Re: Presidential Race

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:22 pm

pez wrote:
It is your responsibility to eat right and take care of yourself and your family's health.
- Sure... All we need to do is just eat right. Healthy people are never in car accidents. It's always the fat slobs that get hit, and at that point it's probabaly best to just roll their bleeding carcass into an open trench where it can bloat in the sun even more.

I laughed out loud when I read this! Sweet! Not just "Fat" but "Slobs" Very Happy

Canuck Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:27 pm

meta4 wrote:
pez wrote:
It is your responsibility to eat right and take care of yourself and your family's health.
- Sure... All we need to do is just eat right. Healthy people are never in car accidents. It's always the fat slobs that get hit, and at that point it's probabaly best to just roll their bleeding carcass into an open trench where it can bloat in the sun even more.

I laughed out loud when I read this! Sweet! Not just "Fat" but "Slobs"

I just realized what Pez said...ditto meta, I laughed at this too.

LTRT Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:31 pm

pez wrote:Blindly sending our children into harms way is just as unsupportive as spitting on them when they return home. After 4000 kids have died for nothing, "stay the course" is a slap in the face.
But other than that stuff, yea, it pretty much sums it up.

Why do the democrats always use the phrases of 'children' and 'kids'? I truely expect to be bashed in the response, but this one doesn't make sense. Yes, everyone is someone's child but the last I knew they never instituted any draft? Did they not volunteer in the military?

Oops, maybe I answered my own question, I thought the military was a word that related to matters of war or the armed forces. Yes, yes, yes, we've all heard....."a war that should've never happened", etc.

Could you please tell us when or what would constitute sending "our children into harms way" would be?

LTRT Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:38 pm

pez wrote:
LTRT wrote:
pez wrote:" Shame on the JG for printing such excrement.

What happened to freedom of speech.

LOL... How about telling me WHY you think this sums it up, the exchange of ideas is what message boards are all about.

Hop on the same side of the tracks please. It's ok for the left to avoid questions and go on with multiple paragraph rants about the war, economy, etc. But yet it's wrong to have a one liner coming from the right. Rolling Eyes

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:52 pm

pez wrote:Yea, he said in six paragraphs what I could said in one sentence, "I'm an uneducated tool." Shame on the JG for printing such excrement. To assume that the fact that I support Obama means that I somehow feel entitled to that which I achieved by many years of hard work is incredibly short sighted. A hearty F-you to the dim old scumbag that wrote this.

It is your responsibility as an individual of the United States of America to support yourself and family with employment.
- no shit. Who said otherwise? Government's responsibility here is to provide an environment that creates jobs, and removes the barriers of racism and sexism to each.

It is your responsibility to educate yourself past high school to better your life.
- if you arent willing to provide for your own education past high school, the odds are pretty good you dont have the fortutude to get a degree.

It is your responsibility to eat right and take care of yourself and your family's health.
- Sure... All we need to do is just eat right. Healthy people are never in car accidents. It's always the fat slobs that get hit, and at that point it's probabaly best to just roll their bleeding carcass into an open trench where it can bloat in the sun even more.

It is your responsibility to raise your family in a moral and wholesome environment, to respect others and this country's freedoms.
- nice link between respecting my country and raising my family in a moral & wholesome environment. What the hell does Hillary, Obama, communism, socialism have to do with this?

It is your responsibility to live within your means and not expect the government to bail you out.
- Damn, thanks, I need to cancel the layaway on my 90" plasma that I just knew Obama was gonna pay for.

It should be in your heart to respect and honor the men and women who fought for our freedoms that sometimes are taken for granted.
- Like I really need a lecture about respecting my country from someone who thinks Obama supporters are communists.

We should respect and honor the men and women who are fighting to ensure other people in the world have freedoms like ours.
- Step off Jack!!! Like the war in Iraq is about anything. I support my troops by wanting to get them out of the way of a meaningless war with dubious goals and even more dubious justification. Blindly sending our children into harms way is just as unsupportive as spitting on them when they return home. After 4000 kids have died for nothing, "stay the course" is a slap in the face.

But other than that stuff, yea, it pretty much sums it up.

Amen brother ... park it there!

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:19 pm

LTRT wrote:
pez wrote:Blindly sending our children into harms way is just as unsupportive as spitting on them when they return home. After 4000 kids have died for nothing, "stay the course" is a slap in the face.
But other than that stuff, yea, it pretty much sums it up.

Why do the democrats always use the phrases of 'children' and 'kids'? I truely expect to be bashed in the response, but this one doesn't make sense. Yes, everyone is someone's child but the last I knew they never instituted any draft? Did they not volunteer in the military?

Oops, maybe I answered my own question, I thought the military was a word that related to matters of war or the armed forces. Yes, yes, yes, we've all heard....."a war that should've never happened", etc.

Could you please tell us when or what would constitute sending "our children into harms way" would be?

Interesting... I stand humbly corrected. The average age of those that died in vietnam was 19. The average age of those that have died in Iraq is 30. I had no idea.

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:23 pm

pez wrote:
LTRT wrote:
pez wrote:Blindly sending our children into harms way is just as unsupportive as spitting on them when they return home. After 4000 kids have died for nothing, "stay the course" is a slap in the face.
But other than that stuff, yea, it pretty much sums it up.

Why do the democrats always use the phrases of 'children' and 'kids'? I truely expect to be bashed in the response, but this one doesn't make sense. Yes, everyone is someone's child but the last I knew they never instituted any draft? Did they not volunteer in the military?

Oops, maybe I answered my own question, I thought the military was a word that related to matters of war or the armed forces. Yes, yes, yes, we've all heard....."a war that should've never happened", etc.

Could you please tell us when or what would constitute sending "our children into harms way" would be?

Interesting... I stand humbly corrected. The average age of those that died in vietnam was 19. The average age of those that have died in Iraq is 30. I had no idea.

Is 30 a justifiable age to be killed for no reason? I would be curious if the avg age in the military is in fact increasing if that is a direct correlation to the state of our economy?

Markwes Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:24 pm

Yeah Pez, the letter has a condecending tone to it, so I can understand your reaction as an Obama supporter. I think what he was trying to do was direct the letter to people like Bman who have jumped on the bandwagon and think all the country's problems will be solved if Barack or Hillary get elected because of more government. For example, both candidates want universal healthcare reform right? Although I believe Hillary's is definitely the more "generous" of the 2 candidates. Some see this as an attempt for the government to bail out people who know they are better off mooching off the government than actually getting a job. I like the idea of helping those in need to get back on their feet. What I don't like is giving them a reason to continue doing nothing and getting rewarded for it.

LTRT Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:29 pm

Bman wrote:
pez wrote:
LTRT wrote:
pez wrote:Blindly sending our children into harms way is just as unsupportive as spitting on them when they return home. After 4000 kids have died for nothing, "stay the course" is a slap in the face.
But other than that stuff, yea, it pretty much sums it up.

Why do the democrats always use the phrases of 'children' and 'kids'? I truely expect to be bashed in the response, but this one doesn't make sense. Yes, everyone is someone's child but the last I knew they never instituted any draft? Did they not volunteer in the military?

Oops, maybe I answered my own question, I thought the military was a word that related to matters of war or the armed forces. Yes, yes, yes, we've all heard....."a war that should've never happened", etc.

Could you please tell us when or what would constitute sending "our children into harms way" would be?

Interesting... I stand humbly corrected. The average age of those that died in vietnam was 19. The average age of those that have died in Iraq is 30. I had no idea.

Is 30 a justifiable age to be killed for no reason? I would be curious if the avg age in the military is in fact increasing if that is a direct correlation to the state of our economy?

Tangent-------

What's Obama going to do about all the boys and girls killing each other on the inner city streets of the US?

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:42 pm

"Although I believe Hillary's is definitely the more "generous" of the 2 candidates."

OK, now my curiousity is peaked. You actually read and analyzed both ideas and came to that conclusion? I guess I would have to know how you are using the word "generous" to arrive at the same conclusion. I'm not saying that to argue and I'm pretty much laying low until bman returns to his senses but I would appreciate any links you may have regarding the issue for a research project I'm working on. (reliable/peer reviewed type sources) or just in general what you've read and your own personal impressions that lead you to believe that HC has a more generous healthcare reform plan than OB.

Thanks In Advance,
VIS

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:49 pm

Markwes wrote:Yeah Pez, the letter has a condecending tone to it, so I can understand your reaction as an Obama supporter. I think what he was trying to do was direct the letter to people like Bman who have jumped on the bandwagon and think all the country's problems will be solved if Barack or Hillary get elected because of more government. For example, both candidates want universal healthcare reform right? Although I believe Hillary's is definitely the more "generous" of the 2 candidates. Some see this as an attempt for the government to bail out people who know they are better off mooching off the government than actually getting a job. I like the idea of helping those in need to get back on their feet. What I don't like is giving them a reason to continue doing nothing and getting rewarded for it.

Markwes, we do agree on the fundamentals of decent life. However, how many people do you know personally that are this way, as you say, mooching and getting rewarded for it? How does one distill news reports, and statistics into a belief of this sort? I mean, I've never seen the list, if one exists.

John Q. Public Male Age 35 Moocher 3 Children Divorced

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:53 pm

LTRT wrote:

Tangent-------

What's Obama going to do about all the boys and girls killing each other on the inner city streets of the US?

His platform is built around 5-6 key points. There's a lot more detail, but you can find it just as I can:

- Closing of the gun show looophole
- Making the ban on assault weapon permanent
- Support of community poilicing (like C.O.P.S.)
- Repeal of the tiahrt amendment (prevents cops from using gun tracking information)
- implement a program similar to ceasefire in Chicago (which uses, among many things, faith based interventions, please roast me)
- prison to work incentive programs to reduce re-offenses

He's pro 2nd amendment, just wants to have a more common sense approach to the rights of gun owners.

I'm not sure what Hillary or McCain's stance is...

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:04 pm

Vis wrote:"Although I believe Hillary's is definitely the more "generous" of the 2 candidates."

OK, now my curiousity is peaked. You actually read and analyzed both ideas and came to that conclusion? I guess I would have to know how you are using the word "generous" to arrive at the same conclusion. I'm not saying that to argue and I'm pretty much laying low until bman returns to his senses but I would appreciate any links you may have regarding the issue for a research project I'm working on. (reliable/peer reviewed type sources) or just in general what you've read and your own personal impressions that lead you to believe that HC has a more generous healthcare reform plan than OB.

Thanks In Advance,
VIS

I don't believe there is much of a difference actually... however.. Obama's campaign has done a good job of pointing to items that they believe will help people save money, they just leave out that Hillary's plan does pretty much the same thing. From what I've noticed they both rely on tax credits, which is pretty pointless for the lowest income taxpayers as odds are they'll have to go to H&R Block or somewhere like that to get them done, so they'll lose $200-300 right there, unless they go to the IRS to have it done, which will only happen for so long for free.

Neither plan "requires" people to have insurance, but Hillary (and I believe Obama) does have "penalties" in place if you don't have insurance. So essentially, they are requiring you.

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:11 pm

pez wrote:Yea, he said in six paragraphs what I could said in one sentence, "I'm an uneducated tool." Shame on the JG for printing such excrement. To assume that the fact that I support Obama means that I somehow feel entitled to that which I achieved by many years of hard work is incredibly short sighted. A hearty F-you to the dim old scumbag that wrote this.

It is your responsibility as an individual of the United States of America to support yourself and family with employment.
- no shit. Who said otherwise? Government's responsibility here is to provide an environment that creates jobs, and removes the barriers of racism and sexism to each.

It is your responsibility to educate yourself past high school to better your life.
- if you arent willing to provide for your own education past high school, the odds are pretty good you dont have the fortutude to get a degree.

It is your responsibility to eat right and take care of yourself and your family's health.
- Sure... All we need to do is just eat right. Healthy people are never in car accidents. It's always the fat slobs that get hit, and at that point it's probabaly best to just roll their bleeding carcass into an open trench where it can bloat in the sun even more.

It is your responsibility to raise your family in a moral and wholesome environment, to respect others and this country's freedoms.
- nice link between respecting my country and raising my family in a moral & wholesome environment. What the hell does Hillary, Obama, communism, socialism have to do with this?

It is your responsibility to live within your means and not expect the government to bail you out.
- Damn, thanks, I need to cancel the layaway on my 90" plasma that I just knew Obama was gonna pay for.

It should be in your heart to respect and honor the men and women who fought for our freedoms that sometimes are taken for granted.
- Like I really need a lecture about respecting my country from someone who thinks Obama supporters are communists.

We should respect and honor the men and women who are fighting to ensure other people in the world have freedoms like ours.
- Step off Jack!!! Like the war in Iraq is about anything. I support my troops by wanting to get them out of the way of a meaningless war with dubious goals and even more dubious justification. Blindly sending our children into harms way is just as unsupportive as spitting on them when they return home. After 4000 kids have died for nothing, "stay the course" is a slap in the face.

But other than that stuff, yea, it pretty much sums it up.

While I agree this guy's "tone" appears to be a bit one sided.. it also sounds like he's generalizing about as much as Bman is.. only he's going the other way. In essence.. this sounds like Bizzaro-Bman for all the Seinfeld fans out there.

I think he has some valid points in that the Dem's in general are trying to expand the role of government and feel that it's their responsibility to solve the woe's of the nation rather than allowing us to solve them ourselves. It's the classic Big Government/Little Government debate.. only right now we have Big Government that isn't doing a whole lot..

IMO we need to reduce a large part of what the federal government does, period.

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:19 pm

cardinal5150 wrote:
While I agree this guy's "tone" appears to be a bit one sided.. it also sounds like he's generalizing about as much as Bman is.. only he's going the other way. In essence.. this sounds like Bizzaro-Bman for all the Seinfeld fans out there.

I think he has some valid points in that the Dem's in general are trying to expand the role of government and feel that it's their responsibility to solve the woe's of the nation rather than allowing us to solve them ourselves. It's the classic Big Government/Little Government debate.. only right now we have Big Government that isn't doing a whole lot..

IMO we need to reduce a large part of what the federal government does, period.

So basically, you're saying you support a government which currently is either unwilling or unable to do what it's charged to do, and make it smaller... and then somehow problems will fix themselves. Fascinating!

Markwes Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:19 pm

Vis wrote:"Although I believe Hillary's is definitely the more "generous" of the 2 candidates."

OK, now my curiousity is peaked. You actually read and analyzed both ideas and came to that conclusion? I guess I would have to know how you are using the word "generous" to arrive at the same conclusion. I'm not saying that to argue and I'm pretty much laying low until bman returns to his senses but I would appreciate any links you may have regarding the issue for a research project I'm working on. (reliable/peer reviewed type sources) or just in general what you've read and your own personal impressions that lead you to believe that HC has a more generous healthcare reform plan than OB.

Thanks In Advance,
VIS

I have to admit, it was in regards to something I remembered hearing way back on the radio (and before anyone says anything, it wasn't Rush, Hannity, etc.) that outlined Hillary's plan to mandate more medical leave by employers. Now that I think about it, it's kind of iffy as to whether this falls under the topic of health care. Here's some info that I found. It's in regards to the Family Medical Leave Act, which gives up to 12 weeks of for maternal leave, and her wish to expand it to include participation in children's activities and caring for aging parents. I just remember thinking to myself "Great, another cost to running a business". That's what I meant by "generous", but as I said, it might not actually fall under health care. If you can use it, great. If not, sorry for leading down a dead-end path.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/18/10117.shtml

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:22 pm

Vis wrote:"Although I believe Hillary's is definitely the more "generous" of the 2 candidates."

OK, now my curiousity is peaked. You actually read and analyzed both ideas and came to that conclusion? I guess I would have to know how you are using the word "generous" to arrive at the same conclusion. I'm not saying that to argue and I'm pretty much laying low until bman returns to his senses but I would appreciate any links you may have regarding the issue for a research project I'm working on. (reliable/peer reviewed type sources) or just in general what you've read and your own personal impressions that lead you to believe that HC has a more generous healthcare reform plan than OB.

Thanks In Advance,
VIS

Hey Vis ... I will lay low when your HRC realizes that she got beat and concedes, hopefully tomorrow night.

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:23 pm

Well at least you admit its "a bit" one sided. :-)

The federal government does need to cut down on what it does, and generally cutting down on the number of wars we are fighting seems a very good start. Obama's stance on hard and soft earmarks, along with the transparency of government will do just that. No longer will it be possible to get $50 million for a corn museum in Iowa tacked on to a war spending bill. Such things will need to be debated on the floor, in full view. IMHO, that will generally cut down on the number and size of frivolous things the government does. Government gets smaller by attrition.

Bman... sorry so late to this game to help you out...

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:26 pm

meta4 wrote:
cardinal5150 wrote:
While I agree this guy's "tone" appears to be a bit one sided.. it also sounds like he's generalizing about as much as Bman is.. only he's going the other way. In essence.. this sounds like Bizzaro-Bman for all the Seinfeld fans out there.

I think he has some valid points in that the Dem's in general are trying to expand the role of government and feel that it's their responsibility to solve the woe's of the nation rather than allowing us to solve them ourselves. It's the classic Big Government/Little Government debate.. only right now we have Big Government that isn't doing a whole lot..

IMO we need to reduce a large part of what the federal government does, period.

So basically, you're saying you support a government which currently is either unwilling or unable to do what it's charged to do, and make it smaller... and then somehow problems will fix themselves. Fascinating!

No.. I think we need a change as well... but I also believe Congress has more power to change things than a President.. and I don't support creating a government to solve ALL our problems. I think McCain wants to reduce government more increase, which is a difference over Hillbama, which is why I support him over the others.

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:29 pm

cardinal5150 wrote:
meta4 wrote:
cardinal5150 wrote:
While I agree this guy's "tone" appears to be a bit one sided.. it also sounds like he's generalizing about as much as Bman is.. only he's going the other way. In essence.. this sounds like Bizzaro-Bman for all the Seinfeld fans out there.

I think he has some valid points in that the Dem's in general are trying to expand the role of government and feel that it's their responsibility to solve the woe's of the nation rather than allowing us to solve them ourselves. It's the classic Big Government/Little Government debate.. only right now we have Big Government that isn't doing a whole lot..

IMO we need to reduce a large part of what the federal government does, period.

So basically, you're saying you support a government which currently is either unwilling or unable to do what it's charged to do, and make it smaller... and then somehow problems will fix themselves. Fascinating!

No.. I think we need a change as well... but I also believe Congress has more power to change things than a President.. and I don't support creating a government to solve ALL our problems. I think McCain wants to reduce government more increase, which is a difference over Hillbama, which is why I support him over the others.

That's a problem... "Hillibama"... these are very seriously two different animals. That's like saying "Mother Teresa Nixon"

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:29 pm

pez wrote:
LTRT wrote:

Tangent-------

What's Obama going to do about all the boys and girls killing each other on the inner city streets of the US?

His platform is built around 5-6 key points. There's a lot more detail, but you can find it just as I can:

- Closing of the gun show looophole
- Making the ban on assault weapon permanent
- Support of community poilicing (like C.O.P.S.)
- Repeal of the tiahrt amendment (prevents cops from using gun tracking information)
- implement a program similar to ceasefire in Chicago (which uses, among many things, faith based interventions, please roast me)
- prison to work incentive programs to reduce re-offenses

He's pro 2nd amendment, just wants to have a more common sense approach to the rights of gun owners.

I'm not sure what Hillary or McCain's stance is...

Obama also believes in strengthening the family by bringing better paying jobs to these folks so that mothers don't have to work two jobs or the father or both two jobs. He wants to fund more preschool education to get the kids started on the right foot hoping that if they get started right they will stay on the right track. He wants more funding for after school activities to keep kids out of the gangs. He wants to make college more affordable so more kids can go not less.

Couple these along with the programs Pez listed and we can clean our cities up and stop the blight.

Markwes Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:31 pm

meta4 wrote:
Markwes wrote:Yeah Pez, the letter has a condecending tone to it, so I can understand your reaction as an Obama supporter. I think what he was trying to do was direct the letter to people like Bman who have jumped on the bandwagon and think all the country's problems will be solved if Barack or Hillary get elected because of more government. For example, both candidates want universal healthcare reform right? Although I believe Hillary's is definitely the more "generous" of the 2 candidates. Some see this as an attempt for the government to bail out people who know they are better off mooching off the government than actually getting a job. I like the idea of helping those in need to get back on their feet. What I don't like is giving them a reason to continue doing nothing and getting rewarded for it.

Markwes, we do agree on the fundamentals of decent life. However, how many people do you know personally that are this way, as you say, mooching and getting rewarded for it? How does one distill news reports, and statistics into a belief of this sort? I mean, I've never seen the list, if one exists.

John Q. Public Male Age 35 Moocher 3 Children Divorced

I know about it not from news reports, but from my wife who used to work for a temporary staffing agency. She often had to represent the company (despite no legal background, mind you) in cases where the employee was dismissed and tried to claim unemployment benefits. One of the stipulations for collecting benefits is that they have to continually look for employment. It was pretty clear that a lot of people had figured out that collecting money and not working was better than collecting the same or less money while working. If you're a company that dismisses a worker on a loading dock and then all of the sudden they claim they have a bad back, you tend to question that.

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:36 pm

cardinal5150 wrote:
meta4 wrote:
cardinal5150 wrote:
While I agree this guy's "tone" appears to be a bit one sided.. it also sounds like he's generalizing about as much as Bman is.. only he's going the other way. In essence.. this sounds like Bizzaro-Bman for all the Seinfeld fans out there.

I think he has some valid points in that the Dem's in general are trying to expand the role of government and feel that it's their responsibility to solve the woe's of the nation rather than allowing us to solve them ourselves. It's the classic Big Government/Little Government debate.. only right now we have Big Government that isn't doing a whole lot..

IMO we need to reduce a large part of what the federal government does, period.

So basically, you're saying you support a government which currently is either unwilling or unable to do what it's charged to do, and make it smaller... and then somehow problems will fix themselves. Fascinating!

No.. I think we need a change as well... but I also believe Congress has more power to change things than a President.. and I don't support creating a government to solve ALL our problems. I think McCain wants to reduce government more increase, which is a difference over Hillbama, which is why I support him over the others.

See card, I agree with a lot of what everyone here says, when you get right down to brass nuts about the subjects... I find there's a lot (and myself included in this) of propaganda and spin filtering that happens when we get together in a forum like this and hash things out in friendly debate...

With that said, was it Markwes or LTRT that mentioned (in ONE of the other political threads) that he does not like the idea of people freeloading or mooching off the government? What the HECK do we think politicians do?

To my point that if they can't fix it, get the *uck out.

Guest Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:36 pm

pez wrote:

Bman... sorry so late to this game to help you out...

Welcome to the dance anyways!

LTRT Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:40 pm

Bman wrote:Obama also believes in strengthening the family by bringing better paying jobs to these folks so that mothers don't have to work two jobs or the father or both two jobs. He wants to fund more preschool education to get the kids started on the right foot hoping that if they get started right they will stay on the right track. He wants more funding for after school activities to keep kids out of the gangs. He wants to make college more affordable so more kids can go not less.

Couple these along with the programs Pez listed and we can clean our cities up and stop the blight.

"Obama also believes in strengthening the family by bringing better paying jobs to these folks so that mothers don't have to work two jobs or the father or both two jobs."

I will agree that there are many single mothers (and fathers) out there that are working 2 (or more) jobs, but what about the ones sucking up welfare?

"the father" - where are they at? Don't tell me you deny the fact that many, many of our problem children are from single parent homes with no father.

"funding for after school activities to keep kids out of the gangs" - wouldn't this require the 'kids' to be enrolled in school? What about those who quit at 16?

Sponsored content