Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Get over the color issue, you know it has nothing what so ever to do with the MAN'S COLOR.
The opposition has not surrendered its southern strategy. Or, as Lee Atwater suggested in an interview (1981), verbatim (hence the reference to n-words):
Quote:
Lamis: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, n*****, n*****." By 1968 you can't say "n*****" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now that you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is that blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****, n*****."
And you think that President Obama’s non-colorlessness doesn’t play a role in politics? May be not to you, but you surely can't be speaking for everybody. Do you think that his associations to Kenya and Indonesia are simply innocent points? Do you think marking him as a Muslim doesn’t play a tune to the xenophobic crowd?
Personally, I prefer to stay away from such topics as they can distract from meaningful discussions but thought a cent or two of my opinion on the subject may be okay.
Hopefully another appointment or two to the Supreme Court.
That would be a disaster for any hope of reinstating the rule of our Constitution!
Obama has helped nothing. He has been a disaster. He has convinced the Middle Eastern countries that the US is now very weak and cowardly. Every single thing he does is exactly 180 degrees again private enterprise which is what makes our America the best country in which to live in the history of the world. I believe 4 more years would completely destroy this country as it is meant to be under our Constitution. I'm not sure we can survive another 2 of this unqualified and 3rd-world country mentality.
Hopefully another appointment or two to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, we all know that you Progressives want to stack SCOTUS with like minded ideologues so you can get all of your unconstitutional crap passed and quite possibly even eliminate it completely and install an iron curtain.
Often people vote for the least bad candidate and not necessarily the best candidate. Certainly President Obama has done a few things I don't like. Bailing out GM/Chrysler, the war in Afghanistan and "Obamacare" come to mind. On the other hand, the economy is recovering nicely and he has managed not to mess that up. When I look at his Republican predecessor, he messed up a whole lot more than President Obama has with a hugely expensive and unnecessary war in Iraq and piloting us into that nasty recession. So, on balance, President Obama has not done too bad.
You may want to re-look at who was in control when the bailout happened, and who initiated the war in Afghanistan. The decision to bail out GM and Chrysler was made in December 2008, at which point Obama was not yet President. And if I recall correctly, we got involved in the war in Afghanistan in around 2002, which is ohhh....6 years before Obama entered the White House.
That would be a disaster for any hope of reinstating the rule of our Constitution!
Why do we need to reinstate something that is already in place?
Quote:
Obama has helped nothing. He has been a disaster.
I understand that you disagree with his policies, but "disaster"? Really?
Quote:
He has convinced the Middle Eastern countries that the US is now very weak and cowardly.
Given that we are still currently occupying two countries that we spent years bombing the crap out of, I find your opinion extremely unrealistic.
Quote:
Every single thing he does is exactly 180 degrees again private enterprise which is what makes our America the best country in which to live in the history of the world.
So bailing out all that private enterprise was 180 degrees against private enterprise?
What are you smoking? Can I have some please?
Quote:
I believe 4 more years would completely destroy this country as it is meant to be under our Constitution. I'm not sure we can survive another 2 of this unqualified and 3rd-world country mentality.
Yeah, we all know that you Progressives want to stack SCOTUS with like minded ideologues so you can get all of your unconstitutional crap passed and quite possibly even eliminate it completely and install an iron curtain.
"The causes are many. Despite a significant advance, more than half still say the economy has not yet begun to recover. And there's trouble at the pump: Seventy-one percent in this poll, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, report financial hardship as a result of rising gas prices. Forty-four percent call it a "serious" hardship."
Why do we need to reinstate something that is already in place?
We need to protect our Constitution by appointing Justices to the Supreme Court that will uphold the Constitution and not "interpret" it to further destroy it.
Quote:
Given that we are still currently occupying two countries that we spent years bombing the crap out of, I find your opinion extremely unrealistic.
What you "find" and reality are two different things. The Middle East respects strength...not weakness!
Quote:
So bailing out all that private enterprise was 180 degrees against private enterprise?
Yes, it was against private enterprise. Private enterprise must stand on their own or fail. Remember, it was the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac put in place and kept there by Democrats that basically brought us the mortgage mess. It was the Democrats and Obama (when he was doing his thing with the community service world and he was in on the law suit) that put in place the law that forced banks and mortgage lenders to lend to people who they knew could not repay. Whenever government gets involved in anything outside what the Constitution lists for them, they mess it up.
It would take a book way too thick to explain it all to you, I guess, and this isn't the place set up to do that.
You may want to re-look at who was in control when the bailout happened, and who initiated the war in Afghanistan. The decision to bail out GM and Chrysler was made in December 2008, at which point Obama was not yet President. And if I recall correctly, we got involved in the war in Afghanistan in around 2002, which is ohhh....6 years before Obama entered the White House.
But he did not have to continue those policies did he?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given that we are still currently occupying two countries that we spent years bombing the crap out of, I find your opinion extremely unrealistic.
