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.
Say, where's the timeline for withdrawal in Afghanistan?
That's a very good point ! what is Obama's "exit strategy" and why is the maintream media not asking or wondering ?
...In many posts I admitted supporting Bush until the truth came out about all of the deception, fraud, corruption and warmongering for the profits. I have been amazed that anyone has continued to support the fact they we have had a bona fide crime family in the White House for eight unfortunate years... Yes, the outrage at Obama for even the most innocuous things is moronic and obviously a weak attempt at retaliation for not coming to grips with the fact that Bush & Company are criminals through and through.
What you totally miss is that this isn't about hate. It isn't hatred for Obama. It is his policies. It is clear from your post that you have no understanding of who this man is. He absolutely is a socialist. We aren't just throwing that out there for effect. And it isn't "code" (whatever you meant by that is any one's guess) for anything. He is a socialist, and his policies are socialist. He has said that he intends to "fundamentally change" our system. That isn't his right, nor was he elected to do any such thing. The American system of government does not need changing, nor do the people want to change it. We have a Constitution. It is still valid, the ideas embodied in it are timeless, and if we do want to change or add anything, there is a system to do that, via Constitutional Convention and amendment. The president has no authority under the Constitution to make any changes in our system without a vote of the people.
Excellent point and well said.
Quote:
We don't elect presidents by majority vote. We elect them through the electoral college. Does that need explaining to you? This was the system our founders agreed to, and there was a good reason for it, which is still valid today.
More and more of the elections are decided by swing voters. (aka third party, undecided...) When Clinton got elected it was swing voters that put him over the top by conservatives who voted for Ross Perot. When Bush got elected it was swing voters in strategic places that put him over the top(remember Ralph Nader?) and Obama same thing- not so much 3rd party but swing voters who don't hold to a certain party. A good portion of swing votes came from people who are finger in the wind voters. This time the wind was blowing for the dems.
That is why the certain states or cities are targeted by a candidate, they skip my already decided state because by the time I show up at the polls we all know where the electoral votes are going. When I press the accept this ballot buttion, I know that I will hear the faint flushing of a toilet. While this irks me to no end I understand the reason for the electoral college. Overall it makes the process work. The difference is that I accept that sometimes things just don't go my way.
Maybe the wind will be blowing a different direction in 4 years.
In the meantime, I won't engage in temper tantrums or cry about my stolen votes. I won't paint an entire segment of society as ____fill in the blank_____. I will MoveOn, unlike some of the people who can't let go of their loss in 2000.
Say, where's the timeline for withdrawal in Afghanistan?
That's a very good point ! what is Obama's "exit strategy" and why is the maintream media not asking or wondering ?
Another pile of dung that the last bogus administration left in their wake. That is where they should have concentrated efforts and certainly not in Iraq. That is where Bush's boogeyman, Osama bin Laden was hiding in his cave. The very same cave that Bush was supposed to smoke him out of. Bush shut down the U.S. Mitary Base in Saudi, which was Osama bin Laden's key gripe, so that pretty much appeased him. There is also a more than good chance that bin Laden is no longer among the living anyway, but of course we will never be told the truth. If our military finisihed the job that it started in Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, we more than likely would not have to be there to the extent that we are now!
I think the OP has it right except that he forgot to add in the crybaby factor. The repub party is still crying they lost and they are willing to go as far as wish failure for our president, to wish illness to wish whatever so they can say in the end McCain and his ditzy side kick should have won.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,530,947 times
Reputation: 2038
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
We don't elect presidents by majority vote. We elect them through the electoral college. Does that need explaining to you? This was the system our founders agreed to, and there was a good reason for it, which is still valid today.
As to your first comment, how was Bush "destructive"? He certainly wasn't divisive. He made every attempt to get along with Democrats (he went way too far in the thinking of most conservatives). Neither was he dishonest. Can you give an example of his dishonesty? Probably not, unless you are going to recite the tired "Bush lied" mantra, which is false on it's face, as everyone including Clinton before him believed (and many still believe) that Saddam was engaged in an active program of WMD's. He was probably one of the the most honest presidents we have had, certainly more honest than Bill Clinton, who was a total liar, and a habitual one.
What you totally miss is that this isn't about hate. It isn't hatred for Obama. It is his policies. It is clear from your post that you have no understanding of who this man is. He absolutely is a socialist. We aren't just throwing that out there for effect. And it isn't "code" (whatever you meant by that is any one's guess) for anything. He is a socialist, and his policies are socialist. He has said that he intends to "fundamentally change" our system. That isn't his right, nor was he elected to do any such thing. The American system of government does not need changing, nor do the people want to change it. We have a Constitution. It is still valid, the ideas embodied in it are timeless, and if we do want to change or add anything, there is a system to do that, via Constitutional Convention and amendment. The president has no authority under the Constitution to make any changes in our system without a vote of the people.
Look at his massive spending and taxation schemes. "Cap and trade" will be a disaster, and no one will be able to afford electricity. He is destroying our economy and bankrupting our country. That is what this is all about, and that is what the Tea Parties are about. This is to say nothing about the take over of the American auto industry, and the banks. Where does a president find the authority in the Constitution to take over control of or fire an executive of a U.S. Corporation?
Anyone who cannot see what this man is doing to the country has got to be totally blind!
You seem like a Bush partisan. The part that I put in bold: you think W defended and upheld the constitution?
Were you crying about that before 1/20/09?
And he did not lie?
Really, start with the warrant less wiretapping alone, where he denied it he was doing it without court orders.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,530,947 times
Reputation: 2038
No Nonsense Guy and others like him might want to follow this other thread, if they think Obama is a full blown socialist.
Even if he is (which he is not, he's still in bed with corporations and the powerful, not nearly as much as Bush was though), so what?
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,530,947 times
Reputation: 2038
[quote=nononsenseguy;8533625]We don't elect presidents by majority vote. We elect them through the electoral college. Does that need explaining to you? This was the system our founders agreed to, and there was a good reason for it, which is still valid today.
As to your first comment, how was Bush "destructive"? He certainly wasn't divisive. He made every attempt to get along with Democrats (he went way too far in the thinking of most conservatives). Neither was he dishonest. Can you give an example of his dishonesty? Probably not, unless you are going to recite the tired "Bush lied" mantra, which is false on it's face, as everyone including Clinton before him believed (and many still believe) that Saddam was engaged in an active program of WMD's. He was probably one of the the most honest presidents we have had, certainly more honest than Bill Clinton, who was a total liar, and a habitual one.
What you totally miss is that this isn't about hate. It isn't hatred for Obama. It is his policies. It is clear from your post that you have no understanding of who this man is. He absolutely is a socialist. We aren't just throwing that out there for effect. And it isn't "code" (whatever you meant by that is any one's guess) for anything.
My answer:
That comment alone shows me you have a lot to learn.
You seem like a Bush partisan. The part that I put in bold: you think W defended and upheld the constitution?
Were you crying about that before 1/20/09?
And he did not lie?
Really, start with the warrant less wiretapping alone, where he denied it he was doing it without court orders.
Warrant-less wiretapping? This was not a Bush idea. We have been doing that for many years where national security was an issue. Much of the Patriot Act was not new.
Bush "partisan"? Hardly. I am a conservative. Bush was not. He disappointed me in many ways, as he did many conservatives. He tried too hard to "get along" with leftists. I would not have. He should have let them know who was in control, just as the Democrats are doing now. Remember Obama's statement, "I won"? But he was so focused on "new tone" type politics. Well, Democrats don't operate that way, and they took full advantage of Bush and his "new tone" philosophy.
I notice that you did not provide an example of even one Bush lie; though you said, " And he did not lie?". Okay. So...give me an example? Can you produce even one confirmed lie? Doubtful, unless in doing so you are going to include all of the Democrat Party, who agreed with Bush on Iraq. So leave that out. Give me more so-called "lies".
And just for drill, compare Bush to Obama, who has been lying through his teeth since he decided to run for president. According to Obama, we are all going to see a "tax cut". Except for the so-called rich, and the small business owners, and anyone who uses electrictiy. That's just for starters. I'm sure there are new taxes coming that Obama hasn't even thought of yet.
There was a lot of hate from the right during Clinton's 8 years. A whole lot.
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.
