An honest question for Republicans/Obama bashers...

[wattsupdoc]

When you are doing what is right you dont have to justify it to idiots who cant tell what is right....W. never needed to tell me WHY he was doing what he was doing, I understood. However, he did speeck about what he was doing. He didnt elaborate, anyone with half a brain could see...

 

[mantisman51]

"We have these animals who want to kill us with any means necessary. I will allow our intelligence agents to use very aggressive techniques to find out what they are up to and do everything in my power, as President to protect American lives. I would ask the opposition if they value the temporary comfort of these pieces human debris over the lives of potentially tens of thousands of Americans?" That is what he should have said. Reed, Pelosi, Obama care more for the rights of terrorists over our safety. That is the black and white of the situation.

 

[wattsupdoc]

Didnt you hear him say that essentially?

He said, These people want to kill American's. Ill do whatever I can to protect them....Where were you? Didnt you hear him say that?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3026275
He was a big business oriented president and when the Republicans controlled Congress they did deregulate much of the protections that stopped the derivitive mess that has completely destroyed the economy. His business policies were a disaster and his willing accomplices in Congress helped destroy the economy. However, it wasn't tax cuts that did it, tax cuts helped keep things afloat a little longer or else his banking policies would have caused the collapse sooner. Barak Obama has some excellent ideas: infrastructure expenditures top among them. Howver, he is EXACTLY what the Republicans said he is-a tax and spend liberal. If Bushes 500 billion $ debt was bad, how is Obamas 5 trillion $ debt good?
You're simply wrong. Bush fought for more regulations and oversight of fanny and freddy. Democrats fought him off, calling republicans (imagine this) a racist...

 

[mantisman51]

I heard and read "We will bring these evil-doers to justice". That limp-wristed approach lulled the people into a sense that there was a vague threat somewhere out there and allowed the Democrats to demogog the issue and undercut what Bush was trying to do. Good Lord, I wish Cheney (all the libs gasp in horror) would've been president. Then the Democrats would have been challenged and revealed for the cowards they were. BTW, Bush and the Republicans in the 2002 tax bill allowed the multiple issuance of derivitives on the same loan. Yes Bush wanted to roll back some of the rediculous "Fair Housing" regulations, but it was not the housing crash that almost destroyed the banks, it was the derivitive contracts, sometime 10-20 for the same loans that destroyed the banks. You must have a lack of understanding of the nature of what precipitated the crisis. It wasn't the bad loans, it was the over-leveraged derivitives.

 

[wattsupdoc]

LOL. The overleveredged derivitives wouldnt havent been a problems had the risky loans not gone bad....

Blame something else involved. The truth is it is the peoples fault. They took the stupid loans, they payed way too much for the homes. They quit paying the notes when the terms werent what they were able to afford. Then many of them robbed the houses of appliances etc.

Responsibility has to be accepted by individuals for this mess.
you never heard him also say, they want to kill us? I will do what is necessary to protect us? Clean the ears out and stop hearing what you want to hear.

 

[prime311]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3025453
1.) Family and religion should be the fountation, to a liberal gov't is the foundation.
So, yes just about everything Obama does is contrary to my beliefs, and the founding principles of the United States of America. On the other hand, I also blasted Bush (and RINO's in Congress) when I thought he/they were wrong too.
Unlike liberals I will not call Obama names, I will just point out where he is wrong and Unamerican.

How is religion supposed to be a foundation of this country? How is that considered part of the founding principles of this country?

 

[prime311]

I like to think of a first term president as an NFL player playing in a contract year. Thats why I never vote for them to get a 2nd one.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/3026883
How is religion supposed to be a foundation of this country? How is that considered part of the founding principles of this country?
"When endowed by their creator"
Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
The first ammendment specifically protects religion.

 

[uneverno]

Including the Branch Davidians?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3026416
I heard and read "We will bring these evil-doers to justice". That limp-wristed approach lulled the people into a sense that there was a vague threat somewhere out there and allowed the Democrats to demogog the issue and undercut what Bush was trying to do. Good Lord, I wish Cheney (all the libs gasp in horror) would've been president. Then the Democrats would have been challenged and revealed for the cowards they were. BTW, Bush and the Republicans in the 2002 tax bill allowed the multiple issuance of derivitives on the same loan. Yes Bush wanted to roll back some of the rediculous "Fair Housing" regulations, but it was not the housing crash that almost destroyed the banks, it was the derivitive contracts, sometime 10-20 for the same loans that destroyed the banks. You must have a lack of understanding of the nature of what precipitated the crisis. It wasn't the bad loans, it was the over-leveraged derivitives.
Leveraging derivatives would be fine, if they properly valued the risk for loans. Making the prices too high for high risk people to get a loan...

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3027082
Including the Branch Davidians?
It should have. The leader of that group (the guy they were suppossedly after) would jog daily out in public around the town. They could have grabbed him them anytime without storming the building killing so many. One seriously screwed up operation...........who was in charge of that fiasco? I forget her name....or maybe I have stricken it from my memory.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3027489
It should have. The leader of that group (the guy they were suppossedly after) would jog daily out in public around the town. They could have grabbed him them anytime without storming the building killing so many. One seriously screwed up operation...........who was in charge of that fiasco? I forget her name....or maybe I have stricken it from my memory.
Yep, Democrat gets a bunch of women and kids killed and that was in the line of duty, Republican lawyers working for the white house offer a legal opinion on interrogation methods and the Democrats want to prosecute them. WHats that word I am looking for......

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3027082
Including the Branch Davidians?
Right, include them with the Islamic Extremists.
Just a little common sense please.
You asked how religion is a foundation of the United States, and I gave you examples from our founding documents and founding fathers.
You come back with a totally unrelated comment. Great debate skills, you must have attended a great "liberal arts" school.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3027506
Yep, Democrat gets a bunch of women and kids killed and that was in the line of duty, Republican lawyers working for the white house offer a legal opinion on interrogation methods and the Democrats want to prosecute them. WHats that word I am looking for......
Scapegoat, distraction, intern....whoops.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3027564
You asked how religion is a foundation of the United States, and I gave you examples from our founding documents and founding fathers.
I didn't ask any such thing. Go back and read who posed the question to begin with.
I have no argument with your response. It is historically accurate. I was not debating it, I was seeking clarification.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3027489
It should have...
Precisely my point. I absolutely and unequivocally agree with the rest of your statement as well. I think that Clinton/Reno were so far out of bounds in committing the atrocity they did, that criminal charges would have been justified under the Constitution.
Same thing goes for the Elian Gonzales kidnapping and the prosecution of the Balkan war. In addition, Madeline Albright was an apologist for North Korea, and thanks in large part to her ('cuz she couldn't really do anything without the boss' approval), we find ourselves in the situation we're now in w/ lil Kim.
I have a point of view for which I make no apology. I try (and sometimes fail) to maintain that perspective honestly despite partisan politics.
Wrong is not right or left.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3027925
Precisely my point. I absolutely and unequivocally agree with the rest of your statement as well. I think that Clinton/Reno were so far out of bounds in committing the atrocity they did, that criminal charges would have been justified under the Constitution.
Same thing goes for the Elian Gonzales kidnapping and the prosecution of the Balkan war. In addition, Madeline Albright was an apologist for North Korea, and thanks in large part to her ('cuz she couldn't really do anything without the boss' approval), we find ourselves in the situation we're now in w/ lil Kim.
I have a point of view for which I make no apology. I try (and sometimes fail) to maintain that perspective honestly despite partisan politics.
Wrong is not right or left.
This is in all sincerity. But this is what I don't get when listening to people who vote democrat. You can see and recognize some of the stuff clinton did. But Obama is farther left than that. In my head when I see what you just said, I'd never vote for another democrat as long as I live. A secretary of state and president an apologist for a communist dictatorship.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3028240
This is in all sincerity. But this is what I don't get when listening to people who vote democrat. You can see and recognize some of the stuff clinton did. But Obama is farther left than that. In my head when I see what you just said, I'd never vote for another democrat as long as I live. A secretary of state and president an apologist for a communist dictatorship.
I think people get wrapped up in voting for an ideal. Iknow my mom and her brother were both life long Democrats who were both strongly anti gay rights and anti abortion Southern Baptists. I could never get a straight answer from either of them how they could vote for a politician that was pro choice and favored gay rights. Made for some great arguments though

 

[uneverno]

Believe it or not there are a few honest politicians. A couple of those are democrats even.

My tendency is to vote for the opposite party in Congress from that which occupies the White House. It's not a very effective check and balance, but it's, practically speaking, all I've got, and to my mind better than nothing. (We're certainly not gonna get it from the Supreme Court.) My thought process is that if they're fighting with each other, there's less time to screw us, which both parties have shown a propensity to do.
I see R&D as two sides of the same coin. If the R's were that much better, we'd have no reason to be afraid of Obama, as they should've left the White House in good enough shape to withstand any Obama onslaught. They have held the office for 22 of the last 30 years, after all. Surely we can't blame the state of the Nation solely on 8 years of Clinton and 100 days of Obama.
(NAFTA, as a single example - and there are plenty more, was a Bush 41 fiasco. Yes - Clinton signed it - but the bill was waiting for him on his desk when he moved into the office.)
When it comes to the electorate in general, I subscribe to Einstein's definition of insanity. We keep voting the same people in and expect a different result.