 




especially the R. Kelly part!


----------



## VT Trail Trotters (Jul 21, 2011)

Ill see you all in Canada!


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

No matter what, no one is going to be happy. Yes, I strongly believe in our constitution. However, I believe even more strongly that it's true meaning and intention has long ago been lost. It is now just used as a gimmick for politicians to twist to their own benefit to attack anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. We are all (well most of us) going thru hard times in 1 way or another, it doesn't matter who is president, we are going to blame them regardless of when the difficult times actually started. And until someone comes along that can pull miracles out of their ***, we will be in turmoil.

Until we all demand a way of life that has a common goal & can co-exist w/ the masses, we are doomed to continue the tail spin we're in.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

I wonder if the solution for most of The United States' problems lies farther down in the country. We can't just rely on one person to make this change, the United States has to want to make a change as a whole. I know there are a lot of people who are unhappy with how things are (it's quite obvious), but it also seems that the country isn't willing to work together to do it. With horses, the key to a good horse is a good foundation. What is the foundation of the United States? The citizens are the foundation. If there isn't a good foundation, then there isn't a good final product. So maybe our governmental leaders need to stop trying to fix the final product and start focusing more on the foundation? Maybe the government and the country needs to look deeper into the roots of the problem and then try to fix the foundation, instead of trying to just fix the outside. Does any of that make sense? It all made sense in my head, I'm just not sure if it makes sense now that I've typed it out.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I do not believe we are in a tailspin. We are in a maturing democracy, that must deal with a new place in the world, that is changing up around us. We are no longer isolated. We affect and are effected by other nations. We aren't homogenous, we arent' all powerful, we aren't immune to the problems of the rest of the world. But, we are not in a tailspin.


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

tinyliny said:


> I do not believe we are in a tailspin.


What do you mean by tailspin?


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

tempest said:


> I wonder if the solution for most of The United States' problems lies farther down in the country. We can't just rely on one person to make this change, the United States has to want to make a change as a whole. I know there are a lot of people who are unhappy with how things are (it's quite obvious), but it also seems that the country isn't willing to work together to do it. With horses, the key to a good horse is a good foundation. What is the foundation of the United States? The citizens are the foundation. If there isn't a good foundation, then there isn't a good final product. So maybe our governmental leaders need to stop trying to fix the final product and start focusing more on the foundation? Maybe the government and the country needs to look deeper into the roots of the problem and then try to fix the foundation, instead of trying to just fix the outside. Does any of that make sense? It all made sense in my head, I'm just not sure if it makes sense now that I've typed it out.


I would just have to disagree on what makes our foundation. I think the leadership is the foundation. When our leadership is weak, the people get weak with nothing to believe in. When our leadership is strong, the people have a reason to want to emulate it. Our leadership is extremely weak right now.


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

Whisper22 said:


> I would just have to disagree on what makes our foundation. I think the leadership is the foundation. When our leadership is weak, the people get weak with nothing to believe in. When our leadership is strong, the people have a reason to want to emulate it. Our leadership is extremely weak right now.


You make a very good point. But our current leaders aren't listening to the very people who elected them.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

tempest said:


> What do you mean by tailspin?


I was referring to a poster above me , who said we were in a tailspin. What she/he means by that is up to him/her. I suppose it is meant to indicated a spiraling. inescapable and increasingly fast decline toward destruction.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, I absolutely do not want a president that believes the entire legislative branch is a "stumbling block" to their ability to implement their agenda, and that it is "unfortunate" the founding fathers set this democratic republic up that way.

And, it would be wonderful if they simply pointed out that a private bank, the Fed, really runs this country and they had a plan to change that! We are now where T Jefferson said we would be if ever a private central bank was allowed. 

I really hope there is one person out their that can speak w/o the aid of a teleprompter.

The US's problems are not just w our fearless leaders in the executive branch or the legislative....its decades of public education. If liberty requires eternal vigilance....then I think we better focus on what happens if the majority doesn't know or care what "liberty" is...b/c they were given the most expensive "free" k-12 education in the world (US), which most would call indoctrination, not an education.

The upcoming election is depressing. I don't see anyone that I would consider fit for the office in the race.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

tinyliny said:


> I think the number one problem is campaign finance reform. The ruling of two years ago that made corporations have the same rights of free speech as a "person", and its' spawinging of the "Super PAC's" , who raise million, nea, billions of dollars to back the candidate that will support their narrow coroporate interests (screw the American people) is the biggest threat to our democracy in decades, if ever!


While that is certainly a big issue, IMO the biggest problem is the failure to establish term limits on Senators and Representatives. I don't think that was so much an oversight by the founding fathers as much as it was not realizing that the system permits people to become blood sucking professional politicians more intent on their own personal welfare than the wellfare of the country. Without term limits, the concept of representives of the people serving in the Senate and House running the country on behalf of the people is a pipedream...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Just a sidebar if you will forgive me...and food for thought.

We need to look at history and learn from the mistakes of the past. One of my favorite fiction authors is the late great Edgar Rice Burroughs. In addition to his science fiction novels he wrote a couple of well researched historical novels. One of them takes place in Rome and indirectly chronicles the life of Caligula, and was written about 70 years ago. Here is an exerpt that is a commentary on Rome around 25 AD as Rome was going into its decline and eventual collapse. Honestly it is a rather scary self portrait - especially for those of us a little older that have seen the transition in the US culture in the last 50 years...



> The Roman patrician is haughty, arrogant, and heartless to those of lesser blood, unless they have great wealth, and a fawing sycophant in the presence of the emporer. The knights are avaricious money-grubbers, usurers, and worse. They are notoriously dishonest. The common people, the plebs, are a race of undisciplined beggars, degraded by generations of public charity: the dole has reduced them to the state of whining, snarling mendicants. They are without loyalty or courage or honor, and they are rotten with vice and crime.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

I don't think it was an oversight at all. Term limits are in the hands of the people. If the electorate want term linits all they have to do is vote for someone else. We don't need a law to solve every problem. A politician should be able to be voted in as many times as the electorate want him/her to represent them. One thing I appreciate about President Obama is that he has served to encourage more people to participate in thier local government and get thier views expressed. In this system of government the more people to participate the better off we are. I went to our local republican caucus last week and there were over a hundred people there. Two years ago there were less than 50 and before that the same ten or twelve people would show up every time. Incumbents are in trouble and that's a good thing in my opinion. People are struggling financially and realizing the importance of living within a budget and are expecting the government to do the same. Our state has a balanced budget every single year. Texas has one of the largest economies in the world and they meet as a legislature every TWO years and pass a balanced budget every time and Texas is far from homogenous. Some hard decisions will have to be made and some programs will have to be cut but our country NEEDS to quit spending more than it takes in. It's unsustainable for families and it's equally unsustainable for governments.

The foundation of our country is NOT the leadership. It's the people and the founding documents. If we, the people, would hold our government to the constitution then our republic will florish. There will be a place in this country for everyone.


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

We need a President who is an American.
If the House and Senate don't balance the budget they are out of there.....
My son is leaving for afghanistan today for 6 month deployment in
special ops.
Our commander inchief is an inexperienced embaressment how is still trying to vote present..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Until there is an enforced law that requires valid ID to vote in all 50 states for every election, I am 100% for term limits. It was not an oversight to not include them, as originally there was no federal tax and only property owners could vote. 

And I am for replacing federal tax with VAT tax. This way, no one is "more equal" (i.e., is not taxed).

And, I am for making it illegal for any financial institution to be publically traded. This ensures bankers have something to lose.

If only there were a viable candidate that would address real issues.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

What I meant by tail spin is this: There is a vast amount of people that feel that current President has failed, and our lives are getting worse. There is also a vast amount of people that feel the current potential candidates will be just as bad. Until our mindframe can change that one persons way of doing things is NOT the only way, and comprimise without reprocusions can be made, we as a whole will feel that nothing is getting better.

I'm just going to throw this out there. Has anyone noticed that 1) the current GOP canditates are to busy pointing fingers to actually let people know their position on the issues? All I can find anywhere is how they feel so and so did this wrong, and so and so said that. Everything has been so focused on what others are doing wrong according to the candidate, that the reason we should follow/believe in them has been lost.

2) I'm not saying the current President is any better or any worse then previous ones (I going to TRY and stay out of that part of the issue). However, has anyone else noticed that the current President is simply referred to as "Obama", and has been since he was campaigning? While previous Presidents are always addressed or mentioned as "President So & So". Regardless of peoples reasons, I believe the current President was doomed to fail from the beginning. By not always addressing him in the manner of respect given to others without fail, we have shown that regardless of his actions we will not respect him.

3) As a nation we were attacked, the previous President chose to focus more efforts & money on a secondary threat (& possibly a personal vendeta) that focusing our efforts on the person responsible for the attack. Yet the current President, who did focus on the responsible person & since eliminated that person, has been admonished for what is happening overseas. Anyone else, we would be celebrating, and forgiving his shortcomings. Instead we insist on focusing on his inability to change things in four short years that took decades to decline.

I'm just saying..


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

I want to see a true equestrian, a man with horse sense! All the greats were!
A no nonsense, hard core, true to the Constitution, all American, man. Do those even exist anymore?

I agree with what everyone else said. No more agenda, no more slight of the hand, no figure out a back door throw a hissy fit and twist the truth when you don't get your own way BS (from anyone, rep or dem!). I HATE politics, the biased minority media (and I mean that in the agenda/value sense), and this whole idea that the country is divided and the "rich" people need to pay more to take care of the lesser! Those "rich" people (which I'm not!) had to work their tails off and they provide jobs to people like me. So the last thing we need to do is sacrifice them to "help" out those who haven't got it figured out yet... or have they?
The "rich" people I know and myself will work less and make less instead of working our tails off and paying more to the gov. I've heard on so many different occasions people saying "I can't take that promotion or job because that will put me in a higher tax bracket and I can't afford to be there." Is that American? Nope. Socialist, Communist... yep. Sad, sad, sad.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

I'm not big on politics and debates so I'm just going to put my thoughts down in a very simplistic manner.

I want strong morals.
I want family values.
I want a religious person. 
I want a military background.
I want honosty.
I want an American who's not afraid to show his birth certificate or college marks. 
I want someone to come in with an agenda and I want that somone to stick to it.

I miss Ronald Reagan, even when he made mistakes, the american people were in his best interests.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

farmpony84 said:


> I miss Ronald Reagan, even when he made mistakes, the american people were in his best interests.


Not just the people but the country. Sometimes what will help the country may be painful to certain groups for a while. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

I like Donald Trumps idea for getting a balanced budget. Pass a Constitutional amendment that the budget must be balanced every year or no member of congress is elligible for re-election. I'm pretty sure that would be the first thing done every session.


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

busysmurf said:


> What I meant by tail spin is this: There is a vast amount of people that feel that current President has failed, and our lives are getting worse. There is also a vast amount of people that feel the current potential candidates will
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everyone did the same to Bush just calling him Bush.
I'm not into giving Obama another 4 years the price tag is to hefty.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## outnabout (Jul 23, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> I do not believe we are in a tailspin. We are in a maturing democracy, that must deal with a new place in the world, that is changing up around us. We are no longer isolated. We affect and are effected by other nations. We aren't homogenous, we arent' all powerful, we aren't immune to the problems of the rest of the world. But, we are not in a tailspin.


Well stated, Tinyliny. I believe that we are in a tailspin of ignorance and fear. It is human nature to jump to conclusions and point fingers at the "other side" when basic needs are not being met. We are not isolated from the rest of the world, but many of our citizens feel that we are and don't need to work with other nations. 

I no longer have faith in elected officials, and the higher up the politician, the less reliable they seem to be. I believe that they are simply playing ego and power games at our expense. I don't know what the answer is. The left disgusts me and the right disgusts me. I am at the point that I cultivate my own garden, following the famous quote by Voltaire. If every individual would cultivate himself and those he loves, the world would be a better place for all. I know it sounds lofty, but think about it for a minute.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, I don't really take elections seriousely, anymore. Take out a buck from your wallet - and notice it says "a note", meaning "a note to pay back the fed". No one owns their house in the US, they either pay mortgage or tax - both go to the fed since banks borrow from the fed, and taxes "pay back the fed". Banks (little feds) wanted the glass steagall act removed, so they told their employees (aka congress) to pass it. Before that, there was a chance for the democratic republic, after, not really. The outcome was predictable - I mean, set no limit on what a bank can lend relative to its assets b/c to do so is antiquated??? Yep, so antiquated it prevented a melt down since the great depression...until it was removed. THe Fed and its baby banks (not the buildings, the CEO's) just gained more power than ever dreamed of.

Before federal tax, politicians did not live like royalty and get life long pensions and premium health care. The fed wanted federal tax - so they lend, lend,lend to the government they controlled and could eventually own the country....and use taxpayer's dollars to buy it. 

I see elections as theater. I am an independent, its my ownly tiny way of not letting a party count on one more dupe. The idiots that run for office are just that -idiots and thugs.

Oh, and the 99 commodity exchange act? That has and will bring us to our knees...ya think prices are high now? Just wait. Ever wonder how much corn is currently in stores, for example? It use to be reported. It is now exported to the highest bidder...no telling what the stores are. Thank you billy clinton. Most all the private producing farms are mortgaged....it will take one flood of the market as happened w russian wheat during the last depression, and the fed will own those, TOO.

So, I just play w my horses....and try to ignore this stuff - what else can you do????


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

Osama BinLadin. Hmmmmmm. There is an interesting story.
That huge compound only 3-4 people in it.
There was no altercation with the pakistanis who had a major base a mile away. Did anyone other then the team see the body?

BTW My son joe justmade his last call stateside. 
Breaking out my Army bible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

I find this thread as depressing than the political situation as a whole. I won't go into details as I feel my ideals certainly don't march with the norm here. I see people who are parroting the destructive rumor mongering that so destroys the integrity of our governing system. I get so tired of the same hateful personal attacks on some and the blind fawning of others. I see no evil weak leader, only one who has been denied the ability to make the changes he hoped for and were necessary...simply as a way to destroy any form of cooperation and compromise. Our partisan politics has been what is destroying this country's place in the world. Cooperation and compromise, by ALL parties, is the only way to move forward, IMO. One group controlling and squashing the other is NOT what made this country the great place it used to be.

Not an American? How incredibly sad to be so limited in scope.


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

No more blank checks or having to vote on a bill to be able read what's in it. Or don't worry we will balance the budget in 20 years. Pelosi's words.
Get rid of all of them Boehner to..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> I find this thread as depressing than the political situation as a whole. I won't go into details as I feel my ideals certainly don't march with the norm here. I see people who are parroting the destructive rumor mongering that so destroys the integrity of our governing system. I get so tired of the same hateful personal attacks on some and the blind fawning of others. I see no evil weak leader, only one who has been denied the ability to make the changes he hoped for and were necessary...simply as a way to destroy any form of cooperation and compromise. Our partisan politics has been what is destroying this country's place in the world. Cooperation and compromise, by ALL parties, is the only way to move forward, IMO. One group controlling and squashing the other is NOT what made this country the great place it used to be.
> 
> Not an American? How incredibly sad to be so limited in scope.


There have almost always been parties of some sort or another, and they have almost always been at each other's throat. I think registering to vote w a party removes "representation" of the people - and gives it to parties, however.

If you mean questioning someone's birth certificate is "limited", then why not just forget the rest of the constitution along with it? The constitution was not designed to be applied "ala carte" - its suppose to be taken in its _entirety._ It defines our government, it is the doctrine. If it has gotten to the point it is not (basically has) - then why don't they let us ALL see what replaced it??? Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were famous for making up laws as they went along - on a daily basis, and of course, there were the famous Hitler brown shirts that ensured that anyone that disagreed was eliminated or persecuted...quit effective.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Missy May said:


> There have almost always been parties of some sort or another, and they have almost always been at each other's throat. I think registering to vote w a party removes "representation" of the people - and gives it to parties, however.
> 
> If you mean questioning someone's birth certificate is "limited", then why not just forget the rest of the constitution along with it? The constitution was not designed to be applied "ala carte" - its suppose to be taken in its _entirety._ It defines our government, it is the doctrine. If it has gotten to the point it is not (basically has) - then why don't they let us ALL see what replaced it??? Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were famous for making up laws as they went along - on a daily basis, and of course, there were the famous Hitler brown shirts that ensured that anyone that disagreed was eliminated or persecuted...quit effective.


My issue is only that when I apply for a job, I am asked to show my birth certificate, drivers liscense, and sometimes even college transcripts to my employer...

The way I look at it... The President of the US works for the American People.... We put him there and we pay him w/ our tax money... We should be able to request a document which most certainly must exist...


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

The thing is he does not compromise. He bashes, throws fits, works the paper, and slides around trying to appease those who put him in place while trying to secure votes. (WORSE than in the past) Have you EVER heard a President talk the way he does? Belittle his opponents in the media with snide remarks and laughing while he does it, then turning around and nit picking others for far less offensive comments.
He has not compromised in ANY way, unless it will secure his office or prevent a crisis. Like the pipeline he now wants to run from Oklahoma. A swing state that he will need.
He has done NOTHING other than make things worse. Regardless of his intentions, which I feel were not truly understood by the people who voted for him. Yes, we needed "change", but not mine, a penny saved is a penny earned.
I could care less where he is from, what he looks like. What I can't stand is his flippant attitude, degrading remarks, and the idea that he can take from the "haves" to give to the "have nots". Don't you just love how he plays to different cultures, can you really stand that?
How are your insurance rates doing? Mine have tripled. Gas prices? Much higher. The tone of the different cultures and economic backgrounds? Scary.
But he thinks that's a good thing.

He and others feel like the Constitution is an antiquated document that needs to be tossed out and is only a "guideline" for our nation. Forgetting the fact that THAT document is what secured their ability to be in the position they are in. Leaders of the GREATEST nation in history.

In my business, the most liberal and outrageous one outside of the media, you would have a heart attack hearing the hatred and bias our patrons live by. They are shocked when they learn we are conservative/religious and can throw down with the best of them. We try and be examples of how one must be flexible, honorable, constructive, and successful. Not degrading, shifty, dependent, and biased. I've seen many a jaw drop when politics or religion is brought up around me, and hopefully I show that we are all the same, regardless of what our ethics/morals are or religion is. Americans.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

I TRY to avoid politics all together, but I work with a group that is VERY interested in politics, sigh. At the end of the day, my thought is this... Don't tell me to comprimise right after you tell me that your point of view is the correct one, and I have the wrong one. NO ONE should be in ANY office, if their campaign was contributed to by anyone that has an adgenda. And any type of campaign adds can only discuss what the candidate stands for, NOT what the other guy said 2 days ago.

But all will be solved soon, the zombies are coming!! (At least that's what I hear)


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Oh, 1 more thing.. Just be thankful you guys don't live in WI right now, LOL We've got some real Dodo heads right now.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

busysmurf said:


> Oh, 1 more thing.. Just be thankful you guys don't live in WI right now, LOL We've got some real Dodo heads right now.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

Allison Finch said:


> I see no evil weak leader, only one who has been denied the ability to make the changes he hoped for and were necessary.


I had to respond to this statement. President Obama had a Democrat Senate and House when he took office and for the first two years of his presidency. There were no partisan politics happening because the dems could pass whatever they wanted (obamacare) Nobody could stop him for two years and yet he couldn't even be bothered to pass a budget. There hasn't been a budget passed since Bush was president. We have no idea how much money our government is spending or what it's spending it on. That is at the very least a weak leader. I think he shouldn't be re-elected just on that basis right there. I have to have a budget for my family why shouldn't the government have to have one as well. 

I don't agree with ANYTHING Obama stands for and I'm glad he wasn't any more effective than he's been but he had free rein to pass anything he could get the members of his own party to vote for in the first two years he was in office. He's had an easier time of it than most presidents and now he's reaping what was sown for better or worse. I think the liberals sacrificed Obama to get Socialized medicine and everybody knew he'd never get re-elected. I think Obama is going to get wiped out by Romney this November. In fact I'll go so far as to say that Romney will win 40 states against Obama and if gas prices are over $4 then he may win 45 or 46. Some states would go for Obama if there were pictures of him french kissing Hugo Chavez so I doubt he'll lose in more than 46 states.


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

kevinshorses said:


> I don't think it was an oversight at all. Term limits are in the hands of the people. If the electorate want term linits all they have to do is vote for someone else. We don't need a law to solve every problem. A politician should be able to be voted in as many times as the electorate want him/her to represent them. One thing I appreciate about President Obama is that he has served to encourage more people to participate in thier local government and get thier views expressed. In this system of government the more people to participate the better off we are. I went to our local republican caucus last week and there were over a hundred people there. Two years ago there were less than 50 and before that the same ten or twelve people would show up every time. Incumbents are in trouble and that's a good thing in my opinion. People are struggling financially and realizing the importance of living within a budget and are expecting the government to do the same. Our state has a balanced budget every single year. Texas has one of the largest economies in the world and they meet as a legislature every TWO years and pass a balanced budget every time and Texas is far from homogenous. Some hard decisions will have to be made and some programs will have to be cut but our country NEEDS to quit spending more than it takes in. It's unsustainable for families and it's equally unsustainable for governments.
> 
> The foundation of our country is NOT the leadership. It's the people and the founding documents. If we, the people, would hold our government to the constitution then our republic will florish. There will be a place in this country for everyone.


While Obama may have inspired many to get out and vote, most of them had NO idea what they were voting for. They got sucked into something for the sake of making history, which ultimately blew up in their faces. The best thing I can say about that is hopefully those same people will continue to vote, if for nothing else, to at least correct their mistake.

I don't want to make the American people sound insignificant, but I don't think what we want makes one bit of difference if the government has a different idea. They'll get what they want. All we can hope for is a leader who wants the same thing as the people and cares enough to listen and get it done. That's why I say the leadership is the foundation.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Whisper22 said:


> While Obama may have inspired many to get out and vote, most of them had NO idea what they were voting for.


I don't think he truly "inspired" to vote for him. People got tired of Bush, endless war, and crappy economy, so they voted for "changes" (plus with all respect McCain - Palin couple was way too scary for many people, even republicans). However I agree with whoever said it: he had all opportunities to pass anything (because democrats made a majority), but he did nothing. 

P.S. I don't support either republicans or democrats, but whatever common sense comes from either side.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Obama is the reason the gas prices are so high? REALLY? LOLOLOL! How about 2007 when the prices were so much higher. Why aren't you vilifying Bush?

Read on, if you dare.


US Gas Prices, Oil Price & the Shocking Truth











Gas Prices: 40 years through this week
March 22, 2012. We've watched oil and gas prices every since OPEC's embargo 40 years ago, and you're about to learn the iron law that connects them. This is no secret. Yet hardly anyone knows it, because that's not in Big Oil's interest, and because some very big names are in on this deception.
Big Oil pumps oil in the US and sells it at the world oil price — even when it sells it to Americans. The more they pump, the more they profit. And pumping does next to nothing to curb world-oil prices. But do we care? The Iron Law of Gas Prices will make that more than clear. And, here it is:
zFact: Price of Gas = (World Price of Oil) + $1.00/gal
The price of gasoline (in 2012 dollars) has been $1.00 more per gallon than the price of oil for the last 25 years (see graph below). There were some small deviations, but nothing systematic. There's nothing we can do about this unless we change the world oil price — or we subsidize gasoline like Iran and Venezuela.
The Iron Law of Gas Prices (click to enlarge)

Big Oil's Deception
Big Oil (and the Republicans) want us to believe that pumping more US oil will bring down the price of gas. How's that going? In December 2008, the gas price was $2.09. By Dec. 2011 it was up 69% to $3.53. So that was because we were pumping 6.7 Mb/day in 12/08 and now we're down to 8.2 Mb/day in 12/11. Oh wait, that's up 23%, not down. That's the biggest 3-year increase since maybe sometime in the 1950's. In fact every year was down from 1985 until the trend reversed in 2009.
So under Obama, we've had the only annually increases in oil production in 25 years and about the biggest increases ever. And the Republicans are saying that more production makes gas prices go down and that prices went up because of Obama's. And he probably caused the tornadoes and solar storms.
So who benefits from this lie? 











This Newt Is Lying
The lie is that if we drill-baby-drill, you and I will, get cheap oil. Right. The oil companies will decide to sell cheap to us instead of selling at the high world price to China, Japan and Europe. Get real Newt. Big oil is neither stupid nor patriotic. They're out for profit—that's just how it is. It's obvious how Republicans benefit, and Big Oil? Well, think if they told us they wanted to drill in the Gulf of Mexico so they could increase their profits profits and help the Chinese who are much shorter of oil then we are. So they say let us drill wherever we want and we've got a real special price just for you. They think we're chumps. And, well, you decide.
So what did Newt actually say? He told FoxNews, "I have a $2.50 goal as a maximum price. I think -- and if people go to Newt.org, where we outline step by step how to do it. I think it is doable." Doable?! $2.50 for gas means $1.50 for oil (the Iron Rule). And $1.50 times 42 gallons/barrel = $63/barrel -- about half what it costs now. And Newt will make that the maximum price of oil for the world from now on. Oh, right. The US still produces less than 10% of the world's oil and our dramatic increase in production under Obama had so little effect that the price of oil went from $40/bbl (12/2008) to $108/bbl (12/2011). But Newt can set OPEC's price of oil and part the Red Sea.
Free. Many Varieties

Speculators: This also means that blaming Wall-Street speculators is equally naive. There is no way they can affect the world price of oil that much. Yes, they can drive up future prices, but bets on the future do not determine the price of gas. Look at the graph again. That is the spot price (not the future price) of oil, and that's what counts.
The Four Facts You Need to Know about Oil Prices?
Drill baby drill and who benefits?
Making ethanol for the world market? 
Does Exxon loves OPEC ??
What's an OPIC how does it affect the climate.


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

No one is saying past presidents haven't made mistakes. Obama has just been making them left and right since he's been elected. Fact of the matter is, the gas prices are high right now and that can't be blaimed on Bush. Obama is screwing up.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I don't know Alison, by whom was that published? Anytime I see a statement like, "Big Oil (and the Republicans)", or (and the "fill in the blank party") I stop reading. It tells me the author has an agenda. I have no party, and I resent party based propaganda disguised as "journalism" or "news".

They forgot to mention the 99 commodities modernization act signed by _Clinton_, a democrat, I believe. You can't have an intelligent conversation about oil prices w/o mentioning that act. If they can't mention that act b/c it wasn't signed in by Bush - it is pure propoganda.

They left out some extremely important information - oil drilling, for one. Without which, there is no oil. Permits take years to clear, then the actual drilling effort can take several more years before any production is realised. So, ANY new oil production in this country realised today was necessarily due to the last admin's efforts. What will production be in 3-4 years from now (which is the earliest production increase Obama could possibly have affected)? This can be estimated - I don't see that estimate in this "article".
Then, there is the dollar. The lower it goes the higher commodities go. This is directly affected by debt and printing more money. 
The author clearly is unable to do a basic document search or has an agenda and chose to omit critical info. I am guessing its that later.


----------



## clip clop (Mar 12, 2012)

We need a President who's logo is "America for America" period! Quit worrying about other countrys problems and focus on our own jobs, children, and economy. Yes it may make a few countrys mad but what are they gonna do? They can't whoop us. We have our own starving childre, our own homeless,jobless people, and we were not made or built to compare ourselves to 3rd world countries just because they don't have as much as we have. Our history proves that we worked way too hard to just "settle"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tlkng1 (Dec 14, 2011)

CLaPorte432 said:


> I think we need government officials that don't embezzle our money. We'd probably be alright if it wasn't for the people stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from us.
> 
> And I don't think that anyone can make changes in just 4 years of office, we should have at least 10 year terms. 4 years just doesn't cut it, especially when we put different people in every 4 years that have different ideas. Nothing ever gets done.


We allow 8 years of service as President. The reason that limit was implemented was to avoid issues with dictatorships.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

clip clop said:


> We need a President who's logo is "America for America" period! Quit worrying about other countrys problems and focus on our own jobs, children, and economy. Yes it may make a few countrys mad but what are they gonna do? They can't whoop us. We have our own starving childre, our own homeless,jobless people, and we were not made or built to compare ourselves to 3rd world countries just because they don't have as much as we have. Our history proves that we worked way too hard to just "settle"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
This is sad that you would turn your back on the rest of the world, which even if it were a good idea, is not possible. We depend on the rest of the world, more so every day. The things you buy at Walmart are built in China, and India and Indonesia. Can you manage without that stuff? Can you manage without the 70% of oil imported from the middle east? Can you manage with out the fresh fruit from South America ? And it goes on and on. 
If you are referring to our providing financial aid to other countries, our total expenditure of money for foreign aid is miniscule compared to what we spend on our military, which is less than is spend on Social Security and Medicare.

As a porportion of our total wealth, we are not the most generous donors world wide.

I would LOVE to turn my back on the middle east . I would LOVE to close the doors to any of the "trouble makers" that dominate the news , from Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq. But withdrawing is not going to make us safer. I dont' think it's possible anymore to live isolated, as appealing as it is.


OH, and in reference to mistakes being made, think of the whopping mistake Bush made bringing us into the war on Iraq, saying that there was "weapons of mass destruction, for sure!". I believed it. But evidence now is that the information was not verified and Bush chose to move ahead with a venture that will cost us, in the long run, more billions of dollars that I can even comprehend. Where is the outcry on the waster there? the destabilization this caused in the MIddle east has not bolstered our interests, at all. It would be better for us to have a strongman keeping Irag strong agains Iran, long time enemies, so that we have at least a stable Middle East. The cost for the Iraq war will not be paid for generations. 


REmember, regarding Obama not "doing " anything for his first two years, that he entered the whitehouse at the height of the worst econmonic crisis since the Great Depression. It was a matter of putting out fires here and there. Very hard to pursue the "dream" when you are trying to keep from drowning.


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

^^like^^ well said tiny!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## clip clop (Mar 12, 2012)

Actually we could. We have oil in the United States to sustain ourselves but how horrible would that be for us to pollute the air? Tons of factories have been moved out of the country because of clean air act. The truth is, the entire world breathes the same air. You pointed out one of the main problems, everything we buy is foreign!! I think its sad that we have to pay 4$ plus at the pump so we can bail out other countries oil situation, I think its sad that some people will step right over our own homeless children to hop on a plane to give half their money to another country who could care less about us. I have absolutely no problem with us taking care of ourselves for a while untill we get to where our fore fathers intended us to be. Will we ever have a president that would or could do that? Nope they wouldn't even get close to getting in office because people vote with other countries problems on their mind. I work hard everyday to provide for my family and I think we all should work hard to provide for our country
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

tinyliny said:


> REmember, regarding Obama not "doing " anything for his first two years, that he entered the whitehouse at the height of the worst econmonic crisis since the Great Depression. *It was a matter of putting out fires here and there. Very hard to pursue the "dream" when you are trying to keep from drowning*.


He did plenty in the first two years and all of it was wrong! He passed the biggest entitlement in our history with Obamacare and his lackeys in the Senate and House passed it without even knowing what was in it. Nancy Pelosi who was speaker of the house said "we have to pass this so we can find out what is in it". That ranks right up there with "it depends on what the definition of is, is." What he should have done is pass a budget and stop spending money that we don't have.

*When you're trying to keep from drowning the first thing you do is let go of the huge **** rock that's dragging you down. You don't need to worry about fires when you're drowning!*


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

All of the oil in this country could not sustain the levels that we demand on a daily basis. We produce little of the amounts that we use. Obama has opened up more drilling than any of the previous administrations (google it...I did). The old DRILL DRILL DRILL will never give us what we demand. And, every day, we compete harder and harder against other countries for the limited supplies. It is going to get harder and harder every year to meet out demands. BIG trouble is coming very soon.


And, for Pete's Sake, let's drop the birther nonsense. He HAS shown every document asked of him. Initially all he had was his certificate of live birth. You know what? The very birth certificate I have that has been used all of MY life getting jobs/schools/ housing is the very same thing. I doubt if many of you folks out there even has the detailed birth certificate that the "Birthers" were demanding. He did produce it....period. Do you really think that Fox News would be quiet now, if he hadn't? Get over it...he is a legal citizen.


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

I don't think the birth certificate thing should be ignored at all. The whole thing just shows the level of dishonesty he is willing to go to. It is a scarily low level. It is so glaringly obvious that he is NOT a citizen, I am actually stunned that people still believe him. It goes way beyond the possibility that he may not have had the right documents himself, the documents should have still existsed somewhere attainable by the President of the United States. Beside that, there is other evidence pointing to his non citizenship, like the fact that the microfiche for the week of his birth just happens to be missing, for starters. And why the hell did it take him so **** long to release it to the public in the first place? You can google just how fake his birth certificate is, it's quite laughable.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

kevinshorses said:


> He did plenty in the first two years and all of it was wrong! He passed the biggest entitlement in our history with Obamacare and his lackeys in the Senate and House passed it without even knowing what was in it. Nancy Pelosi who was speaker of the house said "we have to pass this so we can find out what is in it". That ranks right up there with "it depends on what the definition of is, is." What he should have done is pass a budget and stop spending money that we don't have.
> 
> *When you're trying to keep from drowning the first thing you do is let go of the huge **** rock that's dragging you down. You don't need to worry about fires when you're drowning!*


 
"Rock"? Which rock would that be?

"Obama care" is a very watered down version of what the president really wanted, and the many senators who have been trying for years to get healthcare reformed. It ended up being such a mess of a compromise that I almost have to agree that it should not have been passed. However, all economists that are knowledgeable about the incredible black hole that healthcare costs are now and will become say that SOMETHING must be done. it cannot continue as is without soaking the next generations.

The Obamacare,. as you call it, is directly modelled after the healthcare system put into place by Mit Romney in Massachusetts, against much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Which, has now been recognized by most folks there as the lesser of two evils and they do not want to be rid of it, from what I have heard.. However, though Mit will badmouth Obama care to the public, up one side and down the other, he accepts government subsudies to keep Mass. state healtcare functioning.
I call that Hypocracy.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Whisper22 said:


> I don't think the birth certificate thing should be ignored at all. The whole thing just shows the level of dishonesty he is willing to go to. It is a scarily low level. It is so glaringly obvious that he is NOT a citizen, I am actually stunned that people still believe him. It goes way beyond the possibility that he may not have had the right documents himself, the documents should have still existsed somewhere attainable by the President of the United States. Beside that, there is other evidence pointing to his non citizenship, like the fact that the microfiche for the week of his birth just happens to be missing, for starters. And why the hell did it take him so **** long to release it to the public in the first place? You can google just how fake his birth certificate is, it's quite laughable.


 
like this google?
snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

Romneycare was put into place at a state level, makes a huge difference.
Just as an example:
Romneycare -No new taxes! 
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits 
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)

Obamacare -Increased taxes by $500 billion 
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare 
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown!

I would expect them to try really hard to prove otherwise with the birth certificate tiny.


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

Now my question is: Why is the birth certificate such a big deal in the first place? I don't remember what the big deal was that started this whole controversy. It was too long ago.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> All of the oil in this country could not sustain the levels that we demand on a daily basis. We produce little of the amounts that we use. Obama has opened up more drilling than any of the previous administrations (google it...I did). The old DRILL DRILL DRILL will never give us what we demand. And, every day, we compete harder and harder against other countries for the limited supplies. It is going to get harder and harder every year to meet out demands. BIG trouble is coming very soon.
> 
> 
> And, for Pete's Sake, let's drop the birther nonsense. He HAS shown every document asked of him. Initially all he had was his certificate of live birth. You know what? The very birth certificate I have that has been used all of MY life getting jobs/schools/ housing is the very same thing. I doubt if many of you folks out there even has the detailed birth certificate that the "Birthers" were demanding. He did produce it....period. Do you really think that Fox News would be quiet now, if he hadn't? Get over it...he is a legal citizen.


The US's dependancy on foriegn oil has doubled in the last 2-3 decades largely due to decreased production. How much oil the US has is unknown due to drilling restrictions.

Obama clearly stated his agenda was to see gas go to $5, or above. So, of course, his supporters are pleased. It is the number of permits denied and/or cancelled vs the number granted - and the estimated output thereof, not just the number of permits (i.e., total sum gain). 

Well, did they drop questioning the constitutionality of some of the provisions of George Bush's Patriot Act? Should they have since - what the heck, its just the constitution?


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Whisper22 said:


> Romneycare was put into place at a state level, makes a huge difference.
> Just as an example:
> Romneycare -No new taxes!
> -Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
> ...


 
Where do you think Obama was born?


this support by the Fed gov. makes the romney care feasible.


----------



## ls6firebird (Mar 8, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> Obama is the reason the gas prices are so high? REALLY? LOLOLOL! How about 2007 when the prices were so much higher. Why aren't you vilifying Bush?


lol yea i remember payin almost $6/gallon for diesel. still dont get why its so much higher than gas


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

No one should vilify Bush or any other prior president right now. That's like cursing the previous owners of my home. I knew EXACTLY what I was getting into and how I was going to fix it..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

just as an aside, gas here is already at 4.17$ a gallon! that's the cheapest gas.


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

Ok here I go . Kevin your are so righth even with The House and Senate for Obama's first 2 years they still had to go behind closed doors. So bipartisan..
You know what gets me all them environmentalists protest to drilling here but it's ok for other countries to drill in their land. Hyprocrit does come to mind. You know they have less choices then we do and their product does not benefit them.
Bush did not make the choice to go to war all by himself. He went thru congressional approval and got the backing for Iraq. Yes them democrats approved it and eventually voted to fund it.
It is not our job to finance the world take care of our own first.
But don't worry obama is in oklahome so for this week the drilling is on.
Holder is suing our states for trying to uphold the laws .
And fighting for voters not to have pictures ids when they go to vote.
If I was Panetta I would have the Marines leave their guns outside to .
AT THE SENATE HEARING IF OBAMA WANTS TO TO WAR HE Doesnt needs congressional approval just the international court. Wake up People .
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

tinyliny said:


> Where do you think Obama was born?
> 
> 
> this support by the Fed gov. makes the romney care feasible.


Obama couldnt come up with his own healthcare plan he used Romney.s'
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

Our men and women fighting for this country deserves better.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> All of the oil in this country could not sustain the levels that we demand on a daily basis.


No, that part is not true. As a retired Geophysicist, I assure you there are sufficient known reserves to run our country for over 200 years, and there are additional undiscovered reserves. Additionally, as technology continues to improve, it is becoming economically feasible to remove oil and gas previously considered unrecoverable and not counted in our reserves.

In the long term, we of course need to gradually shift to alternative energy sources to extend the life of our fossil fuels, but we have plenty of time to do that and are gradually making some headway, albeit not as much as we should be making.

There is no oil shortage, and we can produce all we need. The reasons we don't arise from politics and corporate policies.

While it is true Obama is taking much of the blame unjustly (see next paragraph), his administration has still been extremely slow issuing drilling permits and has discouraged increased drilling, particularly on public lands.

Much of the problem is corporate in nature. While ignorant conservatives (I am a conservative, but many of us are as ignorant as anyone else) insist on placing all the blame on Obama, the fact is there are over 7,000 issued but unused drilling permits. There are various reasons for this, but I don't want to write a book here. Suffice it to say that rather than increasing refining and storage capacity, which translates to reinvesting earnings, oil companies have chosen to retain profits for themselves and their shareholders. In 25 words or less, we are about at our storage and refining capacity right now and wouldn't know what to do with more crude if we had it. As it is, many wells are capped and not producing.

The problem is much more complex than can be understood by a quick Google search. Again, part of it is of course politics, but not all...there are many variables involved. There are a lot of guilty parties involved, but sadly we the public are the ones that suffer for it...


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

I agree here with some, and disagree with others. I'm not really the political debate kind of person but along the lines of energy, I am seeing some of what Faceman is referring to.....

While I know this may not be on the same level as drilling for oil, but it is energy.... as someone whose farm sits on the Marcellus Shale formation, I know first hand the activity and surrounding politics have been crazy. There are a lot of permits that have been issued to drill (it only takes 6 months to get through the paperwork) but not a whole lot of actual drilling, or the wells are capped.

It has more to do with who gets what money or keeps it... not how productive or helpful the wells could be. That, and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Can't blame the president for that... the local politicians are messing things up quite nicely on their own.

On the other hand, the mismanaged by-products of the drilling are a complete nightmare going on around here and it is the local citizens who are caught in the middle......

My only real political opinion is....No one person is responsible for where our country is, or isn't. We didn't get to where we are overnight... and we won't get out of it overnight. 
Most presidents (who represent the face of politics to many people) come into office and inherit the mess left by the previous president. Seems the current president inherited a bigger mess than most.

Simple statement? Perhaps, but it is as far as I go.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Lockwood said:


> m seeing some of what Faceman is referring to.....
> 
> Most presidents (who represent the face of politics to many people) come into office and inherit the mess left by the previous president. Seems the current president inherited a bigger mess than most.
> 
> Simple statement? Perhaps, but it is as far as I go.


It is the word "inheret" that I take exception with. A lot of people and pundits use it. If one is completely unaware of the problems, then they should not run for office. He was not drafted into office, he spent multi millions trying to get into office, all the while saying he _knew_ what the problems were and exactly how to "change" them. The day he walked into office he "owned them", he did not "inheret" them. 
And, he was the 1st president that actually did "own them" the 1st day - b/c pres bush signed into law the provision that the "change over" would begin directly after the election, not as it always had been - after inaugeration.


----------



## gunslinger (Sep 17, 2011)

tlkng1 said:


> Actually, in this case I can't put all the burden on the President unless it is the burden of doing nothing. Congress is the problem right now with the two parties refusing to compromise on anything. It is either, we do it our way or not at all. If the President would just for once stand up in front of congress and proverbially knock some heads topgether and say look, quit the schoolyard squabbling as the country is in trouble, MAYBE things would get done.
> 
> The other issue is the crooked poiliticians we have in congress. Several are known tax cheats,cheatung in ways that would have the rest of us nearly in jail, and all they got was a wink and a pat on the shoulder. We know there have been ethics violations but all Ihave seen was a lowly little open session censure and even then the politician said it was too severe a penalty that he was "embarrassed." He should have been booted out the door.
> 
> We can't afford a straight liberal that wants to give everything to everyone and be dipped the consequences or a straight conservative who wants to lock everything up tight and say..."mine..all mine...". We need a moderate who is willing to compromise.


 Thank God for the conservative House who has been sucessful at stopping some of the socialist policies. My hope is the Republicans keep the house and win the Senate. After all, the Republican controlled house and Senate made Bill Clinton look pretty good. If Obama wins re-election, maybe they can make him look good too. The Democrats and the super majority sure sucked.


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

tinyliny said:


> Where do you think Obama was born?
> 
> 
> this support by the Fed gov. makes the romney care feasible.


I personally believe he was born in Kenya. His grandmother said she was there for his birth in KENYA. That's a big oops, if it is one.



dirtroadangel said:


> Obama couldnt come up with his own healthcare plan he used Romney.s'
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly. A plan that was designed at a state level, and couldn't be accomplished efficiently at a federal level.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> It is the word "inheret" that I take exception with. A lot of people and pundits use it. If one is completely unaware of the problems, then they should not run for office. He was not drafted into office, he spent multi millions trying to get into office, all the while saying he _knew_ what the problems were and exactly how to "change" them. The day he walked into office he "owned them", he did not "inheret" them.
> And, he was the 1st president that actually did "own them" the 1st day - b/c pres bush signed into law the provision that the "change over" would begin directly after the election, not as it always had been - after inaugeration.


And this is why I generally refrain from political debate… too much knit picking and placing words into someone else‘s mouth.

I seriously doubt any US present is forced into the office without a clue as to what they are getting into. Pardon my word “inherit”… perhaps one would prefer- receives/takes on/steps up to the plate/meld into the role of/whatever…
One presidents vacates office and leaves/discards/ shucks/bestows/hands down the mess for the next president. 

Again my point… No one person is responsible for where our country is, or isn't. 
We didn't get to where we are overnight... and we won't get out of it overnight.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Lockwood said:


> And this is why I generally refrain from political debate… too much knit picking and placing words into someone else‘s mouth.
> 
> I seriously doubt any US present is forced into the office without a clue as to what they are getting into. Pardon my word “inherit”… perhaps one would prefer- receives/takes on/steps up to the plate/meld into the role of/whatever…
> One presidents vacates office and leaves/discards/ shucks/bestows/hands down the mess for the next president.
> ...


I wasn't trying to nit pick nor offend. And, I didn't take exception to the rest of your statement. When it comes to politics, I don't think "word use" is nit picking, since semantics are often used to make things "more acceptable", sort of like, using the word "liberal" incorrectly, when actually meaning, "socialist", or using the word "gay" in place of homosexual, or "tolerance", when meaning intolerance. It is a trick that has been used very effectively since Roman times. 
And, like I said before, politics are too depressing, which is why I _try_ to just play w my horses and forget it.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> I wasn't trying to nit pick nor offend. And, I didn't take exception to the rest of your statement. When it comes to politics, I don't think "word use" is nit picking, since semantics are often used to make things "more acceptable", sort of like, using the word "liberal" incorrectly, when actually meaning, "socialist", or using the word "gay" in place of homosexual, or "tolerance", when meaning intolerance. It is a trick that has been used very effectively since Roman times.
> And, like I said before, politics are too depressing, which is why I _try_ to just play w my horses and forget it.


No offense taken. It is just the nature of political debate and why I prefer to avoid it.

More often than not I am running on empty in the coffee/caffeine-o-meter and really don’t want to have to think about every little nuance of a word. 
Medical and medicine terminology is where I will get anal and knit pick, since goofing those up has real consequences. As in, “Oh, only 1ml, I thought you said 100ml… oops.” :shock:

My first response was before 9:00am. Not enough coffee… nothing more to my word choice than that. I‘m just not that calculated.


----------



## Ladytrails (Jul 28, 2010)

kitten_Val said:


> I don't think he truly "inspired" to vote for him. People got tired of Bush, endless war, and crappy economy, so they voted for "changes" (plus with all respect McCain - Palin couple was way too scary for many people, even republicans). However I agree with whoever said it: he had all opportunities to pass anything (because democrats made a majority), but he did nothing.
> 
> P.S. I don't support either republicans or democrats, but whatever common sense comes from either side.


I agree with this, Val - I said at the time they were voting against something, not 'for' something. And - Not all change is good. Hope is not a strategy. Trying to understand what he stood for was like trying to nail jello to the wall, as it was always changing with the polls - this guy was carefully coached for years not to EVER let his own beliefs and values be shown. His own voting record in government proves to me that he avoided doing anything that required taking a stand based on his true beliefs - so, to me, he represented the "man without a stand" except for his earlier passions for socialism, before he got wise about not letting people see what he stood for.


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

I was just wondering where have all the czars gone?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ladytrails (Jul 28, 2010)

That's a great question. I read at one point that the czars were at risk if the legislators defunded them - in other words, without a budget to pay for their salaries and agencies, they are bye bye. I wondered if that happened and googled this - very interesting and very very scary article here: http://www.americanreform.org/index.php/blog/comments/why_gingrich_targets_obamas_czars/ The czars are not gone. They are quiet right now because, apparently, they are stockpiling regulations and getting ready to spring into action if Obama is re-elected. Examples of their agendas are - incorporating international law into the US courts instead of or alongside the US Constitution (sharia law, anybody?) and allowing animals to sue humans in court.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Ladytrails said:


> Examples of their agendas are - incorporating international law into the US courts instead of or alongside the US Constitution (*sharia law, anybody?*) and allowing animals to sue humans in court.



You know, the current republican candidates are almost as scary to me. They are all about setting up a theocracy using extremely restrictive interpretations of biblical law. How is that constitutional? The restrictions being threatened remind me a lot of Sharia law, IMO.

I gotta love your saying that Obama is all about allowing animals to sue humans. I had a great laugh over that one. If you seriously believe that....well....I have nothing more to say.:-|


----------



## Ladytrails (Jul 28, 2010)

No, I didn't say Obama is in favor of animals suing humans - one of his czars has suggested that. That same czar believes that an embryo is just a collection of cells. (Which, I guess, means that embryos can't be sued...) I think the point is that these are not mainstream ideas. 

For the record, I think that imposing changes to our laws to align with biblical law could get us in trouble, too. While I'm a Christian, and certainly try to honor the teachings of the Bible, I think the Bible itself has lots of examples of how men can totally screw up the application of God's laws.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> You know, the current republican candidates are almost as scary to me. They are all about setting up a theocracy using extremely restrictive interpretations of biblical law. How is that constitutional? The restrictions being threatened remind me a lot of Sharia law, IMO.


I haven't heard any of the viable candidates talk about creating extremely restrictive religious based laws - which candidate? Maybe I missed it.

The constitution was _heavily_ influenced by western culture, they are inextricably intertwined. That wouldn't include Wright style preachings of "God D** America". 

I don't like any of the candidates or the incumbant - but I do think facts are important.


----------



## ls6firebird (Mar 8, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> You know, the current republican candidates are almost as scary to me.


i will never understand how either side can be so much better than the other. theyre all crooks. i cant bring myself to vote either way. im union, so im supposed to vote all democrat. i cant vote against that, but at the same time, i cant vote democrat just because of that because theres a lot bigger issues than me and what i do for a living, not to mention theres a lot i disagree with them on. when/if someone runs for president that i can really feel has what it takes, then i'll vote for that person regardless of political party.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

Allison Finch said:


> You know, the current republican candidates are almost as scary to me. *They are all about setting up a theocracy using extremely restrictive interpretations of biblical law*. How is that constitutional? The restrictions being threatened remind me a lot of Sharia law, IMO.
> 
> I gotta love your saying that Obama is all about allowing animals to sue humans. I had a great laugh over that one. If you seriously believe that....well....I have nothing more to say.:-|


I would love to hear an example of this. The liberals like to say that the republican canidates are trying to stop birth control and abortion. NOBODY has EVER said that birthcontrol should be illegal. They only suggested that it shouldn't be mandated by the federal government that employers should have to pay for it. I don't think insurance should pay for birth control at all. It's not expensive and if a woman doesn't want to have children then she or her partner can pay for it. The Constitution say that congress shall make NO law regarding religion. It doesn't say that religion shouldn't be allowed in lawmaking. I think we need polititions that believe in a higher power.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

i love this debate going on. i dont have alot to offer, since when i turned 18, 5 years ago i have not yet voted once and i am turly ashamed of it. i am a female...women of the past fought endlessly to get rights equal to male counter parts and i am wasting my rights away. why?? because as an american citizen i don't believe in voting for someone who doesn't meet my standards/criteria or match the constitutional requirements to become the leader of my country.

however reading thru all 9 pages i saw alot of things i agree with. 
1. the argument about his birth certificate... if i have to show mine for a job then you show yours
2. if obama is so family oriented and cares about his daughters..then why did he allow palin's daughters to get ripped a new one in the media...i am sorry no one is perfect. and in this day and age those girls were minors or close to it and were verbally assaulted thru the media, where as he sticks up for a grown women who pretty much admitted she was/is a **** on tv but got ****ed when someone actually used the term..i am sorry ...he is playing favorites and really doesn't give a rats a** about his female family nor the females in this country..
3. oil- it has been a know fact that America can run itself on its own reserves ... and for whatever reason wont. our government also knows of altnerative energies to run vehicles but have since not allowed them... such as cars run with water (just one example)... some of these vehicles are being used in foreign countries and with less cost 
4. our military. why are we reducing our military..because its to much of a US cost..sorry that is one cost i would like to keep. there are tons of books about the American past with military...why are we even thinking of reducing our nuclear power. if we keep showing we are intimated by others then sooner rather than later someone else is going to make a move .. and there will be no more freedom.
5. we need to stop all this excessive well-fare crap. yes there are some people who need it... but i am sorry there are more people using that program for a hand out. drug tests should be mandatory for any well-fare program. you fail or don't want to take it ok fine you don't even get a chance for well-fare.
6. our president at the moment has no accountabilty... and that does concern me alot.

those are just a few of the things that bother me. and thats not including morals, family values, etc 

oh and i think it was tiny... who mentioned we need to look in the past for reference... i think we are following Romes path of self destruction if you ask me... 

so please continue debating so i can further my understanding in our countries down hill struggle.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

kevinshorses said:


> NOBODY has EVER said that birthcontrol should be illegal.


Some states try to push hard to bring it into effect (as well as no abortion). Personally I find restricting both to be ridiculous and insulting.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

That should be up to the states. The constitution grants certain powers to the federal government and everything else to the state and local government. It should be up to the states to determine if abortion is allowed or not. I thin abortion is wrong but I also think it's up to every person to make their ownh decision. I think it should be legal. NOBODY wants to make birthcontrol illegal. I haven't heard ONE single person say that women shouldn't have birthcontrol pills available for purchase. If you can find a quote from a governor of a state or a republican with any amount of power to make it happen then I'd change my statement but I've yet to see one.


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

Kate I liked your comment because you as a "young" person do your research and withheld your vote because you were not thrilled about a candidate, you shouldn't be ashamed in ANY way. I didn't vote until my mid 20's because I didn't 100% understand what was going on.
I really wish people could look past the sensationalism of a candidate and research IN DEPTH what a person is about. The president we have now had less experience to be a president than a person trying to become a manager at McDonalds! And that's a FACT.

This whole welfare situation boggles my mind. I came from a divorced home with a single mother (no child support) with two kids and at the time (80's Regan era) my mom didn't take a single "hand out" and worked her way up in business to provide a better life for us. She had no college education, no particular training (factory worker) and went to work for the largest company in the world and was running a large part of it when she retired at 45! She has now had to go back to work because of the dismal situation AND the fact that she can't touch her retirement until she is at least 65 due to the INSANE taxes and gov regulations. Her story used to be an American success story, now it's a story of how the gov has taken advantage of the "haves" to give to the "have nots".

I have been paying taxes since I was 13!!! I lost my job several years ago and just after I did I found out we were unexpectedly carrying a child. I did take advantage of medicaid BUT I HAD PAID FOR IT. I was shocked when I went to my first appointment and 99% of the other women there were illegals and other ladies who had at LEAST three children running around. People are mooching off the system, having children to get checks, and haven't a CLUE who is paying. Me, my mom and dad, and you. I did not accept any further "assistance" from the gov and got my daughter and us our own healthcare as soon as I got back on my feet. I have never taken foodstamps, for which we have often qualified for, but it makes me SICK when I go to the grocery store and see the food stamp tally at the bottom of the screen. 

My brother on the other hand mooches off the system. Neither he nor his wife have EVER had a job for longer than 6 months. They get food stamps, free babies, help with utilities, cheap cell phones, YOU NAME IT! Both of them are healthy and 100% capable of having jobs, but why should they when they get most things for free? They just had baby #2 and are working on #3. GREAT!
Both of them would also fail a DT.

I can't stand it one bit. Now the gov and the presumed "99%" are calling to TAKE MORE from people who have lived the American dream. Punishing them for being success stories that have made this country into the #1 place on earth to live. Sickens me to no end. I 100% believe in helping out the down and out, people who have come into unexpected situations and need temporary assistance. It's the ones who are making a living off the system that need to be banished.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

kevinshorses said:


> NOBODY wants to make birthcontrol illegal. I haven't heard ONE single person say that women shouldn't have birthcontrol pills available for purchase. If you can find a quote from a governor of a state or a republican with any amount of power to make it happen then I'd change my statement but I've yet to see one.


Kevin, it was proposed in number of states and getting worse in last several years. 

The facts about Amendment 26 | The Daily Mississippian

And this is from one of the candidates: Gingrich: ‘Post-conception birth control’ should be illegal | The Raw Story 

There are more, but I don't have time (and frankly will) to search and read all that crap. 

In fact in GA (I believe) some of those state folks suggested to do a detailed investigation if the woman had a miscarriage or gave a birth to the dead baby, and if she did something wrong (say, fell off the stairs) to consider it as a criminal offense. Thankfully the bill died, but I bet anything there will be other attempts.

I wonder how it all can be considered as "democracy" in 1st place....


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

FlyGap said:


> Both of them would also fail a DT.


I think DT must be _*mandatory *_when you receive food stamps and welfare.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

FlyGap said:


> Both of them would also fail a DT.


yeap i know tons of people who would fail and doing the same thing as your relatives and it does sicken me... i love the thrill of working for what i want and i don't see the thrill in being handed something... just doesn't make sense to me how it makes you feel fulfilled when you earn something

but then again i think it goes to the lack of standards in our everyday lives... little morals, respect, people expect everything to be given to them where as it used to be people looked forward to making there dreams come true..just a different set of standards for people today which is not in the best interest of our country


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

On welfare,
1. It is why I am all for VAT tax - _if_ it replaced federal tax (i.e., fed tax was completely abolished). Not taxing people of any income level is not "equal treatment".
2. THere is one "phrase" I think has been hijacked, which is "single mother". A lot of people are NOT "single parents" by choice (e.g., widowed, divorced), and they have to work and care for their children which should be respected. BUT, when someone has children (emphasis on plural) out of wedlock, by several different fathers, and collects welfare, foodstamps, housing and medical care from the working parents, I do not call it a "single mother", I call it disgusting by choice. And, the fact they have the option to _vote_ to take more property (taxes) to have more handouts is flat out unconstitutional in more ways than one. But to make them "seem" as if they are "struggling" right along side real "single mothers" is demoralizing to any responsible and respectable parent. SIMPLE and fair and constitutionally sound solution - let all of those that think this (more welfare for every child born) is a wonderful thing adopt an entire welfare family, and pay for all their needs.
3. It is an example of how our freedoms are the backdoor to the death of our freedoms. Welfare was original "sold" to the public as a simple fix for the cruelties of capitalism. At the time, mosts women did not have equal access to jobs, and there was no safety net for those that fell through the cracks. There should have been a safety net put in place, I think, we _were_ a rich nation. But, _not_ the safety net that was put in place! It rapidly morphed into subsidized housing, insane dollar amounts of food stamps, not taxing low income ("more equals"), extra money for _more_ illegitamate children, free medical, etc.,...and the latest - mortgages for the "underprivelaged". Now, we are broke with a huge percentage of people in the population that believe they are "entitled" to more.
4. The _work_ programs that were put in place during the depression were attacked as communism, so they were replaced w the "superior" - don't work get paid program. That was the beginning of the end.
5. Very few communist countries have ever not eliminated the church and replaced it with the "state". Churches use to fill in where capitalism left off (e.g., helped people in need). The point is not about religion, it is about a glaring symptom. 

And, it gave the fed what it wantedm more power - power beyond comprehension.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Welfare... Don't even get me started...


----------



## ls6firebird (Mar 8, 2012)

i think here in missouri they were talking about making it mandatory to take a drug test for welfare/food stamps. its a good thought, but i dont really like the idea. people have all kinds of ways to pass a drug test with whatever drug theyre on. im sure we would be paying for the drug test too, then the welfare on top of that. 

it amazes me how much work people go thru to not have to work. seems to me like it would just be easier to go to work


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

ls6firebird said:


> people have all kinds of ways to pass a drug test with whatever drug theyre on.


Actually it isn't all that easy to fool a drug test, especially a urine test, because extreme precautions are taken. For the military they make sure you are watched at all times. Not kidding. They make you wear short sleeves, or rolled up sleeves, carry the empty bottle above your shoulder the entire walk to the bathroom (so they can see the bottle at all times). In the bathroom you are watched the entire time you pee to make sure you don't put something in the bottle. You cap the bottle, with them watching, and hold it over your shoulder, in their view, as you carry the bottle to the appropriate area. Where you are watched some more as you fill out paperwork. 

Of course, the military isn't in charge of welfare, so maybe the necessary precautions won't be followed. And drinking a lot of water won't dilute the drug. Marijauna stays in your system for a month and cocaine is detectable from 12 to 70 hours. I'm not sure about how the blood test works. Maybe someone could enlighten us on that.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

i also heard hair samples are another way for a drug test.


----------



## ls6firebird (Mar 8, 2012)

tempest said:


> Actually it isn't all that easy to fool a drug test, especially a urine test, because extreme precautions are taken. For the military they make sure you are watched at all times. Not kidding. They make you wear short sleeves, or rolled up sleeves, carry the empty bottle above your shoulder the entire walk to the bathroom (so they can see the bottle at all times). In the bathroom you are watched the entire time you pee to make sure you don't put something in the bottle. You cap the bottle, with them watching, and hold it over your shoulder, in their view, as you carry the bottle to the appropriate area. Where you are watched some more as you fill out paperwork.
> 
> Of course, the military isn't in charge of welfare, so maybe the necessary precautions won't be followed. And drinking a lot of water won't dilute the drug. Marijauna stays in your system for a month and cocaine is detectable from 12 to 70 hours. I'm not sure about how the blood test works. Maybe someone could enlighten us on that.





kait18 said:


> i also heard hair samples are another way for a drug test.


if they test to that extent, then im for it. but guys at work get by the drug tests all the time. if people had to get a drug test for welfare, i would imagine they would just send them to one of the test labs or whatever theyre called. and i see guys get thru those all the time.


----------



## robohog (Nov 24, 2011)

ls6firebird said:


> i will never understand how either side can be so much better than the other. theyre all crooks. i cant bring myself to vote either way. im union, so im supposed to vote all democrat. i cant vote against that, but at the same time, i cant vote democrat just because of that because theres a lot bigger issues than me and what i do for a living, not to mention theres a lot i disagree with them on. when/if someone runs for president that i can really feel has what it takes, then i'll vote for that person regardless of political party.


As a fellow union worker i do not agree with some of your views. It is very important to vote for the person who has your best interest at heart. In reality no candidate may care about your livelihood, but there are some that wanna get rid of it completely.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I don't know about drug tests for welfare/food stamps. It sounds good and is great in theory, but its an added expense, _and _howmuchlonger, _exactly_, are we going to lose this decades old war on drugs? Legalize it, regulate it, collect the taxes, and have american growers make a profit and give people on food stamps jobs! It won't happen b/c its too profitable.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

That's another great topic for an off topic discussion thread; legalization of drugs. Which ones? all? or just Marijuana.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

drug issues ...hmm then you have to think of all the drinking issues too...


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

Bear w/ me, sometimes it’s hard to make things sound the way I want sometimes…

I can’t help but wonder what would change if there weren’t so many ppl worried about making sure that everyone has the same thing, or even the same rights (I’ll get to that in a sec), or *if everyone **just plain started to take responsibility for themselves!!*

A big argument right now is healthcare, who pays what & how. Why doesn’t someone look at the cause instead of the effect? Two things come to mind. 1) People are sue happy and 2) Insurance & pharmaceutical companies have nothing to stop them from doing what they want in regards to profit. As for sue happy, here’s some examples: there’s those ads on TV asking if you took a certain medicine while pregnant, and your baby ended up having birth defects. I TOOK one of those medicines (thankfully, no birth defects), BUT while I was preg the doctor made sure I understood the risks, there was notices of the risks associated with the medicine all over the place. To me the risks out weighted what might happen if I didn’t take it. But now you have people suing even thought they knew the risks and WINNING!  Sorry, but you were told the risks at the beginning, you lose your right to get $$ from anyone because you knew the risks. People need to stop making money off of the “Well I didn’t think it would happen to me” attitude. Because they are driving the prices up for the rest of us!

What about insurance companies?? Why doesn’t anyone stop them? I’m not against making a profit if you own a business, but keep it realistic. Right now, I’m going around with them on a doctor’s visit that they are only willing to pay $15!! Really, they pay their secretary’s more than $15 an hour. And you think a Dr.’s office should only receive $15 for a service. That’s not right. So now, even though I pay out the nose for the “premium” coverage offered by my company, I’m still left to pay the $125 balance for the appointment, even though I’ve met my deductible. If I pay in, then they pay out!

Here’s another thing that gets me. Making sure everyone has the same rights. Guess what, if you’re in jail, you don’t get the same rights that I do. If I can’t afford a better education, I’m sure as h*** not paying for you to get one!! If you’re in jail, you get basic shelter, a balanced diet, and basic medical care. I’m not so cold that I would deny a human those things, but you DO NOT have the right to better meals, shelter, entertainment, etc. than those of us who aren’t in jail. I realize that people make mistakes, but why are we paying for jails to be better than life on the outside?

Non-US citizens… Why have we made it so hard/expensive for them to become legit? I think it should be more assessable to become a US Citizen. That being said, if you aren’t I’m not paying for you. I have a hard enough time paying for my family, let alone yours. If you’re not a citizen, you don’t get the same rights citizens get because we’re already paying an arm, a leg, and several other body parts just to scrape by. You don’t get the right to protest decisions regarding your living arrangements. You don’t get to argue if something is “unconstitutional” or not, you’re not paying for what it stands for. If you live here, you speak the language of the country you live in. People don’t move to other countries and demand that everything be in their language, they adapt to their surroundings.

If I’m paying your rent, your groceries, your clothes, etc. you will not have a nicer house than me, or a nicer car, or nicer clothes. If you are mentally capable to contribute (not necessarily work), you can volunteer.

People can no longer sue for their stupidity. If your kid goes on someone else’s property & gets bit by their dog, it’s on you; you weren’t watching your kid. If you get burned because someone made the coffee hot, blow on it next time. If you get hurt riding a horse on someone else’s property, your fault, you were on the horse.

We expect everyone else to be 100% perfect all the time, but we ourselves rarely are. OK, let my beatings begin


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

) and allowing animals to sue humans in court.[/QUOTE]

That's what we get when you put alawyer in the white house.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

busysmurf - loved that post


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

busysmurf said:


> I can’t help but wonder what would change if there weren’t so many ppl worried about making sure that everyone has the same thing, or even the same rights (I’ll get to that in a sec), or *if everyone **just plain started to take responsibility for themselves!!*


Congratulations...you have summarized conservative philosophy in one leading question...:happydance:


----------



## AQHSam (Nov 23, 2011)

farmpony84 said:


> I'm not big on politics and debates so I'm just going to put my thoughts down in a very simplistic manner.
> 
> I want strong morals.
> I want family values.
> ...


I'm just catching up on this thread. And, to the author of this quote, I will begin with, "I agree with you."

However, our very constitution is based on equality and freedom.

Does a president with strong family values respect our diverse family culture? In my experience, a person with strong family values does not tend to respect divorce, single parenting, or same gender parents.

"I want a religious person." What religion? Catholic? Protestant? Hindu? Muslim? Jewish? It is very hard for a person with strong religious beliefs to be *tolerant* of other religions. I am a more liberal Catholic and still struggle with religious tolerance in my personal life and church life weekly. 

This religion conflict impacts so many other areas, such as family values and individual rights. yes, the Catholic church is FURIOUS that over the White House's mandate to offer birth control insurance to all women. (I won't go into these details, a different topic). As a woman I applaud the administration. As a Catholic I disagree with it. As a member of the "who me" rally, I choose to ignore it. But, If I HAD TO CHOOSE a side of the fence to be on, I would side with my Catholic beliefs and vote No.

Same with same sex relationships. Many of my friends are in same sex relationships. I live in a obscure timespan of "ignore." But, if I could NOT ignore...

A president with strong morals, strong family beliefs, and is a devoted religious practicioner only works when that person shares YOUR same beliefs, values, and morals. 

I would wager that there are American's out there that share Obama's moral, value, and religious beliefs. I would also wager that many of us on this forum do not.

Is our country going downhill because some states allow same sex marriage? Or because women can have abortions? Because children can be allowed to live in households where two men or women are raising them as a family?

Personally, I didn't care the slick Willy was doing everyone in the White House. What he did with another consenting adult was not my concern. I do know that during his tenure, I had 45% more job security, 60% more liklihood in finding a job, and was paid 36% more to do the same job.

From my point of view, I'll nominate a ***** of a man for the post.

(lol - okay, funny to me. I do realize that there was a lot more than just him contributing to our nation's economy and that some of our problems today are trickle from those two terms.)


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

So well done. 
Being a reformed liberal I still have some idealistic ideas.
Times have changed it is not the way it was in the 50's and before that with the many dynamics behind it.
For me I believe a gay couple can make whatever decision they chose to if they truly love each other. How many people these days marry for the wrong reasons isn't that a slap in the face of the institution of marriage?
As far as God goes yes I want a Spiritually based man or women
God doesn't care what you call him he knows who he is. 

Just be sure to call.
Only we get caught up in that stuff.
I shun any 1.organized religion to many flaws in all of them.
Common equation is man. 
We have had the greatest leaders with so many flaws.


I'm sorry I wish this president was one of those he ain't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I shouldn't read political threads as it winds me up, but it makes me appreciate the socialist pinko liberal commie-land that is Scotland at the moment. I must be the only liberal (yikes! the dreaded "l" word) on this forum. 

Instead of ranting, here is a wee story about the "freedom" we have under the current healthcare system that Obama was evidently trying to take away. A good friend of mine at uni in Western Mass had a nasty fall off a horse and did some rather serious nerve damage to her spine. As she was from a nice upper middle-class family (no benefits scroungers here), she had health insurance and her initial visit to the ER was covered. Fine. As one might imagine, she had a lot of subsequent problems as a result of her injuries, which included passing out and having seizures and bouts of temporary paralysis. However, her lovely insurance company would not cover her to go to a hospital in Western MA, or indeed, anywhere in New England. They gave her the freedom to travel down to a hospital in Washington DC. So she either had to drive down there or take the train. Yes, with the risk that sometime during this 7+ hour trek, she would have a seizure, pass out, and wake up temporarily paralysed. Over the course of the school year, she had to make this journey many times, all the while trying to go to classes and keep at her degree. Is this a great country or what?

The whole time I watched the healthcare debate on the tele and online, every time the Republicans would start screaming about how our freedom was being taken away by healthcare reform, I'd think, "Huh?" 

Well, there's that, and then there are wee gems like the newspaper which stated that if Stephen Hawking were British and using the NHS, he'd be dead by now. If it weren't for the American media's ability to hone in on incontrovertible facts (like that one), I don't know where we'd be. 

I'm a big fan devolved powers (I think Scotland should have more) up to a point, so long as people don't forget the history of state's rights when they say that states should have the right to decide whether things like contraceptives are legal, or that merely looking Hispanic is reason enough for the police to stop and search you. Is this 2012? Really? Are we getting into the territory of arguing that states should also have the right to decide that slavery is also legal. It seems to me that we are. I personally quite like the Fourteenth Amendment; it was a good one. We should stick with it.

Lastly, the completely laissez-faire free market isn't the answer to everything and I wince every time politicians start screaming about the curse of regulation. They also tried that in the 1890s and it didn't work then, either.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Continuing.... because I'm on a rant like I said I wouldn't do. 

Regulations to break up trusts (Teddy Roosevelt, Trust Buster extraordinaire and creator of the national parks, was a Republican, by the way) came in, and then over the course of the 19-teens and 1920s, there were minimum wage, child labour laws, workplace safety laws, and restrictions on banks doing dodgy things, as well as the creation of the Federal Reserve to try to stabilise the hugely boom-and-bust economy. The free-market model works really well for some things, but not for everything. No one wants a "choice" of hospitals. They just want a good hospital that's close. No one wants a "choice" of train companies (as if the privatisation of railways in the UK has even created such a thing!). They just want the train that gets them there on time. With things like public transport and healthcare, a company that's more interested in profits and appeasing its shareholders than the people who require its services is, from what I can see, pretty much bound to screw over those in the latter category.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

thesilver, so your friend purchased her insurance in new england, was never advised in writing of the limitations? I imagine one phone call from a lawyer would have squared that away Insurance hasn't been in a "free trade" status for decades due to regulations - laws that were _not_ passed all at once, nor by one party. For example, insurance companies cannot compete across state lines. THAT is not free trade.

And, people don't want a choice of trains? Well, take a long drive out west - and see how much track has been laid to waste. They did care - they are called companies that shipped by rail, but _regulation_ passed, again, not by one single party, made it cheaper to go w semi's on the highway to loading rail loading facilities at pt x or y. This means the rails aren't available to you and me in those areas.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Yes, I know trains and public transport in general sucks in the US, especially out west. Perhaps I'll look at the history of it, but I doubt it's so simple as blaming it on "regulation." Anyway, regulations themselves aren't inherently good nor bad and they can be created by governments for all sorts of reasons. My point was that this absolutely blanket castigation of any and all regulations, which seems to be pervading political discourse at the moment, is a spurious argument. Would you like to see all FDA restrictions lifted off abbatoires and food processing plants? Would you like to see minimum wage laws and child labour laws repealed? Or railroads (when indeed you have them) in one state having one gauge, and ones in another state having a different gauge? Or banks charging stupid amount of interests because there are no laws or regulations stopping them? 

There are obviously problems with ineffective or even harmful regulations (and there always will be, because unfortunately human beings have to write these things), but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a shame no one seems able or willing to discuss how to effectively regulate problematic industries (like banks and oil), curbing their worst excesses and tendency to increase their profits at everyone's expense, while preserving free enterprise.

Indeed, the early anti-trust legislation was intended to improve the free market, as it was believed that these huge, grossly rich monopolies stifled the competition. 

Or, instead of me typing, Monty Python more or less sums up my point of view. Just substitute the word "government" for "Romans." ;-)


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I am and never have been against all regulation, nor do I know anyone that is. The poison is in the dose.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

A religious president (any religion) will believe that there is a higher power that he will answer to in the end and that I think should wiegh on a president decisions. I don't think that being a faithful church goer makes you intolerant of other beliefs. Just because you can't be blown over by any strong wind doesn't mean you're not flexible. I want a president that has some beliefs and stands by them.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

> Originally Posted by farmpony84
> I'm not big on politics and debates so I'm just going to put my thoughts down in a very simplistic manner.
> 
> I want strong morals.


Hmmm...according to whom?



> I want family values.


Again, according to whom? Are you saying Obama doesn't have them?



> I want a religious person.


Which religion? Mormon? Christian? Who has the better grasp on this, and by whose measure?



> I want a military background.


*All *the viable candidates are out, on this criteria. None have served in the military. Romney has five sons, too, none of whom have served.



> I want honesty.


I doubt ANY of the candidates would do well, here. ANY of them.



> I want an American who's not afraid to show his birth certificate or college marks.


OMG, you aren't a "birther" are you? Obama has shown all of the birth certificates this country offers. He originally only showed his certificate of live birth. This is the ONLY document I own, too. When people thought it wasn't enough, he attained and showed his long form. There is no more to show. Even Rush Limbaugh shut up. When will everyone else do the same?

How about how Bush refused to show his "military" record which was mostly AWOL. He got away with that one. Why was his flight status taken away? Hmmm.....



> I want someone to come in with an agenda and I want that somone to stick to it.


Whose agenda? Yours? Well, good luck with that one. Our two parties are so contentious they will obstruct any movement by the other party, just because.....Try to get anything done with that kind of "cooperation".




> I miss Ronald Reagan, even when he made mistakes, the american people were in his best interests.


He was an actor and did it well. He made people feel good, even though he was not very effective as the president. Without his close advisors, we would have been in a world of hurt. I really liked the man, but Bonzo would have been as good a president, with the same advisers, IMHO.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

kevinshorses said:


> A religious president (any religion) will believe that there is a higher power that he will answer to in the end and that I think should wiegh on a president decisions. I don't think that being a faithful church goer makes you intolerant of other beliefs. Just because you can't be blown over by any strong wind doesn't mean you're not flexible. I want a president that has some beliefs and stands by them.


Are you implying that atheists and agnostics are incapable of standing by their beliefs and will "blow over in a strong wind." Sounds like intolerance to me.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

As an aside, the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians: while they believed in a creator, they did not believe said creator had any interest in human beings or communicated with them in anyway. They were against any form of state-sponsored religion, as they viewed that as one of the major failings of England and other European countries, and they were very much students of the Enlightenment, believing that what made man great was his ability to be rational.


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

Instead of ranting, here is a wee story about the "freedom" we have under the current healthcare system that Obama was evidently trying to take away. A good friend of mine at uni in Western Mass had a nasty fall off a horse and did some rather serious nerve damage to her spine. As she was from a nice upper middle-class family (no benefits scroungers here), she had health insurance and her initial visit to the ER was covered. Fine. As one might imagine, she had a lot of subsequent problems as a result of her injuries, which included passing out and having seizures and bouts of temporary paralysis. However, her lovely insurance company would not cover her to go to a hospital in Western MA, or indeed, anywhere in New England. They gave her the freedom to travel down to a hospital in Washington DC. So she either had to drive down there or take the train. Yes, with the risk that sometime during this 7+ hour trek, she would have a seizure, pass out, and wake up temporarily paralysed. Over the course of the school year, she had to make this journey many times, all the while trying to go to classes and keep at her degree. Is this a great country or what?


I hope your friend is ok that is so disheartening.
That is an example of Romneycare since she's from MA.
We can look forward to getting that on a bigger scale with Obama care.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Why bother with checking facts when you can leap to a conclusion that works better without them. My pal was from California and a student in Massachusetts. Her insurance, which she had through her family, was bought in Cali and the problem was that they had contracts with only a handful of hospitals on the East Coast. Even more critically, this happened in 2004 and Romney's healthcare plan did not come into effect until 2006. So one has nowt to do with the other.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

thesilverspear said:


> Are you implying that atheists and agnostics are incapable of standing by their beliefs and will "blow over in a strong wind." Sounds like intolerance to me.


i do think they are capable of standing behind there beliefs but I don't think its right for them to try to take away others beliefs... ex... down in florida i think it was a religious group preformed a ritual where they put holy water on a part of a highway that was known for alot of accidents to honor the death. not even a day later a bunch of atheists blocked this section of the highway and scrubbed it with unholy water....

why couldn't they just be tolerant that a religious group wanted to do something to honor the ones lost in that spot...

so i personally don't see how they would be flexible with other religious groups if they made it to the office


----------



## AQHSam (Nov 23, 2011)

kait18 said:


> i do think they are capable of standing behind there beliefs but I don't think its right for them to try to take away others beliefs... ex... down in florida i think it was a religious group preformed a ritual where they put holy water on a part of a highway that was known for alot of accidents to honor the death. not even a day later a bunch of atheists blocked this section of the highway and scrubbed it with unholy water....
> 
> why couldn't they just be tolerant that a religious group wanted to do something to honor the ones lost in that spot...
> 
> so i personally don't see how they would be flexible with other religious groups if they made it to the office


I would wager that ALL changes to our Christian/religious behaviors in public have been made because of the intolerance of those who do not believe.

The Jewish faith and Christian faith are pretty different in belief and symbology. But, for the most part, members of either group will tolerate and even take interest or show respect to the other's displays of symbology during religious holidays. Both groups expect and even welcome the showing of these symbols in public.

Those who do not believe in any higher power, however, tend to reuqire that the symbols and idealogies representing the religious group be concealed or restricted to homes.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

AQHSam said:


> I would wager that ALL changes to our Christian/religious behaviors in public have been made because of the intolerance of those who do not believe.
> 
> The Jewish faith and Christian faith are pretty different in belief and symbology. But, for the most part, members of either group will tolerate and even take interest or show respect to the other's displays of symbology during religious holidays. Both groups expect and even welcome the showing of these symbols in public.
> 
> Those who do not believe in any higher power, however, tend to reuqire that the symbols and idealogies representing the religious group be concealed or restricted to homes.


 
agreed i am roman catholic and i repesct other religions to the fullest and actually like learning about there traditions.. more often then not they are extremely similiar..

if religious groups can tolerate the others beliefs why can't non believers respect religious beliefs. i personally think if non believers even notice a religious group doing a nice respectfully ceremony such as the one i mentioned above then they are admitting that there is some meaning of high power in the religious actions where if they are truly nonbelievers it shouldn't bother them as those religious actions would mean nothing because there is no god/high power..sorry if that doesn't make sense it makes sense in my head


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

kait18 said:


> agreed i am roman catholic and i repesct other religions to the fullest and actually like learning about there traditions.. more often then not they are extremely similiar..
> 
> if religious groups can tolerate the others beliefs why can't non believers respect religious beliefs. i personally think if non believers even notice a religious group doing a nice respectfully ceremony such as the one i mentioned above then they are admitting that there is some meaning of high power in the religious actions where if they are truly nonbelievers it shouldn't bother them as those religious actions would mean nothing because there is no god/high power..sorry if that doesn't make sense it makes sense in my head


It does seem like a miscarriage of justice when a minister gets arrested for preaching at MV in Ca. but they bent over backwards to accomadate the wall street protestors.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

thesilverspear said:


> Are you implying that atheists and agnostics are incapable of standing by their beliefs and will "blow over in a strong wind." Sounds like intolerance to me.


People that have no strongly held beliefs will be blown over in a strong wind. It doesn't matter if that belief is in God or not. Many Agnostics and Atheists are fine people with good morals. You better read what I wrote again.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

Allison Finch said:


> Which religion? Mormon? Christian? Who has the better grasp on this, and by whose measure?
> 
> 
> 
> .


Mormons are Christian.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> He was an actor and did it well. He made people feel good, even though he was not very effective as the president. Without his close advisors, we would have been in a world of hurt. I really liked the man, but Bonzo would have been as good a president, with the same advisers, IMHO.


I don't understand this post at all. One of the primary responsibilities of the President is to assemble competent advisors and make competent appointments to all the federal agencies. It is also a large measure of how effective a President is. That is no different than any other management position - assembling a competent staff is always one of the primary responsibilities of management, and in most instances is considered the most important part. Whether THE President, or the President of a corporation, or a Senator or Representative, no one person can do the entire job or be an expert of every single thing under their umbrella. The federal government has many hundreds of specialities - is the President expected to be a doctor, lawyer, soldier, banker, economist, nuclear engineer, civil engineer, aeronautical engineer, farmer, wildlife officeer, diplomat, and so on and so on all wrapped up in one? The question hopefully is rhetorical...that is why competent appointments and staff are so important. 

Regan was extremely successful appointing competent staff, and as a result was an extremely competent President. Clinton did reasonably well too, although there were a few bozos in there. Both Dubya and Obama are the opposite - the appointments and staff those two assembled are and were a total joke, which is why incompetency abounds and abounded in their administrations.


----------



## AQHSam (Nov 23, 2011)

I also feel that people whose values and ethics are solely based on popular opinion (rather than a deep personal conviction) are swayed by the most popular choice or the loudest voice.

I once worked for a popular choice executive. You always wanted to schedule your meetings with her late in the afternoon because she tended to side with every option presented to her, so if yours was the last option presented to her of the day....... you stood a higher chance of your idea sticking.

Politicians can be a lot like that.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

AQHSam said:


> I also feel that people whose values and ethics are solely based on popular opinion (rather than a deep personal conviction) are swayed by the most popular choice or the loudest voice.
> 
> I once worked for a popular choice executive. You always wanted to schedule your meetings with her late in the afternoon because she tended to side with every option presented to her, so if yours was the last option presented to her of the day....... you stood a higher chance of your idea sticking.
> 
> Politicians can be a lot like that.


Isn't that the truth...:evil:

As the Public Information Officer for a federal government agency for 15 years, every time the POTUS, a cabinet member, or the Administrator or Deputy Administrator of my agency came to visit the area, I would have to provide information on the political pulse of the area, help arrange interviews and photo ops and screen them to make sure they were "pro"...some of it was pretty disgusting honestly. What's funny of course, is when you have worked for multiple administrations and you have to arrange and push liberal stuff for one administration and then conservative stuff for the next. Drives you wacko...


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I find it interesting that the "anti-religion" groups are only anti-christian, not "anti-religionS". Islam is the second largest religion....peaceful, fun loving, and if you want to "do cartoons" of their deity or be "gay" in Iran, consider yourself dead. No hardliners, there. Yet, its amazing how much unflattering and offensive "art" one can find of the christian sort.
Finding Christian beliefs on gays or birth control "intolerable" seems rather intolerant - with extreme prejudice.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

It is a bit unfortunate that some atheists have chosen to act like idiots and make spectacles out of being intolerant wankers, which gives people who don't like atheists very much under the best of circumstances an absolute field day, slagging atheists in general.

In fact, most atheists don't give rat's patootie about where people put their Christmas trees and are happy to live and let live. I'll not practice my religion and you practice yours and we'll stay out of each other's way. Easy. Most of them only start getting narked by religion when they are unwillingly compelled to subscribe to its peculiar rules or when proselytisers appear on their doorsteps. 

Besides, Christians or other religions never do or say intolerant things or try to convert everyone else to their way of thinking. Right??


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

I know I'll be derailing the topic and "re-opening" the thread, but a random question jumped into my head. Regarding the unfair taxes arguments that occasionally pop up: Do the President and Congress pay taxes?


----------



## MakeYourMark (Feb 10, 2012)

It could be worse. We could live under a fascist dictator.


----------



## cmarie (Dec 19, 2011)

The problem with this country is we are in everyone else business, giving aid and butting in wars that aren't ours, yes we are a world power but we don't need to take on everyone's issues, there are issues here that need to be dealt with, stop spending money over there and put it back in our country.


----------



## tlkng1 (Dec 14, 2011)

tempest said:


> I know I'll be derailing the topic and "re-opening" the thread, but a random question jumped into my head. Regarding the unfair taxes arguments that occasionally pop up: Do the President and Congress pay taxes?


Yes...just as any other federal "worker." The only problem is that they have so much of their own money and investments that by the time they get done with all of their "legal" deductions, they end up paying less, percentage wise, than the normal middle class.


----------



## MakeYourMark (Feb 10, 2012)

cmarie said:


> The problem with this country is we are in everyone else business, giving aid and butting in wars that aren't ours, yes we are a world power but we don't need to take on everyone's issues, there are issues here that need to be dealt with, stop spending money over there and put it back in our country.


Well after both WWI _and_ WWII, the United States is probably right to not be practicing Isolationism.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

MakeYourMark said:


> Well after both WWI _and_ WWII, the United States is probably right to not be practicing Isolationism.


Can you explain? 
WWII we were attacked, as well had german military activity on our shores. But, WWI? 
Our constitution does not allow for police action where there is no threat to the security of the nation, and it is entirely unnecessary and costly. Why would not practicing it be "isolationism'?


----------



## MakeYourMark (Feb 10, 2012)

In WWI, the United States was practicing Isolationism. This is where they were staying out of anything not in North America, theoretically. Despite the fact that the great democracies of Europe were falling, they decided that since it (arguably) directly affect them. What brought them into WWI was when they intercepted the Zimmerman Telegram. The Zimmerman Telegram was a telegram from the Triple Alliance (this was the military alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy in WWI), specifically Germany, to Mexico. It was a request to Mexico to invade the United States, with the promise that the United States would belong to Mexico after Hitler won the war. And so the United States entered the war.

During WWII, the United States practiced Isolationism again. Because it was not in North America, they would not get involved. But after Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 at 7:48 a.m., a Sunday, the United States entered in WWII.

I'm quite glad that the United States hasn't forgotten those lessons.

"Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." – George Santayana


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

MakeYourMark said:


> In WWI, the United States was practicing Isolationism. This is where they were staying out of anything not in North America, theoretically. Despite the fact that the great democracies of Europe were falling, they decided that since it (arguably) directly affect them. What brought them into WWI was when they intercepted the Zimmerman Telegram. The Zimmerman Telegram was a telegram from the Triple Alliance (this was the military alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy in WWI), specifically Germany, to Mexico. It was a request to Mexico to invade the United States, with the promise that the United States would belong to Mexico after Hitler won the war. And so the United States entered the war.
> 
> During WWII, the United States practiced Isolationism again. Because it was not in North America, they would not get involved. But after Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 at 7:48 a.m., a Sunday, the United States entered in WWII.


The US also entered WWI because Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare and started attacking our trade and merchant ships. Ulitmately affecting the US directly and helping push us into the decision to join the war.


----------



## MakeYourMark (Feb 10, 2012)

tempest said:


> The US also entered WWI because Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare and started attacking our trade and merchant ships. Ulitmately affecting the US directly and helping push us into the decision to join the war.


Yep, that's where the Lusitania comes in, right?
A little foggy there...


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

Yes, the RMS Lusitania comes in at this point.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

MakeYourMark said:


> In WWI, the United States was practicing Isolationism. This is where they were staying out of anything not in North America, theoretically. Despite the fact that the great democracies of Europe were falling, they decided that since it (arguably) directly affect them. What brought them into WWI was when they intercepted the Zimmerman Telegram. The Zimmerman Telegram was a telegram from the Triple Alliance (this was the military alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy in WWI), specifically Germany, to Mexico. It was a request to Mexico to invade the United States, with the promise that the United States would belong to Mexico after Hitler won the war. And so the United States entered the war.
> 
> During WWII, the United States practiced Isolationism again. Because it was not in North America, they would not get involved. But after Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 at 7:48 a.m., a Sunday, the United States entered in WWII.
> 
> ...


I don't believe Hilter had much of a position in WWI. Be that as it may be, there was also a_ lot_ of financial interest in Europe that stood to be lost should it fall to Germany and it's allies.

And, there was also German activity on and near our shores before Pearl Harbor, but be that what it may be, BOTH wars are examples of attack or potential attack, not "police actions". There were also clear reports and reasons (hard commodities) germany's ally Japan intending to attack, but no military "build up" action was taken, big mistake. Niether WWI or WWII are arguments for police actions today or military assistance in countries and conflicts that do not involve us, our interests, or our security. The existance of countries that could easily take us on and that are building their military on an exponential scale (China) _do_ warrent military readiness, but not world wide police actions.


----------



## dirtroadangel (Jan 24, 2012)

MakeYourMark said:


> In WWI, the United States was practicing Isolationism. This is where they were staying out of anything not in North America, theoretically. Despite the fact that the great democracies of Europe were falling, they decided that since it (arguably) directly affect them. What brought them into WWI was when they intercepted the Zimmerman Telegram. The Zimmerman Telegram was a telegram from the Triple Alliance (this was the military alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy in WWI), specifically Germany, to Mexico. It was a request to Mexico to invade the United States, with the promise that the United States would belong to Mexico after Hitler won the war. And so the United States entered the war.
> 
> During WWII, the United States practiced Isolationism again. Because it was not in North America, they would not get involved. But after Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 at 7:48 a.m., a Sunday, the United States entered in WWII.
> 
> ...


Wow please tell me I'm wrong Hitler wasn't in W WI MAYbe as a corporal. If someone sucker punchesyou And the way you react how is thst being a islationist'.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MakeYourMark (Feb 10, 2012)

Oh, my bad. My head's all jumbled up from lack of sleep and general mindlessness.

Yes, Hitler was in WWI as a corporal and was angry about the way that the war had ended. Kaiser Wilhelm II was the leader at that time. Sorry for the confusion.

I wasn't able to fully translate your post, Dirtroadangel, but Isolationism is a policy that was practiced by the United States in both WWI and WWII. It means that a country will stay out of anything that doesn't directly effect them, especially involving wars and outside economies. It has really kicked the United States in the shorts every time they practiced it.


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

All I want of the POTUS is to follow the Constitution as it was written. 
1) I want an end to the Fed.
2) I want the tax system overhauled and replaced with the system set forth as it was when our nation was young.
3) I want to see the so called entitlement programs ended, along with SS. Which would bring back self-responsibilities.
4) I want to see an end to The Department Of Education.
5) I want to our Bill Of Rights re-instated as they were intended.
6) Nationalized Healthcare, Obamacare, gone
7) Get out of the UN and kick them out.


I do not want to see the NWO. If anyone thinks that this is not possible, please open you mind and your eyes because the writing is on the wall. Is this just another conspiracy theory? Maybe, maybe not. Personally I think the latter. Is this information from MSM or Fox, not hardly. If the NWO never happens, great! Are we set up for it to happen, absolutely.




Joe4d said:


> I really dont think it matters. All democracies are doomed to failure. Its inevitable. The masses figure out how to vote themselves handouts. The have nots will continue to vote for the guy which gives them the most with no thought of the greater good. Just look at whats going on in Greece. The average Americans dont even have a basic understanding of how our government works or what it is supposed to do. The expect a president to just fix all their problems.





Joe4d said:


> So the person that can actually be a good leader and make the tough decisions wont get elected.


We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. We are a nation of laws, based on the Constitution of the U.S. which was a near perfect form of government, limiting government and giving freedom to all the citizens of the Republic States of America.




tinyliny said:


> I do not believe we are in a tailspin. We are in a maturing democracy, that must deal with a new place in the world, that is changing up around us. We are no longer isolated. We affect and are effected by other nations. We aren't homogenous, we arent' all powerful, we aren't immune to the problems of the rest of the world. But, we are not in a tailspin.


 We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. We are in an uncontrollable tailspin and are about to crash hard.




busysmurf said:


> Oh, 1 more thing.. Just be thankful you guys don't live in WI right now, LOL We've got some real Dodo heads right now.


In case you have not noticed, all of D.C is s bunch of real Dodo heads. This is why our great country is in the mess it is in. The mess got its start nearly 100 years ago when we gave our monetary system to the private bankers. Has progressed for the worse ever since.




Allison Finch said:


> All of the oil in this country could not sustain the levels that we demand on a daily basis. We produce little of the amounts that we use. Obama has opened up more drilling than any of the previous administrations (google it...I did). The old DRILL DRILL DRILL will never give us what we demand. And, every day, we compete harder and harder against other countries for the limited supplies. It is going to get harder and harder every year to meet out demands. BIG trouble is coming very soon.





Allison Finch said:


> And, for Pete's Sake, let's drop the birther nonsense. He HAS shown every document asked of him. Initially all he had was his certificate of live birth. You know what? The very birth certificate I have that has been used all of MY life getting jobs/schools/ housing is the very same thing. I doubt if many of you folks out there even has the detailed birth certificate that the "Birthers" were demanding. He did produce it....period. Do you really think that Fox News would be quiet now, if he hadn't? Get over it...he is a legal citizen.


 If we have not enough oil, then why was the largest export of the U.S. oil in 2011?
Why drop the birther issue? There is strong evidence that he was not eligible to become POTUS. Even if he was indeed born in Hawaii as is clamed, that does not make him necessarily eligible to be POTUS. McCain was not either, and more than likely neither is Romney.




tempest said:


> Now my question is: Why is the birth certificate such a big deal in the first place? I don't remember what the big deal was that started this whole controversy. It was too long ago.


 The Constitution states that the POTUS must be a natural born citizen. That is the only time natural born is in the Constitution. Under the JAY treaty, daddy Obama was a subject of England, making Barry J. also a subject to the crown.




tempest said:


> I know I'll be derailing the topic and "re-opening" the thread, but a random question jumped into my head. Regarding the unfair taxes arguments that occasionally pop up: Do the President and Congress pay taxes?


They are supposed to, but many do not. If you or I did not pay we get jail time or fined heavily, yet they get a big “don’t do that again” and a gentle slap on the wrist. I think the illegal IRS should start going after it’s own people, politicians and the fine folks that work for big brother, before slamming the everyday Joe with fines and jail.


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

Throughout the last 15 pages, I see a big distrust of our current government. I see that most all want the same thing and do not particular care for Mr. O as President, nor his predecessor Bush and some even dislike Slick Willie. Daddy Bush was also very scary, Reagan was not as high on the pedestal as is made out to be. Carter, well nuff said about him. There is only one man running for President that has had an impeccable track record for many. Many years. One candidate that wants to restore the Constitution. One candidate that says what he will do and means what he says. One candidate running for President that is running on values of the Constitution, has been in the military, is not trying to become President for the money, is running on core beliefs and not just telling the voting public what they want to hear. Yet no one has even mentioned his name. That man is Dr. Ron Paul.

Congressman Paul has been shunned by the elites, shunned by most of DC, shunned by the media. Does it not make you think, what are they afraid of?

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, as that is still a vote for evil. I will vote for my core principles and that is a vote for Ron Paul. A vote for any of the GOP runners other than the good Dr. is just a vote for Obama. Voting in Romney, Santorum or Gingrich will be just the same as having Obama re-elected. There will be no change. Most people think of Ron Paul as sort of a fruit cake. That is because most people either do not know much about him, or they hear what other uniformed people say about him, or they listen to the MSM who does Dr. Paul a huge injustice by distorting the true Ron Paul.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

Ron Paul is a fruit cake. One of the reasons to distrust the government is the fact that Ron paul has been re-elected so many times. he scares me because his policies are not based in reality. He wants to see everything as it should be instead of how it is. If you vote for Ron Paul you'd just as well vote for Obama. Romney or Santorum are going to be much better than Obama. I think Santorum could be beat by Obama but in all likelyhood Romney is going to be our nominee and beat Obama like he stole something.


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

kevinshorses said:


> Ron Paul is a fruit cake. One of the reasons to distrust the government is the fact that Ron paul has been re-elected so many times. he scares me because his policies are not based in reality. He wants to see everything as it should be instead of how it is. If you vote for Ron Paul you'd just as well vote for Obama. Romney or Santorum are going to be much better than Obama. I think Santorum could be beat by Obama but in all likelyhood Romney is going to be our nominee and beat Obama like he stole something.


You say he is a fruit cake but offer no explanation or reason why.

You do not want the country like it should be, but instead yo want it how it is? WOW!!!!!!!

Romney & santorum better than Obama? How so?

You must believe in the Patriot Act, NDAA. You do know that RP wants to repeal both of them right? And you know that Romney & Santorum both suport them right?

Look at Romneys record on health care, first for it with Romneycare and now against Obamacare.

Look at Santorum's dirty deeds while he was a Senator. Is this what you really want?

RP has not had the mandatory raise since I do not know when. He is the only member of Congress that turns his pay raise into the treasury.

He is the only candidate willing to run the country for the same income as the average American worker.

RP has been pushing for term limits for years.

Look at Romney's history on the 2nd. Not someone I would want to trust.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Ron Paul makes a lot of good points, however, he does not speak well in a debate. I don't fault him, I probably couldn't get a single sentence out in the same setting...but I am not running for anything. He doesn't seem to grasp that the audience he is speaking to are not, in fact, well versed on the constitution or history and they aren't going to change the instant they hear his voice. He doesn't seem to be able to "package" a few highlights of what he has to say so he can sell it - he makes too many points, its like cognitive popcorn.

I agree with a lot of what he has to say, however, he is up against slick, well managed and well groomed politicians. If he trully wanted to win, one would think he would focus on what he had to do to compete. And, his plan to get rid of social security doesn't "add up". If you are going to abolish it for younger people, yet continue to care for the elderly, at the same time acknowledging congress drained the ss trust (notes to repay), then where does the money come from to care for the elderly? With his plan, you have a cost (elderly), a zero balance (ss trust), and no income from SS tax. hmmmm. 
I like Ron Paul because he brings the constitution to the debate and somewhat clarifies how far off the constitutional track we are. Change that direction? Maybe, but I don't think RP will be the catalyst.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

I wouldn't call Ron Paul a fruit cake exactly...more like a libertarian radical.

I supported Paul in the late 70's and early 80's when he first entered politics - I llived in his district in Texas. He had some pretty heated campaigns agains Bob Gammage. He was a libertarian then, and still is.

The thing about Paul is his Presidential candidacy is a total waste. He has failed miserably at every attempt to run for office with any constituency outside his local congressional district. He is not, never was, and never will be, a viable candidate for a statewide or national office, and any support of him is a complete waste of time and energy.

Paul is an OK person for a local politician - lots of Representatives are a bit wacko on both the left and right because they don't represent a cross section of people - only the constituants of their districts. Because congresional districts are relatively small and largely homogenous, you get all kinds of radical folks elected, which should be obvious from observing the House of Representatives, and is why we have a two-house system, with the Senate, which is much more moderate and stable, made up of people representing entire states for a 6 year term instead of a 2 year term. The founding fathers set up the system on purpose - to have one body that was stable and moderate, with the other body being more reactive to the people, and subject to massive swings in short periods of time.

But for anything beyond a local election, Paul is, as I said, not a viable candidate.

I agree with Paul on some things - disagree on others. I certainly would never support him for a statewide or national office. He is still a libertarian at heart, and all of us, whether liberal or conservative, have libertarian leanings, as part of libertarian phiosophy is quite conservative, and part of it is quite liberal in nature.

But as far as a Presidential candidate, he falls right in there with Ralph Nader, Larry Flynt, George Wallace, and the rest of the wackos...


----------



## mildot (Oct 18, 2011)

tinyliny said:


> I think the number one problem is campaign finance reform. The ruling of two years ago that made corporations have the same rights of free speech as a "person", and its' spawinging of the "Super PAC's" , who raise million, nea, billions of dollars to back the candidate that will support their narrow coroporate interests (screw the American people) is the biggest threat to our democracy in decades, if ever!


No, that decision gave corporations the same political fund raising rights that unions have always had.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

If Ron Paul were to win the Presidency he would be as effective as Carter.
If the President cannot work with the Congress then nothing will be resolved legislatively.
Presidents do not have the power to change laws just by being elected.
Ron Pauls foriegn policy would be disastorus at a time when the US must be engaged in World matters, More so now than ever before.
Global terrorism, North Korea and Iran demand this.
I'm no republican but Romney is the only logical choice Santorum and Gingrich are both ethically challenged. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> If Ron Paul were to win the Presidency he would be as effective as Carter.
> If the President cannot work with the Congress then nothing will be resolved legislatively.
> Presidents do not have the power to change laws just by being elected.
> Ron Pauls foriegn policy would be disastorus at a time when the US must be engaged in World matters, More so now than ever before.
> ...


True, you are no Republican. Romney is the logical choice as far as having the best chance of beating Obama, but he is not the logical choice to represent conservative philosophy. Either Gingrich or Santorum would be closer to mainstream conservative philosophy. Romney is a throwback to the old Rockefeller style moderately liberal Republicans. If he were to be elected, he would certainly be the preferred Republican in power by Democrats, but not by Republicans. Remember, if it weren't for Democrat crossover votes in the primaries and so many Republicans feeling Romney is the only choice with a chance to beat Obama, Santorum would have a free ticket to the nomination.

As to ethics, all 4 Republican candidats added together couldn't approach the poor ethics of Obama and his administration...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman you have to come to the center to win elections and to govern
It is the Moderates that decide elections.
The business establishment is behind Romney and has been for 4 years.
Romney has the best chance with moderates.
However, the most lasting and important decision any President makes is his nominations to the Supreme Court. If republicans do not start to rally around Romney they lose the momentum needed to defeat an incumbent President. Something that is already hard to do. Then the republicans lose the chance to nominate possibly 2 Justices in the next 5 years.
Shalom


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

dbarabians said:


> If Ron Paul were to win the Presidency he would be as effective as Carter.





dbarabians said:


> If the President cannot work with the Congress then nothing will be resolved legislatively.
> Presidents do not have the power to change laws just by being elected.
> Ron Pauls foriegn policy would be disastorus at a time when the US must be engaged in World matters, More so now than ever before.
> Global terrorism, North Korea and Iran demand this.
> I'm no republican but Romney is the only logical choice Santorum and Gingrich are both ethically challenged. Shalom




Ha, there you have it. One of the biggest problems this country has is Congress, that along with inept Presidents for many years. You want to continue down the road of having a President like Bush or Obama, sign bills into law that go against the principles of this nation, against your Bill of Rights, against our Constitution, against the core beliefs of what this country was founded on?



dbarabians said:


> Faceman you have to come to the center to win elections and to govern





dbarabians said:


> *It is the Moderates that decide elections.*
> The business establishment is behind Romney and has been for 4 years.
> Romney has the best chance with moderates.
> However, the most lasting and important decision any President makes is his nominations to the Supreme Court. If republicans do not start to rally around Romney they lose the momentum needed to defeat an incumbent President. Something that is already hard to do. Then the republicans lose the chance to nominate possibly 2 Justices in the next 5 years.
> Shalom




Wrong, it is money and the media that decides elections.
What exactly do you not like about RP Foreign Policy?

You must then believe in the Patriot Act and NDAA also then, You must also believe in going into another unwarranted war, Because that is what we face with Obama or Romney.

It is time for the U.S. to stop policing the world. It is time for the U.S. to stop funding the war. It is time for the U.S. to keep its nose where it belongs, it is time for the U.S. to stop trying to influence other countries leaders. Look and see how this has hurt the world and countries throughout the past. Iraq, Egypt, Lybia and Iran as an example.


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

Sit down and read the Iraq Constitution. It was supposedly modeled after our Constitution, but give very little rights to the people, but gives all the power to the leaders (their Congress) to do as they please. It allows for all farming to be regulated by a few U.S. companies and any U.S. companies or ally countries in Iraq have the right to do as they please without persecution. It is a Constitution that resembles what our leaders, our elected leaders want to do with the Constitution of the U.S. The people will not be deciding who is elected, it is the elite that will decide. It is all there in black and white if one only takes the time to read it.


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

dbarabians said:


> Presidents do not have the power to change laws just by being elected.


Yes and no. Yes he would have the power because as President, sworn to defend and protect the Constitution, gives him the power to repeal the unconstitutional laws, set forth by Congress and past administrations. If a law is unconstitutional, it can be repealed. And there are more than enough laws and regulations which are unconstitutional.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> If Ron Paul were to win the Presidency he would be as effective as Carter.
> If the President cannot work with the Congress then nothing will be resolved legislatively.
> Presidents do not have the power to change laws just by being elected.
> Ron Pauls foriegn policy would be disastorus at a time when the US must be engaged in World matters, More so now than ever before.
> ...


Executive orders are and can be abused. They are law, and the affect huge change.

North Korea _should be_ China's problem. At minimum Bush _tried_ to put the ball w N Korea where it belongs...in China's court. For that to happen, you have to have media that is friendly to the constitution, and not willing to only broadcast ideals in line w their specific agenda.
Iran, now there is a peaceful country that can be brought to the table by extending an olive branch, hugs and kisses, and acknowledgement of their superiority, at least that is what Obama tells us, so why are you even worried about such a peaceful country, with such a peaceful religion? I mean, going w popular logic, Bush thought they posed a threat, so they must not be one. If I were Iran, I would build mock nuclear materials and processing equipment and move it around and watch the world go broke trying to capture it on film - and just buy a pre-made nuke off the self from Russia. I hate to have to agree w the Manthatneedsajob (iran pres) - Obama has no experience. Iran bluffs and bluffs some more....to the point they have people believing they don't care about mutual destruction. How is Pakastan doing, ya think?


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman you have to come to the center to win elections and to govern
> It is the Moderates that decide elections.
> The business establishment is behind Romney and has been for 4 years.
> Romney has the best chance with moderates.
> ...


With no disrespect intended, you have much to learn about politics.

Point #1 - If moderates decided elections, Obama would never had been elected. Obama is the least moderate candidate to have run for President since George Wallace. You are giving the electorate far too much credit. Much of our electorate votes in party blocks with absolutely no insight as to where the candidates stand on issues. Much of our electorate votes on looks, charisma, public speaking ability, or other factors which have nothing to do with their politics. Much of our electorate is brainwashed by the (proven) mainstream liberal media. The percentage of the electorate that makes intelligent rational decisions is so small it cannot influence national elections. Rose colored glasses change the way things look, but don't change reality, and the reality today is that mosdt people have become sheeple. Sad, I know, but true.

Point #2 - Supreme Court appointments are very important, but they are not the most important decisions a President makes. They can be, if you have a do-nothing President like a Ford or Carter, but many, if not most, Presidents accomplish far more important things than appointing Supreme Court justices. Think Viet Nam. Think Social Security. Think Medicare. Think Iraq. Think Obamacare. I could go on, but hopefully you catch the drift. Additionally, the appointment of federal judges across the country in reality has a more far reaching affect than the Supreme Court anyway, which only hears a limited number of constitutional arguments. Our daily lives are far more governed by lower courts than by the Supreme Court.

Point #3 - If you were more involved with politics, you would know that the business establishment is seeking a far more conservative choice then Romney. If you were involved with the Republican party, you would know that Romney has never been popular within the party, has never been popular with influential Republicans, and has historically been tolerated within the party more because of his father than because of him. Not being active in the Republican party for a lifetime, you would be expected to know much about the party, its philosophy, or how it operates - other than what you hear from talking heads. Given the slate of candidates, Romney has the best chance of defeating Obama, as I stated earlier, however that does not make him the best choice for Republicans...there just isn't another viable candidate. Traditionally the Democrats have a long history of nominating absolute wacko candidates from some other part of the solar system - think McGovern, think Mondale/Ferraro, think Dukakis...none of which even approached being viable candidates. They were nominated to make statements - not to win. The Republican party does not share in that tradition. It would never nominate a Ron Paul, for example.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Missy May said:


> Executive orders are and can be abused. They are law, and the affect huge change.
> 
> North Korea _should be_ China's problem. At minimum Bush _tried_ to put the ball w N Korea where it belongs...in China's court. For that to happen, you have to have media that is friendly to the constitution, and not willing to only broadcast ideals in line w their specific agenda.
> Iran, now there is a peaceful country that can be brought to the table by extending an olive branch, hugs and kisses, and acknowledgement of their superiority, at least that is what Obama tells us, so why are you even worried about such a peaceful country, with such a peaceful religion? I mean, going w popular logic, Bush thought they posed a threat, so they must not be one. If I were Iran, I would build mock nuclear materials and processing equipment and move it around and watch the world go broke trying to capture it on film - and just buy a pre-made nuke off the self from Russia. I hate to have to agree w the Manthatneedsajob (iran pres) - Obama has no experience. Iran bluffs and bluffs some more....to the point they have people believing they don't care about mutual destruction. How is Pakastan doing, ya think?


To take it a step farther, N. Korea would not be an issue at all if a Democrat President had not stopped us from wiping it out, which we were fully prepared to do. If Truman had not been such a spineless wimp and had let MacArthur win the war, there would not be a North Korea to worry about...


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

And to think that the Korean War has never ended, makes one pause and say WTH..............


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman I am very involved in politics thank you. The Republican Party Platform scares me. It would repeal a womans right to choose, limit civil rights of minorities, outlaw gays, and would make prayer mandatory in schools. Lets not bring up education, evolution, healthcare, womens rights, and its anti union rhetoric.
I also disagree about the Supreme Court. Those Justices sit there for decades and their decisions last and are final. The Supreme Court is as equal to the Presidency and the Congress.
The United States as the worlds only super power left cannot withdraw from the rest of the world. The US has a vested interest in maintaining peace and curbing any state or orgaization that sponsors Terrorist.
Those sanctions are working in Iran.
Isreal will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. They took out Irag's and Syrias. Iran is too great a threat to peace in the region for even the Saudis to allow Iran to posses Nuclear weapons.
Faceman I voted for Reagan twice The good Bush once and then the Republican party started having candidates like Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannon sp The turn to the far right alienated not only I but most jews and moderates.
Swing voters or moderates WIN elections not the fringe.
I have faith in the intelligence of the average american voter.
This is a good debate though. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman I am very involved in politics thank you. The Republican Party Platform scares me. It would repeal a womans right to choose, limit civil rights of minorities, outlaw gays, and would make prayer mandatory in schools. Lets not bring up education, evolution, healthcare, womens rights, and its anti union rhetoric.
> I also disagree about the Supreme Court. Those Justices sit there for decades and their decisions last and are final. The Supreme Court is as equal to the Presidency and the Congress.
> The United States as the worlds only super power left cannot withdraw from the rest of the world. The US has a vested interest in maintaining peace and curbing any state or orgaization that sponsors Terrorist.
> Those sanctions are working in Iran.
> ...


Some of that honestly disgusts me, and sort of spoils the spirit of the debate. I have no idea where you come up with some of this stuff...I don't know if it is your imagination or just from hanging around the water cooler with a bunch of wackos.

Republicans DO NOT want to limit the civil rights of minorities, and quite frankly I resent your statement that they do.

Republicans DO NOT want to "outlaw gays" - that is quite frankly a stupid statement...I don't mean that to be personal - I don't like personal attacks, but it is a stupid statement nonetheless.

Republicans DO NOT want "mandatory" prayer in school - where in the world did you pick that up? We think prayer should be permitted - no matter what the religion, but I know of no one, Republican, Democrat, or Bullmoose, that thinks it should be "mandatory".

If, as you say, you are involved in politics you know these things, so the only reason I can see that you make those statements is just to be inflammatory.

As far as a woman's right to choose, Republicans generally oppose abortion (with certain exceptions) - as do I. However, many Republicans also feel as I that despite being opposed to abortion (by the way, Obama takes the same position I do), we respect the rights of women to make their own choice. Other Republicans are pro-life straight down the line. But guess what - Democrats are split on the issue also. A platform is a platform - a guideline for party philosophy. It does not dictate that every member of a party follows a particular plank in the platform. The Republican platform, at least until such time as the party moves back toward the center, will always be pro-life - just as the Democrat party will always be pro-choice - despite many members of both parties disagreeing with their party platform position. A platform must reflect its base.

As to the rest, those are your opinions, to which you are entitled. We will not agree on those issues. I have explained in other posts the power of the Presidency and how it far outweighs the other two branches of government. If you choose to ignore facts and reality, that is your choice, to which you are entitled, however I would suggest you study American Government and how it operates a bit more. You have a handle on the Cliffsnotes basics, but are missing the details, and the devil is in the details. The first two things you might want to research are Executive Orders, and the fact that federal agencies operate from Standard Operating Procedures, which are their interpretation of the Code of Federal Regulations...because they operate from SOP's rather than the CFR, interpretation can be modified from quite liberal to quite conservative, said interpretations being determined by the Administration and its appointees.

So what if Pat Buchannon and Pat Robertson were candidates? Did they get anywhere? Did the party nominate them? Absolutely irrelevant. I could list absolutely wacko Democrats that "ran" too - so what? Anyone can run for President and there have been some real space cadets that have - for both parties...that doesn't mean the party endorses or nominates them. Good grief...Harold Stassen ran for President *12* times for the Republican party - so what? That has nothing to do with the party - he didn't represent the party and was never nominated. Once again, irrelevant...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman I read very well thank you I have a PHD.
The information I gave is from both the State {texas} and national Republican party platforms.
Reinstating Sodomy laws is included in both platforms.
The Civil Rights act and Voter right are both questioned by these platforms. As well as candidates for the presidency and state offices.
I know for a fact that you don't have to take a litmus test or favor some far left agenda to be a deomcrat running for office.
The demands that social conservatives place on the candidates for national and state offices is disgusting if you ask me.
Allow me to assure you that I am far from stupid and understand our system of government very well.
I do think that you and most republicans do not place much importance on the party platform. I think most haven't even read it. That does not negate its importance. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman I am very involved in politics thank you. *The Republican Party Platform scares me. It would repeal a womans right to choose, limit civil rights of minorities, outlaw gays, and would make prayer mandatory in schools. Lets not bring up education, evolution, healthcare, womens rights, and its anti union rhetoric.*
> I also disagree about the Supreme Court. Those Justices sit there for decades and their decisions last and are final. The Supreme Court is as equal to the Presidency and the Congress.
> The United States as the worlds only super power left cannot withdraw from the rest of the world. The US has a vested interest in maintaining peace and curbing any state or orgaization that sponsors Terrorist.
> Those sanctions are working in Iran.
> ...


Okay, I can't take this seriousely. I am an independent b/c I don't like either the dem or the republican party...but I don't look to air-america-esque propaganda from nutcase nazi-sympathizers for my thoughts. If they didn't convince their audience that they were sophisticated b/c they couldn't think for themselves, they wouldn't have one.

Believing the statement in blue is worse than believing that George Soros (an upstanding air america sponsor) represents all Jews. And I am not the best speller....but I have many jewish friends..._many -_ and none would mispell "Israel".


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy may my typing may not be my strong point but I am dfinetly Jewish.
I need not prove that to you or anyone.
Especially someone who Claims to have jewish friends and constantly brings up Nazis or Hitler.
George Soros is a Jew born and raised who is excercising his rights as an American. Shalom


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

The personal attcks against people with differing views has no place in a healthy debate.
Questioning someones intelligence or their heritage detracts from the views that are being discussed.
Until a certain level of maturity is regained I choose to refrain. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Missy may my typing may not be my strong point but I am dfinetly Jewish.
> I need not prove that to you or anyone.
> Especially someone who Claims to have jewish friends and constantly brings up Nazis or Hitler.
> George Soros is a Jew born and raised who is excercising his rights as an American. Shalom


Really? I "claim" ...and you don't??? You claim I constantly bring up nazi's - therefor I must not really have have any jewish friends? And, Jewish people never mention nazis b/c they feel it is all best forgotten? Sorry, not true. Soros didn't work for Soviets, btw. 

I don't need to prove to anyone that you stated that "REPUBLICANS want to xyz". Its in black and white above. I wasn't questioning Soros' rights, I was saying that making blanket statements like "republicans want to...." as you did is worse than saying George Soros represents _all_ jews. Keeping it in context is always useful.

George Soros was obviousely born, is there a point to that...did you think I thought he was fabricated? He was not born an American, nor does he subscribe to Judaism. I am sure he would if it suited the situation, though. I take your response to mean you believe he does represent all jews. Okay, well, I don't. BUT, then again, I do _not _judge _all _"fill in the blank" groups of people by the actions or words of an individual or a few individuals.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman I read very well thank you I have a PHD.
> The information I gave is from both the State {texas} and national Republican party platforms.
> Reinstating Sodomy laws is included in both platforms.
> The Civil Rights act and Voter right are both questioned by these platforms. As well as candidates for the presidency and state offices.
> ...


You have a PHD? So what? I have a BS in Biology, a BS in Geology, and an MS in Physics. None of them have anything to do with politics. A degree has not much to do with this discussion, nor does a degree define how much political savvy a person has.

As to your statement which I bolded, I don't believe I called you stupid - not my style. However, your understanding of our government is not as thorough as you apparently believe. Anyone that thinks "checks and balances" means the three branches of government are equal does not understand the system. Checks and balances does NOT mean equal...never has, isn't, never will be, and was not intended to make the branches equal. The judicial branch is exactly what it was intended to be - the watchdog of our system, insuring that neither the other two branches nor any state or local governmental unit enacts legislation that is unconstitutional. The Supreme court hears less than 100 arguments a year. While it is certainly true they have made some far reaching decisions that affect our lives, they are only a watchdog and their overall contribution to "the government" is very small incomparison to the other two branches. The US Congress averages about 400 laws enacted a year, and I couldn't begin to guess how many laws our state legislatures enact annually. The judicial branch is comparable to a quality control division in a company or an "internal affairs" division in a police force...nothing more.

There is no way I can put a truly intelligent guess as to the weight each branch has in governing, as it isn't static and the impact of each law or court decision is not equal. However, I would venture to say the weight is likely in the area of Executive 60%, legislative 30%, and judicial 10%. While those percents are certainly arguable, the concept that the three branches of government are equal is naive and uninformed. They are not equal, nor were they ever intended to be. 

That is not to say that the appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court justices is not important - it is a very important duty of the President. However, as I indicated earlier it is not the most important thing a President does. The vast majority of new legislation and interpretaion of existing legislation is not questioned as to its constitutionality, thus the judicial branch comes into play in a very tiny portion of governing, albeit that portion is both critical and necessary as a failsafe to insure that our rights under the constitution are not violated. 

Obviously you are stereotyping Republicans - you have done it several times now. Once again, that is a naive and uninformed position. The points you have brought up are applicable to radical conservatives - not Republicans. Yes, is a group of radical conservatives that follow some of the philosophies you pointed out - racism, gay-bashing, and so on. Here is a newsflash...there are elements within the Democrat party that do exactly the same. If you are unaware of the racism within the black community, which is overwhelmingly liberal Democrat, you have your head in the sand. Your mistake is you are using the terms Republican and conservative interchangeably, and they are not. There are moderate and liberal Republicans, just as there are moderate and conservative Democrats. What do you think a Dixiecrat or Blue Dog are? I have worked with Blue Dogs that are far more racist and anti-gay than most Republicans. 

Thus if you want to make your accusations of racism and civil rights infringements against radical conservatives, there would be no argument - at least with me. But when you make those accusations against Republicans in general, I cannot help but take exception, because that is simply not true, and once again those elements exist within both parties - and because they do, I could point to those elements within the Democrat party that are racist or anti-gay and make the same accusastion of the Democrats..which I wouldn't do of course because I have enough snap to understand that the Democrat party, just as the Republican party, covers a wide philosophical spectrum that ranges from very conservative to very liberal...


----------

