Slam Obama (merged)

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Sorry, I don't watch Fox News. The info I do have comes from books. Papers, pamphlets, and a long list of historical documents. But to undrstand the US of A, one has to understand the foundations first. And what set it aside from the rest of the world.

I am pretty much aware of the US foundations. I'd also say I understand the american mindset, which, in principle, I even admire for it's independence and positive outlook to the future and the US' strong emphasisis on individual responsebility, some of what most of the EU countries could use a bit more temselves.

That does not change the fact, however, that the terms used by you are completly dissorted in their meaning and in parts pitted against each other or thrown together in ways that make absolutely no sense, neither from a political nor economical POV.

Labelling socialism as lacking law, for exaple, is so off it boggles the mind, and makes only sense if you take the far right capitalistic government system of the US as the absolute truth. Which of course, it is not, like anything else on this planet based on ideology.

[August]

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Don't forget that Senor Boosh also said the Constitution is just a GD piece of paper. I really think he looks upon himself as the dictator of America. His push towards the NAU is to have more land to rule over. Call me crazy, but I really think the man to be power hungry

The problem with your theory is that dictators never give up their power, whereas Bush is going to walk away from it voluntarily come this February.

And he's right. The Constitution IS just a GD piece of paper. It's the laws and ideals that are written on it which are important, not the document itself.

Originally Posted by August

The problem with your theory is that dictators never give up their power, whereas Bush is going to walk away from it voluntarily come this February.

And he's right. The Constitution IS just a GD piece of paper. It's the laws and ideals that are written on it which are important, not the document itself.

Wow, this post made my jaw drop. Do you have any idea what you just said? He isn't walking away voluntarily, due to that so called "GD piece of paper" he can't stay more than 8 years, I assure you he would if he could.

You need to hit the library, that "GD piece of paper" known as the constitution is the reason we are not having this conversation in People's Factory Number 517...

[August]

Originally Posted by Flamingboat

Wow, this post made my jaw drop. Do you have any idea what you just said? He isn't walking away voluntarily, due to that so called "GD piece of paper" he can't stay more than 8 years, I assure you he would if he could.

Yeah need to hit the library, that "GD piece of paper" known as the constitution is the reason we are not having this conversation in People's Factory Number 517...

And you need to take a reading comprehension course. I have bolded the relevant part for you. Do you seriously think that if the Constitution document should say burn up in a fire that we don't have a Constitution any more?

[Hylander_1314]

I didn't say socialism lacks law. If anything, as I understand it, it is more intrusive. So if I took off on a tangent, which I do from time to time, sorry.

But if you look at it, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Capitalism are all capitalist. Who "owns" the capital is the difference. Your capital is your means of production. Now if the US Gov. gets it's hands in the mix, it's a recipe for disaster. It takes our foundations and pushes them closer to the edge of the window. Especially since the primary job of the US Gov. is to secure and protect the rights of the people. Not to give them or take them away. Our rights according to the Declaration of Independence come from the Creator. Not from government.
"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Amongst them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
"....that to secure these rights, governments are instituted amongst men."

Thankyou for the compliments on our attitudes of independence, liberty and personal responsibility. But it (responsibility) too is lacking here. On the financial end, how many people use bankruptcy as a way of getting out of their debts. Or how many people think the government owes them. We used to have thing here called debtors prison, and believe it or not, quite a few of the founders spent time there.

I really railed on a close friend who ran up thousands in business investments and then had the audacity to say that it was his right to file bankruptcy since he couldn't afford them. Most of it was in advertising, so the salesreps for these advertisers are guilty of misleading him, but as I told him, he is the most responsible as he is the one who signed off on the contract without thinking it through thoroughly. I was really steamed with this, as he came to me for council on this, and we went over the flagging economy, the fact that when the markets fall into trouble, he is going to fall on hard times. If the people with money don't have it to spend, what is going to happen to the general populace? And trust me, I'm no economist, I never studied it, other than the general education supplied by the public schools (at the time called civics), and recommended reading by my instructors. I couldn't afford college, nor could my folks, and back then, there wasn't common knowledge of grants, and government assistance for advanced schooling. See I did it again.

And I do not harbor any ill will toward the forms of government other countries posess. But to try to integrate them into our form of a Constitutional Republic is counter to what it was founded as. But for the last 90 years our country has been referred to as a democracy, as it is taught that way in the school system, which is incorrect according to the founders. So from a very early age children are indoctrinated to believe a false form. Even Thomas Jefferson who started the "Democratic Republican Party" never referred to our nation as a democracy, nor did Hamilton, Franklin, Madison, Jay, or the other men who argued over what we should have, once independence was secured.

But the more involved the government here gets with business, the closer to a totalitarian system we get. Whether it be any one of them.

[Rockin Robbins]

Sheesh folks, let's agree to a couple of things. Let me toss 'em out one by one:

Bush is no conservative. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Bush is no leader. Ronald Reagan was a leader, who commanded the respect of those who did not agree with him. What Bush does does not reflect on conservatives at all, or conservatism.

President Clinton was the best Republican he could be for six years. His whole presidency after 1994 was based on finding out what the Republicans wanted and doing it first. Although liberal by inclination, Clinton was an opportunist, who chose his actions by ease of accomplishment and estimated amount of popular acclaim that would result. Were Clinton president on September 11, 2001, he would have done exactly what President Bush did, including the war in Iraq, and for the same reasons.

Actually, both Bushes and Clinton were identical types of president. They would say they had a position, walk into a meeting and say, "but who cares what I think, let's make a deal." The only area where HW Bush showed any leadership was the war against terrorism and Iraq, and he was unable to explain satisfactorily why he did the right thing. That yields the same result as doing the wrong thing.

I am a conservative, but conservatives are making a grave mistake by calling liberals a bunch of pansies. If Obama is elected president (and I predict he will, God help us) and if he pulls out of Iraq (I believe he won't, among lots of other things he won't) our army will have a shadow when it returns and the shadow will gleefully switch from fighting trained and well-armed volunteers in their part of the world to killing defenseless civilians in our country. I would give 50% odds that within a couple of years of our return we will wake up to a large northeastern or Californian city being wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear explosion. Note that it will be a liberal city.

At that point, all the Republicans who think the American liberals are a bunch of pansies will learn that they are wrong. The liberals are doing nothing more than giving the militant Islamic terrorists one last chance. Their reaction to the inevitable payback for their pullback from the foreign battlefield will be an unrestrained attack of unbridled fury and death. The war of the Republicans sacrificed American lives to avoid undue civilian carnage and tried to protect the innocent. The liberal backlash will do no such thing. The words "fuel-air bomb" will be literally burnt into your memory for the rest of your life. It will be middle eastern destruction, a war of unimaginable cruelty without regard for life or property, friend or foe. But unlike the Republican patty-cake war, it will work. After all, peace with an implacable enemy only results from resounding, complete victory in war.

You can make friends afterwards with the survivors, if any.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

I am a conservative, but conservatives are making a grave mistake by calling liberals a bunch of pansies. If Obama is elected president (and I predict he will, God help us) and if he pulls out of Iraq (I believe he won't, among lots of other things he won't) our army will have a shadow when it returns and the shadow will gleefully switch from fighting trained and well-armed volunteers in their part of the world to killing defenseless civilians in our country. I would give 50% odds that within a couple of years of our return we will wake up to a large northeastern or Californian city being wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear explosion. Note that it will be a liberal city.

At that point, all the Republicans who think the American liberals are a bunch of pansies will learn that they are wrong. The liberals are doing nothing more than giving the militant Islamic terrorists one last chance. Their reaction to the inevitable payback for their pullback from the foreign battlefield will be an unrestrained attack of unbridled fury and death. The war of the Republicans sacrificed American lives to avoid undue civilian carnage and tried to protect the innocent. The liberal backlash will do no such thing. The words "fuel-air bomb" will be literally burnt into your memory for the rest of your life. It will be middle eastern destruction, a war of unimaginable cruelty without regard for life or property, friend or foe. But unlike the Republican patty-cake war, it will work. After all, peace with an implacable enemy only results from resounding, complete victory in war.

You can make friends afterwards with the survivors, if any.

Whoa there chief, you really need to go get some air, I'm not kidding. Go on a date, play with a cat or something. The terrorists don't have nukes. Only in paranoid fantasy Rush Limbaugh land do sand dwellers go from RPGs and Ak-47s to nukes. It just doesn't work that way.

Your fear mongering is off the charts.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Flamingboat

The terrorists don't have nukes.

If you liberals have your way...they will eventually.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

If you liberals have your way...they will eventually.

*rolls eyes

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Flamingboat

*rolls eyes

This is why you liberals aren't fit to run this country. I'm sure Obama is rolling his eyes to the threats America faces in the future as well.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

This is why you liberals aren't fit to run this country. I'm sure Obama is rolling his eyes to the threats America faces in the future as well.

I hate to tell you this, but republicans don't have a monopoly on the military. I was in the army. I met many liberals. They were mostly special forces, SEALs, etc. The run of the mill dumb grunt and truck driver is usually a right winger though. No surprise there.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Flamingboat

I hate to tell you this, but republicans don't have a monopoly on the military. I was in the army. I met many liberals. They were mostly special forces, SEALs, etc. The run of the mill dumb grunt and truck driver is usually a right winger though. No surprise there.

I was in the USAF. And deployed in joint operations. While raw politics was never really discussed, it was obvious to me most would be Republican as voters. I doubt you ever served in the military. Or if you did, you got a dishonorable discharge with the work ethic you describe yourself as having. I know three people who used to be in Army special forces and they are just as horrified of the Democrat Party as I am.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I know three people who used to be in Army special forces and they are just as horrified of the Democrat Party as I am.

I knew a SF medic 18D blacker than shoe polish, who won't be hanging out with McLame anytime soon. I got a bad conduct discharge actually. Seems I don't take to kindly to authority. Can you imagine?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Flamingboat

I knew a SF medic 18D blacker than shoe polish, who won't be hanging out with McLame anytime soon.

OK. But you do know that demographically, the military has usually gone Republican. We all understand what happens to the military when Democrats have power. Those of us who served in the Clinton military remember. Things like the Democrats threatening to stop funding our soldiers who are in harms way doesn't help Democrats. Nor does it help your argument. I know these people largely go Republican by experience. It's why the Democrats were trying to throw out military ballots in Florida in 2000. They knew that as well.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Flamingboat

I knew a SF medic 18D blacker than shoe polish, who won't be hanging out with McLame anytime soon. I got a bad conduct discharge actually. Seems I don't take to kindly to authority. Can you imagine?

Sorry to hear of your BCD, what was your MOS?