Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I'm NOT a republican...see I'm against overtaxing and overspending, but it's dems and reps. most favorite past times! I'm glad that we didn't get the olympics because the only people it would have benefited is union employees....no non-union shops would receive any of those jobs (same goes for "stimulus" dollars, non-union shops, the tiny ones that struggle most in the rough economy will never, ever see a dime!)
If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck you are a duck whether you like it or not. Your views are in line with mainstream republican views.
The olympics are paid for by the host city not the federal gov't you have no right to tell the citizens of Chicago and Illinois how to spend their money.
As far as the cities paying themselves....well yeah, and who funds the cities?? Oh yeah, taxpayers!
See point above about someone in GA knowing what is best for the city of Chicago.
I really don't have any problem with BO jetting around the world. I figure we pay for so much nuts with our taxpayer dollars, that the president flying around is not one of my big concerns. My point was that someone who claims to be green did something so un-green. I think global warming/climate change, while it may be naturally occurring as some phenomenon of the earth, is mostly just a lie to scare people into wanting more government to protect them from themselves.
He has a job, he was doing it. Michelle had a job she was doing it. To expect the president to tailor his schedule when every day is pretty much scheduled to the minute is asinine. They did not go together but days apart.
Referring to GWB in a BO debate is just a convenient way for you to avoid defending BO...instead you just deflect away from the faults of your chosen leader and blame it all on someone is no longer in office, or really any position of power....and Wolf, how do you know we weren't upset about things he did? Did you know us then? Were we posting here about it? I know I wasn't....I think you just have a chip on your shoulder, so to you jig and I are on the same level as Rush Limbaugh...you make no distinction from one conservative to another.
Why should I make a distinction when you are saying the same things as Rush, or Glenn Beck? Also it is relevant because we have a two party system. One party the one associated with you "conservatives" had a chance for 8 years and put this country in a bad place. Now the other party associated with "liberals" gets a chance. Contrasting the two parties and their leaders is completely relevant to this discussion.
It is easy to hide behind statements like "I didnt like him either", you weren't out throwing teabags at dubya, and calling him a socialist when he was redistributing the wealth with those stimulus checks were you?
BTW I did defend him as well you and jig both just failed to address the points I made.
Maybe you all should just accept that Obama has sucked it hard for his time in office so far. That's good news for me though....I really hope he keeps it up, then 2010 and 2012 will be that much easier!
Lets see the stock market is out of the tank, we appear to have averted most of the damage from a recession, 73% of the public is in favor of health care reform, we have a timetable to leave Iraq, and a meaningful dialogue that should help to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Your right he is sucking bad
Also none of the red states that swung blue show any intention of swinging back in 2010, so the "conservatives" will keep their minority status for quite a bit longer it looks like.
...and Wolf, how do you know we weren't upset about things he did? Did you know us then? Were we posting here about it? I know I wasn't....I think you just have a chip on your shoulder, so to you jig and I are on the same level as Rush Limbaugh...you make no distinction from one conservative to another.
You may not have been here defending GWB, but jigawig has a history of it. Read this entire thread and you'll see that he doesn't mind dissembling or misrepresenting the facts in order to defend GWB.
I think you're sincere, Leliebomb, and unlike jigawig you genuinely seem more interested in debate than scoring cheap political points. But when you say the same things that Rush is saying (and you did that in the health care reform thread too), it's kind of hard for people not to group you with him.
Now on that note, I'm having a hard time figuring something out. You start your post saying this:
I'm NOT a republican
But then you end the post like this:
That's good news for me though....I really hope he keeps it up, then 2010 and 2012 will be that much easier!
If you're not a Republican, then I can't figure out what the quote above means. "2010 and 2012 will be that much easier" for whom? Easier for them to do what? If a Republican said that, it would make perfect sense, but since you're not a Republican, well, help me out here...
The main problem is that both sides are so anxious to prove the other wrong that they won't see a good idea for being a good idea unless it comes from their own party.
It was the Democrats knee-jerk reaction to hate everything out of Bush's mouth and now it's the Republican's turn to hate everything out of Obama's mouth. Which is so disappointing because I really feel that Obama's main goal during the political season was to end all of this and have everyone meet in the middle. Give a little, take a little, but all end up better in the end. But that's never going to happen if you keep looking for the cloud instead of the silver lining.
Neither party wants REAL change. That costs BIGbusiness money.
It's like the party in power is the Harlem Globetrotters and the "opposing" party is the Washington Generals. One gets paid to win, one gets paid to lose. The important part of the game is to convince the audience that there are checks and balances. So that they keep buying the ticket.
Real change takes sacrifice -and it's the Haves crying loudest that the Havenots are ruining the system and vice versa.
No one wants to pay more taxes.
The notion of "electability" is a farce created by the two parties in power to see to it that things stay this way. Travel outside America and you'll find that a majority of the rest of the world finds it laughable that we think we have two distinguishable parties.
...and Wolf, how do you know we weren't upset about things he did? Did you know us then? Were we posting here about it? I know I wasn't....I think you just have a chip on your shoulder, so to you jig and I are on the same level as Rush Limbaugh...you make no distinction from one conservative to another.
You may not have been here defending GWB, but jigawig has a history of it. Read this entire thread and you'll see that he doesn't mind dissembling or misrepresenting the facts in order to defend GWB.
I think you're sincere, Leliebomb, and unlike jigawig you genuinely seem more interested in debate than scoring cheap political points. But when you say the same things that Rush is saying (and you did that in the health care reform thread too), it's kind of hard for people not to group you with him.
Now on that note, I'm having a hard time figuring something out. You start your post saying this:
But then you end the post like this:
That's good news for me though....I really hope he keeps it up, then 2010 and 2012 will be that much easier!
If you're not a Republican, then I can't figure out what the quote above means. "2010 and 2012 will be that much easier" for whom? Easier for them to do what? If a Republican said that, it would make perfect sense, but since you're not a Republican, well, help me out here...
Sorry for the double post.... But I have to chime in as an outsider to the party game and say that Nitetime's logic seems sound to me.
Plus I want to know where all these tea party fools were when the bank bailout was going down sponsored by GWB. No one propped ya up and got ya all hot and bothered about government efficiency then, DID THEY ?
Post by strumntheguitar on Oct 6, 2009 17:01:55 GMT -5
This thread provides me with so much entertainment reading through it.
I for one don't think Obama has sucked thus far in his term. I don't think he's done everything he set out to do from the start in the given time frame but he sure as hell has busted his balls trying. Sure he's flopped on a few issues here or there, but that kind of stuff doesn't really get under my skin so much. I think of it as him adhering to conflicting views and seeing the reason behind those who disagree with him. Maybe I'm mistaken and his intentions from the beginning were to say one thing while doing another.
Either way, our country has made a pretty good start to a recovery from a recession. Sure it cost billions of dollars but that's what you have to do to get out of tough situations. A President doesn't resolve a recession. A President with lots of money to throw around does. Look at The Great Depression. Everything was looking real grim until the US started throwing out who knows how much money on the beginning of WWII. Money is always the answer to these problems it seems.
Regarding the satisfaction in Obama failing/not getting what he wants... I guess that's just the "not-Republicans" trying to get back at when all the Democrats were ragging on GWB during his terms in office. I'm sure it was just as irritating for the right side to sit back and listen to what all these Dems were saying about their President. I think I only really ever ragged hard on Bush though when he brought his grammar to an elementary school level and when he just gave himself monthly vacations from his stressful job. As far as his policies went, I knew I'd disagree with them from the start for the most part. I never hated on him for trying to get what he believed in accomplished. I didn't agree with it, but I never expected anything different from him.
And on a side note... why are these "not-Republicans" afraid of being labeled as such? You rag on Obama, you disagree with what his idea of success is, and you're already hoping for a Republican victory in the next election. You're a f*cking Republican, and be proud of it and stand strong for your viewpoints. You may be a Republican with some liberal viewpoints, but you're clearly affiliated with a party if you already know what side you're voting with next election. I'm not disrespecting your viewpoints in this whatsoever, I just don't understand why someone is so cautious to let someone label them as Republican at this point in time... ???
You may be a Republican with some liberal viewpoints
I believe the correct nomenclature is "libertarian."
Only if they had half s spine. I believe most of them are afraid to wander from the flock ! They like to call themselves "independent" but they are not independent of the dominant paradigm . They are greedy tool republicans who can't muster the intelligence to do anything but repeat that which they are indoctrinated to. Rest assured they will all vote republican no matter who runs.
You're a corporate oligarchist if you already know which "side" you'll be voting for next time...part of the pollution not the solution.
Here's a question for anyone who is a "party faithful" whichever side it be. Why do you expect your party to represent YOU if they know they will get your vote regardless ? Choosing sides leads us all down the wrong road. Right to where we are now. And not because the "great threat" Obama occupies the Whitehouse, but because lobbyists and puppetmasters do.
Every point made by a republican(or non republican) or democrat in this thread is valid. Just for all the wrong reasons. Everyone wants to back a winner, but this isn't class president anymore people. Your undying faith and partisanship has made them unaccountable to you.
It's a tenet of jeremy Bentham polished by the political thinker John Stuart Mill called tyranny of the majority. And we are all victims of the puppets in this country(51% every election) being led by the puppetmasters.
Anyone out there hip to Democracy Now, Bill Moyers, CommonDreams ? C'mon and read some independent patriotic REAL DEBATE and we can all get beyond the "lesser of two evils".
I agree Obama has a good heart. But being the bridgebuilder has escalated Afghanistan, lifted corporate culpability in the FISA situation, and continues to deepen the pockets of Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big Business in general.
I don't buy al qaeda as our reasoning for being there. The Soviets found Afghan occupation too costly and futile. We boycotted an olympics because of Their presence. We are there to insure CIA profit in the war on distributing NO NO WORD!!!. You simply can't get away with occupation. Period. And that's what it takes to get tribes who have grown opium for a living for generations to stop.
If we had such an issue with al qaeda, we could covert ops it and take out camps with drones.
500,000 troops needed ?
Yeah-to build bridges, breakwalls, and gardens... in MY country.
Last Edit: Oct 6, 2009 18:47:03 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
But come on... we started the war in Afghanistan. If we're going to invade and occupy a country, can we at least agree the decent thing to do is to leave the place at least as well off as when we arrived?
But it takes alot more men on the ground to build the oil pipeline that bleeds the Caspian /Aral Sea areas and circumvents the Persian Gulf(ie IRAN) for resource colonialism.
Afghanistan is perfect because of the oppression of the Taliban and the fundage from opium trade.
Oh...and a forgotten terrorist Osama...Bush's former buddy who wouldn't sell out his countrymen like Tariq Haziz or the rest.
Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Follow the money.
Last Edit: Oct 6, 2009 22:43:39 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
He has a job, he was doing it. Michelle had a job she was doing it.
Um... sorry. He has a job. He was not doing it. Lobbying for the Olympics is not part of his duties as president. That's why his doing so was so unprecedented. The people/city of Chicago should not be getting extra special service from the president of the United States which is essentially what happened.
Michelle does not have a job. She is first lady. That is an unofficial title applied to the spouse of the president. She is a wife and nothing more. She receives no salary and has no official duties. She is absolutely entitled to lobby for the Olympics. I may not like footing the bill for her transportation, but as a prominent person from Chicago she is entitled to do so. Don't ever fool yourself into thinking that she is employed in some way. That's how Hillary Clinton became a senator in a state where she never lived.
Post by Fishing Maniac on Oct 7, 2009 11:52:47 GMT -5
Stop calling LelieBomb a republican. If she is not a registered member of the republican party then she's not a republican. You have no right to force a label on her that she neither wants or identifies with (you communist pinkos you ). It's remarkably unfair how people that express views that are not leftist and liberal in nature get ganged up on around here.
If one looks into some of the more political threads, she , jig, and you for that matter, have a history of spouting off some unfounded jive turkey lobs, many of which(not yours) are rooted deeply in what the party line talking points that come across the airwaves in various forms are pushing.
Then, when challenged, none of them can answer to the debunking of their propaganda. Republicans in general, since Reagan, have become masters of divide and conquer strategy of the liberals. More recently, they have endeared themselves to misleading the ignorant. It's been proven in court since the election of 2000 I believe.
I think the majority here are just snopes'n out the bullhonkey brah. Ganging up on unfounded politically driven allegations and flat out lies is also NOT a bad thing in my opinion...
Last Edit: Oct 7, 2009 14:54:50 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
He has a job, he was doing it. Michelle had a job she was doing it.
Um... sorry. He has a job. He was not doing it. Lobbying for the Olympics is not part of his duties as president. That's why his doing so was so unprecedented. The people/city of Chicago should not be getting extra special service from the president of the United States which is essentially what happened.
Michelle does not have a job. She is first lady. That is an unofficial title applied to the spouse of the president. She is a wife and nothing more. She receives no salary and has no official duties. She is absolutely entitled to lobby for the Olympics. I may not like footing the bill for her transportation, but as a prominent person from Chicago she is entitled to do so. Don't ever fool yourself into thinking that she is employed in some way. That's how Hillary Clinton became a senator in a state where she never lived.
Ok first off it is the duty of the President as head of the department of state to represent American interests abroad. Don't act like it is not in his job description because you dont like what he was doing. Secondly the first lady has many duties and from Eleanor Roosevelt to Laura Bush they have been represented as part of the face of America, and have taken part in policy debates, and been given their own initiatives.
As to paying for her transportation do you REALLY think that they are just gonna put FLOTUS on a commercial flight, I am sure the secret service would not allow it first off, and it is a stupid idea secondly. What kind of effect could our enemies have on us if they manged to kidnap or harm our Presidents wife?
Stop calling LelieBomb a republican. If she is not a registered member of the republican party then she's not a republican. You have no right to force a label on her that she neither wants or identifies with (you communist pinkos you ). It's remarkably unfair how people that express views that are not leftist and liberal in nature get ganged up on around here.
Well she supports primarily right wing viewpoints, and knows how she will vote both in just over a year, and just over 2 years in the National elections. I could call her a right wing conservative supporter of the GOP, but republican is easier to type.
Post by steveternal on Oct 7, 2009 17:46:19 GMT -5
Her post alluded more to the loss of the Dems in the next elections than in the victory of the Reps. Two-party system, yeah, but let's at least take things at face value.
And I'm calling BS on these complaints that she already has her mind made up, party-wise. I watched all the discussions that went on around here leading up to the presidential election, and nearly everyone (and that includes most of you now pointing fingers at Lelie) knew way in advance that they were going to vote Dem. "Anyone's better than ___________!! (insert non-Democrat politician here)" People can have all kinds of reasons for making that decision, and some are fine, so I'm not trying to judge anyone specifically on that point, just shedding light on hypocrisy.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Oct 7, 2009 18:23:20 GMT -5
I wasn't even here before Obama was elected, so I don't appreciate being implicated in your charge of hypocrisy. If you're going to call somebody out, call them out, and don't smear everyone in the conversation.
Her post alluded more to the loss of the Dems in the next elections than in the victory of the Reps. Two-party system, yeah, but let's at least take things at face value.
And I'm calling BS on these complaints that she already has her mind made up, party-wise. I watched all the discussions that went on around here leading up to the presidential election, and nearly everyone (and that includes most of you now pointing fingers at Lelie) knew way in advance that they were going to vote Dem. "Anyone's better than ___________!! (insert non-Democrat politician here)" People can have all kinds of reasons for making that decision, and some are fine, so I'm not trying to judge anyone specifically on that point, just shedding light on hypocrisy.
Carry on.
I certainly never alluded I would vote anything other than democrat. However she certainly alluded she would only vote Republican see her "2010 will be much easier" comment. It does not in iron bonds convict you to only voting one way, but is easy to see where sympathies lie.
I have not said anyone is better than a non democrat, but we have a two party system, and one of those parties will be in power. The one that had power the past 8 years screwed us over pretty good imo. I am not going to support a third party candidate because long term that is meaningless, and I imagine she has made the same calculation. Therefore as independent as I am I will support democrats, and as independent as she is she will support republicans. While I hate to label anyone for the purposes of an internet discussion these seem to be accurate labels.
I am not going to support a third party candidate because long term that is meaningless, and I imagine she has made the same calculation.
I'll support smaller parties in local elections, depending on the candidate, but I agree voting for a third party in a national election at this point in history is pretty much a waste of a trip to the voting booth.
Well she supports primarily right wing viewpoints, and knows how she will vote both in just over a year, and just over 2 years in the National elections. I could call her a right wing conservative supporter of the GOP, but republican is easier to type.
Nice try, but if that were the case you wouldn't have gone through all the trouble and typing to insist that she was a republican like you did in the post below.
I'm NOT a republican...see I'm against overtaxing and overspending, but it's dems and reps. most favorite past times! I'm glad that we didn't get the olympics because the only people it would have benefited is union employees....no non-union shops would receive any of those jobs (same goes for "stimulus" dollars, non-union shops, the tiny ones that struggle most in the rough economy will never, ever see a dime!)
If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck you are a duck whether you like it or not. Your views are in line with mainstream republican views.
The olympics are paid for by the host city not the federal gov't you have no right to tell the citizens of Chicago and Illinois how to spend their money.
See point above about someone in GA knowing what is best for the city of Chicago.
He has a job, he was doing it. Michelle had a job she was doing it. To expect the president to tailor his schedule when every day is pretty much scheduled to the minute is asinine. They did not go together but days apart.
Why should I make a distinction when you are saying the same things as Rush, or Glenn Beck? Also it is relevant because we have a two party system. One party the one associated with you "conservatives" had a chance for 8 years and put this country in a bad place. Now the other party associated with "liberals" gets a chance. Contrasting the two parties and their leaders is completely relevant to this discussion.
It is easy to hide behind statements like "I didnt like him either", you weren't out throwing teabags at dubya, and calling him a socialist when he was redistributing the wealth with those stimulus checks were you?
BTW I did defend him as well you and jig both just failed to address the points I made.
Maybe you all should just accept that Obama has sucked it hard for his time in office so far. That's good news for me though....I really hope he keeps it up, then 2010 and 2012 will be that much easier!
Lets see the stock market is out of the tank, we appear to have averted most of the damage from a recession, 73% of the public is in favor of health care reform, we have a timetable to leave Iraq, and a meaningful dialogue that should help to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Your right he is sucking bad
Also none of the red states that swung blue show any intention of swinging back in 2010, so the "conservatives" will keep their minority status for quite a bit longer it looks like.
I wasn't even here before Obama was elected, so I don't appreciate being implicated in your charge of hypocrisy. If you're going to call somebody out, call them out, and don't smear everyone in the conversation.
He didn't implicate you. You identified with his statement.
I am not going to support a third party candidate because long term that is meaningless, and I imagine she has made the same calculation.
I'll support smaller parties in local elections, depending on the candidate, but I agree voting for a third party in a national election at this point in history is pretty much a waste of a trip to the voting booth.
And I'm calling BS on these complaints that she already has her mind made up, party-wise. I watched all the discussions that went on around here leading up to the presidential election, and nearly everyone (and that includes most of you now pointing fingers at Lelie) knew way in advance that they were going to vote Dem.
Fair enough, but then again most of us (certainly not Red and perhaps a few others ) won't raise hell if someone labeled us a Democrat. I feel like for the most part the response would just be a confirmation. Perhaps I'm just speaking for myself here, but if someone called me a Democrat I certainly wouldn't try and argue that point. I'm not a registered member of the party or anything, but I am more or less a Democrat at heart.