Does It Matter?

[Guest]

I can't believe that nobody has posted this.

Today, Glenn Beck who believes that POTUS Obama is surrounded by Marxists and others who are hell bent on dismantling American capitalism "brick by brick." Beck said forget what you think of him be he fool, liar or idiot.

What if he is right?

Does it matter?

Dint tell us what you think of the argument or what you think Beck. Tell us if it would matter to you that Obama was surrounded my Marxists who want to end capitalism in America.

Yoda

[Guest]

I can't believe that nobody has posted this.

Today, Glenn Beck who believes that POTUS Obama is surrounded by Marxists and others who are hell bent on dismantling American capitalism "brick by brick." Beck said forget what you think of him be he fool, liar or idiot.

What if he is right?

Does it matter?

Dint tell us what you think of the argument or what you think Beck. Tell us if it would matter to you that Obama was surrounded my Marxists who want to end capitalism in America.

Yoda

OMG! You ask for an honest debate and then you bring up something as ridiculous as this! :ohdear:

[Guest]

OMG! You ask for an honest debate and then you bring up something as ridiculous as this! :ohdear:

Why can't you answer the question? Surely you must be able to. I am surprised that you didn't blame Bush?

C'mon Chels, just tell us. Would it matter to you if it were true?

Yoda

[Guest]

My answer is "consider the source".

There's a famous tape of Glen Beck contradicting himself in 70 seconds where he says Obama is racist and hates white people, then says he isn't.

Also remember that these are the people (Glen Beck, et al) who just last year would spot lines like how it was unpatriotic to disagree with the administration.

If it was wrong to question Bush's service record for it's "gaps" and stories about whatever indiscretions he may have performed decades ago, it is equally wrong to look that far into the past of others and perform the same "analysis" to extrapolate one's intentions.

[Guest]

My answer is "consider the source".

There's a famous tape of Glen Beck contradicting himself in 70 seconds where he says Obama is racist and hates white people, then says he isn't.

Also remember that these are the people (Glen Beck, et al) who just last year would spot lines like how it was unpatriotic to disagree with the administration.

If it was wrong to question Bush's service record for it's "gaps" and stories about whatever indiscretions he may have performed decades ago, it is equally wrong to look that far into the past of others and perform the same "analysis" to extrapolate one's intentions.

The question was not if you trust Glenn Beck. The question was, if it were true that Obama was surrounded by Marxists, hell bent on destroying capitalism in the United Stated, would it matter?

Yoda

[Guest]

The question was not if you trust Glenn Beck. The question was, if it were true that Obama was surrounded by Marxists, hell bent on destroying capitalism in the United Stated, would it matter?

Yoda

The whole idea is preposterous. Only a moron like Glen Beck would put it out there and it doesn't say much for his audience if they put any stock in what he says. He calls himself an entertainer and he is certainly entertaining his loyal followers with hatred, lies and fabrications. He could be "the voice" of the GOP! Aren't ya excited? I am.

[Guest]

Does this make me a moron: I being a believer in the free enterprise system
feel that if Beck were correct then Obama and his team would surely destroy everything we know and love about our Country.

This being the case is there a way we can find out if Beck has any facts to back up his premise. Calling Beck and I guess me morons will not help us get the facts behind the premise.

If you are not interested in checking the facts what kind of a contribution are you making by bashing the messenger.

[Guest]

to the question?
My answer, whether the question is hypothetical or real remains to be seen.... is that it would and should matter to any American who loves this country.

From a reality perspective, it must matter to some WH officials if one looks back at the heat generated by Michael Vick's background, once exposed.

One has to wonder how such controversial personnel issues can go from the quiet of day, to an ember smoldering, to a raging torch, back to a smoldering ember and once again the quiet of day......with no further commentary from concerned Americans. Politics....what a miraculous, hypocritical, two faced ointment.

btk

[Guest]

Also when you bash Beck's and Fox's audience you are bashing millions of Liberals, Independents and conservatives both Democrats and Republicans.

When you do this you you are not helping Obama and his team but thank you you are helping the morons among us who love the free enterprise system.

[Guest]

Perhaps I can explain it this way.

If someone is yelling about conspiracy theories on a soapbox in the park up town, I'm most likely going to ignore him.

If stories start coming out about conspiracy theories in local and national newspapers, wire services, etc - I'll take them much more seriously.

People who worry about Obama "surrounding himself with marxists", in my opinion, have to take a step back. Need I remind ANYONE of the "USA PATRIOT" Act? Where were all the people screaming about the unbelievable infringment on our rights? Warrantless wiretapps, illegal search and seizure, no right to trial - literally driving stakes into the Constitution.

Oh yeah - they were shouted down and called "unAmerican" by the so-called "republicans".

Sure, I was in favor of letting law enforcement agencies trade information wher ethey hadn't been allowed before. That only makes sense. But the Patriot Act is an abomination. But people are worried about an economic policy that caused the government to 'buy' GM? Here's a hint - you can vote them out in 3 years. By comparison, we still have the Patriot Act. Where can I vote that out? It's been around for 8.

Limbaugh falls victim to a hoax about Obama's supposed thesis because he was so anxious to have ammunition he didn't bother to fact-check things.

Fox News calls 70,000 Tea Party protestors in D.C. a major movement. But when more people show up for gay rights, they can't be bothered to even point a camera out their window. In fact, the put their cameras out to an EMPTY PARK to say "here's where a small protest happend previously about a girl in a school who didn't want to write something about Obama".

I've not been a fan of CNN for a long time. I don't particularly care for the liberal slant without balance. But Fox is so over-the-top with their own slant that I cringe when I actually agree with them.

I can't believe I'm actually longing for the days when the worst news out of DC was who was taking Clinton's pants off. And now you have the same people who were out for Clinton's blood doing the same to Obama who inherited a multi TRILLION dollar mess.

I'm no fan of Obama in general - but to blame him for what he inherited... I mean, do we NOT remember Reagan making the same complaints when he took office in '80? Do we not remember Reagan's slogan in '84 of "you can't change 40 years of Democrat influence in just 4 years"?

Asking a question of whether Obama is surrounded by Marxists is like asking if Bush was surrounded by Nazis.

[Guest]

Perhaps I can explain it this way.

If someone is yelling about conspiracy theories on a soapbox in the park up town, I'm most likely going to ignore him.

If stories start coming out about conspiracy theories in local and national newspapers, wire services, etc - I'll take them much more seriously.

People who worry about Obama "surrounding himself with marxists", in my opinion, have to take a step back. Need I remind ANYONE of the "USA PATRIOT" Act? Where were all the people screaming about the unbelievable infringment on our rights? Warrantless wiretapps, illegal search and seizure, no right to trial - literally driving stakes into the Constitution.

Oh yeah - they were shouted down and called "unAmerican" by the so-called "republicans".

Sure, I was in favor of letting law enforcement agencies trade information wher ethey hadn't been allowed before. That only makes sense. But the Patriot Act is an abomination. But people are worried about an economic policy that caused the government to 'buy' GM? Here's a hint - you can vote them out in 3 years. By comparison, we still have the Patriot Act. Where can I vote that out? It's been around for 8.

Limbaugh falls victim to a hoax about Obama's supposed thesis because he was so anxious to have ammunition he didn't bother to fact-check things.

Fox News calls 70,000 Tea Party protestors in D.C. a major movement. But when more people show up for gay rights, they can't be bothered to even point a camera out their window. In fact, the put their cameras out to an EMPTY PARK to say "here's where a small protest happend previously about a girl in a school who didn't want to write something about Obama".

I've not been a fan of CNN for a long time. I don't particularly care for the liberal slant without balance. But Fox is so over-the-top with their own slant that I cringe when I actually agree with them.

I can't believe I'm actually longing for the days when the worst news out of DC was who was taking Clinton's pants off. And now you have the same people who were out for Clinton's blood doing the same to Obama who inherited a multi TRILLION dollar mess.

I'm no fan of Obama in general - but to blame him for what he inherited... I mean, do we NOT remember Reagan making the same complaints when he took office in '80? Do we not remember Reagan's slogan in '84 of "you can't change 40 years of Democrat influence in just 4 years"?

Asking a question of whether Obama is surrounded by Marxists is like asking if Bush was surrounded by Nazis.


First of all, I am sure you are aware that this adminstration supports most of, if not all of the Patriot act !!! While there is a move in congress to amend some of it (Lone wolf provision, etc) it is basically all okay with this administration !

You refer to "conspiracy theories"...I am sorry...I have not heard any of those theories. As one who has been opposed to this President for a long long time because of his training, background, AND actions I certainly get very nervous when someone with "marxist" tendencies is appointed by him to a position of authority.

During the campaign many of those folks on here who supported Obama when I expressed my concern about his background and training made the point that if elected President he will not be able to appoint like folk to his administration but it does appear that he is trying.

Keep in mind, this President has been surrounded by the type of folks who do not have faith in capitalism...who has espoused marxist type theories for most of his life.

So, in answer to Yoda's question, it is important who the President surrounds himself with and as someone who does not espouse marxist theories then it would be a cause of great concern to me !

PS: To you and those who dont like Fox and seem totally obssesed with them (like the White House) then dont watch them although I read where their viewership just keeps on rising !

[Guest]

Perhaps I can explain it this way.

If someone is yelling about conspiracy theories on a soapbox in the park up town, I'm most likely going to ignore him.

If stories start coming out about conspiracy theories in local and national newspapers, wire services, etc - I'll take them much more seriously.

People who worry about Obama "surrounding himself with marxists", in my opinion, have to take a step back. Need I remind ANYONE of the "USA PATRIOT" Act? Where were all the people screaming about the unbelievable infringment on our rights? Warrantless wiretapps, illegal search and seizure, no right to trial - literally driving stakes into the Constitution.

Oh yeah - they were shouted down and called "unAmerican" by the so-called "republicans".

Sure, I was in favor of letting law enforcement agencies trade information wher ethey hadn't been allowed before. That only makes sense. But the Patriot Act is an abomination. But people are worried about an economic policy that caused the government to 'buy' GM? Here's a hint - you can vote them out in 3 years. By comparison, we still have the Patriot Act. Where can I vote that out? It's been around for 8.

Limbaugh falls victim to a hoax about Obama's supposed thesis because he was so anxious to have ammunition he didn't bother to fact-check things.

Fox News calls 70,000 Tea Party protestors in D.C. a major movement. But when more people show up for gay rights, they can't be bothered to even point a camera out their window. In fact, the put their cameras out to an EMPTY PARK to say "here's where a small protest happend previously about a girl in a school who didn't want to write something about Obama".

I've not been a fan of CNN for a long time. I don't particularly care for the liberal slant without balance. But Fox is so over-the-top with their own slant that I cringe when I actually agree with them.

I can't believe I'm actually longing for the days when the worst news out of DC was who was taking Clinton's pants off. And now you have the same people who were out for Clinton's blood doing the same to Obama who inherited a multi TRILLION dollar mess.

I'm no fan of Obama in general - but to blame him for what he inherited... I mean, do we NOT remember Reagan making the same complaints when he took office in '80? Do we not remember Reagan's slogan in '84 of "you can't change 40 years of Democrat influence in just 4 years"?

Asking a question of whether Obama is surrounded by Marxists is like asking if Bush was surrounded by Nazis.

You just cannot bring yourself to answer the question, can you.

Yoda

[Guest]

What part of "consider the source" and "yelling about conspiracy theories" did you not understand?

Then I'll answer the question directly - NO. To be honest, if Glen Beck said the sky was blue, I'd look up.

Why? Because he's interested in ratings and conflict. The same way Limbaugh got caught. Limbaugh wasn't interested in the truth, he was interested in winning a fight - didn't matter if it was true or not.

And before you pidgeon-hole me, after all I'm relatively new here, I've used Limbaugh's website in the past to back up certain assertations because it was a LOT easier to collect certain information published about tax returns than to navigate through the IRS website.

When someone is right, it does me no good to say "no he isn't".

The Republican Party bears NO resemblance to the party by that name in my youth. (And, for the record, Reagan in 1980 was the first President I was old enough to vote for) The Democrats are closer to their ideals (whether or not I agree with them) but are also colossal sellouts.

As to revisit the idea that I'm not being able to bring myself to answer the question - the original question was 3 words: "Does it matter?"

Does what Glen Beck says matter? No. He's acting like a moonbat. Think of the difference in deliverance between Beck and when Walter cronkite delivered HIS opinions.

So then when the question of Beck's OPINION that Obama is surrounded by Marxosts was answered ("No"), you either changed or clarified the question to a point that ASSUMED Beck's OPINION was fact. The goalposts, as they say, were moved. This is despite the fact that you asked "What if he's right?"

It's like saying "John Doe says the sky will turn yellow and this will destroy the Blue Paint Industry - what if he's right?"

Now, perhaps if you named some of these "Marxists" or pointed to a Beck-sourced list, at least I could look for myself and THEN judge whether or not it 'matters' or if I agree with the assertation of how dangerous it is.

[Guest]

What part of "consider the source" and "yelling about conspiracy theories" did you not understand?

Then I'll answer the question directly - NO. To be honest, if Glen Beck said the sky was blue, I'd look up.

Why? Because he's interested in ratings and conflict. The same way Limbaugh got caught. Limbaugh wasn't interested in the truth, he was interested in winning a fight - didn't matter if it was true or not.

And before you pidgeon-hole me, after all I'm relatively new here, I've used Limbaugh's website in the past to back up certain assertations because it was a LOT easier to collect certain information published about tax returns than to navigate through the IRS website.

When someone is right, it does me no good to say "no he isn't".

The Republican Party bears NO resemblance to the party by that name in my youth. (And, for the record, Reagan in 1980 was the first President I was old enough to vote for) The Democrats are closer to their ideals (whether or not I agree with them) but are also colossal sellouts.

As to revisit the idea that I'm not being able to bring myself to answer the question - the original question was 3 words: "Does it matter?"

Does what Glen Beck says matter? No. He's acting like a moonbat. Think of the difference in deliverance between Beck and when Walter cronkite delivered HIS opinions.

So then when the question of Beck's OPINION that Obama is surrounded by Marxosts was answered ("No"), you either changed or clarified the question to a point that ASSUMED Beck's OPINION was fact. The goalposts, as they say, were moved. This is despite the fact that you asked "What if he's right?"

It's like saying "John Doe says the sky will turn yellow and this will destroy the Blue Paint Industry - what if he's right?"

Now, perhaps if you named some of these "Marxists" or pointed to a Beck-sourced list, at least I could look for myself and THEN judge whether or not it 'matters' or if I agree with the assertation of how dangerous it is.


Anita Dunn...the WH says she was joking when she said how she admired Mao

Carol Browner....past member (although it is now hard to find..most references earased) of Socialist International...actually she was one of the leaders of the group.

Cecilia Munoz....a leader in the group La Raza, a very questionable chicano organization. If you you favor immigration reform, you may not like this group.

Robert Bauer....served as an attorney for Obama Brown Shirts (a somewhat interesting organization)

Dr James Hansen...who supports openly using global warming as a way to redistribute weatlh

Van Jones...of course one of the czars and we do not have to revisit this as he has resigned.

Now,that is a START, and simply a start...but if you need further I will be glad to supply.

You ignore YODA's intial question and again must go after Beck and Limbaugh...let me ask you something.....are you one who follows the verbage of Olberman or Maddow as two examples ?

I am curious about that since with all this talk about Fox only, it is as if they just came on the scene last week...and the issue to me is this....how can a President of the United States declare war on a news organization and THAT FACT not be something of outrage ?

Did you hear the interview with Dunn on CNN where she was also asked about MSNBC and began to backpedal even on Fox. Remember, we have a SITTING President of the United States going after publicly a news source. Imagine with Bush's poor poll numbers and poor press had that WH taken the same tack !

[Guest]

instead of the usual rock throwing....both parties.

As far as who said what and their character....it is so easy to google and research.....like the Van Jones issue. No matter who brought him to the light of day.....just google his name and see what is written about him.....as an example.

The keyboard is much like the CB of days of old. Those who would not say boo in a quorum.....achieve verbose catharsis in anonymity.....and we are for the most part all anonomous here.....eh?

btk

[Guest]

So if BO and his recking crew are not trying to dismantle our free market system aka America, why would they want to take over car companies, financial institutions, drive health insurance companies out of business, add trillions and trillions of debt, not care about job creation, put programs in place (cap-n-tax) and others that will basically drive families to bankruptcy? The list goes on and on.

None of his actions create any jobs but in fact are job killers. Tax revenues to the governments are dropping like a rock and at the same time government spending is skyrocketing to levels never seen our our history.

Forget about Glenn Beck or any other messenger you happen to hate. BO's actions are as plain as day. Any rational common sense thinking person can't come to any other conclusion.

[Guest]

Bucco: *Thank* you. And I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. It always helps a *debate* when you know where the other person is coming from.

Now, I wasn't ignoring Yoda's question. Quite the contrary, I was trying to get to the *real* question, if there was one. To be honest, at first, I wasn't sure what it was that he was talking about other than what *sounded* like a simple talking point.

No I don't listen to Olberman or Maddow. To give you a little background on myself, so that you know where *I'm* coming from, for years I used to buy 3 papers a day. The leftist Boston Globe, the rightist Boston Herald and the McPaper Digest USA Today (as a sort of 'index') to kind of 'average things out'. I'm more of libertarian in principle but a realist at heart. To take that ideal into a practical example, I don't believe that health care is something that should be run by the government *BUT* I can also see the handwriting on the wall. I'm the kind of person who tries to think things through for their consequences largely because that's part of what I do for a living in designing software systems (If we do THIS then what effect will if have later on?).

I believe that whirring sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson spinning like a lathe in his grave. It's my belief that he would be simultaneously amazed and horrified at what this country has become.

I do believe that government has specific functions and that one of those is the "level playing field". But by the same turn that means the government is the REFEREE, not the scorekeeper. It's their job to make sure we all play by the same rules. Not one set of rules for us and one for Halliburton, Citibank, BofA, Aetna, etc. (And I say that as an employee of a major defense contractor)

I went after Beck and Limbaugh for two reasons.

First, Beck was specifically mentioned. Secondly, I used to listen to Limbaugh on a daily basis and it saddens me to see what a parody of himself he has become. He's certainly not unique in being someone who believed his own press clippings.

I'm more than willing to discuss almost anything with almost anyone, but I prefer to leave the demagogues out of the discussion.

it breaks my heart to see what has happened to John McCain over the years. Living in New Hampshire, I had the opportunity to vote for him in our primary way back when. But the McCain I voted for back then is not the same McCain who ran last year. Not when I hear him talking about "Net Neutrality" as though he was Comcast's ventriloquism dummy. My best friend and I disagree on many things but both of us thought the greatest political tragedy of recent years was what happened to the great man that was John McCain circa 2000.

I keep waiting for the moment in history that will be as important to us as the fall of the Berlin Wall was to Germany. The moment that a viable third political party emerges from the corrupt ashes of the two existing parties - giving us a government that believes in the Jeffersonian ideals ("That which governs least, governs best") while keeping with the *stated* ideals of the Democrats concerning personal freedoms. In other words, I want the government out of my wallet AND my bedroom.

But, like I say, I can see the handwriting on the wall. I *am* a realist and I'm still hopeful.

I don't care if you call it Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate change or "Fred The Insane Weatherman Takes Over"... We shouldn't be dumping as many greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere JUST ON GENERAL PRINCIPLE. We have the technology to go to cleaner and better fuels. But by the same token, don't ram a 'treaty' down our throats that gives countries like China and India a free ride!

Health care? We pay more and get less than any other country. Dear lord, if we really believe in competition, how can we, as a country, compete for the best citizens when all those other countries can take care of them better? As I've said elsewhere, working in a hospital was quite an education.

Now, those names that Bucco mentioned - I haven't had the time to look them all up, though some made the news already. I'm no fan of "La Raza" (and I'm Hispanic, though you wouldn't know it) or other groups that perpetuate victimhood. But it's not like questionable appointees are anything new. I mean, need I say more than than the likes of John Ashcroft or Harriette Miers.

It's because of the anonymity of the internet that I wrote all this. I don't like being totally anonymous. I stand behind what I say and try to keep an open mind about things when engaged in a civil debate. I've had my mind changed on several things over the past 30 years. I've gone from being liberal to conservative to some mashup of both with a streak of libertarianism mixed in.

And if you want to know what I think of our current news organizations, well.. To be honest, I find myself agreeing with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show on Comedy Central more often. He's savaged everybody from Fox to MSNBC to CNN repeatedly. The latest being the fact that you have all these 24/7 news organizations out there and they still let 'spokespersons' get away with making outlandish claims and then say "sorry we don't have time to explore that". THEY'RE ON 24/7 - HOW MUCH MORE TIME COULD THEY POSSIBLY NEED???? And they cut away for DOG SHOWS? You'll notice that CNN no longer uses as their slogan "the world's most important network". No, they have YOU call in to say what YOU think when we're supposed to be tuning into THEM to find out what's going on!

Argh.. I'm ranting. Ever since news went from being it's own separate entity for a network to being under the "entertainment" umbrella in the 1980s, it's been all downhill.

The local channels are no better.

"How your choices at the grocery store could be killing you - tonight at 11". great. What if I'm going to the store at 8?

"Is there a hidden poison in your refrigerator? Find out at 11." Come on, I have to be UP at 5:30AM!!!

I stand corrected. It's Cronkite who's spinning like a lathe in his grave.

[Guest]

BO's "wrecking crew"?

Tell me. If the administration had let GM fail and go into Chapter 7, putting hundreds of thousands of employees out of work with a ripple effect that nobody could accurately forecast, what would you have said then?

The bank bailouts? Remember - BUSH was in charge when that was signed in. Also remember that THEY were the ones arguing for deregulation that paved the way for these derivatives.

Now, what I *can* agree with you on are the facts that are plain as day. Tax revenues being down and expenditures being way up. But deficit spending in a recessionary cycle is nothing new. It's just that our economy has never been this big before so the numbers are larger than ever.

But if you're thinking about that, let me ask you - and I mean this sincerely - where were you when the surplus that Bush inherited turned into the largest deficit in history (at the time)? Were you singing the same tune? And, let's be honest, if we never went into Iraq, there's a LOT of money that would still be in this country.

Obama inherited a godawful mess. Personally I don't think he can pull us all the way out. But McCain's campaign promises of "more of the same" would have been, I honestly believe, much worse.

If we HAVE to have all this government spending to buy votes, I'd rather see it spent on fixing our highways, upgrading our electrical grid, grants for new energy research, high-speed rail - INFRASTRUCTURE - since that's one of the things that made us so prosperous in the past.

[Guest]

BO's "wrecking crew"?

Tell me. If the administration had let GM fail and go into Chapter 7, putting hundreds of thousands of employees out of work with a ripple effect that nobody could accurately forecast, what would you have said then?

The bank bailouts? Remember - BUSH was in charge when that was signed in. Also remember that THEY were the ones arguing for deregulation that paved the way for these derivatives.

Now, what I *can* agree with you on are the facts that are plain as day. Tax revenues being down and expenditures being way up. But deficit spending in a recessionary cycle is nothing new. It's just that our economy has never been this big before so the numbers are larger than ever.

But if you're thinking about that, let me ask you - and I mean this sincerely - where were you when the surplus that Bush inherited turned into the largest deficit in history (at the time)? Were you singing the same tune? And, let's be honest, if we never went into Iraq, there's a LOT of money that would still be in this country.

Obama inherited a godawful mess. Personally I don't think he can pull us all the way out. But McCain's campaign promises of "more of the same" would have been, I honestly believe, much worse.

If we HAVE to have all this government spending to buy votes, I'd rather see it spent on fixing our highways, upgrading our electrical grid, grants for new energy research, high-speed rail - INFRASTRUCTURE - since that's one of the things that made us so prosperous in the past.


This gives me an opportunity to say a few things....

First the TARP money (or the first part) was given during the Bush administration and that is correct, with Obama's blessing if you recall, AND it is credited as THE single saviour of our economics at the time and I would doubt you could find an economist that would disagree with that. Unlilke the so called "stimulus bill" which was about 70% pork.

Second, you mention the Bush spending and you are correct. This is an opportunity to point out to all those folks who recently discovered Fox news that that cable channel called him on his spending on a more regular basis than MSNBC or CNN. MSNBC focused more on the personal attacks.

Thus in answer to your question, most folks were aware and yelling about the Bush spending on both sides (of course not in congress because as we see now you just do not ever criticize the President in your party).

PS: You make the assumption that allowing GM to go bankrupt would have cost "hundreds of thousands of employees out of work" which I seriously doubt !

[Guest]

instead of the usual rock throwing....both parties.

As far as who said what and their character....it is so easy to google and research.....like the Van Jones issue. No matter who brought him to the light of day.....just google his name and see what is written about him.....as an example.

The keyboard is much like the CB of days of old. Those who would not say boo in a quorum.....achieve verbose catharsis in anonymity.....and we are for the most part all anonomous here.....eh?

btk

It was put forth as hypothetical. What if it were true? Would it matter.

Yoda

[Guest]

So if BO and his recking crew are not trying to dismantle our free market system aka America, why would they want to take over car companies, financial institutions, drive health insurance companies out of business, add trillions and trillions of debt, not care about job creation, put programs in place (cap-n-tax) and others that will basically drive families to bankruptcy? The list goes on and on.

None of his actions create any jobs but in fact are job killers. Tax revenues to the governments are dropping like a rock and at the same time government spending is skyrocketing to levels never seen our our history.

Forget about Glenn Beck or any other messenger you happen to hate. BO's actions are as plain as day. Any rational common sense thinking person can't come to any other conclusion.

You are falling into the liberal trap. You are arguing with them as to whether he is or not trying to dismantle the free market system. They will argue longer and louder than you can. They will not however answer the question of "If it were true, would it matter?"

Yoda

[Guest]

Bucco: *Thank* you. And I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. It always helps a *debate* when you know where the other person is coming from.

Now, I wasn't ignoring Yoda's question. Quite the contrary, I was trying to get to the *real* question, if there was one. To be honest, at first, I wasn't sure what it was that he was talking about other than what *sounded* like a simple talking point.

No I don't listen to Olberman or Maddow. To give you a little background on myself, so that you know where *I'm* coming from, for years I used to buy 3 papers a day. The leftist Boston Globe, the rightist Boston Herald and the McPaper Digest USA Today (as a sort of 'index') to kind of 'average things out'. I'm more of libertarian in principle but a realist at heart. To take that ideal into a practical example, I don't believe that health care is something that should be run by the government *BUT* I can also see the handwriting on the wall. I'm the kind of person who tries to think things through for their consequences largely because that's part of what I do for a living in designing software systems (If we do THIS then what effect will if have later on?).

I believe that whirring sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson spinning like a lathe in his grave. It's my belief that he would be simultaneously amazed and horrified at what this country has become.

I do believe that government has specific functions and that one of those is the "level playing field". But by the same turn that means the government is the REFEREE, not the scorekeeper. It's their job to make sure we all play by the same rules. Not one set of rules for us and one for Halliburton, Citibank, BofA, Aetna, etc. (And I say that as an employee of a major defense contractor)

I went after Beck and Limbaugh for two reasons.

First, Beck was specifically mentioned. Secondly, I used to listen to Limbaugh on a daily basis and it saddens me to see what a parody of himself he has become. He's certainly not unique in being someone who believed his own press clippings.

I'm more than willing to discuss almost anything with almost anyone, but I prefer to leave the demagogues out of the discussion.

it breaks my heart to see what has happened to John McCain over the years. Living in New Hampshire, I had the opportunity to vote for him in our primary way back when. But the McCain I voted for back then is not the same McCain who ran last year. Not when I hear him talking about "Net Neutrality" as though he was Comcast's ventriloquism dummy. My best friend and I disagree on many things but both of us thought the greatest political tragedy of recent years was what happened to the great man that was John McCain circa 2000.

I keep waiting for the moment in history that will be as important to us as the fall of the Berlin Wall was to Germany. The moment that a viable third political party emerges from the corrupt ashes of the two existing parties - giving us a government that believes in the Jeffersonian ideals ("That which governs least, governs best") while keeping with the *stated* ideals of the Democrats concerning personal freedoms. In other words, I want the government out of my wallet AND my bedroom.

But, like I say, I can see the handwriting on the wall. I *am* a realist and I'm still hopeful.

I don't care if you call it Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate change or "Fred The Insane Weatherman Takes Over"... We shouldn't be dumping as many greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere JUST ON GENERAL PRINCIPLE. We have the technology to go to cleaner and better fuels. But by the same token, don't ram a 'treaty' down our throats that gives countries like China and India a free ride!

Health care? We pay more and get less than any other country. Dear lord, if we really believe in competition, how can we, as a country, compete for the best citizens when all those other countries can take care of them better? As I've said elsewhere, working in a hospital was quite an education.

Now, those names that Bucco mentioned - I haven't had the time to look them all up, though some made the news already. I'm no fan of "La Raza" (and I'm Hispanic, though you wouldn't know it) or other groups that perpetuate victimhood. But it's not like questionable appointees are anything new. I mean, need I say more than than the likes of John Ashcroft or Harriette Miers.

It's because of the anonymity of the internet that I wrote all this. I don't like being totally anonymous. I stand behind what I say and try to keep an open mind about things when engaged in a civil debate. I've had my mind changed on several things over the past 30 years. I've gone from being liberal to conservative to some mashup of both with a streak of libertarianism mixed in.

And if you want to know what I think of our current news organizations, well.. To be honest, I find myself agreeing with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show on Comedy Central more often. He's savaged everybody from Fox to MSNBC to CNN repeatedly. The latest being the fact that you have all these 24/7 news organizations out there and they still let 'spokespersons' get away with making outlandish claims and then say "sorry we don't have time to explore that". THEY'RE ON 24/7 - HOW MUCH MORE TIME COULD THEY POSSIBLY NEED???? And they cut away for DOG SHOWS? You'll notice that CNN no longer uses as their slogan "the world's most important network". No, they have YOU call in to say what YOU think when we're supposed to be tuning into THEM to find out what's going on!

Argh.. I'm ranting. Ever since news went from being it's own separate entity for a network to being under the "entertainment" umbrella in the 1980s, it's been all downhill.

The local channels are no better.

"How your choices at the grocery store could be killing you - tonight at 11". great. What if I'm going to the store at 8?

"Is there a hidden poison in your refrigerator? Find out at 11." Come on, I have to be UP at 5:30AM!!!

I stand corrected. It's Cronkite who's spinning like a lathe in his grave.

You said a lot but a simple yes or no to the question was all I was looking for.

Yoda

[Guest]

Your question doesn't lend itself to a "yes or no" answer. Dividing people up into simpe "fer us" and "agin' us" camps does nothing. Politics is FAR more subtle than that. It's like the classic "When did you stop beating your wife" question.

I refuse to be pidgeon-holed into a camp with a one-word answer to a vague question.

If I simply say "yes" or "no", then I'm giving an inaccurate representation of myself. I do not fall in line with the Tea Party or the Obama adorers.

[Guest]

Yoda, the answer is YES!!!! Read this morning's column by Thomas Sowell. It tells about the people Obama has surrounding him. He's the one who said, " See who I surround myself with." Well we have and I for one am not happy with his selections, for advisers.

[Guest]

Yoda, the answer is YES!!!! Read this morning's column by Thomas Sowell. It tells about the people Obama has surrounding him. He's the one who said, " See who I surround myself with." Well we have and I for one am not happy with his selections, for advisers.

Thank you for a straight answer.

Yoda

[Guest]

[QUOTE=djplong;231081]My answer is "consider the source".

There's a famous tape of Glen Beck contradicting himself in 70 seconds where he says Obama is racist and hates white people, then says he isn't.

[QUOTE]

If you had actually watched this segment, you may have had a different perspective. Hmmm, perhaps not.

Yoda

[Guest]

OMG! You ask for an honest debate and then you bring up something as ridiculous as this! :ohdear:

Chels, What is not honest about the question? I did not ask to debate. I asked for an opinion based on hypothetical circumstances.

Yoda

[Guest]

My answer is "consider the source".

There's a famous tape of Glen Beck contradicting himself in 70 seconds where he says Obama is racist and hates white people, then says he isn't.



If you had actually watched this segment, you may have had a different perspective. Hmmm, perhaps not.

Yoda

Well, considering where I saw it they said "we'll play the entire segment, with space before and after so that you can see this is NOT anything we did with editing".

It tells me that Beck, for whatever reason, can't be taken seriously. If he's not on a script, then he can't remember what he's saying one minute (literally) to the next. If he WAS on a script (unlikely since this was a panel discussion) then he or his writers are lousy at their job.

Mind you, I don't think Obama was the best choice for the job. I honestly believe that Obama won because McCain said he would deliver more of the same and the people had a VERY bad feeling about that. I won't go into the problems that Sarah Palin brought into the mix (and I initially thought she was a brilliant choice until I learned more about her).

[Guest]

What did you learn about Sarah Palin?

[Guest]

To make a long story short, I learned she was window dressing.

Governor of Alaska is not like Governor of New York or California. Alaska is a welfare state due to oil revenues. Every resident gets a check, funded by the royalties the oil companies pay to the state. It has to be the easiest of all 50 states to govern. It's not like she's ever had to make a tough budget decision.

I saw interviews with the mayor of Wasilla. They don't even have their own police force. they don't pay for their schools (the state does that). When the mayor was asked what a city worker does, she repliued "well, they show up on Tuesdays for their paychecks". Granted that was in jest, but the mayor of Wasilla doesn't do much of anything.

That lack of experience is NOT where I want the person who would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency (especially given McCain's health issues).

Whether or not I agreed with her positions on various issues, she just was NOT ready for prime time. I mean, if you can't handle Katie Couric, how are you going to handle the White House Press Corps?

It was hard to tell what digs against her were real and which ones were made up, I'll grant you that.

But now she resigned from her position - and then actually said she was NOT quitting! It's like a whole new version of Newspeak from Planet Palin. She said she was pressing on the fight! What fight? From where? And how? It was all rhetoric and no substance - not that that is anything new or unique coming from a politician.

In truth, I thought she would finish out her term and then try for a more national office, like Senator or something like that. But she quit and has virtually vanished. Time will tell if any of the corruption allegations will have any traction.

I didn't give a damn about any of the allegations as to whether or not her kid was hers or Bristol's or any of that tabloid stuff.

[Guest]

as predicted by Glenn Beck, liberals will not answer the question. They will deny, deny, deny.

Remember this? Liberals said that Clinton did not have sex with that woman....

He is the POTUS. He swore under oath, of course he didn't do it. etc etc.

When it came out that he had perjured himself and was in fact guilty the liberal response was "it doesn't matter, after all it was just sex."

C'mon liberals, what if it is proven that Obama is surrounded by Marxists hell bent on dismantling the economic that has made us a great nation.

WILL IT MATTER?

Yoda

[Guest]

I will say this about liberals, they are loyal to their party and their guy. Doesn't matter what he does or what he says, they will deny, make, excuses, spin the argument and attack any opposition. You either fall in line with them or you are deemed a racist, bigot, homophobe, stupid, evil, angry mob or anything else to discredit. The media at large tries everything in their power to make it stick too. That's why they hate Fox so much.

[Guest]

I'm absolutely boggled by those comments.

Obama can't get his own people around his health care plans - not enough to be filibuster-proof anyway.

Bush ran the country into the ground while dismantling the regulations that prevented situation as we experienced that led us to the biggest recession in decades.

You complain about alleged Marxists in government. What about out and out thieves?

Warrantless wiretaps. Unprecedented use of 'signing statements'. and Cheney - one minute he's part of the Executive branch, then says he's part of the Legislative Branch - straight from the sitting VP's mouth!

Bush inherits hundreds of billions in surplus and turns it into a trillion dollar deficit (which is even worse).

Incidentally - Beck is not "news", his show is, by Fox News' admission, part of their "entertainment" schedule.

Before I go passing judgement on anyone, I'd like to hear what their specific proposals are. I mean, I had no idea John Ashcroft would be as bad as he was - his history didn't seem all that bad. Bush was a dynamic and popular governor of Texas and look what happened.

It's a phrase we used in the financial industry all the time. "Past performance does not guarantee future results".

[Guest]

I'm absolutely boggled by those comments.

Obama can't get his own people around his health care plans - not enough to be filibuster-proof anyway.

Bush ran the country into the ground while dismantling the regulations that prevented situation as we experienced that led us to the biggest recession in decades.

You complain about alleged Marxists in government. What about out and out thieves?

Warrantless wiretaps. Unprecedented use of 'signing statements'. and Cheney - one minute he's part of the Executive branch, then says he's part of the Legislative Branch - straight from the sitting VP's mouth!

Bush inherits hundreds of billions in surplus and turns it into a trillion dollar deficit (which is even worse).

Incidentally - Beck is not "news", his show is, by Fox News' admission, part of their "entertainment" schedule.

Before I go passing judgement on anyone, I'd like to hear what their specific proposals are. I mean, I had no idea John Ashcroft would be as bad as he was - his history didn't seem all that bad. Bush was a dynamic and popular governor of Texas and look what happened.

It's a phrase we used in the financial industry all the time. "Past performance does not guarantee future results".

We get it. You hate Bush et al. That's about it.

Yoda

[Guest]

I'm absolutely boggled by those comments.

Obama can't get his own people around his health care plans - not enough to be filibuster-proof anyway.

Bush ran the country into the ground while dismantling the regulations that prevented situation as we experienced that led us to the biggest recession in decades.

You complain about alleged Marxists in government. What about out and out thieves?

Warrantless wiretaps. Unprecedented use of 'signing statements'. and Cheney - one minute he's part of the Executive branch, then says he's part of the Legislative Branch - straight from the sitting VP's mouth!

Bush inherits hundreds of billions in surplus and turns it into a trillion dollar deficit (which is even worse).

Incidentally - Beck is not "news", his show is, by Fox News' admission, part of their "entertainment" schedule.

Before I go passing judgement on anyone, I'd like to hear what their specific proposals are. I mean, I had no idea John Ashcroft would be as bad as he was - his history didn't seem all that bad. Bush was a dynamic and popular governor of Texas and look what happened.

It's a phrase we used in the financial industry all the time. "Past performance does not guarantee future results".


1. Bush is no longer President !!

2. Regarding.."Before I go passing judgement on anyone, I'd like to hear what their specific proposals are."...REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH !

[Guest]

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had nothing to do with any of the financial disaster in housing?
Yes it does matter!

[Guest]

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had nothing to do with any of the financial disaster in housing?
Yes it does matter!

Now I am very confused

Yoda

[Guest]

Now I am very confused

Yoda

My point is the other poster was blaming Bush for the recession,and I simply wanted to include 2 of the major culprits.

[Guest]

1. Bush is no longer President !!

2. Regarding.."Before I go passing judgement on anyone, I'd like to hear what their specific proposals are."...REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH !

DJPlong,

Didn't anyone tell you that this group doesn't like to talk about anything prior to January 2009 and will redirect the conversation to anything else that may or may not have anything to do with the flow of the thread. Sorry, we should have told you about such little quirks. :wave:

[Guest]

DJPlong,

Didn't anyone tell you that this group doesn't like to talk about anything prior to January 2009 and will redirect the conversation to anything else that may or may not have anything to do with the flow of the thread. Sorry, we should have told you about such little quirks. :wave:

"This Group" is smart enough to realize that what happened before January 2009 is not relevant to correcting to future. THIS administration is the one that has the burden of governance for four years and will be responsible for any actions it makes. If the solution of the countries problems lay in the past then we'd need a time machine to go back to correct the problems.

The redirection of the conversation to the blame game towards Bush is the most common flow of these posts, not the other way around.

[Guest]

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it".

Talking about how we got here most certainly IS relevant.

Now I should clarify something. I didn't always hate Bush - and in fact I don't think "hate" is the right word. I am, to be accurate, EXTREMELY disappointed in him. The facts speak for themselves. A large part of it has to be the increased arrogance of the GOP as time went on. It's not like Bush could do all this all by himself. The more and more I saw of Bush it became increasingly apparent that the dynamic, popular governor of Texas was becoming more and more a puppet of those he put in place around him - and Dick Cheney seemed to be at the head of the list.

What happened to the GOP from the "Contract With America" days?

It really hit home for me when we were looking at so many problems in the previous election. We were fighting two wars that weren't going the way we wanted, increasing expenditures, coming out of the dot-com bust, health care crisis, etc.. And what was the leading cry from the GOP leadership? *Arguing against gay marriage*!!!

As a good friend of mine said, "Wars, diseases, crisis all around us and what do we get from the White House: Look! Fags!"

Tell me this isn't puppetry. One day, during a press conference, President Bush says he doesn't think that gay marriage is something that should be decided in the Constitution. He was *against* a Constitutional Ammendment, saying it should be up to the states. I took him at face value for that.

TEN DAYS LATER, he came out in favor of ammending the Constitution. Tell me someone didn't get to him. Someone didn't whisper something in his ear or tell him "No, George, we have to do it THIS way".

This is just one example that I happened to pay close attention to because I have a gay aunt. In addition my adoptive mother hid her bisexuality from me for so long, I had to find out from a COUSIN - she was that fearful of what would happen if word got out. (And me having been married, had two daughters and am now engaged again also puts ammunition against the whole ridiculous 'recruiting' argument)

I can't tell you how many times I defended Bush. I had a great respect for the man despite the fact that I didn't agree with him on everything. But bit by bit, year after year, I lost that respect.

But when it comes to correcting the mistakes, I hear Reagan echoing in my head about "stay the course" and "it takes more than four years" - and he was right.

[Guest]

a memeber since jan 2009!!!!! If you were here during 2008 you have witnessed how the opposition behaved during that year. No matter what one sees in 2009 none will compare to the party, personal attack blitzing by the opposition.
As one told me this morning.....they may not be right all the time but they are never wrong!!!!!

btk

[Guest]

Unfortunately that seems to be the pattern. When people were criticizing Bush, well, let's just say I thought their tactics and methods wouldn't do them any favors.

Now they're reaping what they'd sown.

You can disagree and debate and be civil. If I had to put my finger on the leading reason why it's gotten so bad, I would have to say it's because of news going from "information" to "entertainment" and there fore being a slave to ratings. It's not the ONLY reason, not by a longshot - but if I had to pick #1 with a bullet, that would be it.

Calling George Bush a 'moronic monkey' is about as productive as painting a Hitler moustache on Obama.

[Guest]

a memeber since jan 2009!!!!! If you were here during 2008 you have witnessed how the opposition behaved during that year. No matter what one sees in 2009 none will compare to the party, personal attack blitzing by the opposition.
As one told me this morning.....they may not be right all the time but they are never wrong!!!!!

btk

I lurked as a GUEST for a lot longer!

So, then two wrongs make a right? Okay, now I understand.

Actually Bucco challenged me the other day to provide him with the post that said that he didn't want to discuss anything thing before January 2009. I was too lazy to take up the challenge and it really wasn't worth the effort. It was his post that I was mostly responding to when he stated:

1. Bush is no longer President !!

2. Regarding.."Before I go passing judgement on anyone, I'd like to hear what their specific proposals are."...REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH !

I thought it was really appropriate to point it out to him. The broad-brush generally fits others as well. :wave::wave::wave:

[Guest]

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it".

Talking about how we got here most certainly IS relevant.

Now I should clarify something. I didn't always hate Bush - and in fact I don't think "hate" is the right word. I am, to be accurate, EXTREMELY disappointed in him. The facts speak for themselves. A large part of it has to be the increased arrogance of the GOP as time went on. It's not like Bush could do all this all by himself. The more and more I saw of Bush it became increasingly apparent that the dynamic, popular governor of Texas was becoming more and more a puppet of those he put in place around him - and Dick Cheney seemed to be at the head of the list.

What happened to the GOP from the "Contract With America" days?

It really hit home for me when we were looking at so many problems in the previous election. We were fighting two wars that weren't going the way we wanted, increasing expenditures, coming out of the dot-com bust, health care crisis, etc.. And what was the leading cry from the GOP leadership? *Arguing against gay marriage*!!!

As a good friend of mine said, "Wars, diseases, crisis all around us and what do we get from the White House: Look! Fags!"

Tell me this isn't puppetry. One day, during a press conference, President Bush says he doesn't think that gay marriage is something that should be decided in the Constitution. He was *against* a Constitutional Ammendment, saying it should be up to the states. I took him at face value for that.

TEN DAYS LATER, he came out in favor of ammending the Constitution. Tell me someone didn't get to him. Someone didn't whisper something in his ear or tell him "No, George, we have to do it THIS way".

This is just one example that I happened to pay close attention to because I have a gay aunt. In addition my adoptive mother hid her bisexuality from me for so long, I had to find out from a COUSIN - she was that fearful of what would happen if word got out. (And me having been married, had two daughters and am now engaged again also puts ammunition against the whole ridiculous 'recruiting' argument)

I can't tell you how many times I defended Bush. I had a great respect for the man despite the fact that I didn't agree with him on everything. But bit by bit, year after year, I lost that respect.

But when it comes to correcting the mistakes, I hear Reagan echoing in my head about "stay the course" and "it takes more than four years" - and he was right.

Just what in your whole post addresses the solution of today's problem? You just repeated the tired old "blame Bush" and said not one thing the current administration is doing right to solve those problems. Whatever generation or political party of the past did or didn't do to screw up our country, is not going to be the one to undo it. Today's problems lay squarely on the back of BO and the Democratic party to correct.

The "blame the past" game is not going to work, as far as convincing the conservatives amongst the population, that BO and the current Congress can and will do the job without turning our country into a semi socialist state or driving us into generational debt. And blaming the past is what your whole post was about.

The only thing that has happened so far is that Bo and Congress have spent massive amounts of tax dollars (actually borrowed money) with little tangible results.

[Guest]

I lurked as a GUEST for a lot longer!

So, then two wrongs make a right? Okay, now I understand.

Actually Bucco challenged me the other day to provide him with the post that said that he didn't want to discuss anything thing before January 2009. I was too lazy to take up the challenge and it really wasn't worth the effort. It was his post that I was mostly responding to when he stated:



I thought it was really appropriate to point it out to him. The broad-brush generally fits others as well. :wave::wave::wave:

My post was in reply to your note which named Bush, Cheney, Beck, Fox, etc...which prompted..

"1. Bush is no longer President !!"


You then said that you did not want to pass Judgement on the current President until hearing proposals....I suggested that was easy...

"2. Regarding.."Before I go passing judgement on anyone, I'd like to hear what their specific proposals are."...REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH !"

Pretty simple stuff....not sure what you read into it.

I dont paint people with a broad brush....if you want to go back in time...do so...I have not changed one single thing in how I think and in fact my posts during the campaign, in my opinion, are all being validated.

I dont talk much about either party, as that will lead to your broad brush. I just have read very much about our President, including BOTH of his auto biographies and many of the archives in the Chicago newspapers and feel very comfortable in saying I TOTALLY, 100% disagree with all of his philosphies for social change in this country and KNOW from that reading that he can only be one way. That does not make him a bad person, just a social policy that is totally against all I believe.

Pending my decision on his foreign affairs !

[Guest]

Has any obvious liberal answered my original Question?:confused:

Yoda

[Guest]

My post was in reply to your note which named Bush, Cheney, Beck, Fox, etc...which prompted..

"1. Bush is no longer President !!"


You then said that you did not want to pass Judgement on the current President until hearing proposals....I suggested that was easy...

"2. Regarding.."Before I go passing judgement on anyone, I'd like to hear what their specific proposals are."...REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH !"

Pretty simple stuff....not sure what you read into it.

I dont paint people with a broad brush....if you want to go back in time...do so...I have not changed one single thing in how I think and in fact my posts during the campaign, in my opinion, are all being validated.

I dont talk much about either party, as that will lead to your broad brush. I just have read very much about our President, including BOTH of his auto biographies and many of the archives in the Chicago newspapers and feel very comfortable in saying I TOTALLY, 100% disagree with all of his philosphies for social change in this country and KNOW from that reading that he can only be one way. That does not make him a bad person, just a social policy that is totally against all I believe.

Pending my decision on his foreign affairs !

A little correction: You weren't responging to my note which named Bush, Cheney, Beck, Fox, etc... - I think it was djplong's note ...and an excellent note it was.

I predict that you are going to be very, very unhappy for a number of years if you find that you disagree 100% with our President.

[Guest]

A little correction: You weren't responging to my note which named Bush, Cheney, Beck, Fox, etc... - I think it was djplong's note ...and an excellent note it was.

I predict that you are going to be very, very unhappy for a number of years if you find that you disagree 100% with our President.

Will be unhappy at least until Nov 2010 when some of the incumbents in congress of both parties are voted out !

[Guest]

gnu: That particular post was not a response to the "what do we do now" but to the allegation made by someone else that I hated Bush and that clouded everything.

Now as far as what's going on now that could solve the problems? Unfortunately it's too soon to tell.

Take the GM 'purchase' as an example. I'm really hoping that it turns out like Conrail - where the government took over 6 bankrupt railroads and made one out of them. It bought them in 1976 and sold Conrail for a considerable profit in 1987. The government got it for nothing and lost approximately $2B in the first six years. starting in 1983, however, profits started coming and got larger. In fact, it reported a profit of over $310M in it's final year before the privatization act was passed that mandated a sale to the private sector. That sale went for a little over $1.9B, more than recouping the government's investment when interim profits were taken into consideration.

That's what I'd like to see come from GM.

[Guest]

Does this make me a moron: I being a believer in the free enterprise system feel that if Beck were correct then Obama and his team would surely destroy everything we know and love about our Country.

This being the case is there a way we can find out if Beck has any facts to back up his premise. Calling Beck and I guess me morons will not help us get the facts behind the premise.

If you are not interested in checking the facts what kind of a contribution are you making by bashing the messenger.

You have your logic backwards- Present your arguments first, and then draw up a hypothetical conclusion for debate. Yoda is demanding his premise be answered, without presenting any contributing intelligence for or aganinst it.

[Guest]

Bucco wrote: "I dont paint people with a broad brush....if you want to go back in time...do so...I have not changed one single thing in how I think and in fact my posts during the campaign, in my opinion, are all being validated."

Why would you need a broad brush when you always arm yourself with a spray gun?

[Guest]

"This Group" is smart enough to realize that what happened before January 2009 is not relevant to correcting to future. THIS administration is the one that has the burden of governance for four years and will be responsible for any actions it makes. If the solution of the countries problems lay in the past then we'd need a time machine to go back to correct the problems.

The redirection of the conversation to the blame game towards Bush is the most common flow of these posts, not the other way around.

Funny, every time 9/11 is mentioned, right wingnuts immediately blame Bill Clinton, even though Bush was in office for 9 months at the time. Yet somehow these same Beckerheads are more than willing to pose paranoid accusations and unanswerable hypotheticals about this president from BEFORE he even took office by a man who is convinced the entire world is out to get him.

Consider the source, consider the context, and consider the rhetoric of fear and paranoia being used to "rally the good people, the Real Americans"
You guys love to drink the Kool-Aid as long as it's as outrageous and malicious as possible.

YOU LOST! GET OVER IT. YOUR ARE A VOCAL BUT VERY SMALL FRINGE MINORITY WRAPPED IN SOME NON-EXISTENT FANTASY OF WHAT AMERICA NEVER WAS.

[Guest]

Why are you the only one who gets it?

Is the answer maybe that you cannot hold a conversation with a person who's thinking is
based on what they say and not the facts you present.

[Guest]

Amazing Breach of Logic and Honesty
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnu View Post
"This Group" is smart enough to realize that what happened before January 2009 is not relevant to correcting to future. THIS administration is the one that has the burden of governance for four years and will be responsible for any actions it makes. If the solution of the countries problems lay in the past then we'd need a time machine to go back to correct the problems.

The redirection of the conversation to the blame game towards Bush is the most common flow of these posts, not the other way around.


Funny, every time 9/11 is mentioned, right wingnuts immediately blame Bill Clinton, even though Bush was in office for 9 months at the time. Yet somehow these same Beckerheads are more than willing to pose paranoid accusations and unanswerable hypotheticals about this president from BEFORE he even took office by a man who is convinced the entire world is out to get him.

Consider the source, consider the context, and consider the rhetoric of fear and paranoia being used to "rally the good people, the Real Americans"
You guys love to drink the Kool-Aid as long as it's as outrageous and malicious as possible.

YOU LOST! GET OVER IT. YOUR ARE A VOCAL BUT VERY SMALL FRINGE MINORITY WRAPPED IN SOME NON-EXISTENT FANTASY OF WHAT AMERICA NEVER WAS.

WOW! I post a calm, logical, response to a post in reference to Conservatives being called out as "This Group" and get some tirade and name calling in return. I can't even comprehend the connection between my post and your response. You need to look in the mirror!

[Guest]

Well, let's keep this civil and try not to get into the hyperbole.

Ok, set the wayback machine for January 20, 2009. It's noontime and Obama has just become President.

Who's "fault" is it for the mess that we're in at 12:01 PM? Ok, that's as far as I want to go on that part.

Now, given that, how much time do you think is reasonable for a new administration to get all their people in place (allowing for getting ready to do just that from November to January) and enact measures to try and fix those problems?

I'm not saying how long of a 'honeymoon' but - right, wrong or indifferent - how long do you think it takes to turn things around? I understand that people out there believe it *can't* happen under the current circumstances. (My personal belief is that this is NOT the best of all possible solutions)

It took Reagan a few years.

[Guest]

money hand out program since 1/20/2009, did not have a plan. You know, how much put in....results expected....some estimate of times for expectations to materialize....where to go if and when something gets off track....etc......good old fashioned business/strategic planning. Non existent. With reports of not knowing where the money has gone......GM not going to be able to pay theirs back and need more....GMAC has already said it cannot make it without more $$$$....Chrysler, ditto.....and all the other too big to fail debacles.

So to merely debate that more time is needed is sort of a waste of time, given the complete lack of planning. This is not peculiar to this administration at all. They just happen to be the one in charge and the one handing $$$$ out faster and in more quantity than predecessors....with out any accountability.

If a plan....even a minimal plan with accountability and what was to be achieved and roughly when....we could all look at the plan and say....OK, needs more time....OK needs more $$$$$....more etc.....but without a plan how is one to know? And pleading for more time to see if a program is working or not given the complete lack of accountability and responsibility is really rather naive.

It is akin to a current administration cruise trip....c'mon let's go...going to be fun....price is right the fed is picking up the bill. The ship is the most elaborate in the world with accomodations fit for a king for all passengers. It will be the best when it is built. Don't worry about where the ship will go, we will figure that out after we leave port and have enough information to make good decisions where to go. Don't worry about how long we will be gone, because you don't want to miss all the wonderful places we will be going.
Yadda....yaddda....yadda.

Just like the programs passed to date! Where? How much? How long? Who?

By the way, plug in any federal program and all the above applies. For example....how we doing on energy independence? You know the other ticking time bomb that when it goes off will minimalize any other issue facing this nation. Yes the war(s). And for stinking :cus: sure health care.

Also note as one cruises the world wide news other major players in the world are doing something about getting away from fossil fuels.

So please don't insult any average accomplishment, thinking, results oriented, make it happen, live human beings with the premise of more time is needed.

THAT AIN'T THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

btk

[Guest]

Well, let's keep this civil and try not to get into the hyperbole.

Ok, set the wayback machine for January 20, 2009. It's noontime and Obama has just become President.

Who's "fault" is it for the mess that we're in at 12:01 PM? Ok, that's as far as I want to go on that part.

Now, given that, how much time do you think is reasonable for a new administration to get all their people in place (allowing for getting ready to do just that from November to January) and enact measures to try and fix those problems?

I'm not saying how long of a 'honeymoon' but - right, wrong or indifferent - how long do you think it takes to turn things around? I understand that people out there believe it *can't* happen under the current circumstances. (My personal belief is that this is NOT the best of all possible solutions)

It took Reagan a few years.

Quote Gnu "Just what in your whole post addresses the solution of today's problem? You just repeated the tired old "blame Bush" and said not one thing the current administration is doing right to solve those problems. Whatever generation or political party of the past did or didn't do to screw up our country, is not going to be the one to undo it. Today's problems lay squarely on the back of BO and the Democratic party to correct." end Quote

Nothing in the above quote mentions "fault". It does address who's responsibility it is, GOING FORWARD, to correct the problems. Once again others are more concerned with blaming Bush than debating whether a socialist style redistribution of wealth is the best way to turn the country around.

[Guest]

Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain! The Great and all powerful YODA has commanded you ansert YES or NO!