Telling It Like It Is.

2

Replies

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,621 AG
    riverdiver wrote: »
    To be fair, the only difference I've seen between Obama and Bush is that spending's just higher. Many of the same people who constantly blasted Bush now support Obama when he follows the same policies, and vice versa.

    I will concede a few of the same policies, but many vastly different approachs by Obama on taxes and the war on terror.

    It also should be noted that Obama's "increased deportation levels" aren't exactly true. To share credit on both sides, Border Patrol funding and manpower started to climb at the end of Bush's term, so Obama benefitted from that. Plus, the way the numbers of deportations were figured have been altered...now, if you're caught at the border before entering the country and sent back, that counts as a "deportation". As a country, we've actually begun cutting back on deporting "run of the mill" illegals here... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/obama-administration-halts-deportations-of-non-criminal-immigrants/

    I believe the ABC news blog makes my point. Exporting criminals has taken priority.

    Critics of either side have their own points they can make on any issue. Those in favor of kicking immigrants out would point to Obama's Aunt and Uncle, and suggest starting there....others would point out that illegals in many cases are either doing jobs that other people wouldn't, or they have a strong work ethic that many here don't have...while another group may point out that some employers are simply taking advantage of cheap labor.

    To suggest that either his uncle or aunt received special treatment is disingenuous

    As usual, the truth's somewhere in the middle.

    River, look at the field of Republican challangers and me why you would vote for any of them.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,358 AG
    Regardless of the so called hand Barry was dealt,,,, the spending is on him and this useless congress. The spending did little to nothing to change the economic path this nation is on other than make the length of the pain our children will face while correcting the mess longer. The spending must be stopped NOW. We cannot afford to dig the debt hole this nation is in any deeper. No more TARPS, GM or other industry rescues, no more benefit extensions, no more entitlement programs, and no more silly spending measures to study snail darters just because it makes us all feel good about ourselves. We need to start slashing spending today and maybe in our lifetimes or our kids,,, we will begin to see light at the end of the tunnel. If not our economic system will collapse and the measures that will have to be in place in that event will make the pain of any cuts we make today seem trivial.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • stsimonsstsimons Posts: 7,291 Officer
    fins4me wrote: »
    Regardless of the so called hand Barry was dealt,,,, the spending is on him and this useless congress. The spending did little to nothing to change the economic path this nation is on other than make the length of the pain our children will face while correcting the mess longer. The spending must be stopped NOW. We cannot afford to dig the debt hole this nation is in any deeper. No more TARPS, GM or other industry rescues, no more benefit extensions, no more entitlement programs, and no more silly spending measures to study snail darters just because it makes us all feel good about ourselves. We need to start slashing spending today and maybe in our lifetimes or our kids,,, we will begin to see light at the end of the tunnel. If not our economic system will collapse and the measures that will have to be in place in that event will make the pain of any cuts we make today seem trivial.

    Fins, I agree wholeheartedly. We are almost beyond the point of no return. Luckily, a lot of people feel the same way you and I do - ie we are on a VERY dangerous path that leads straight off a cliff into insolvency and the eventual unraveling of our very way of life. Sooner or later the bills are going to come due but liberals have no concept of consequences, just look at any state or municipality run by liberals for the last 10 years. The truth speaks for itself.

    Regarding California... I have a lot of family there, mostly in the central valley. They absolutely hate what the "liberals on the coast" have done to the place. If you look at the map, its VERY evident whats going on... sad state of affairs to be sure.

    ibn_yhlmu_yhLMU_19672.png
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,621 AG
    Much to the embarrassment of many of you, there are several states worse than California.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,782 AG
    stsimons wrote: »
    Sooner or later the bills are going to come due but liberals have no concept of consequences

    No doubt about, just look at the warmongers of the last ten years. They expect this country to take it up the **** for the rest of the world. UNACCEPTABLE
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • stsimonsstsimons Posts: 7,291 Officer
    Well, more appropriately they expect this country will continue to support nation building and world policing... even though we can no longer afford any of that. We are over extended, and it IS unacceptable.

    Warmongers is a really a gross oversimplification of terms and an easy out to the very complex situation of 9-11. We are one of the few countries that has had to fight an international war against non-state entities, or non-rational actors in strictly poli sci terms. Hindsight is always 20-20, and I tend to think we did the best we could given the information we had available at the time - even if years later it turned out that Iraq had no WMDs - they were still a terror friendly state run by a pompous dictator who boasted that any enemy of the USA was a friend or Iraq. Saddam overplayed his hand and we called his bluff... I guess shame on us, right? A dozen UN resolutions, decades of grandstanding and nuclear threats are what dug the hole in Iraq. We tried to fill in that hole after we realized he was F.O.S. and our American lives and treasure have gotten us nowhere. The PEOPLE of Iraq apparently still want their sectarian wars and religious oppression, after 10 years of trying to make a friend out of an enemy - we should just let them have at it and work with whatever crappy dictator shakes out in the end.

    Afghanistan is the same way. My personal opinion is that after 50 years of upheaval, conquest and oppression all the Afghanistani people know is force and who wields it. Force is their yardstick by which freedom is measured. We can build them schools and hospitals, provide them with power and clean water, give them food to eat and try to show them an alternative to the miserable existence they squalor in, but at the end of the day, they will still resist and hate us because we are their occupiers. I strongly feel that they would rather be virtual slaves under their own people then be free under our hand. We went to war against an ideology, not a nation, a people, or a place. We have tried, often in vain, to drag Iraq and Afghanistan into the modern western world while at the same time hunting and killing their heros - and they could care less what we have done for them, they want to fail on their own. I say let them fail.

    I personally feel, after years of international wars, its time to take care of our own house. We have debt up to our eyeballs, a real threat of a real depression and currency devaluation, total fiscal irresponsibility by our legislators, massive job losses to our overseas competitors, immigration issues that NEED to be addressed, a deeply divided national psyche, and a national moral lower than at any time in history.

    That is what is UNACCEPTABLE!

    and... that is why I am probably going to vote for Ron Paul. As someone else said... he is probably the best protest a voter can make regarding the status quo. He may not have a snowballs chance in hell, but...
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,782 AG
    Saudi was responsible, they still go unscathed.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • FloydFloyd ; in N. Tampa or DownEast MainePosts: 1,091 Officer
    I disagree that "Rush is a shill of the GOP". He's constantly harping about the ineptitude of the GOP platform managers and their performance. So, if anything, he's out in front of the GOP on conservative issues and they sometimes seemingly follow his advice.
    Recording from Moderators annual meeting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuABc9ZNtrA
  • anglingarchitectanglingarchitect Posts: 1,488 Officer
    stsimons wrote: »
    Well, more appropriately they expect this country will continue to support nation building and world policing... even though we can no longer afford any of that. We are over extended, and it IS unacceptable.

    Warmongers is a really a gross oversimplification of terms and an easy out to the very complex situation of 9-11. We are one of the few countries that has had to fight an international war against non-state entities, or non-rational actors in strictly poli sci terms. Hindsight is always 20-20, and I tend to think we did the best we could given the information we had available at the time - even if years later it turned out that Iraq had no WMDs - they were still a terror friendly state run by a pompous dictator who boasted that any enemy of the USA was a friend or Iraq. Saddam overplayed his hand and we called his bluff... I guess shame on us, right? A dozen UN resolutions, decades of grandstanding and nuclear threats are what dug the hole in Iraq. We tried to fill in that hole after we realized he was F.O.S. and our American lives and treasure have gotten us nowhere. The PEOPLE of Iraq apparently still want their sectarian wars and religious oppression, after 10 years of trying to make a friend out of an enemy - we should just let them have at it and work with whatever crappy dictator shakes out in the end.

    Afghanistan is the same way. My personal opinion is that after 50 years of upheaval, conquest and oppression all the Afghanistani people know is force and who wields it. Force is their yardstick by which freedom is measured. We can build them schools and hospitals, provide them with power and clean water, give them food to eat and try to show them an alternative to the miserable existence they squalor in, but at the end of the day, they will still resist and hate us because we are their occupiers. I strongly feel that they would rather be virtual slaves under their own people then be free under our hand. We went to war against an ideology, not a nation, a people, or a place. We have tried, often in vain, to drag Iraq and Afghanistan into the modern western world while at the same time hunting and killing their heros - and they could care less what we have done for them, they want to fail on their own. I say let them fail.

    I personally feel, after years of international wars, its time to take care of our own house. We have debt up to our eyeballs, a real threat of a real depression and currency devaluation, total fiscal irresponsibility by our legislators, massive job losses to our overseas competitors, immigration issues that NEED to be addressed, a deeply divided national psyche, and a national moral lower than at any time in history.

    That is what is UNACCEPTABLE!

    and... that is why I am probably going to vote for Ron Paul. As someone else said... he is probably the best protest a voter can make regarding the status quo. He may not have a snowballs chance in hell, but...

    Very insightful, and I think fair analysis of the ME and I agree with all of it, except for the Ron Paul part.

    I think Ron Paul at best is a protest vote. But by some fluke I wouldn't want to see him get elected, so I couldn't vote for him.
    rent my beach house
  • stsimonsstsimons Posts: 7,291 Officer
    Very insightful, and I think fair analysis of the ME and I agree with all of it, except for the Ron Paul part.

    I think Ron Paul at best is a protest vote. But by some fluke I wouldn't want to see him get elected, so I couldn't vote for him.

    Well the absolute worst thing that can happen is that RP runs and as independent, ie Ross Perot, and costs Mitt Romney the election. I don't think that will happen though... Regardless, each candidate is going to have to choose their running mate well.
  • dogman18dogman18 Posts: 276 Deckhand
    No matter who sits in the Oval Office the Congress will make or break us one way or another.
    Lets go to 2 term limits and see what happens. If it's good enough for the President so it should be good enough for Congress.
    “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
    ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,782 AG
    stsimons wrote: »
    Well the absolute worst thing that can happen is that RP runs and as independent, ie Ross Perot, and costs Mitt Romney the election. I don't think that will happen though... Regardless, each candidate is going to have to choose their running mate well.

    Regardless if he runs as and independent or not he will still get votes.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • riverdiverriverdiver Posts: 2,018 Captain
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    River, look at the field of Republican challangers and me why you would vote for any of them.

    Actually, taken as a whole, there isn't any candidate that I could say for certain I'd vote for at this point. That goes for every Republican candidate as well as President Obama. And yes, Obama has stances that I do agree with.

    Personally, looking at Obama, Romney, Paul, and Gingrich, (The President plus the three guys that have the best chance of gaining the Republican nomination) each one has stances that I agree and disagree with. I'm not a far right winger, nor a far left winger, and can probably be called an Independant that tends to lean more center-right.

    No one seems to be jumping out to me right now as being someone I'd support....if I had to pick a Republican right now, it would probably be Romney. Gingrich is too blustery and Paul's a bit too wacky for me..plus I think Paul would look horrible in a Presidential debate.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,299 AG
    stsimons wrote: »
    Well the absolute worst thing that can happen is that RP runs and as independent, ie Ross Perot, and costs Mitt Romney the election. I don't think that will happen though... Regardless, each candidate is going to have to choose their running mate well.

    The fluke would be that Mitt Romney costs Ron Paul the election...
  • riverdiverriverdiver Posts: 2,018 Captain
    dstockwell wrote: »
    Saudi was responsible, they still go unscathed.

    We weren't attacked by Saudi Arabia, we were attacked by an ideology.
  • Lobstercatcher229Lobstercatcher229 Posts: 4,843 Captain
    I do hope that policies can be found that will let us make things in this country again and be able to do so at a profit.
  • Justins DadJustins Dad Posts: 3,247 Officer
    I truly can not believe anyone will vote for Obama again. His entire concept of what's wrong with the Country and his process of fixing it are fatally flawed. The most recent example, asking for another 1.2 trillion dollars. People have lost their ever-loving minds to vote for this loser.
  • Mister-Jr wrote: »
    River, look at the field of Republican challangers and me why you would vote for any of them.

    You cant write and show your ignorance every time. Idiot liberal is all you are.
  • I truly can not believe anyone will vote for Obama again. His entire concept of what's wrong with the Country and his process of fixing it are fatally flawed. The most recent example, asking for another 1.2 trillion dollars. People have lost their ever-loving minds to vote for this loser.

    Anyone that does is a stupid idiot.
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,782 AG
    riverdiver wrote: »
    We weren't attacked by Saudi Arabia, we were attacked by an ideology.

    So ideology equals - Afghanistan, hell of a philosophy.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,782 AG
    I truly can not believe anyone will vote for Obama again. His entire concept of what's wrong with the Country and his process of fixing it are fatally flawed. The most recent example, asking for another 1.2 trillion dollars. People have lost their ever-loving minds to vote for this loser.

    You are simply blind if you believe Romney will cut any spending - never will happen.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • BrewheddBrewhedd Posts: 1,096 Officer
    stsimons wrote: »
    Fins, I agree wholeheartedly. We are almost beyond the point of no return. Luckily, a lot of people feel the same way you and I do - ie we are on a VERY dangerous path that leads straight off a cliff into insolvency and the eventual unraveling of our very way of life. Sooner or later the bills are going to come due but liberals have no concept of consequences, just look at any state or municipality run by liberals for the last 10 years. The truth speaks for itself.

    I'm not a liberal or conservative, meaningless labels at this point. Was Bush a liberal? Why the loans to GM and Chrysler? Why bailout Lehman, Goldman Sachs, etc.? Why a Prescription Drug Benefit Program that prohibits any price negotiation and will cost us 1 Trillion over the first 10 years? The problem is corruption which is going completely unchecked in our gov't. After that consider: Why was Newt paid 1.6 million as a "consultant" to Fannie and Freddie just before they became unsolvent? The Bloomberg story... Republican-appointed Treasury secretary (Henry Paulson) who tipped off 20 top hedge-fund managers about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s imminent collapse after assuring the public that it wouldn’t happen. What does that say about our country when even the most obvious kind of corruption – involving hundreds of billions of dollars – is simply ignored? For big business, the powerful role of government in our society is simply too valuable to ignore. And the amount of corruption it inspires is huge. Few
    politicians even bother trying to hide the fact that they’re bought and sold like furniture.
    Corruption is the enemy. Lobbyists and the FED have ruined the country.
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    Brewhedd wrote: »
    I'm not a liberal or conservative, meaningless labels at this point. Was Bush a liberal? Why the loans to GM and Chrysler? Why bailout Lehman, Goldman Sachs, etc.? Why a Prescription Drug Benefit Program that prohibits any price negotiation and will cost us 1 Trillion over the first 10 years? The problem is corruption which is going completely unchecked in our gov't. After that consider: Why was Newt paid 1.6 million as a "consultant" to Fannie and Freddie just before they became unsolvent? The Bloomberg story... Republican-appointed Treasury secretary (Henry Paulson) who tipped off 20 top hedge-fund managers about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s imminent collapse after assuring the public that it wouldn’t happen. What does that say about our country when even the most obvious kind of corruption – involving hundreds of billions of dollars – is simply ignored? For big business, the powerful role of government in our society is simply too valuable to ignore. And the amount of corruption it inspires is huge. Few
    politicians even bother trying to hide the fact that they’re bought and sold like furniture.

    Term Limits. That would go a long way in holding down some if not most of the corruption and and blind following.
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    riverdiver wrote: »
    Actually, taken as a whole, there isn't any candidate that I could say for certain I'd vote for at this point. That goes for every Republican candidate as well as President Obama. And yes, Obama has stances that I do agree with.

    Personally, looking at Obama, Romney, Paul, and Gingrich, (The President plus the three guys that have the best chance of gaining the Republican nomination) each one has stances that I agree and disagree with. I'm not a far right winger, nor a far left winger, and can probably be called an Independant that tends to lean more center-right.

    No one seems to be jumping out to me right now as being someone I'd support....if I had to pick a Republican right now, it would probably be Romney. Gingrich is too blustery and Paul's a bit too wacky for me..plus I think Paul would look horrible in a Presidential debate.

    If you think about it, why would anyone want to run for POTUS? The most qualified people would never get elected. The media/press runs and decides who will be POTUS.
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • frankfrank Posts: 13,292 AG
    mustang190 wrote: »
    If you think about it, why would anyone want to run for POTUS? The most qualified people would never get elected. The media/press runs and decides who will be POTUS.
    the media is owned by the corporations who decide the presidential candidates via their media and campaign contributions, and in the end the choice is between corporate lackey A or B which is really no choice
    and folks like limbaugh spew their rhetoric to keep the myth going that there is a difference between them, when there is not
    No political signature
  • BrewheddBrewhedd Posts: 1,096 Officer
    frank wrote: »
    the media is owned by the corporations who decide the presidential candidates via their media and campaign contributions, and in the end the choice is between corporate lackey A or B which is really no choice
    and folks like limbaugh spew their rhetoric to keep the myth going that there is a difference between them, when there is not

    The choice between lackey A or B is due to the fact that most sheople don't take the time, or they just don't want to know, to find out what is really going on. They prefer to be led around by their noses and told what to believe while arguing Liberal/Conservative - Republican/Democrat. All you have to do is look at the candidates: Obama? another Bush in Democrat clothing. Romney or Perry? Good 'ol boys that want to tell you they are "outside" Washington when they are crony capitalists at their finest. Newt? Same B.S.
    Corruption is the enemy. Lobbyists and the FED have ruined the country.
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    frank wrote: »
    the media is owned by the corporations who decide the presidential candidates via their media and campaign contributions, and in the end the choice is between corporate lackey A or B which is really no choice
    and folks like limbaugh spew their rhetoric to keep the myth going that there is a difference between them, when there is not

    I actually think Limbaugh is right most of the time. I also notice that the lefties NEVER put up any facts to dispute him, only name calling and stupid posts. And besides, when have you ever listened to his radio show???
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,621 AG
    mustang190 wrote: »
    I actually think Limbaugh is right most of the time. I also notice that the lefties NEVER put up any facts to dispute him, only name calling and stupid posts. And besides, when have you ever listened to his radio show???
    What does the National Enquirer say about Obama?
    Vote for the other candidate
  • stsimonsstsimons Posts: 7,291 Officer
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    What does the National Enquirer say about Obama?

    So mustang190 has his answer...

    They don't know the difference.
  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,168 AG
    Rush is rightfully representative of the very best conservatism has to offer America.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.