Is it partisanship or racism?

[Gunny]

An erroneous and incomplete analysis of the history, Jillian. Bush both failed and succeeded at both as a careful (and unbigoted) analysis of the history will show; plus the failures may have been based on certain miscalculations but were not based on mismanagement for the most part. This is why I say that Bush knows what it is to fail and what it is to succeed and both are invaluable experience for any management position.

True, but hardly anything new. You can shoot down her every word and she and a couple of others will be right back with the same BS tomorrow.

ANYONE who owns the Texas Rangers going back to when they were the Washington Senators is DOOMED to failure. That's a given. They always suck, and the Houston Astros always choke. It's a given.

Just the usual spin here. Probably need a C&P response for the C&P accusations.

 

[Foxfyre]

True, but hardly anything new. You can shoot down her every word and she and a couple of others will be right back with the same BS tomorrow.

ANYONE who owns the Texas Rangers going back to when they were the Washington Senators is DOOMED to failure. That's a given. They always suck, and the Houston Astros always choke. It's a given.

Just the usual spin here. Probably need a C&P response for the C&P accusations.

Actually I don't try to open closed minds. I do try to provide accurate information to correct erroneous information put out there so that people who are still able to think independently and assimilate new information will at least suspect BS or bigoted nonsense when it is presented.

 

[midcan5]

Actually I don't try to open closed minds. I do try to provide accurate information to correct erroneous information put out there so that people who are still able to think independently and assimilate new information will at least suspect BS or bigoted nonsense when it is presented.

This is all well and good and sounds reasonable except when you look at the country and see the impact of political action on the lives of real people. Iraq is a horror story and the working poor continue to increase and have no where to look for help as their jobs and their lives mean little except as fodder for corporate America.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215176375&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War: Joe Bageant: Books[/ame]

 

[dilloduck]

"I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way, by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!" Richard Feynman


I have been listening to reasons why some would not vote for Barack Obama and one mentioned often is lack of experience. When Bush Jr ran for office the very same people excused his lack of experience claiming he would select good smart people who would give him sound advice. So why isn't BO given the same leeway? He is certainly a great deal smarter than W, has done a great deal more, and he too will have good smart people to consult with, so ask yourself why is it a negative in one case and not the other? Is it partisanship or racism?



"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls

You are correct---ONE of the reasons people do not want to vote for Obama is his lack of experience. That doesn't negate the fact that there are plenty more like--"I don't agree with his stance on the issues". Racism---are you really going to try to play that pissy game ? I guess it will be a good excuse if he loses, huh?

 

[Taomon]

"I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way, by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!" Richard Feynman


I have been listening to reasons why some would not vote for Barack Obama and one mentioned often is lack of experience. When Bush Jr ran for office the very same people excused his lack of experience claiming he would select good smart people who would give him sound advice. So why isn't BO given the same leeway? He is certainly a great deal smarter than W, has done a great deal more, and he too will have good smart people to consult with, so ask yourself why is it a negative in one case and not the other? Is it partisanship or racism?



"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls

They fear him because - even though it is politically dangerous - Barrack Obama is standing up to the Power Structures that run our country. His stance on lobbies is fair and the those power structures are threatened by fairness and equality.

Bush offered consolidation of power and wealth...so his lack of any good leadership skills and qualities were forgiven by those who sought to profit from his presidency.

Barrack does not offer continued consolidation of power and wealth. He has taken a stance against the war (another profit/power machine). And what horrifies the cabal of investors and politicians is that Barrack Obama wants to reinvest back into our infrastructure...back into our people.

These investors do not want any money going to the people and consider that a waste.

 

[Taomon]

Oh by the way, Bush only won three elections!

That is still contestable.

 

[Care4all]

True, but hardly anything new. You can shoot down her every word and she and a couple of others will be right back with the same BS tomorrow.

ANYONE who owns the Texas Rangers going back to when they were the Washington Senators is DOOMED to failure. That's a given. They always suck, and the Houston Astros always choke. It's a given.

Just the usual spin here. Probably need a C&P response for the C&P accusations.

hahahahahaha! that's funny about the rangers and Astros etc....and the rangers being DOOMED, BUT, if this is the case, then WHY did GWB BUY THEM, as a losing scenario from the get go? Wise or not wise?

Care

 

[Paulie]

Exactly what I have been pointing out ever since I got here.

You know the neo-cons' game.

Anything in government they don't like is sociaistic.

Anything they do like is consitutional.

Now are they clueless, or simply dishonest?

Take your pick.

I think you're mislabelling neo-cons. Neo cons are really big government spenders (liberals, basically), who believe in global military hegemony, including the use of pre-emptive force.

They used to be something even different than THAT, but they TOO have been hijacked by the establishment.

I wouldn't say police and fire are liberal hand outs. They are necessary to maintain a flourishing society where people can feel comfortable in living somewhere without the threat of crime or out of control fires. Much like the military is.

Conservatives, at least me, believe in limited government in the most strictest sense. As in, what the constitution actually gives government the power to do.

I'd say "the general welfare of the US" covers military, emergency services, infrastructure. Those are things that not just ANYONE could up and provide for themselves for their community. Not everyone could be a fire fighter, or a soldier. Not every community would have enough people capable of building roads and bridges.

There are certain things that ought to be provided to make the basic society function. After that, the rest is left to hard work, perseverance, dedication, personal responsibility, etc.

A community does not need people to receive government hand outs in the form of money for that community to flourish. The one's who can not afford to stay in a specific community will move to a location where they can, and create a niche. That's how society works. It makes me think of ghettos in the inner cities, but no one told those people they had to take to a life of crime. The people in those ghettos could join together as communities and create their own flourishing society. They just choose not to, and instead turn to crime to make a life for themselves. Just because the drug market offers better income than a LEGAL market, does not mean that's where one should turn to, for instance.

 

[Taomon]

Exactly what I have been pointing out ever since I got here.

You know the neo-cons' game.

Anything in government they don't like is sociaistic.

Anything they do like is consitutional.

Now are they clueless, or simply dishonest?

Take your pick.

Dishonest.

 

[Paulie]

They fear him because - even though it is politically dangerous - Barrack Obama is standing up to the Power Structures that run our country. His stance on lobbies is fair and the those power structures are threatened by fairness and equality.

I thought you were a 9/11 truther? You do realize that 9/11 truthers view Obama as just another CFR candidate, right? He's so special and different, and standing up to the power structure, that they decided to ACCOMODATE him and let the media bring him all the way to the Dem nomination, huh?

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought you were a 9/11 truther? You do realize that 9/11 truthers view Obama as just another CFR candidate, right? He's so special and different, and standing up to the power structure, that they decided to ACCOMODATE him and let the media bring him all the way to the Dem nomination, huh?

Well hey, he's the new messiah and therefore is above close scrutiny. But he stands up to the power structure? Really? Was he standing up to the power structure when he joined a mega church and overlooked the radical racist and anti-American rhetoric of its pastor in order to establish grass roots credentials in his southside Chicago community? That pastor had huge political clout but of course that isn't why Obama chose that church.

Was it standing up to the power structure when he became entangled with Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers and other dubious cogs in the Chicago power base who had the contacts and clout to be kingmakers?

And what power structure has Obama stood up to from whom he hoped to garner votes? The unions? Activists? The religious right? Anybody?

 

[Paulie]

Well hey, he's the new messiah and therefore is above close scrutiny. But he stands up to the power structure? Really? Was he standing up to the power structure when he joined a mega church and overlooked the radical racist and anti-American rhetoric of its pastor in order to establish grass roots credentials in his southside Chicago community? That pastor had huge political clout but of course that isn't why Obama chose that church.

Was it standing up to the power structure when he became entangled with Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers and other dubious cogs in the Chicago power base who had the contacts and clout to be kingmakers?

And what power structure has Obama stood up to from whom he hoped to garner votes? The unions? Activists? The religious right? Anybody?

Maybe you ought to ask the person who actually made that claim.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe you ought to ask the person who actually made that claim.

Well I didn't mean to imply that it was you Paulitics. My intention was to build on your post.

 

[Paulie]

Well I didn't mean to imply that it was you Paulitics. My intention was to build on your post.

My mistake. Apologies.

But still though, that ought to be asked of Taomon, since he apparently believes that crap.

 

[Foxfyre]

My mistake. Apologies.

But still though, that ought to be asked of Taomon, since he apparently believes that crap.

Do you really think he or other Obama-ites would even seriously consider it? I should have added to the list the extreme Left of the Senate with whom Obama has been alligned with on almost all votes if not all votes. This is bucking the power?

Obama is good looking, personable, likable, speaks well, and would probably be fun to have a beer with. But so far as strength of character goes, demonstration of strength of conviction, or ability to work without a safety net/script to articulate a rationale for what he believes about much of anything, he can't hold a candle to McCain. He could still grow into a great human being, but right now I believe the man to be mostly an empty suit at best and a calculated phony at worst.

I really did want him to be "the one". But unfortunately, he just isn't.

 

[Gunny]

hahahahahaha! that's funny about the rangers and Astros etc....and the rangers being DOOMED, BUT, if this is the case, then WHY did GWB BUY THEM, as a losing scenario from the get go? Wise or not wise?

Care

I couldn't begin to even try to explain why GWB does anything. I'm still trying to figure out whose dictionary he used to define himself as conservative. He spends like my wife at the mall.