America Haters Awaken

[piasabird]

I might be willing to give Obama a chance if McCain is nominated.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
There is nothing to be pleased with, regarding our socialist future. Obama might garner the support necessary to grow Washington DC, but that shall result in greater evils being committed from the throne they build.

Yeah, I know, look at the last seven years. The Republicans did a great job proving how bad they are at running the government. As well as growing the government's power over our lives. Thanks for all that.

I wouldn't blame ALL republicans, but I would blame the small extremist group called the Neoconservatives.

I wish I could agree with you. But anyone who's voted Republican over the last couple of decades bears a measure of blame. Most are either: a) active perpetrators, or: b) enablers.

After the last seven years, I'm in no mood to be conciliatory. Republicans proved with Bush 43 that they were very capable of electing the stupidest, most incompetent, most inimical President possible.

:thumbsup:

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
There is nothing to be pleased with, regarding our socialist future. Obama might garner the support necessary to grow Washington DC, but that shall result in greater evils being committed from the throne they build.

Yeah, I know, look at the last seven years. The Republicans did a great job proving how bad they are at running the government. As well as growing the government's power over our lives. Thanks for all that.

I wouldn't blame ALL republicans, but I would blame the small extremist group called the Neoconservatives.

I wish I could agree with you. But anyone who's voted Republican over the last couple of decades bears a measure of blame. Most are either: a) active perpetrators, or: b) enablers.

After the last seven years, I'm in no mood to be conciliatory. Republicans proved with Bush 43 that they were very capable of electing the stupidest, most incompetent, most inimical President possible.

:thumbsup:

and kerry or gore are any smarter?

:laugh:

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I might be willing to give Obama a chance if McCain is nominated.

yeah, Obama is going to be in Kansas City on Feb 4
somewhere close to where i work, i could wander over there and listen to him
i won't vote for McCain, if we are going to get a liberal president, i want an honest one, not an old man that says one thing and does another

 

[Pabster]

John McCain's nomination would be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. I don't pay much attention to Rush Limbaugh, but he was spot on about that.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pabster
John McCain's nomination would be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. I don't pay much attention to Rush Limbaugh, but he was spot on about that.

after the last 7 years of the "republican party as we know it," with one elective war, record deficit spending, the government worming its way into monitoring every aspect of our lives, and dog & pony shows like terri shiavo, gay marriage as a wedge issue, etc... would that be such a bad thing?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre
Expanding the size of the federal government and increased spending is nothing that should be celebrated. Ignoring our fiscal problems is not smart, and making them worse is loony.

Those young voters who support Obama should take a look at the deficit and entitlements we have left them. They have a hell of a bill awaiting them.

I agree, but look at what our choices will ultimately be. Paul will not win the nomination. As he's the only candidate who would actually shrink the federal government, it doesn't really matter who else wins, fiscally speaking. At least with Obama we have (at least for now) the option to elect a sincere president who only wants what's best for the country. Since Paul won't be president, I'll take sincere and well-intentioned over the snake oil that the rest of those scumbags are selling, be they D or R.

:thumbsup: * 5

John McCain's nomination would be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. I don't pay much attention to Rush Limbaugh, but he was spot on about that.

Oh, God, we can only dream, right? The republican party as we know it is a fvcking mess, it needs to be liquidated and restarted afresh with some true conservative values and not whatever the hell it has become--basically a party of borrow & spend, war monger, spread hate (misusing Christianity), spread fear (terror this and that). It's a total mess.

I can't believe some of the support I see for O. If you guys aren't joking around and we're not awakened from this dream, he seems the likely winner of the whole deal.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: bamacre
Expanding the size of the federal government and increased spending is nothing that should be celebrated. Ignoring our fiscal problems is not smart, and making them worse is loony.

Those young voters who support Obama should take a look at the deficit and entitlements we have left them. They have a hell of a bill awaiting them.

And that bill was tabulated by... wait for it... it's coming to me... umm... REPUBLICANS!!!!

If you're gonna whine about government spending, maybe you should start by pointing the finger at Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43. 20 years out of the last 28 of yawning deficits. The only Democrat in the WH in that entire time... wait for it, it's on the tip of my tongue... CLINTON! submitted budget SURPLUSES.

Yeah, you Republicans are GREAT at spending everyone else's money and then blaming your opposition for it. Too bad the record says otherwise. But then when did the facts ever get in the way of Republican doublespeak?

You're preaching to the choir. If you think I am defending the increased spending via Bush, you're wrong. Because I am not as excited about Obama as others, and because I am a Republican, doesn't mean I favor Bush, nor any of the these fake Republicans. If you would have taken a quick peak at my sig, you could have known this before spouting off. And if you think Clinton had much to do with those surpluses, you're wrong. A rock could have balanced those budgets. It's the free market, especially new technologies, that boosted the economy under Clinton.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: bamacre
You're preaching to the choir. If you think I am defending the increased spending via Bush, you're wrong. Because I am not as excited about Obama as others, and because I am a Republican, doesn't mean I favor Bush, nor any of the these fake Republicans. If you would have taken a quick peak at my sig, you could have known this before spouting off.

Yeah, I'm preaching to the choir. Um hmm. That's why I'm having a dialogue with you.

So did you vote for him? Hmmm?

So, ummm.. now that you've noted the huge bill that's unquestionably coming due (about which I do agree), and subtly attempted to point the finger of blame at the Democrats, it's kinda fun for me to point out just who's responsible for it, based ON THE ACTUAL RECORD. That is, YOUR Party. Your "fake" Republicans, like it or not, own your party. Whether or not you're for Paul, these are your people. Deal with it. Your party has made calamitous blunders, which must be owned up to if you are ever to be taken seriously as partners in government again. Claiming you're a Libertarian while retaining Republican affiliation is an obvious attempt to have it both ways. I don't claim to be a Green while retaining Democrat affiliation.

Originally posted by: bamacre
And if you think Clinton had much to do with those surpluses, you're wrong. A rock could have balanced those budgets. It's the free market, especially new technologies, that boosted the economy under Clinton.

Uh huh. And Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 all shared in that same technological growth. Yet they managed to rack up trillions of dollars in debt that yours and my children and grandchildren will be paying off. Also, you are completely incorrect. Clinton passed a major budget reform bill in 1993 by a single vote in Congress, which provided the fiscal impetus for the surpluses of the second term. I am no fan of the Himbo, but it was among the biggest achievements of his Presidency.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
I thought this forum was about politics and news... not gushing about who your favorite candidate is. I really hope we don't see the forum littered with these types of posts now. A mod should really lock this, there's nothing relevant here for a discussion.

I'm sorry, MORPH, but I just couldn't resist the pun and needed to find some way for it to make some small sense. But my feelings about Obama were real. I do think we need a President who will focus, not on his party, the lobbyists, and special interests but the American people in general. I also still have hope something like that can happen even though I am full of doubt. I also, sadly, have a lot of anger at cynics and self motivated politicians who are in the arena for ego. It's not that I think Obama doesn't have an ego, but I think he also has a dedication to a vision for a more united nation.

 

[Moonbeam]

What pun, Moonbeam?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What pun, Moonbeam?

You, of all people should know, I'm not telling.

 

[0roo0roo]

consdering obama basically gotten away with generating a race scuffle over nothing in south carolina shows he's hardly running a positive campaign. only dupes think that. http://blog.brendanloy.com/2008/01/obama-update.html

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What pun, Moonbeam?

You, of all people should know, I'm not telling.

Neither of you answered my question: If HRC gets the Dem nomination, will you vote for her?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: bamacre
You're preaching to the choir. If you think I am defending the increased spending via Bush, you're wrong. Because I am not as excited about Obama as others, and because I am a Republican, doesn't mean I favor Bush, nor any of the these fake Republicans. If you would have taken a quick peak at my sig, you could have known this before spouting off.

Yeah, I'm preaching to the choir. Um hmm. That's why I'm having a dialogue with you.

So did you vote for him? Hmmm?

So, ummm.. now that you've noted the huge bill that's unquestionably coming due (about which I do agree), and subtly attempted to point the finger of blame at the Democrats, it's kinda fun for me to point out just who's responsible for it, based ON THE ACTUAL RECORD. That is, YOUR Party. Your "fake" Republicans, like it or not, own your party. Whether or not you're for Paul, these are your people. Deal with it. Your party has made calamitous blunders, which must be owned up to if you are ever to be taken seriously as partners in government again. Claiming you're a Libertarian while retaining Republican affiliation is an obvious attempt to have it both ways. I don't claim to be a Green while retaining Democrat affiliation.

Originally posted by: bamacre
And if you think Clinton had much to do with those surpluses, you're wrong. A rock could have balanced those budgets. It's the free market, especially new technologies, that boosted the economy under Clinton.

Uh huh. And Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 all shared in that same technological growth. Yet they managed to rack up trillions of dollars in debt that yours and my children and grandchildren will be paying off. Also, you are completely incorrect. Clinton passed a major budget reform bill in 1993 by a single vote in Congress, which provided the fiscal impetus for the surpluses of the second term. I am no fan of the Himbo, but it was among the biggest achievements of his Presidency.

You seem to enjoy blaming me for things I did not support, and for things done by people I did not support. I never voted for Bush Jr, and I wasn't old enough to vote for Bush Sr, nor Reagan of course.

You also seem to find faults in the Republican party. Good. So do I. Now, if you could just get the second half of your head out of your ass, you may be able to look at both parties and find fault with the Democrats as well.

As for the economy under Clinton, you are wrong in the fact that the previous presidents had what Clinton did. Clinton presided under the birth of Windows 95, the Pentium I processor, the beginning of the wide-spread use of the internet. Collectively they created massive opportunities for consumers and businesses, both large and small. Tons of brand new products and services, and a great deal of changes to existing products and services. Yes, the tech sector itself is small, but it is technology that created change throughout all the other sectors and sizes of businesses.

A rock could have balanced those budgets, and created those temporary surpluses.

Keep in mind, I am not really a Clinton-hater and I am not trying to bash him. But I refuse to give him credit for an economy that was boosted by the private sector, and the hard work of the people of this country who created those technologies and made good use of them.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What pun, Moonbeam?

You, of all people should know, I'm not telling.

Neither of you answered my question: If HRC gets the Dem nomination, will you vote for her?

Depends who gets nominated on the other side of the aisle and what candidates are in third party slots.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What pun, Moonbeam?

You, of all people should know, I'm not telling.

Neither of you answered my question: If HRC gets the Dem nomination, will you vote for her?

I am leaning against it. If Democrats want to run a Republican, I think I'll vote for the real thing.