View Full Version : Bill Clinton, you're a shining star! Go Obama, go!
My two cents Re: what, and who, I think, stands as being the worthy candidate for office.
I think Obama should go too.
I think Obama should go too. priceless!:laff:
What a great speech! I loved every minute of it. Bill is so inspiring!
We need to get President Obama reelected. We can't hand this country back to those who totally trashed it.
To paraphrase Clinton, the Republicans are essentially saying, 'We trashed the place, and because Obama hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, you should fire him and give it back to us."
So, it's taken some time. What did anyone expect? When Obama took over, this country, under Bush/republicans, was hemorrhaging over 600,000 jobs A MONTH! A speeding car cannot stop on a dime. it's going to skid a while even after you apply the brakes. Well, it's finally stopped and only now is it starting to move forward in the right direction. All without a single bit of help from the republican congress. If fact, they actively tried to stop any progress in the right direction, willing to crash and burn the economy just to get one man out of a job.
I am proud of what President Obama has accomplished, and I do believe he has laid the groundwork for recovery. We just need the time. No one, not even Obama, can poop sunshine and butterflies on demand.:~)
No one, not even Obama, can poop sunshine and butterflies on demand.
You're right. Smoke on the other hand...
A national treasure--although I miss the National Rascal.
Excellent speech. He pointed out what you get when hate and obstructionism trump cooperation and love of country.
All the speakers have been good, and I love that they don't all look the same. Good for Sister Simone pointing out what real Christian values are, or should be.
All the speakers have been good, and I love that they don't all look the same. Good for Sister Simone pointing out what real Christian values are, or should be.
I loved Sister Simone, and I also loved Elizabeth Warren. And I LOVE Bill Clinton. Nothing like the winning combination of intelligence, charisma, and joie de vivre.
what you get when hate and obstructionism trump cooperation and love of country.
Harry Reid?
San Onofre Guy
9-6-12, 10:59am
I loved the phrase "Double Down on Trickle Down". How about the slogan "Its about Arithmetic Stupid".
Harry Reid?
It's the unprecedented filibusters and the all-time high blocking of federal appointments, including a Nobel Prize winner in economics to the Federal Reserve. Why? Because they lost in 2008 and the only thing left is to make sure that nothing gets done. To hate the president more than you love your country - think about that.
Life_is_Simple
9-6-12, 11:21am
I LOVED Bill Clinton's speech! Go Big Dawg! I'm going to watch it again.
:+1::cool::+1::cool::+1:
Amazing that he can go off script and pull all the facts and figures out of his head.
[QUOTE=Life_is_Simple;99647]I LOVED Bill Clinton's speech! Go Big Dawg! I'm going to watch it again.
QUOTE]
I kind of miss the Great Tergiversator. Listening to the man who proclaimed the era of big government to be over extolling the superior virtues of statism took me back to the crocodile tears and finger-wagging of years past. The overacted righteousness of his delivery make him the William Shatner of American politics, recalling a glorious age of pomp and perury we aren't likely to see again.
Amazing that he can go off script and pull all the facts and figures out of his head.
Yea, isn't it. Hate to put an end to all the fawning, but here's the fact check. Same old, same old.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-clinton-claims-compromise-stretch-043255807--election.html
ApatheticNoMore
9-6-12, 11:53am
We need to get President Obama reelected. We can't hand this country back to those who totally trashed it. To paraphrase Clinton, the Republicans are essentially saying, 'We trashed the place, and because Obama hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, you should fire him and give it back to us."
Perhaps Clinton was part of the trashing, his administration certainly marked the start of the major trade agreements. Have any jobs been lost to that? Who started financial deregulation? Do I think the Clinton years themselves were horrible, no, who does? But even they were bubbly, wasn't that the start of our economy increasingly being based on unsustainable bubbles?
The overacted righteousness of his delivery make him the William Shatner of American politics...
Took everything I had to not spew coffee at that one LDAHL! :laff::laff::laff:
There are those who consider Bill Clinton a moderate Republican; his disastrous NAFTA stance and the repeal of Glass-Steagall help make that argument. Nonetheless, he had a good run, even in the face of a cottage industry trying to convince us he and Hillary were serial-killing drug kingpins, and of course the frivolous impeachment. And I loved his delivery--at least he in no way resembled an animatron.
...and of course the frivolous impeachment.
Strange as it sounds there are still people who consider perjury and obstruction of justice committed by a sitting president to be impeachable offenses. Crazy, I know.
Yeah, Executive Privilege worked a lot better for George Bush (Harriet Miers, Dick Cheney). Likely we'll never know what happened to Pat Tillman.
Well, all I know is, my DD and I found that place called Hope on a road trip a couple of years back.
http://images5a.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp63578%3Enu%3D32%3C9%3E3%3C4%3E%3A33% 3EWSNRCG%3D385%3A8787%3A%3B337nu0mrj
Cute pic!
Like many progressives, Clinton enacted policies that I thought were dreadful. I have seen my community benefit from many of them, as well as suffer; repeal of Glass-Steagal being a good example.
I do find him to be a very dynamic speaker. Being a definite Obama supporter, I appreciated his support too.
I hope we can engage here without mocking & disrespect...
Life_is_Simple
9-6-12, 1:53pm
Well, all I know is, my DD and I found that place called Hope on a road trip a couple of years back.
http://images5a.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp63578%3Enu%3D32%3C9%3E3%3C4%3E%3A33% 3EWSNRCG%3D385%3A8787%3A%3B337nu0mrj
Cool picture!!
When I lived in Arkansas, maybe 1987, one of my friends there said their educational system had been a lot worse, but it improved a lot since Bill Clinton was governor. At that point, I decided that if he ever ran for president, I would support him! I even volunteered.
It's good to see that in his speech last night, he was still very big into education. There are jobs out there, where people don't have the skills to do them... yet.
Yeah, Executive Privilege worked a lot better for George Bush
Hmmm. I think Executive Privilege worked pretty well for Mr. Clinton, too. Here's the breakdown of the past five Presidents use of it (http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/20/holder-history-presidential-use-executive-privilege). Clinton used it more than the three Republican Presidents....COMBINED!
President Ronald Reagan: 3
President George H.W. Bush: 1
President Bill Clinton: 14
President George W. Bush: 6
President Barack Obama: 1
Of course he would have used it more if that dang federal judge hadn't shot him down when it came to that Monica girl. Still want to talk about abusing the privilege?
i heard a few clips from clinton's speech and i saw some words from obama as well.
after seeing romney, and not being able to even listen to him all the way through (and i did like romney's seemingly moderate stance and i like how he seemed to be about "thinking things through"/"considering all options")...but after hearing him at the convention and not relating to anything he was saying and how hollow his words sounded. him talking about tough times does not seem sincere at all. does he even know anyone in tough times?
well, i am beginning to fall in love with obama all over again.
i love you Obama. i love you.
I LOVED Bill Clinton's speech! Go Big Dawg! I'm going to watch it again.
:+1::cool::+1::cool::+1:
Amazing that he can go off script and pull all the facts and figures out of his head.
Bill Clinton is a gifted politician. They are not all that good, and I mean that sincerely, whether I agree with him or not. I always liked him well enough.
I think that Obama doesn't measure up although many thought he'd be as good. By "good" I mean: easy speaker, smart, instnatly builds excellent rapport, can work large crowds and the camera, etc.
Bill Clinton is a gifted politician. They are not all that good, and I mean that sincerely, whether I agree with him or not. I always liked him well enough.
Of all of our recent still-living presidents, he's the one I'd most like to hang out with for a weekend fishing.
Seems we are all having a Clinton love fest -- he is now vegan -- so we have something in common, well one thing only I guess. *sigh*
I am sure his speech came at a high price to Obama - I have heard they are not the best of buddies back stage.
Strange as it sounds there are still people who consider perjury and obstruction of justice committed by a sitting president to be impeachable offenses. Crazy, I know.
Crazy is $55,000,000 taxpayer dollars to find out that he had a mistress.
Hmmm. I think Executive Privilege worked pretty well for Mr. Clinton, too. Here's the breakdown of the past five Presidents use of it (http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/20/holder-history-presidential-use-executive-privilege). Clinton used it more than the three Republican Presidents....COMBINED!
President Ronald Reagan: 3
President George H.W. Bush: 1
President Bill Clinton: 14
President George W. Bush: 6
President Barack Obama: 1
Of course he would have used it more if that dang federal judge hadn't shot him down when it came to that Monica girl. Still want to talk about abusing the privilege?
Where did I say anything about abusing the privilege? Nowhere.
Although trying to parse consensual sex instead of just owning up to it was stupid, it didn't sink to the level of stonewalling about torture and war crimes in general.
The Storyteller
9-6-12, 9:37pm
Strange as it sounds there are still people who consider perjury and obstruction of justice committed by a sitting president to be impeachable offenses. Crazy, I know.
I believe the word was "frivolous".
I am so FIRED up for the election!!! I tried to watch the Republican convention the other day and could not last ten minutes. I heard nothing except evasion and have no respect for a party that has tried to stonewall anything and everything that Obama has tried to do by having their little tantrums.
yes ciltrine,
they keep saying that obama did not fix anything.
but, as clinton said, their logic is "we made a big mess and you didn't clean up our mess fast enough!"
i was hoping to be able to connect with romneys supposid level headed think things through and consider all options (cause he has been painted as a geek in a way that solves problems). but all i heard was stuff that i knew was not true. he kept saying things like "how can you pay for your college education in this economy" and i am like "you've never had to worry about that!"
it just carries more weight when obama says that stuff cause you know obama has been there and seen it.
i don't think romney even knows how the other half lives.
ApatheticNoMore
9-7-12, 3:13am
We have so far two conventions, no debates. Now I know the cricticisms of debates: softball questions from easy moderators, issues avoided, 3rd parties stricly excluded. But the fact that propaganda (and it's hard to see the conventions as anything other than week long propaganda fests) *preceeds* even the show debates is just sad :(.
And no I can't see getting excited about these candidates. Voting lesser of two evils, voting economic interests or self-protection or whatever, I understand that. I understand that and I understand abstaining from voting out of protest of the whole thing (and the real majority in this country is non-voters). But getting excited about them ... I'm more likely to see a Coke commercial and get excited about Coke, at least Coke tastes good.
The Clinton years, oh they represent a type of nostalgia, the embryo of all that exists today existed then, that was my point, but only in embryonic form. I actually remember radio programs that would talk about anti-terrorism bills back then as a threat to rights and so on. They were obscure, and I never gave it a worry, I was too young and really the threat too small then (it really was until all the draconian 9-11 stuff). Oh that velvet glove on the iron fist is tattered now, I just see the fist. I see the bipartisan fist in open conspiracy. There were trade agreements then, negotiated out in the open in a better economy. Now trade agreements are negotiated in top secret without the knowledge of congress (the TPP) but with the ok of corporations, and seem to post ever more direct threats to any type of local governance or even national soverignty. The economy made by trade agreements stands bare before us. There was no war in Iraq then, just sanctions on Iraq that were killing their citizens. Nostalgia for a more innocent age in America is an onion you just keep peeling and peeling searching for a seed. Any innocence that existed was surely only our own. Maybe these too will seem good old days in comparison when we look back at some future time.
Of all of our recent still-living presidents, he's the one I'd most like to hang out with for a weekend fishing.
I wouldn't bring my daughter along, though.
Life_is_Simple
9-7-12, 10:04am
Crazy is $55,000,000 taxpayer dollars to find out that he had a mistress.
55 Million, really? :0! Ugh... that money could have been better used for sooooo many other things!
Where did I say anything about abusing the privilege? Nowhere.
Well, it started when I said...
Strange as it sounds there are still people who consider perjury and obstruction of justice committed by a sitting president to be impeachable offenses. Crazy, I know.
And you replied...
Yeah, Executive Privilege worked a lot better for George Bush (Harriet Miers, Dick Cheney). Likely we'll never know what happened to Pat Tillman.
So no, regardless of what was inferred or implied in your statement you did not technically say that President Bush abused Executive Privilege. I will, however, say that I believe President Clinton did. IMO he willfully abused the privilege at every turn. Forget national security, Clinton even tried to use Executive Privilege to cover the transgressions of a powerful man acting like a horny schoolboy with no control over his hormones.
Harriet Miers was the wrong person to nominate for the SCOTUS. The Court was in limbo after William Rehnquist died and President Bush had to shift gears from replacing Sandra Day O'Connor to naming a new Chief Justice. Ms. Miers looked like a good candidate on paper, she just failed in the confirmation process. In the hiring process you don't always end up with the perfect fit. That's why, for a position as important as a SCOTUS Justice, there is a system of checks and balances before someone gets the job. It worked just like it's supposed to.
A lot of people, including me, didn't appreciate Dick Cheney's style, but I'm not sure what you are trying to imply about him.
As for Pat Tillman, his death was as tragic as any in times of war, but hardly a Presidential scandal. Maybe this excerpt from wikipedia will help provide closure:
"The Army Special Operations Command initially claimed that there was an exchange with hostile forces. After a lengthy investigation conducted by Brigadier General Gary M. Jones, the U.S. Department of Defense concluded that both the Afghan militia soldier's and Pat Tillman's deaths were due to friendly fire aggravated by the intensity of the firefight.
An investigation by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command concluded that Tillman and the Afghan militia soldier were killed by friendly fire when one allied group fired upon another in confusion after nearby gunfire was mistakenly believed to be from enemy combatants. The CID Report summary, dated 19 March 2007, stated that: "during their movement through the canyon road, Serial 2 [Tillman's platoon had to split up because of a broken Humvee; the parts were called Serial 1 and 2] was ambushed and became engaged in a running gun battle with enemy combatants. Serial 1 [Tillman's portion of the platoon] had just passed through the same canyon without incident and were approximately one kilometer ahead of Serial 2. Upon hearing explosions, gunfire, and sporadic radio communication from Serial 2, Serial 1 dismounted their vehicles and moved on foot, to a more advantageous position to provide overwatch and fire support for Serial 2's movement out of the ambush." Upon exiting the gorge, and despite attempts by Serial 1 to signal a "friendly position," occupants of the lead vehicle of Serial 2 opened fire on Tillman's position, where he was fatally shot."
The Storyteller
9-7-12, 10:29am
I understand that and I understand abstaining from voting out of protest of the whole thing (and the real majority in this country is non-voters).
Don't you mean "apathy"?
Frankly, though, I don't care why people don't vote, because they don't matter.
Catherine. My husband wants to know who the pretty blonde is in the picture? :)
ApatheticNoMore
9-7-12, 12:19pm
Frankly, though, I don't care why people don't vote, because they don't matter.
I don't care about people who don't give billions to political campaigns because they don't matter. Whatever possible ability to matter exists for the average person I'm quite sure voting for very high level of office for people who continue horrible policies regardless is not it. And the policies continue, I won't talk about wars because they are all so foreign, I could blab about civil liberties, I thought that was the united principle that holds this country together, but noone cares about them anymore, they're so passe. Ok what about the fact that the drilling of the arctic gets the ok under Obama? How much subverting of environmental policies and the environment have we seen already? Romney might be worse. Very well, my true target isn't and has never been voting, not even lesser of two evil voting, not even voting for Obama. As if voting itself is evil and if only voting was abolished, something, something, then paradise. Whatever. It won't be paradise it will just be the open admitance of oligarchial rule which now has to democratically campaign. My issue is how can anyone cheer this evil @#$ when they have dropped all masks. Vote for them strategically, by any reasoning, ok, but cheer for them? By the way I'll be around about the polls early november, I've got GMO labeling to vote in favor of, I'll give jerry brown his taxes (though they've haven't been great stewarts of our money), I'll vote down the usual collection of deceptive inniatives.
"The giddy, money-drenched, choreographed carnival in Tampa and the one coming up in Charlotte divert us from the real world—the one steadily collapsing around us. The glitz and propaganda, the ridiculous obsessions imparted by our electronic hallucinations, and the spectacles that pass for political participation mask the deadly ecological assault by the corporate state. The worse it gets, the more we retreat into self-delusion."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/life_is_sacred_20120903/
1/2 of the women and a 1/4 of the men on this forum would love to spend a night with Bill.;)
Life_is_Simple
9-7-12, 12:56pm
1/2 of the women and a 1/4 of the men on this forum would love to spend a night with Bill.;)
Yeah, to listen to him play his sax ;)
...
A lot of people, including me, didn't appreciate Dick Cheney's style, but I'm not sure what you are trying to imply about him.
As for Pat Tillman, his death was as tragic as any in times of war, but hardly a Presidential scandal. ...
[/I]
Meiers (along with Karl Rove) was up to her eyebrows in targeted partisan prosecutor firings and was called before Congress to testify. She refused. Talk about hubris. (from NYT, 2009:
Ms. Miers returned to serving quietly as counsel before resigning in January 2007 and disappearing from public view until the White House’s confrontation with Congress over investigations into the firing of nine United States attorneys brought her back to center stage. In July she refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, saying that executive privilege shielded her from having to answer its questions.
The committee responded by finding her in contempt of Congress in a party-line vote. And on Feb. 14, 2008, the House as a whole -- with most Republicans angrily refusing to take part -- voted to hold Ms. Miers in contempt of Congress for failing to testify, and cited both her and the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, for failing to provide subpoenaed documents.
As for Cheney, like many people here and abroad, I think he's a war criminal.
Why was executive privilege used in the case of Pat Tillman? Good question. One medical report indicated the three bullets in his head were fired from less than ten yards away. That certainly raises concerns.
Catherine. My husband wants to know who the pretty blonde is in the picture? :)
Oh, he must be seeing the reflection of my daughter in the window, taking the picture--(although she's actually a redhead) ;)
small & friendly
9-7-12, 2:07pm
A lot of people have the misguided notion that evil has the 'appearance' of evil. That it is ugly and/or repulsive. On the contrary, true evil is seductive, persuasive, appealing. It draws us on a level that can be emotional or sexual. It transcends reason and logic. It generates fanatical loyalty and devotion while it feeds itself and its master by sucking the soul out of its' devotees.
In the Bible it says that even Satan can (and does) disguise himself as 'an angel of light'. Since I believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ, His life, death, resurrection and physical return to earth one day, I also pay attention to what the Bible teaches prophetically. In a nutshell, it teaches that close and prior to the return of Christ some significant events will take place, first and foremost the return of the Jews to Israel. Then a general and increasing level of lawlessness in the world, and finally, the appearance of someone the Scriptures identify as the anti-christ. Among other signs will be an increase of frequency and worldwide distribution of earth quakes. Weather extremes are foretold in the Book of Revelation. There will be restlessness among nations, wars and rumors of wars, and the enemies of Israel will threaten her from all sides.
The Bible says in the last days people will be without natural affection, haters, and they will be proud and haughty and despisers of those who are good. In the Book of Revelation it says instead of asking God for mercy they will harden their hearts and curse.
I could go on and on, but this scenario is being played out on a daily basis, in the earth itself and in people.
Yes, evil can be disguised by a big, toothy winsome smile, by crisp grey hair and slender limbs. By noise and music and emotional highs. And the poor, poor people get drawn to the precipe of hell. Only after it is too late do they realize that their eyes have been blinded. The mask is taken away and the unending and inescapeable horror is revealed.
Don't be fooled by outward appearances and smooth words. It's usually the 'dull', the plodders, the persistent, the dutiful, the faithful, the 'plain' ones who are truly good and benevolent. Those who give without calling attention to themselves, who suffer for principle and right and are merciful to their enemies.
Be careful, be careful where you place your allegiance. Be careful of who and what you make an idol.
The Storyteller
9-7-12, 2:25pm
Yes, apparently Chuck Norris thinks Obama is the antichrist, too.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/chuck-norris-dire-warning-for-america/
A lot of people have the misguided notion that evil has the 'appearance' of evil. That it is ugly and/or repulsive. On the contrary, true evil is seductive, persuasive, appealing. It draws us on a level that can be emotional or sexual. It transcends reason and logic. It generates fanatical loyalty and devotion while it feeds itself and its master by sucking the soul out of its' devotees.
In the Bible it says that even Satan can (and does) disguise himself as 'an angel of light'. Since I believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ, His life, death, resurrection and physical return to earth one day, I also pay attention to what the Bible teaches prophetically. In a nutshell, it teaches that close and prior to the return of Christ some significant events will take place, first and foremost the return of the Jews to Israel. Then a general and increasing level of lawlessness in the world, and finally, the appearance of someone the Scriptures identify as the anti-christ. Among other signs will be an increase of frequency and worldwide distribution of earth quakes. Weather extremes are foretold in the Book of Revelation. There will be restlessness among nations, wars and rumors of wars, and the enemies of Israel will threaten her from all sides.
The Bible says in the last days people will be without natural affection, haters, and they will be proud and haughty and despisers of those who are good. In the Book of Revelation it says instead of asking God for mercy they will harden their hearts and curse.
I could go on and on, but this scenario is being played out on a daily basis, in the earth itself and in people.
Yes, evil can be disguised by a big, toothy winsome smile, by crisp grey hair and slender limbs. By noise and music and emotional highs. And the poor, poor people get drawn to the precipe of hell. Only after it is too late do they realize that their eyes have been blinded. The mask is taken away and the unending and inescapeable horror is revealed.
Don't be fooled by outward appearances and smooth words. It's usually the 'dull', the plodders, the persistent, the dutiful, the faithful, the 'plain' ones who are truly good and benevolent. Those who give without calling attention to themselves, who suffer for principle and right and are merciful to their enemies.
Be careful, be careful where you place your allegiance. Be careful of who and what you make an idol.
Inquiring minds want to know....!Splat!
Yes, apparently Chuck Norris thinks Obama is the antichrist, too.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/chuck-norris-dire-warning-for-america/
A thousand years of darkness! :laff::laff:
This is ridiculous. If Obama were the Antichrist, he'd have better speechwriters.
This is ridiculous. If Obama were the Antichrist, he'd have better speechwriters.
Naw, he wouldn't even need speech writers or a teleprompter. He's not Slick Willy after all. Oh, wait, speaking of--.:laff:
ApatheticNoMore
9-7-12, 3:39pm
The devil is supposed to get the best lines ...
small & friendly
9-7-12, 3:45pm
I did not say either one of these gentlemen were the anti-christ, (Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama). However, I stand by what I did say; that evil can and does cloak itself very attractively and it has the power to seduce. Even a cursory glance at history confirms that.
My grandfather was known to opine "If those (pious, humorless) people are going to heaven, I'll happily go to hell." Not an original thought, I'm sure, but one many of us share. :devil:
Politics aside, Clinton is one fine-looking older man...IMO. I kept wondering if he had some work done or if it's the vegan diet.
He seems fragile and shaky to me (maybe it's the vegan diet ;) ), but certainly still good looking. Giving the devil his due... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/remake/biggrin.gif
He probably has had work done. I think it's de rigeur now if you're in the public eye.
Despite the voice votes against God (I think I counted three before the cock crowed), an untoward enthusiasm for abortion and the acceptance speech being driven indoors by the fear of bolts of lightning, I wouldn’t read too much theological import into the DNC. Sure that slogan about government being the only thing we all belong to had a certain idolatrous tone to it; but I’m pretty certain Satan has no direct party affiliation (although we may want to check in with Politifact to be sure).
I didn’t detect any influence from the infernal regions, just a political party pursuing a strategy based on the belief that if voters are frightened enough, they will double down on expansive government. True, transcendent evil would be a lot more subtle and attractive than this crowd.
small & friendly
9-7-12, 4:35pm
Despite the voice votes against God (I think I counted three before the cock crowed), an untoward enthusiasm for abortion and the acceptance speech being driven indoors by the fear of bolts of lightning, I wouldn’t read too much theological import into the DNC. Sure that slogan about government being the only thing we all belong to had a certain idolatrous tone to it; but I’m pretty certain Satan has no direct party affiliation (although we may want to check in with Politifact to be sure).
I didn’t detect any influence from the infernal regions, just a political party pursuing a strategy based on the belief that if voters are frightened enough, they will double down on expansive government. True, transcendent evil would be a lot more subtle and attractive than this crowd.
Thank you for giving a reasoned response to my point. I put a lot of thought into what I wrote, and it was greeted with mockery.
I really don't mind for myself, but it makes me very sad for the future of this nation that there are people who actually adore and admire these gentlemen and are of that same persuasion.
there are people who actually adore and admire these gentlemen
I have to say....I DO NOT adore and admire Clinton and Obama; but I do think their policies might be the lesser of two evils based on what I have observed going on 60 years. Who really knows though? We all look at the situation through different filters and thankfully, we still have the right to express our OPINIONS.
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."
President Kennedy
I admire and respect both Clinton & Obama in their roles as public servants. I disagree with many of their stances, and agree with many others. I am also deeply grateful to live in a pluralistic, secular society, wherein religion is protected from government, and government remains free from religion.
I did not say either one of these gentlemen were the anti-christ, (Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama). However, I stand by what I did say; that evil can and does cloak itself very attractively and it has the power to seduce. Even a cursory glance at history confirms that.
I'll probably have to go into hiding after I post this, as I really dislike politics and dislike arguing. As a Christian I think a lot about this whole thing. In all honesty when I started really thinking about what would Jesus do, I started leaning more towards the Democrats. I just can't see Jesus being OK with the hatred and intollerance I see from the Republicans. It almost makes me sick.
Acording to the Bible Jesus said: If you REALLY love me you will give all to the poor(Mark 10:21). He said give and it will be given to you(Luke 6:38, he said to be kind to one another(Ephisians 4:32) He said when we cared for those less fortunate(Matthew 25:35+) It seems to me that we should be first in line to even the playing field.
I think we used to be that way, and that is why our nation was great. We welcomed the poor. We were willing to work beside them, share what we had. I wonder if we went back to that would God pour out his blessing on us? Maybe an "undiscovered source of energy? Maybe technology in growing things? Who knows.
It is appalling to me the stuff my fellow Christian friends say about the poor and less fortunate on facebook and in person. I has really brought home to me how self centered most of them are. The jokes. Acting like everyone who is poor is a welfare queen. Acting like it couldn't happen to them, because why, they believe in God... I think the anti Christ is going to look really appealing, and to be honest I think a lot of them will get sucked right in. They want to be the special important people.
I appreciated your post small and friendly.
Jesus was speaking perhaps of personal responsibility and ethics. Not so much about using the force of government to compel people to act against their will...
"If you really love me you will give all to the poor". Not "If you really love me, you will take from the fortunate to give to the unfortunate." That is the moral responsibility of the fortunate, not the state, or the Democratic Party.
I rather think Jesus would overturn the tables at both conventions...
Aqua Blue very well said and as a fellow Christian and American you are wright on.
I am dismayed at the tone on both sides of the aisle and am not sure what Jesus would do but I know what the disciples did when they replaced Judas. They chose 2, then cast lots. I put 10 O’s and 10 R’s in a hat then had my husband draw one.
Doesn't the RNC & DNC have their own fact checkers? Maybe do a critical read over on their speeches -- just in case?
Surely they aren't that stupid to think outside sources are not going to do this as quickly as those words are coming out of their mouths.
I was glad to see the whole 4.2 million jobs talking point the democrats kept touting was quickly clarified...ah not so fast CNN said -- they had the graphics already up and ready to go. More like a negative 500,000 jobs.
flowerseverywhere
9-7-12, 8:02pm
I'll probably have to go into hiding after I post this, as I really dislike politics and dislike arguing. As a Christian I think a lot about this whole thing. In all honesty when I started really thinking about what would Jesus do, I started leaning more towards the Democrats. I just can't see Jesus being OK with the hatred and intollerance I see from the Republicans. It almost makes me sick.
Acording to the Bible Jesus said: If you REALLY love me you will give all to the poor(Mark 10:21). He said give and it will be given to you(Luke 6:38, he said to be kind to one another(Ephisians 4:32) He said when we cared for those less fortunate(Matthew 25:35+) It seems to me that we should be first in line to even the playing field.
Aqua I am an atheist but could not agree with you more on an ethical note. I have great admiration for true Christians, those that walk the walk not just talk the talk, But it matters not what your religious persuasion is, every human knows what it is to be kind and take care of those less fortunate for whatever reason. The general attitude that I have mine, too bad about you seems so monstrous. that holier than thou line of reasoning, when we are all such a product of our environment and circumstances. As a college education white woman my chance in life is so much greater than a young black man who is raised in a neighborhood where drugs and shootings are rampant. How can you expect people to reach their potential without lending a hand?
Being thrown out of work or getting ill or being widowed or abandoned with children can happen to anyone- I see it all the time. Really good people getting cast into unfortunate circumstances beyond their control.
I watched both conventions, and the mean spirited twisting of the other parties words happened on both sides. It was ugly and very unkind, regardless of what you believe in.
Doesn't the RNC & DNC have their own fact checkers? Maybe do a critical read over on their speeches -- just in case?
Surely they aren't that stupid to think outside sources are not going to do this as quickly as those words are coming out of their mouths.
I was glad to see the whole 4.2 million jobs talking point the democrats kept touting was quickly clarified...ah not so fast CNN said -- they had the graphics already up and ready to go. More like a negative 500,000 jobs.
Yeah, well, considering how the country hemorrhaged 600,000 jobs in the month before Obama took office, I'd say he isn't doing too bad. I've said it before, but a speeding car has to skid a while before it stops even after you put on the brakes. He stopped the free fall (no, he didn't do it 5 minutes after he took office) and now we are heading in the right direction.
And, after all, Clinton was right about one thing. The economy does do better under democrats.
"Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the night’s biggest applause lines.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/
Actually, this deserves repeating. In the last 52 years, republicans held the white house 28 years, and the democrats 24 years. Republicans have resulted in 24 million private sector jobs, and Democrats, 42 million. Almost double the private sector jobs under Democratic rule. Statistics can say what you want them to say, but actual numbers are actual numbers. More jobs means a better economy. There is no snappy comeback for the facts. You want more jobs? Vote Democrat.:)
Why was executive privilege used in the case of Pat Tillman? Good question. One medical report indicated the three bullets in his head were fired from less than ten yards away. That certainly raises concerns.
It also lets them sidestep their initial lies about Tillman's death being from enemy fire. Gen. McChrystal knows all about it:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-06-24/news/27067978_1_pat-tillman-mary-tillman-friendly-fire
Maxamillion
9-8-12, 1:37am
I'll probably have to go into hiding after I post this, as I really dislike politics and dislike arguing. As a Christian I think a lot about this whole thing. In all honesty when I started really thinking about what would Jesus do, I started leaning more towards the Democrats. I just can't see Jesus being OK with the hatred and intollerance I see from the Republicans. It almost makes me sick.
Acording to the Bible Jesus said: If you REALLY love me you will give all to the poor(Mark 10:21). He said give and it will be given to you(Luke 6:38, he said to be kind to one another(Ephisians 4:32) He said when we cared for those less fortunate(Matthew 25:35+) It seems to me that we should be first in line to even the playing field.
I think we used to be that way, and that is why our nation was great. We welcomed the poor. We were willing to work beside them, share what we had. I wonder if we went back to that would God pour out his blessing on us? Maybe an "undiscovered source of energy? Maybe technology in growing things? Who knows.
It is appalling to me the stuff my fellow Christian friends say about the poor and less fortunate on facebook and in person. I has really brought home to me how self centered most of them are. The jokes. Acting like everyone who is poor is a welfare queen. Acting like it couldn't happen to them, because why, they believe in God... I think the anti Christ is going to look really appealing, and to be honest I think a lot of them will get sucked right in. They want to be the special important people.
I appreciated your post small and friendly.
Excellent post. I'm Independent and have voted Republican before, but with the way things currently are, I'll be voting democrat, for many of the same reasons you posted.
Doesn't the RNC & DNC have their own fact checkers? Maybe do a critical read over on their speeches -- just in case?
I'm sure speeches are vetted by lawyers for each side. But ignoring the facts sways the low-information voter and there are a lot of those out there. Only those with some initiative and drive will seek out the truth. In the scheme of things, those folks are "rounding errors". :(
Jesus was speaking perhaps of personal responsibility and ethics. Not so much about using the force of government to compel people to act against their will...
Then -- really -- why even have a government? Why not just let people do what they want? No, I'm not trying to be extreme. The whole point of any kind of representative government is to establish consensus goals -- protection, promotion of well-being, etc. Any time you get more than two people involved, there will be differences of opinion, so consensus has to rule. As a result, you will almost always have people who are compelled to act against their will in the interest of the common good.
I also believe very strongly that, though there should be separation of church and state, everyone's faith/values/inner convictions colors their choices in life. As a result, our faiths are expressed in our government. The fact that America likes to call itself a Christian country -- some would prefer it to be a theocracy -- but fails to collectively care for the sick, weak, and poor ... Frankly, it floors me. The Bible also says, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." And “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"
So why the disconnect?
I rather think Jesus would overturn the tables at both conventions...
While I choose to not participate in formal religious activities or take their teachings literally, I think that's probably right. In my own experience I see countless acts of generosity for each example of greed. Some will think I just live in la-la land or an insulated little alcove of society, but I don't. People in general want to help other people. Self preservation is an automated response, but once that is satisfied think most people are moral and ethical and compassionate and yes, generous. The real question for me is how/why do we continually allow people who do not reflect those values to be promoted?
Unfortunately all that question ever seems to do is open the flood gates of bashing the (monetarily) wealthy or corporations. We all understand the argument and the frustration that drives it, but we never seem to get beyond that. If our leaders simply reflected what appears to be the shared values of our society it would go a long way toward fixing other problems, too. Shining example, the money saved by ending military conflicts would care for our sick and misfortunate. Why do we spend so much time bickering amongst ourselves rather than directing that energy toward change. It's just frustrating...
flowerseverywhere
9-8-12, 10:09am
I also believe very strongly that, though there should be separation of church and state, everyone's faith/values/inner convictions colors their choices in life. As a result, our faiths are expressed in our government. The fact that America likes to call itself a Christian country -- some would prefer it to be a theocracy -- but fails to collectively care for the sick, weak, and poor ... Frankly, it floors me. The Bible also says, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." And “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"
So why the disconnect?
One of the great mysteries of life.
"When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why people are hungry, they call me a Communist."
Brazilian archbiship Dom Helder Camara
I think most people here are glad to do their part for charity. But we don't live in a bubble. How we organize our societies affects how all of us live. That's also why I think most people participate on this forum: to ask Why? and How can we make this better?
One of the great mysteries of life.
Not really - people want all their stuff - and they want to go to Heaven, too. So they make their rules fit that.
Can you imagine what would happen to someone today if they effectively taught that material gain was completely irrelevant? They'd be stopped - and if they couldn't be stopped, they'd be killed.
Then -- really -- why even have a government? Why not just let people do what they want? No, I'm not trying to be extreme. The whole point of any kind of representative government is to establish consensus goals -- protection, promotion of well-being, etc. Any time you get more than two people involved, there will be differences of opinion, so consensus has to rule. As a result, you will almost always have people who are compelled to act against their will in the interest of the common good.
I also believe very strongly that, though there should be separation of church and state, everyone's faith/values/inner convictions colors their choices in life. As a result, our faiths are expressed in our government. The fact that America likes to call itself a Christian country -- some would prefer it to be a theocracy -- but fails to collectively care for the sick, weak, and poor ... Frankly, it floors me. The Bible also says, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." And “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"
So why the disconnect?
I think there are two arguments against this view. The first is that government is not the same thing as community. It is hired help. It is not a moral actor that seamlessly blends all our individual beliefs into a seamless collective vision that relieves us of our individual responsibilities. The Founders (quite wisely, in my view) designed a system that includes a number of mechanisms aimed at limiting government’s ability to impose the will of the 51% on the 49%. We may, some of us, prescribe to a faith that enjoins us to sell all we have and give to the poor; but that does not mean we can or should outsource that responsibility to government though some massive redistribution scheme (or force others to).
The second argument is practical. “Need” is defined as anything from feeding hungry children to keeping the lights on at NPR or GM or JP Morgan Chase to providing 30 year old students with $9/month worth of contraceptives. It is, given the pandering proclivities of politicians, essentially infinite. Even if we do not expand beyond our current portfolio of entitlements, they will grow beyond our ability to pay for them, even if we dispossess every “millionaire and billionaire” within our grasp. Even if we force the churches into the abortifacient business. Even if we reduce our military to Canadian levels. This isn’t necessarily an argument for “starving the beast”, but we should certainly strive to keep it hungry.
Life_is_Simple
9-8-12, 10:58am
Jesus was speaking perhaps of personal responsibility and ethics. Not so much about using the force of government to compel people to act against their will...
"If you really love me you will give all to the poor". Not "If you really love me, you will take from the fortunate to give to the unfortunate." That is the moral responsibility of the fortunate, not the state, or the Democratic Party.
.
I really don't think there is such a thing as "Libertarian Jesus," even though that may the type of logic the GOP uses to convince Christians to vote for their party.
Life_is_Simple
9-8-12, 11:16am
If our leaders simply reflected what appears to be the shared values of our society it would go a long way toward fixing other problems, too. Shining example, the money saved by ending military conflicts would care for our sick and misfortunate. Why do we spend so much time bickering amongst ourselves rather than directing that energy toward change. It's just frustrating...
It seems like a large portion of the elected officials are in it for power and/or money. Who can you think of that actually represent their constituents?
I can think of some who actually represent the good in people. I can think of more who are in it for themselves.
I really don't think there is such a thing as "Libertarian Jesus," even though that may the type of logic the GOP uses to convince Christians to vote for their party.
I'm not one of the indoctrinated but I don't recall Jesus enforcing his teachings through secular authority. Obviously a different historic context, but it seems to me that he sought to keep morality and actions separate from institutional control. One renders unto Ceaser what one must, but that wasn't the real crux of the change was supposed to be implemented, was it?
ApatheticNoMore
9-8-12, 1:04pm
really don't think there is such a thing as "Libertarian Jesus," even though that may the type of logic the GOP uses to convince Christians to vote for their party.
I don't think there is such thing as a Democratic party Jesus. This discussion of loving the poor all sparked by the political convention of a party many of those on the real left regard as having near totally betrayed even it's own supposed liberal/left ideals! I also regard it as having betrayed many of the small d democratic ideals that make a democratic society function well (openness and transparency amoung them). But hey you'll have a great society with very little openness (government acting in great secrecy) and increasingly draconian crackdowns on civil liberties and protests .... keep believing that. I don't know that any society lives easily with protests but some seem to do better than others. And then add in the money that floods the political system - oy! A perfect disaster. Which billionaire and corporate financed candidate would Jesus vote for? Which war or undeclared war would Jesus like?
The amount of entitlement spending we have that actually benefits the poor has got to be a very small portion of government spending indeed. Middle class entitlements like social security and medicare keep many people out of poverty and directly help the middle class retire, fight for those because they are the great middle class entitlements! Fight to maintain the benefits of the broad swath of people because they benefit the broad swath of people! They keep life in this U.S. of A. from degenerating into a pure banana republic empire. Religion doesn't have to have anything to do with it. What happened to all the excess Social Security and Medicare taxes that were collected throughout the years? (in excess of payouts for these programs) Oh I know they were spent and they were maybe always intended to be spent. But what were they spent on? Maybe I'm pretty skeptical that it was spent on the middle class though it may very well have been spent on the military. The middle class was robbed then, don't let them use it as an excuse to now gut these programs.
flowerseverywhere
9-8-12, 9:05pm
apathetic you are so right. It isn't about religion per se but doing the right thing. Not giving money to your rich cronies and feathering your own nest and fullfilling your obligations to your citizens and making the country strong. Ci
I am probably more sensitive to it but all through our government documents, songs, pledges etc. God is mentioned. Our courts have you swear on the bible. In life people say they will pray for me, God bless you when you sneeze- God is everywhere in our society. And politicians try to use this to their advantage if they think it will help them. Which is truly sinful for believers.
There is a small part of my heart that believes that part of the hatred towards Obama has to do with the color of his skin. It wasn't very far in our past that slaves were owned and there were white only bathrooms and lunch counters. That may or may not be true, but the thought creeps into my mind.
Yes, the constant mention of God in every political gathering is too much. And don't ever forget your flag lapel pin!
Someone said we'll know that we've broken the last discrimination barrier if the U.S. ever elects an avowed atheist as our president.
Just celebrated my Mom's 85th birthday, and we rounded the day off by talking politics. My lifelong R father said "I wouldn't vote for Romney for dog catcher!" Well, ok then! Another R for Obama.
We had an interesting, far reaching convo about the Euro, NAFTA, President Carter, the horrific Bush years (Dad voted for BII the first time, thereinafter calling him a troglodyte...), Social Security, retiring to Costa Rica, and so on. I am very glad that both my parents are alive, present, educated, caring, smart, and warm-hearted. And that my Dad has FINALLY been converted to voting D/I.
Yes, the constant mention of God in every political gathering is too much. And don't ever forget your flag lapel pin!
Someone said we'll know that we've broken the last discrimination barrier if the U.S. ever elects an avowed atheist as our president.
+1
flowerseverywhere
9-8-12, 10:47pm
Anyone remember the concerns about JFK, that being Catholic he was going to consult the pope?
I think for a very long time our leaders will primarily be white, upper middle class to rich, claimaing to be christian men.
ApatheticNoMore
9-8-12, 11:46pm
We had an interesting, far reaching convo about the Euro, NAFTA, President Carter, the horrific Bush years (Dad voted for BII the first time, thereinafter calling him a troglodyte...)
In retrospect I'm not sure I know what was so horrible about the Bush years. I thought I knew, they felt like a dark cloud. I thought it was wars and civil liberties. I thought it was revelations coming out that the U.S. was torturing people, discussions of waterboarding etc.. I thought it was things like that. Pictures coming out of the tortured (even though I've lost all track, I think there are sets that have NEVER been released still, because remember releasing that second set was blocked, were they ever released?).
Now, I'm not so sure what anyone thought so bad about the Bush years. Is history being rewritten so that the complaint about the Bush years is them breaking the economy? Funny but did ANYONE complain about that *THEN*? That wasn't even *MY* complaint or horror then and I hated Bush! I did sometimes remark "I think housing might be in a bubble", and I did sometimes get doomster - it's all gonna crash - none of the economy we know now will survive etc., but that wasn't my issue with Bush, at all. Did anyone complain about the bubble getting too bubbly and the economy needing to be brought into a "soft landing" or whatever back then? Hahahaha, "soft landing", you remember the old Greenspan term? Funny this landing isn't very slow or gentle at all is it ....
So that's the new issue with the Bush years? Down the memory hole. Because if the issues is wars and civil liberties, I became horrified by Obama to a degree that makes the Bush years seem quaint. I didn't think that was possible either but .... it was.
I certainly think Bush tax cuts were also a bad idea, but really was that really the issue people had with Bush? It's certainly not how I perceived it, I though most people hated Bush for the reason I did: wars and tortures and spying and so on, but maybe I was just a weirdo.
I certainly think Bush tax cuts were also a bad idea, but really was that really the issue people had with Bush? It's certainly not how I perceived it, I though most people hated Bush for the reason I did: wars and tortures and spying and so on, but maybe I was just a weirdo.
ANM, it was so much more...
- Cronyism. The nomination of people who were not suited to the prospective job either by experience or temperament. Harriet Miers, John Bolton, the willingness of the Administration to let the oil companies ghost-write America's energy policy, the curious influence of a state governed by Bush's brother in deciding the 2000 election;
- Incompetence. The support by the federal government after Hurricane Katrina. Donald Rumsfeld dismissing inadequately-armored personnel carriers in Iraq as "having to go to war with the army you've got" (even more so when that conflict was entirely a matter of choice). Bush suggesting our best response to terrorism was to "go shopping".
- The lies. There was no yellowcake in Iraq. There were no nuclear weapons and hardly anything that remotely constituted a "weapon of mass destruction". The "Patriot Act", which compromised several key American freedoms in the name of attempting to catch poorly-defined "bad guys". The waterboarding which was conveniently ignored as torture. The colored Threat Level that automagically became more severe whenever the Administration was challenged in some other area of policy.
- The economic bungling. For a party that supposedly stood for fiscal responsibility, Bush signed pretty much any spending bill that crossed his desk. He prosecuted two wars without ever putting either one on the books. He signed into law Medicare Part D, which was an engineered favor to pharmaceutical companies and insurers.
Many of us had lots of issues with Bush. It was a very dark period in American history, and I think the fact that both Bush 1 and 2 rated no more than five whole minutes (and no personal appearances by either) at the RNC tells you even the Republicans think Dubya is still a "third rail".
SteveinMN and Apatheticnomore- You stated the problems so well. Thanks.
In the news this morning, "Obama maintains post-convention lead over Romney", thanks, to Bill Clinton, himself. According to reports, the bounce Obama is getting, coming out of the convention, is 80% Bill Clinton. GO BILL, GO!
In the news this morning, "Obama maintains post-convention lead over Romney", thanks, to Bill Clinton, himself. According to reports, the bounce Obama is getting, coming out of the convention, is 80% Bill Clinton. GO BILL, GO!
Not so much "according to reports" as according to Newt Gingrich (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-clinton-speech-obama-20120909,0,5172753.story):
“The bounce Obama’s getting coming out of the convention is 80% Bill Clinton. Clinton is a very popular figure for a very practical reason: the economy worked,” Gingrich said. Clinton’s backing “actually shrinks Obama. I mean, you have a real president and then you have this guy who’s a pretender.”
ApatheticNoMore
9-10-12, 11:24am
“The bounce Obama’s getting coming out of the convention is 80% Bill Clinton. Clinton is a very popular figure for a very practical reason: the economy worked,” Gingrich said.
Did it? Did it ever? At any rate did it ever in the last couple of decades? Wasn't even much Clinton prosperty the dot com bubble?
I also don't understand the criticique of Republicans breaking the economy. Obstructionists on passing some Obama legistlation aimed at fixing it I will accept. That seems fair enough. It's the breaking it in the first place I don't understand. Ok so what should have been done different? More regulation? Ok but some of those regulations were repealed in the Clinton era as we all know. Federal reserve should have used it's regulatory power and the regulations already on it's books? Ok, were the Federal reserve appointeees all Republican appointees? Greenspan was originally but he was reappointed all throughout 8 years of Clinton. Interest rates should have been raised? Ok but it's very hard to tell people to turn away from the alcohol at the height of the party (and oh so easy to get: but I should have after the hangover). Find a politician that campaigns on: this bubble is too bubbly and we should attempt a "soft landing" now. Yea you'll find that like you'll find a pollitician campaiging on "our rate of natural resource consumption is unsustainable", but of course that is also true. Besides historically it has been Dems who favored low fed interest rates and that was absolutely true back in Greenspan's day, I remember, they liked that policy. Banks never should have been allowed to consolidate to be as big as they are? Yes, was that exclusively a Republican policy? I don't know exactly how that happened anyway, part Glass Stegal but part just a failure to enforce anti-trust I think. They are now of course EVEN BIGGER!
We shouldn't have wasted all our money on wars and homeland security and outsourced our manufacturing base? That's both parties. The deficits don't help. Yea, that's fair enough, I think that one can be pinned more on Republicans.
This article closely describes the journey several people I know made from dyed-in-the-wool Republicans to more a progressive understanding of the world.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/
Starting a big expensive arbitrary war, keeping it off the books to conceal its cost, and then cutting taxes/revenue--an unprecedented move in wartime--was certainly a blow to the national economy.
iris lily
9-11-12, 10:48am
This article closely describes the journey several people I know made from dyed-in-the-wool Republicans to more a progressive understanding of the world.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/
I like any story where the wife ends up being right.
But seriously, this author's experience in and with the military gives him a good basis for examining his own deeply held beliefs. Since I think the business of government (one of the few) IS the defense of this country, how that defense is carried out is legitimate political debate. I certainly don't think that every thing we've done and are doing currently in the world, in a military sense, is right or productive. It is maddening, scary, absurd--you name the adjective--what the huge industrial/military machine does here. It ain't all good, that's for sure.
But equally seriously, he thinks everyone should have an opportunity to eat in a sit down restaurant? And it's gooberment's job to make that happen? Dude, you lost me with that one. There are many things that are wrong with your insights here, but first and foremost, you are still culturally insensitive because that which you value (eating in sit-down restaurants) may not be valued in other cultures. Get over yourself.
Life_is_Simple
9-11-12, 11:40am
This article closely describes the journey several people I know made from dyed-in-the-wool Republicans to more a progressive understanding of the world.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/
That is a great article! :+1:
ApatheticNoMore
9-11-12, 11:43am
There are many things that are wrong with your insights here, but first and foremost, you are still culturally insensitive because that which you value (eating in sit-down restaurants) may not be valued in other cultures. Get over yourself.
Yea but one doesn't live in "other cultures", one lives in the culture one lives in. If one lives in some subculture in which they are perfectly happy I can't imagine anyone saying they should be made to eat a sit down meal. But does anyone in the U.S. actually live entirely in a subculture with the influence of media and so on? I'm about as anti-media as I come, but ....
treehugger
9-11-12, 11:44am
Not so much "according to reports" as according to Newt Gingrich (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-clinton-speech-obama-20120909,0,5172753.story):
Yeah, talk about damning with faint praise. A "compliment" from Newt Gingrich? Um, no thanks.
Kara
But does anyone in the U.S. actually live entirely in a subculture with the influence of media and so on? I'm about as anti-media as I come, but ....
As a matter of fact, I do. And from what little I saw of the DNC (commercial-free clips carefully cherry-picked via YouTube), the dems finally realized they LOVE my subculture! :cool:
I like any story where the wife ends up being right.
:laff::laff::laff:
You are SO invited to have a margarita on the dock!
Shoot, my wife is right all the time. In fact every time! A happy wife is a happy life.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.