Jump to content

SteveFrame

Members
  • Posts

    6,883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SteveFrame

  1. I have been totally shocked in the last few days by the response to Obama basically groveling to the Muslim religion.

    I am a firm believer in separation of church and state and I find it hard to get behind our President who claims to be a Democrat - a party that has tried to separate itself from religious and moral issues - going out of his way to apologize to the people of a religion. And that is all that being a Muslim is. It is not a nation like the others that he has apologized too.

    What does he hope to gain from this?

    Espeically as a gay man I find it offensive for him to go to them like he did. Because let me tell you it is not just the extremist in the Muslim religion who believe in putting gays to death - that is all of them. They are one of the strictest on homosexuality.

    I also agree with the people on GMA Friday morning who points out the hypocrisy in Obama on this issue. The whole time he is trying to get to be our President he takes and downplays his whole ties to the Muslim religion and points out they are not as great as his opponents said they were. And then he gets in front of a group of Muslims and he points out and brags about all his ties to the Muslims.

    And he wonders why I never have been able to take him at his word and trust him.

    I just wonder how he would be viewed if he stood in front of a group of Catholics or a group of Baptists and delivered the same type speech.

  2. Steve ;) Thanks bro. Same back at 'cha.

    Well, Roman. You're still the bomb in my book. :D:D You can talk to me anyday buddy. And speaking of the bomb, Wales just went MIA after the election, huh? Talk about someone that added a lot of value to our discussions. Man, I miss him/her. If you're out there, Wales, please jump in anyday now. We miss ya!

    Just a random thought about posting on SON in general. Why is it that you can type "fucked" and it's not bleeped out? But if you type "fu.ck-ing" it is?!?! Jo no say. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    I think it has something to do with the censor thing.

    It goes back to like on regular TV now the censors allow you to say "[!@#$%^&*]" or "Fucked" if you don't use them in a sexual meaning.

    Like we fucked up or we're fucked

    But they won't allow you to say we just fucked

    I have read on a few Internet sites who use the censor say that it has a hard time with the word fucked in deciding when it is dirty and when it is not.

    Of course the word with the ing is more or less sexual in nature so it blankets it.

    That is the only thing I have ever heard. So not sure.

  3. Oh goodness folks why can't we discuss without the attacks on each other. That is what I hate about this thread and have to take breaks from it.

    When we all discuss the issues it's fun and we accomplish stuff.

    All this [!@#$%^&*] back and forth calling each other names and judging one another gets us no where.

    And GD it is easy to fall into. I am quick to respond to some of the other remarks too. That is the reason I have someone on ignore. I don't get mad and my life doesn't go into freefall. And I can enjoy SON and this thread.

    Because people like GregGL and so many others have constructive stuff to say and add so much to the conversation and I do not want to miss that.

    Oh and the thought of all those boners is making me horny too.

  4. I agree that if he don't move to appease the minorities like the gays who are getting restless that yes he will be in trouble.

    But I also have to give him credit that he has tried to deal with the problems that affect more poeple first - the most important being the economy of course.

    It would have been easy for any one to come in and try to appease the minority groups who had such hope with him being elected. But things like the economy are more pressing and things like that affect all groups even the gays etc.

    So at least he has seen where his priorities lie and I hae to commend him for that - even if I don't agree with all of his approaches.

    Now if and when the economy gets better and some analysts are saying it will by the end of this year at least stabilitze - then if he doesn't move - he could be in trouble. When things get better for folks that is when they get restless. And people very quickly forget how tough things were and how much someone was there for them when things get better.

    *********************

    I found a story on Good Morning America this morning very interesting in regards to the economy. Someone on staff there noticed that the lowest unemployment rates now are on the coast of Mississippi down to Houma, LA - the places hit by Hurricane Katrina.

    The economy there has been hurt less in that area than any where in the US. So much effort in the last few years has gone into rebuilding the area that the jobs there are secure and there are so many construction jobs that hardly anyone is out of work. The highest unemployment rate in the area was someone in the low 5's.

    Some places in Tennessee now are in the 10's with our county gone from 5.3 in January to 15.6 as of March. Tennesse's overall is 9.9 as of March. Our area has had so many businesses to close. We are near the Saturn GM plant and with it down for a majority of this year and last year, so many of the minor businesses that have supplied stuff to them have now gone completely out. We have lost a seat manufacturer. Another plant that my sister worked for supplied the glass for them. They emplyed in the 1000's. The plant shut down and will not reopen. And so many more just like them.

    Our town has lost 6 restuarants including Burger King. Now we are losing Circuit City, Goody's clothing store, our mall is down to about 7 stores total now. It is just weird to look around and see so much gone.

  5. I been hearing about both of those issues.

    You know surprisingly, LGBT community has made incredible in roads without Obama's help the last five months. I seriously would have never thought Iowa would be a state where gays would be free to marry. Never. And now Maine? I saw let Obama deal with the economy, swine flu, and foreign related issues.

    I was watching a show on Fox News and my God, even when Obama cuts the budget he gets slammed.

    It's Fox news why should that surprise you.

    I have just come to understand and expect that Fox is going to be against him while other channels are never going to say anything bad about him.

    It is just the way it is.

    I don't even watch most of the news channels anymore because they are all biased one way or another - so I just don't trust them for my news at all. I look at what they say from time to time but as far as relying on it. No way in hell - they are all too biased.

  6. I agree with all of you on this issue. But Brian, are you willing to allow for more spending to fix some of these problems in our own backyard? President Obama is proposing some additional domestic spending initiatives, and some of the stimulus money to the states might improve the problems. However, when there are Republican Govenors refusing stimulus cash and general reluctance from Republicans on more spending, how do you propose we fix the problems?

    Correction - not just Republican governors. Tennessee has a Democratic Governor who was almost made a member of Obama's cabinet and he has been talking in press conferences about not accepting the stimulus money.

    Regarding "Islam Day". I believe in the separation of church and state. The separation of ALL churches from state affairs. The 9/11 - News Flash. Not all Islamists believe in the destruction of the United States. Those that perpetrated that crime against us were radicals. Much like Christianity has radicals and every other religion. The entire faith can not be condemned because of their actions.

    I am against it as I said before on the church/state thing too. Plus as I said the fact of giving equal time to other religions which is what will happen.

    I agree that every religion has radicals just like every political sect and even the gays have radicals. Sadly 99% of the time every sect of society gets judged by it's radicals. I don't how many times on boards I have read blanket statements about Muslims, blanket statements about gays, blanket statements about Christians.

    This last election on one board there was never anything good that could be said about any Christian. It was all bad because they were judging all Christians by a group of radicals. Same with gays, I have heard so many make blanket statements about gay people as if all we are concerned about is where we are going to get laid next and all we are concerned about is whether or not we can get married.

    Each one of these groups have so much more to them than the general perceptions made by the majority of people.

    As to Islam Day I agree with you - these people were on crack or smoking something. I just wish they would share - I need a good high.

  7. That really shocks me and it is not so much the 9/11 thing but the Democrats seem to be wanting to move away from being tied to Religion of any kind but yet here you have a State Senate with only 2 Republicans and they choose to name a day to honor one particular religion.

    I am glad to see the one Democrat remain true and vote against it due to separation of church/state.

    I would love to know more about this. Was it a thing of trying to be politically correct that made them want to do this? Or what did they hope to gain from this?

    Are they going to give equal opportunity to other religions now. Will there be a Catholic Day? A Baptist Day?

    And of course we can't forget the Atheists day and the Agnostics Day.

    This is really weird and totally out of left field.

    Just when you think politicians can't surprise you anymore they turn around and do something like this.

  8. This keeps coming up all the time in many cities where the African American community have been some of the largest in opposition to Gay Marriage.

    I know on several boards I have gone too it has sparked many conversations about one minority denying equal rights to another minority.

    Of course when you look at the idea of "down low" first coming out of the gay community or at least from my understanding that is where the title first came from, you can understand.

    It is not that there are not gay men who are black - it is just that for a black man my understanding is - it is just more of a social issue for them.

    I know SVU did an episode on it a few years back where one of the guys on the down low was a famous black football player. He or Finn talked about how black men - even more than white men - are pushed into this idea of being a real man and being gay is not that. He is supposed to marry and better himself and his family.

    So many black men who are gay marry and end up on the "down low" where they don't even use condoms when they have sex because buying condoms to use is admitting what you are going to do.

    So I can understand where even for a black man it is harder even for him to stand up for gay marriage and I imagine some of them are even part of these who say they are against it.

  9. Okay, Steve... let's you, me, and UCLAN start our own third political party to address the issues we care about that NOBODY is addressing today. I nominate UCLAN as President, you as VP... I'll be some mid-level staffer or something. I'll be the guy who reads letters from the public. Or something. :D

    Just as long as I get to be the one that gets the special oral attention Clinton got when he was in the Oval Office. :lol:

  10. Can we get our house in order first? I have always had concerns with our country's need to be the great benefactor to the world. I believe in extending a hand, but there is so much here in this country that needs to be attended to. Jobs, homelessness, healthcare, education. If we're not careful, we could become a "[!@#$%^&*]-hole".

    Wow I have to give that one a high five.

    There are so many things that need attention here. We do need to help pull the world up and give them a helping hand, but for far too long America's problems have been ignored.

    I think I have mentioned this before but I'll site it again just in case I haven't. But I was totally shocked a few years ago to go to Nicaraugua on a medical field trip where I worked with a medical group. We brought aid to an area that just didn't have any medical care at all. I worked in the pharmacy area counting pills all week and worked the line with another guy to pass out worm medicine to every individual that came through. We had to give each one of the infants theirs which was interesting.

    I got to tour the villages and some of the homes were just awful. I came back totally shocked at how these people lived and thanked God that we have it so good in America.

    A few years later I went with the same group into the mountains of East Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Kentucky. Boy was I surprised. The same situations that we saw in Nicaraugua existed right here inside the borders of America. The illiteracy was astounding. People living in run down houses with no floors. Very little food to eat. No medical care for miles and miles and miles. It was as if this wasn't America or at all. Or at least it was an area that time had forgotten. I mean this was not on the widespread level that we saw in Nicaraugua, but here were people - our own people - that seemed so forgotten right here in our own backyard.

    I've seen it both here and there. As bad as I feel for those in foreign countries I feel even worse for those right here. We have enough here in the States that if we all shared, if we reached out, if our Government just reached out, these people would not be in this dire need.

    And I just have a hard time justifying in my mind taking money and sending it to a 3rd world country to help their poor when we have our own citizens right here living on the streets, living in poverty, and we are doing nothing to help them.

  11. I'm really passionate about this particular issue. I suppose Roman will call me a bigot because of that. But I see the damage being done financially to our country... but it is more than we realize. Education suffers... neighborhoods suffer... the mortgage crisis has been made so much worse by this issue, too. And I wish you all could see the problems from my eyes living here in California. My wife and I have endured TWO car accidents in the past MONTH and in both cases, we were dealing with unlicensed, uninsured and most likely illegal residents. No wonder insurance rates are through the freakin' roof.

    Tennessee is one of the states that finally gave in a few years ago and voted for illegal residents to be able to get a driver's license. It ended up costing them millions of dollars as every illegal resident from even all our neighboring states made a run on Tennessee to get a valid license. They had to hire extra workers to deal with it. Finally after about a year and thousands of problems they required that you had to have a valid Tennessee address to get one.

    All this was in the hope that if they had a license at least when they were uninsured and hit someone they could presecute them to get the money.

    Several studies have shown recently that they do have licenses now, but they are still driving with no insurance and as of yet insurance companies have been unsuccessful in an overwhelming majority of cases to get reimbursement on any money. Often times they either take off to addresses unknown or file bankruptcy.

    I have no problem at all with anyone coming here from a foreign country but I do feel that the issue is a bigger issue in this country than the majority of politicians want to admit.

    Our county hospital last year had to write off millions of dollars in uncollected medical bills that were all associated with illegal residents. Add to that the amount that was for uninsured residents and they almost had to file bankruptcy. They appealed to the government for help and couldn't get enough to aid them, so they changed the status of the hospital from a country hospital dependant on government aid to a regional type hospital. Now they do not have to treat uninsured patients. All they have to do is stabilize you and ship you off to the nearest hospital which is almost 50 miles away. It has left a huge amount of people in this area without a place to turn to. There is one county hospital that accepts uninsured patients about 20 minutes away but going there is seriously taking your life in your own hands.

    We have had to deal with school overcrowding - forcing for awhile the schools to purchase these small trailers to use as extra classrooms. They were hot in the spring and cold in the winter as they had no heat or air. They didn't have working plumbing so the kids had to go back and forth to the main buildings for the bathroom.

    They have had to hire extra teachers and so many other things to accomodate the illegals who have moved in here. The sad thing is that the school budget has gone up but the ones who have forced more schools to be built and more teachers are the ones who own homes and property and are not putting any money back into the county where the school board gets the money for it's budget.

    I just feel if a person can't come here legally and become a citizen in a proper amount of time, he needs to be sent back. And quit making allowances for them and forcing changes upon the citizens of this country to accomodate them and make it easier for them. They should worry about adapting to us instead of us adapting to them. We can meet them somewhere in the middle but lately it seems like we are doing all the moving toward them while they stand there laughing at us.

    I have seen many many studies in the last few years that have predicted that if something is not done to control the population of immigrants coming across the border of Mexico it won't be too many more years that the Mexican or Latino race will be the dominant race in the United States with whites being next and African American's pushed on down the line.

    I don't know whether those predictions are true or if they will ever become true. But it isn't hard to believe when I walk around in our Wal Mart and some other stores sometimes.

    I want America to keep it's open door policy. I want us to be a haven of rescue and for people to try to get the American dream. I just don't want Washington to give America away in the process.

  12. Thanks for the comments guys. I appreciate all of you in here.

    Greg, about 2 or 3 pages back there is a link about how the tax time thing will play out. I did have it in my favorites but I can't find it now. Basically if you work 2 jobs - like my boyfriend does - or both the husband and wife work 2 jobs - next year at tax time you will have to pay back the amount of the tax break you got this year for one of the jobs or for one of the taxpayers in your home. Apparently the IRS and the government were aware of this but released the tax tables anyway with hopes of trying to fix it before next year.

    As I said back in January or February I think it was in here - when my BF went to get his taxes filled out this year his accountant told him about it then and warned him that next year he would have a substantial amount to pay back. He is trying to get it fixed to where he is having a whole lot more taken out to lessen the amount he owes back next year. But in figuring with the amount he is now having taken out, he is not seeing any extra on his check at all.

    Plus with me since I still work part time and draw my social security I am going to have to pay back next year too. My pay back will be a lot less than Gil's will but I will pay back this time - for the first time in many years.

    *****************************

    As to how far government should go and how far government should be involved in our lives, I guess I am still a product of being raised during some of my formitive years during the hippie movement of the late 60's and early 70's. I just have a big problem with government being involved in our daily lives that much. I don't like them telling me to wear a seat belt even if it is for my benefit, or telling me who I can marry and who I can't, who I can [!@#$%^&*] and who I can't, and I especially don't like them telling what part of the body I can do that in either, or if I choose to smoke where I can and can't smoke at, and on and on.

    And I guess you can say I am heavily influenced by being rasied by parents who were big on State's Rights. I don't have a big problem with a lot of what the State does and governs. It just really bothers me when big brother steps in for some reason.

    There are just certain things I feel should be left to us as individuals to decide or if they are regulated let it be on the State Level and not the government level.

    For one thing I think Government has gotten way too involved in some issues that it is distracted them for the things they should be dealing with. It is an idea of spreading yourself too thin and things suffering in the process.

  13. And honestly, it's surprising to me the line you are towing is primarily on the right. You do realize, that you are defending a party that would rather throw you to the wolves (based on your orientation) than sit down at a table and welcome you with open arms, right? The party you are defending were willing to classify you as a second class citizen in the constitution all for the sake of (hopefully) winning an election? And when was the last time the big, bad Democrats did the same to you and I, my friend? Hmmm......the answer is never.

    I don't remember ever denying that I was a moderate with a slight conservative lean. Back about 10 pages ago I explained and put onto paper my stances and where I stood on things. So that is no problem for me to admit - I admit it happily and feel no shame in it at all.

    As to the other I guess I am different than most gays or bisexuals - I am an oddity even though I know a few others. Yes I am a bisexual man living in a relationship with a man but there is more to me than that. I don't wear it on my sleeve and make every decision in my life based on it.

    There are principles I stand for that are more important to me than my being gay or bisexual. There are issues that I feel are far more important to the welfare of this country that have nothing to do with who I prefer to screw in my bedroom or whereever we choose to screw at. Those principles I won't sacrifice for anything.

    As to your last comment I have to laugh - not at you - but just at the statement. I hope to goodness that you honestly don't believe that if it came down to it that the Democrats would not throw the gays under the bus to win an election. They would do it in a heartbeat. Winning the election is the most important thing to them - gay rights, abortion, whatever the issue is can be damned if it costs them the election. They are politicians. They do it in a heart beat.

    If you don't believe so call a psychic and call up the old friend of the Clinton's who killed herself because she so believed in the Clintons that she devoted her life to them. When they began to sacrifice the beliefs she felt they never would she lost hope and killed herself. I forget her name but she was huge part of the movie Primary Colors that was written by a Clinton insider. That woman was a real character from early in their political careers.

    Almost every politician will back off on issues, change stances, etc. to win an election. In my almost 50 years of living - almost 32 now as a voter - I haven't seen one politician - both Republican and Democrat - who wouldn't do that. And I have no doubt in my mind that the Democratic party would throw the gays to wolves if standing with them started costing them votes.

    As I have said I stand on the outside looking in at both parties. I hear both sides say they won't do this or they won't do that. I see this side say the Democrats are the bad ones and the Dems turn around and say the Repubs are the bad ones. This side says they don't do this and the other side says they don't. While at the same time both sides act just a like.

    The right persecutes folks and the left does too. And they both believe they are right in doing so. The right says they are persecuting folks for the good of the country while the left say they persecute folks because they are judgemental and try to take away the rights of others. Persecution is persecution no matter what reason you do it for. It's just like as I stated before - look at what the conservatives did to the Dixie Chicks - they made their lives a living hell. What is the difference in that than what the liberals are now doing to Miss California. Both people exercised their rights to free speech. The Dixie Chicks didn't deserve what happened to them and neither does Miss California. I agree with what a columnist said - if Perez wasn't prepared to deal with the truth of her answer then he shouldn't have asked the question.

    I don't agree with her at all but I damn well respect the right of her to believe the way she does. My hope and prayer is that someday she will change her mind, but I am not going to call her names or bad mouth her for her opinion in the mean time. I am not going to act like a three year old and resort to name calling and the like just because I don't agree with her.

    Perez again answered what he deems as exclusion with exclusion in return. He doesn't want anyone to deny him anything in life simply because he is gay, but yet he turned around and denied her a chance at the crown simply because he didn't agree with her. What is the difference? There is none the way I see it.

    That is just my opinion on the whole thing. I am sorry if it seems to you that I am leaning toward having sympathies with the Republicans. I have tried to point out at times how GD posts things from the conservative side and sees things through those eyes too. I guess I need to do that more. I have even tried to include people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh who I am sick of and stuff to show how I am fed up with the leaders of both parties. I guess my point on the Republican's is just not getting through. I guess I will start bolding those names and those items so they are seen.

    I have no sympathies with either party. I am fed up with the actions of both. At times I think they all act worse than 3 year old children who need to be taken out to the wood shed and given a good thrashing.

    I am like UClan I enjoy seeing a good exchange of ideas - not just here - but in politics. But more often of the last few years we get the blame game every time they are togehter. Let's forget who's fault it is and discuss the issues. Children lay blame - adults are supposed to discuss and fix the problems. But not one of them can get in front of a microphone and not immediately start pointing fingers at the other person. I just want to reach through the TV and say get over it and move on. If we want to play the blame game believe me there is enough to go around on both sides. We could be here until next year playing that one.

  14. It's probably best to let bygones be bygones at this point.

    I am not sure if you mean bygones as far as the people in this thread or bygones as far as Reps and Dems in general. If the last is the case, I just have to ask how far do we take it.

    I mean do we wipe the slate completely clean and start all over. Because I don't see that ever happening. Democrats across all the boards are still bringing up things the Republicans did to the Dems while Clinton was in there. And it was brought up numerous times while Bush was in office.

    Again I ask when does it start. Just because Obama is now in there and people want everyone to come together - is that why all of a sudden this comes about and if Obama loses the next election and a REpublican comes back into power - does it all go away then.

    I just don't see that ever happening. I don't see the Republicans or the Democrats ever giving up on dogging one another and letting bygones be bygones.

    Brian is no martyr. He comes out fighting and I think, would expect opposing views to do the same. Don't feel so sorry for him!

    I didn't mean to imply that Brian was a martyr. I just used him as an example. I could have used Kwing or a whole number of other people. He was just the first one that came to mind. He just served the purpose of the example of posts from conservative sites at the time.

    But I thought that you originally said you had a problem with his statements - that they were "offensive" because he said for the first time he had something in common with someone he was voting for as President. Isn't that true? Please correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, but I was merely pointing out that if he feels something in common with Obama and it's his skin color, then so be it. For alot of the same reasons you state above.

    Look, Steve. If there were two candidates, both of whom you identify very closely with on the issues. The only difference is one of them is gay the other straight - do you mean to tell me that you wouldn't pull the lever for the gay guy? If you wouldn't, then you're a bigger person than I.

    I should have worded my problem with the ad better I guess. I thought I explained it right but I didn't. The reason I had a problem with the ad was not a problem with why he was voting for Obama but the message that it sent. As I said it further justified to me why a white person has the right to not vote for a black man because of the color of his skin. If a man can go on TV and say I am voting for him because I identify with the color of his skin then the other man can say well then I can not vote for him for the color of the skin. you identify with him but I don't because of that - so I now I am full justified in not voting for him. It just sent the wrong message to me. I would have preferred that MTV stuck with the issues in their spots and not focus on this man identifying with Obama souly because he was black.

    As I pointed out before in one of my posts - Americans especially spend too much time blaming race for way too many things. Yes racism exists and we need to acknowledge it is there, but one of the best ways to me to combat racism is to stop pointing out our differences in stuff like that and focus on the ways we are alike.

    That ad again focused on the differences and sent the wrong message for me.

    And to the last part after looking at how the two men stood on the issues, and if we were in agreement on both men, I would vote for the gay man too. I don't feel any shame in that at all. But as far as issues as I have said before I look at them and I have voted on the issues for so long now that it is the only way I can vote. It is just programmed in me now. As I said before I can't even vote in primaries anymore because I guess it is the same everywhere but here in Tennessee when you vote in the primary you pull one lever - all Democrat or all Republican or all Independant. I can't do that.

  15. Hey Steve, actually I don't so much consider myself a Republican as I do conservative in my thinking. I am not thrilled with the Republican party these days, however I find the tact taken by Democrats often to be more repulsive. I guess if I needed a label to apply to myself (as opposed to the one Roman and others feel they have a right to tag me with based on their rather narrow interpretation of who they think I am), I would be more independent... but I lean right and only vote Republican because their ideology is most closely aligned (or at least it used to be) with my values and principles.

    I would almost pay money to sit down and have dinner with Roman and just chat one on one... man to man... no bullshit. I wonder how that would go.

    Thanks for the explanation.

    Actually, I am biased toward Democrats. I feel that they are the party that (mostly) aligns with my beliefs. Everyone here have some preference for a particular party and will tend to give that party a little more leeway than we would an opposing party. That's just human nature.

    I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever and you are right it is human nature. But at the same time I sit back and wonder why when it is human nature that those same poeple will call out others for being biased or give their party the benefit of the doubt. It goes back to what I was saying where each party seems to think the other party is wrong for what they do - yet they are doing the same thing themselves.

    I see GD get called out so many times saying he is biased toward the Republicans and makes excuses or stuff like that for them - when I see so many do the same exact thing for the Dems over and over. Just an observation and that is why I brought it up.

    It is just like I have seen it be pointed out that some of the stuff GD posts is from conservative sites that are biased - yet others will turn around and post stuff used as fact that comes from sites that liberal sites that are biased. What is the difference.

    GWB made some very, very bad decisions during his Presidency. Even Brian admits that. And there was ALOT to criticize when he first took office. A few refreshers: 1. Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, effectively killing any worldwide effort to combat the destruction of our environment. And it was done unilaterally. 2. Ending allowance for stem cell research. 3. His seeming inability to construct a meaningful sentence without mispronounciations or grammatical mistakes.

    I ahve admitted too over and over that GWB made bad decisions during his presidency. And I have no problem whatsoever about him being called on them.

    Some of the things you just pointed out go back to the party thing and how you feel personally. The same way that you see that there were many things to criticize right off about GWB many feel the same way about Obama already - yet when they point them out - it is brought up about them being jaded or that they just can't stand behind their president when they need too. So many see only good about Obama and preach that people need to give him a chance. Yet many of those same people were the same ones who never gave Bush a chance even back then. Just because someone else doesn't find something to criticize about him doesn't mean there is nothing to criticize.

    And see some of the things that you bring up about Bush are not the things I would have criticized him about anyway. That last one esp. always seemed petty to me. So what if he wasn't a great speaker. Who cares? Obama is a great speaker but I don't believe a word he says. His words often come off as empty to me. They are eloquently stated but they mean nothing to me.

    It all comes down to a matter of opinion and beliefs.

    Are you saying that such dissent is harmful when only directed at Republicans? At times it seems that you hold more disdain for Democrats so I'm curious.

    No way am I saying that. I just find myself defening it more here since there seems to be more of an overwhelming number of Dems who post in here.

    During GWB's reign everything that the Dems brought up they had perfect right to. They had perfect right not to stand behind the President. That is what makes America the nation that it is - it is the ability to act in most ways the way we want. To speak out and do what we want.

    My disdain comes when there is hypocrisy that enters into it. One of the comics years ago - I think Dennis Miller - explained it better than I ever can but I cannot find his routine anywhere.

    But for example with the Dixie Chicks thing a few years ago, I thought it was neat that they spoke out the way they did. I cheered them but then I ended up getting angry with them when they got so mad when their fans got mad about it. The same freedom that gave them the ability to say what they did gave their fans the right to get mad or for any American to get mad about it.

    It was as if they were saying this is how I feel and everyone should feel that way too. When everyone didn't they got mad. I thought it was ridiculous how far some of the fans and Americans went but it was their right to burn their CDs or quit buying their music. Each person from the Dixie Chicks to whoever was acting on their rights.

    And now some years later the situations have been reversed on two parts - one with John Rich who is a very outspoken conservative. Many liberal stations have refused to play his stuff and many liberal fans have banned him or quit listening to him when he spoke out the way he did. They are doing the same thing the right side did to the Dixie Chicks - the same thing they ridiculed and criticized. And look at the Miss California thing. She stated her beliefs just like the Dixie Chicks did. The liberals have acted just like the conservatives in the Dixie Chicks thing - the same conservatives they criticized.

    The two sides are more alike than they even realize.

    Personally I think the response to all of the issues has been blown way out of proportion. Why can't people site their feelings and beliefs without people going off the deep end? Isn't that what free speech is supposed to be about? I don't have to believe what they do but they have the right to say it.

    No each side has the right to feel the way they do and to act the way they do. Just like the Democrats had the right to dog Bush I feel the Republicans have the same right to dog Obama. I just found it so idiotic right after Obama was elected for people to get so angry when the Republican's didn't just roll over and play dead. That is what I tried to speak out about. I mean don't they know the game by now. We had 12 years of Bush/Reagan where the Dems blamed everything on them - 8 years old Clinton where everything was the Dems fault - then 8 years of Bush where it was all his and the Reps fault. I mean experience says that now for 4 or 8 years everything is going to be the Dems and Obama's fault. Why in the hell get so mad when the Reps blame Obama when you did the same thing to Bush? Sure maybe you don't see the things they are saying but remember they didn't see the things you were saying either when Bush was in office. Like I pointed out some of the things you blamed Bush for didn't seem like that big of deals to me but obviously they were to you or you wouldn't remember them.

    The Iraq War was/is controversial because of the justification. If we all recall correctly, the reason for going to war changed almost daily before GWB kicked it off. Human rights violations, chemical weapons, sanctions violations, collusion with Osama, etc. The Iraq War was the first (and hopefully last) started under the pretense of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption which was another strike against it. Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator. That's true. But there are many others that are better positioned to do us harm than Hussein was. So why exactly did GWB have a hard-on for this one in particular? I don't think we will ever know the real reason why.

    Afganistan is completely different because that's where the War on Terror should have been concentrated from the get-go. A bastion of the Taliban and Osama's followers, this is where he (Osama) was given refuge and planned the attacks of 9/11 with the help of the Taliban. I argue the true terrorist enemies of America are there and more effort has to be done to stop them before more harm can come to our country.

    Again it will come down to a matter of opinion. I have no problem with the Afghan war but I had not problem with the Iraq War either. I support Obama in this effort just as I supported Bush in the last one.

    But there will be some that will not see it that way. They are anti-war no matter what. I am just anxious to see what they will have to say when all is said and done and more troops move that way. I think Sheen even protested when Clinton sent troops somewhere. I know he protested the first Gulf War. I am not sure if he protested Vietnam - I never have heard anyone say.

    If they have spoken out this time, the media has not made the big deal about it they did before. In fact Sheehan's statements were buried almost on the last page of our local paper. Her statements used to make the front page.

    The ad question is a good one. I am going to take your word about it because I never saw it and you seem like a trustworthy guy, Steve. But here's my thoughts on that.

    No white person here can possibly ever know what it's like to be black in America. From the beginning of this promised "land of the free" - they were not. And even after they were given their freedom, they were oppressed for what, another 100 years as "separate but equal"?!?!?! Most of this was done in order to serve white people or to be made to feel less than white people. Given this history, I can completely understand some hesitation or "disconnect" with white politicans to the average black citizen. The argument that the Civil Rights movement was 40 years ago is debatable because for the majority of time the USA has been the "USA", black people have been second class citizens.

    Therefore, Obama being the first Presidential candidate that a black person (not all of them, but for some) felt they had something in common with is not all that hard to understand for me.

    Let's turn the tables. What if this were the case for white people? What if, in my 22 years of voting, all I ever saw on the ballot were black people?!?!? And then one year, a white person is on the ballot! How could one resist voting for them because of their skin color? It would be tough I'd imagine. And honestly Steve...if there were a gay man - Repub or Dem - running for President.....could you be so impartial to that as well? Commonalities - real or imagined - tie one to a candidate and whose to say they are wrong? What he were voting for him because they're both left-handed? Or wore the same size shoe?

    And BTW, you most certainly can dislike a President for his policies and nothing else.

    Greg I should have pointed out that I had no problem with the guys statements. I understood his reasons for feeling that way. I just wanted to see what your response was and how you felt about what I brought up.

    I think everyone brings into the voting booth the situations they grow up in or can relate too.

    I think the problem for me comes into play is when some are criticized for using those things to justify their vote or their actions and yet at the same time the person who criticizes that person does the same thing when he enters the voting booth. None of us go into that voting booth and cast off everything that has influenced our lives. Our experiences play a role definitely.

    I would not expect a Jew for instance to suddenly forget all he has been through and go into the voting booth and vote for a skinhead - even if they both believe in all the same issues.

    As to your question about voting for a gay man or being drawn to him, I can honestly say I have already had to face that decision. Back several years ago, there was a gay man running for County Executive in our County. He really wanted in office big time and he would have been our first openly gay man to serve in office in the county. It would have accelerated his career in a big way and helped him in his goal of evenutally running for Senate or some statewide office where he could help to push toward getting gay marriage in Tennessee.

    All of it was so enticing, but he and I were so far apart on some issues that I just could not vote for him at all. He was a moderate Republican by the way - or at least that was the party he ran under. He was not for abortion in any situation. I think there are certain areas where abortion should be an option. He was totally against capital punishment. I am for capital punishment - strongly for.

    I don't remember all the issues now, but I just could not vote for him - but I will admit it was tempting. I just couldn't bring myself to sacrifice things I felt so strong about even for the sake of possibly getting someone if office who could influence gay marraige.

  16. Republicans have gotten so good at the politics of fear and hatred, I think it may take them longer to break out of their rut. Alot of people will remember the campaigns of old and how hateful Republicans were during them.

    And see I see that on both sides - Democrat and Republican. And I would think because of the sort of high five you gave to my Mom that you are jaded in favor of the Democrats - something that you have accused others of being for the Republicans. I am jaded toward both parties and don't favor either.

    I don't see where the Democrats or the Republicans either one have been any better than the other in these issues.

    I always find it funny that the REpublicans say the Democrats are worse and the Dems say the Republicans are - and both claiming innocence on the matter.

    As far as the other yes there was a time when SOME Democrats but not ALL did rally behind the President in last election but I think more of it was out of Patriotism after 9/11 than anything else. I do not remember any gerat specifics right now but I do recall several articles right after Bush was elected where he was dogged right off. I sent a few of those to Jess by PM a few months ago. If I can find them again I will post them. He was hardly in office and already was being criticized by Democrats.

    And I can remember many posts right here on this very board where the Democrats dogged Bush very badly over the last 6 to 8 years. Many of them were removed due to the controversy of them all.

    So yes there was a brief time when yes people rallied right after 9/11 but it wasn't too long after that it was party lines again.

    You mentioned the Iraq War and that brings up something that I have been wondering how some feel and have been looking for things. I know that most of you had problems with the Iraq War but have no problems with Obama sending troops to Afghanistan. I know that there is an anti-war group out there of both Dems and Reps who are against any kind of war. People like Martin Sheen and Cindy Sheehan are part of that group. I have not heard at all what Sheen is thinking about more troops to Afghanistan but I did hear the other day that Sheehan who supposedly supported Obama is against sending troops. I just wonder if this movement will immobilize bigger as Obama gears up to send more troops there. It will be interesting to see if Sheehan and her group of mothers will camp outside of Obama's home like they did Bush's. Because their stance was against war and bringing troops and not - at least not supposed to be - a political thing.

    As far as the race issue. I have no idea whatsoever what Roman said and didn't say. I don't care one way or another. My response was to the general idea of race in this election. And yes I have been called a racist - in fact by a very member of this board - in a very bad tone. And by others too.

    I do not dare to believe that there is not a problem with racism in this country but I do get tired of being called a racist simply because I do not trust Obama.

    I will ask you this Greg. MTV was so good at showing both sides of things during the election. They let McCain supporters as well as Obama supporters speak in their ads and urges to get the young people out to vote. I was proud of that and proud that they never endorsed one candidate or the other.

    One ad they ran though really bothered me. There was a black man who did the ad and he mentioned that for the first time when he went to polls to vote there was a man with the same color skin as him and for the first time he felt like he could relate to a candidate. It was the first time ever that he had something in common with a candidate and had a reason to vote. And for that reason alone it was the first time he was voting.

    To me that was really offensive and made me think that this young black man was sending out the wrong message to whites. If he was only voting because he had something in common with Obama, what does that say to whites. It says and gives white people the right to say well I don't feel I can relate to this man and so I shouldn't vote for him.

    But if a white man said that he would be called a racist. The press would be all over it.

    I do agree with you that there are many people out there who did not vote for Obama because of their prejudice. I know some of them. But way too many times during this last election, the race came into play way too often - many times when it had nothing at all to do with the issue. In this nation, I feel way too many times that prejudice and race has become a crutch that we rely on to explain things when we don't want to look at the truth or the deeper issues. I know that it exists. It is there. It is a plague on our country. But it is not at the root of every issue all the time.

    When I first heard of Obama, I had never seen a picture of him. I didn't even know what he looked like. My daughter was the first one who mentioned him to me back before he ever decided to officially run. I asked her then what his issues were. We didn't even talk about race. I didn't like him then because of the things he stood for.

    But immediately when I first ever spoke out about Obama here on SON and over at DR and on many other boards the race issue came into it. And if I had a dollar for everytime I was called a racist or asked if my dislike of him had anything to do with the color of his skin, I would be a very wealthy man right now.

    Why can't I dislike and distrust him simply because of what he believes in?

    Back to the other I will never understand the mentality of Republican and Democrat. I guess because I have never been and will hopefully never be die hard either. As I said I look at all these posts and I try to look at how they relate to who that person is, and yes in Golden Dogs I weigh in the fact that he is die hard Rep, but I also see the same thing with you and Roman and a few others who are die hard Dem. I think in the same way that GD sees things only through Rep eyes at times you and a few others only see them through Dem eyes.

    And I only see them of late through jaded eyes. I try to step out of that but after so much that has happened it is not easy - in the same way that it is not easy for you to step away from you Democratic eyes.

  17. I get what you are saying to a degree GD, but I agree with Max too.

    I know many people that I know who lean conservative or very conservative did agree with you that McCain wasn't conservative enough. But in the end they said they had to give their vote to McCain because even a moderately conservative was a better choice then Obama was ultra liberal. There said there was no contest and no choice for them.

    I think when it boiled down to just a conservative/liberal issue any conservative had to make that choice.

    Now if they looked at other things, I think the economy ended up being the deciding factor.

  18. Now, watch... Roman will spend more time debating the source of the news rather than actually reading the article and examining the numbers. Roman... DUDE... numbers are numbers. You seem to like Gallup, right?

    I know, waste of time.

    I enjoying discussing too. And I enjoy looking at different opinions. And discussing them. As far as Roman is concerned, I just don't bother anymore. He and I will never agree so I just put him on ignore and unless one of you guys quotes him and I see it in the quote, I have no idea what he says anymore. It is the only way I can come in this thread.

    I find the things that UCLAN, Kwing, GregGL, Jess and a few others to be so well thought out and intended that I do not want to miss out on them. For a long time I would not come in here and I missed it. So I did the ignore thing so I could come in here.

    I learn so much from reading their posts and I don't want to miss it.

    As down as I am on politicians I do not want to cut off myself from it completely because if you do not know what is going on and get other opinions then you have no chance of seeing if someone is doing something right or not.

    That is why I love the articles I found and posted that demonstrated the first 100 days of Obama in a balanced manner.

    I try to stay away from sites where there are biases like I expect Fox to be bias against him. I expect some of the others to be biased for him. I really George Stephanopoulos because I feel of so many that he presents it right down the line and calls it as it is.

    I am just trying to hold out hope that for the sake of this country that Obama doesn't mess up because I just don't feel this country can take it right now. But my hope is stronger than my faith that it will actually happen.

  19. It's a tired and old line, Roman... If those of us who disagree with Obama's politics were as bigoted as you yet again try to paint us, we just couldn't be successful at all and function in the world day to day. I don't give a jolly hot [!@#$%^&*] about President Obama's skin color. Irresponsibility fiscal policy? Yes. Insane foreign policy? Yes. Inability to speak without a teleprompter? Not so much... but it is fun to watch.

    Drop the whole "You guys hate Obama cuz he's black" routine. It truly weakens whatever argument you attempt to put forth. Try responding to me or guys like Steve or Kwing with facts we can't refute or some sort of evidence that discounts the points we offer rather than simply rattling off (and in a shockingly witless way, I might add) the same old rants and vanilla attacks.

    Seriously, Roman. I have tried to chat and debate with you using so many different tactics, approaches, etc., and you seem to want none of it. I have attempted to befriend you with an invite for private messaging which you have blatantly ignored. The truth is that I don't give a crap anymore. You are a partisan hardass who chooses friends based on their ideology and political party affiliation. I wish it could be different because, I'll bet politics aside, we'd have an otherwise pleasant and enjoyable chat. I can disagree with people like Greg and UCLAN and not dislike them or exchange insults wit them. Why can't we do that, Roman?

    I try to chat with you... and get called a racist. Go figure. Or don't. Who cares?

    I just to high five that post. I am tired of that one too. I won't even speak to a former friend of mine anymore because he throws that up with everyone who doesn't like Obama. And it is thrown up often on boards and in real life.

    My dislike for the politicians I don't like has nothing to do with the color of their skin. I can't figure out why it has to even be brought up. I don't remember anyone going around and saying you don't like Bush just because he is white. I know the first time I ever said that I didn't trust him that was the first thing hurled at me was I was a racist. I was totally stunned and didn't know where it came from. I don't trust Newt Gingrich. I don't trust Teddy Kennedy. I don't trust Bill Clinton. I don't trust at least 99% of the politicians who are currently in office. And I don't trust Obama. The only thing they all have in common is they are politicians. They come from all different walks of life. They come with all different skin colors, different religions and so on. I don't trust them because of their ability to lie and that is it.

    All I know is I just like you am getting tired of being called a racist just because I don't trust Obama.

  20. I can't help but to think, please tell me again why Obama won the election if the majority of American's opposed what he supported and stood for? I know people will always cite the economy, but really? Over abortion, stem cell research, the fact that Obama wanted to talk to talk our enemies was well a known fact and put out there on every news channel, people still voted for him?

    Michael I know what you are saying on that, and I agree that many did vote for him for those principles. I don't have the polls right now, but I remember Good Morning America putting up some polls toward the end of the election about the time that the polls started turning in favor of Obama putting him in a wider lead over McCain.

    For awhile there esp. after the announcement of Palin McCain was leading and then for awhile it was very close. It was during this time that Stephanapolous cited that many undecideds began to make up their minds choosing finally to vote for Obama.

    They asked what was the turning point for them and it was way up there in the % that it was the economy and the economy alone that changed their mind. They felt that Bush was the sole reason why the economy was in the shape it was in and that a change from his type of policies was what was needed.

    So it did end up as a big deciding factor for them. As I cited before as much as there is a majority of the other reasons it was not all a moral thing. There are still some issues like gay marriage where there is still a big divide in this country. And the same with abortion. It is still an issue that almost divides the country down the middle. No side has a majority on them.

    If it was all a moral thing then in a state like California where Obama won by a landslide then Prop 8 would have won big time. But it didn't which proves to me that on moral issues there is a still a greater divide than many want to admit.

    Now if Prop 8 had come up in Tennessee and it got defeated it wouldn't have surprised me at all. McCain carried Tennessee by a landslide but it really surprised me in California because so many were preaching that Obama won the election totally on moral issues. They helped but Obama really got a booster shot in the butt with the economy really tanking toward the end of the election.

    As far as all this [!@#$%^&*] of one party sitting around and waiting for the other party leader to tank - that is what I am talking about that turns me off of politics. We sit around every 4 years listening to this one bitch and moan and blame that party for everything under the sun, and then the other party comes into office and the roles become reversed.

    There was a time when they did try to work together some but the 2 parties have gotten so far apart there is never any hope in my mind of them working together again. The moral issues and the problems that came up during the Clinton years with people like the Clintons, Gingrich, and so many others who acted like third grade children instead of leaders and representatives of our country - there is such a rift there that they will never be able to work together again. There are too many hard feelings and too much animosity there. I used to sit and laugh and think how childish Gingrich acted so many times with the way he treated the Clintons and the other Democrats and then to see the way Clinton made Gingrich sit on the back of the plane or something like that one time. I thought my children acted better than these reps of our country did.

    I just think it will take years before the rifts that are there will ever be mended. Or at least it will take a long time. I do find it funny that after the last 4 years esp. when I hear Dems want to know why people just can't come together and support the President. Again it goes back to those hard feelings. Republicans have been sitting back and waiting for the chance for the shoe to be on the other foot. Now they can dog the Democratic President for the next 4 years in the same way the Democrats dogged Bush for at least 6 of the 8 years he was in office. LOL

    Its a never ending cycle. The joys of a two party system.

    Its like my mother used to say (she was die hard Democrat - I often said if Hitler had been a Democrat Mom would have voted for him). But anyway she used to say that it was against her religion to say anything nice about a Republican at all. And she didn't. Never did. Some people are so party oriented that they are not going to come togehter and support anyone unless they are of the same party.

  21. Oh I forgot to add. Accountants are encouraging the ones that fall into this bracket to fix their W4's so that they are having more tax withheld. Again to fix the problem you end up negating the stimulus, because if you are having more witheld all you are doing is coming out the same as before.

  22. WASHINGTON – Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/ap_on_...R7iGyz761QD5gcF

    Niiiice. :rolleyes:

    This is what I was referring to weeks ago. I remember I was told then that it couldn't be so or something to that point.

    My boyfriend's accountant told us then that next year he was going to have pay a big amount back to the government.

    He told him that if he changed his W4 so that he doesn't have to pay next year then he loses the Obama stimulus of this year. He went ahead anyway to avoid having to pay a large amount next year.

    So Obama's stiumulus plan has done nothing for him at all since now he is not getting anything extra on his check like other American's. AT least next year he will either break even or get a small refund back. But his accountant estimated that if he kept things the way they were he would have to pay back between $600 and $1,000 next year. He has never had to pay at the end of the year, and said at almost 50 years old he wasn't about to start.

    If word does not get out on this millions of American's are going to be in hot water come tax time next year. What good is a stimulus plan if you are faced with a big lump sum payment at tax time when you are already facing financial hardships.

    You would think this could have been designed a lot better than it has been.

  23. Aye that is the dilema. I feel that we have lost our capacity to trust. Are we as a society in general so jaded that we are skeptical of everyone?

    Cocoa Pebbles!! OMG! I'm a Cocoa Puffs fan myself. I hope yopu enjoyed them.

    Oh I will admit that I don't trust politicians at all. And not just Obama. I don't trust any of them anymore.

    I have been lied to by so many of them - in fact the best of them - to the point their promises just don't register anymore. To me all politicians are good actors who have mastered the ability to lie better than anyone in the world.

    I know one thing that Obama has done in the first 100 days that shocked me and unless I missed it I have not seen anyone mention. But he totally shocked the hell out of me when he chose not to prosecute the ones who were guilty of torturing the detainees. I always felt that he would and hoped that he would. I know I have read several comments in our local newspaper where his followers and the anti-war folks felt really betrayed by him for that.

    I felt that he should have prosecuted the ones who carried the torture too far. I was a little upset with him for some of the reveals that he made about how the background intelligence operated. I felt like some who said why have a secret intelligence when you let the world know what your secrets are.

    I don't feel that prisoners should be tortured but I recognize the fact that intelligence needs to have certain measures they can use to get the enemy to talk. Plus my brother has told me that she he served in Vietnam that he was witness to some ghastly things that were done to our boys by the enemy. My brother even was captured at one point. The only thing he ever endured was having electrodes placed on his testicles and electric currents sent through them. Thankfully, he and the rest of his friends who were captured were rescued before anything major could happen. They all spent three months in a psychiatric hospital to overcome the experience. So it is something that all the nations do.

    I think at Guantanamo some of them went way too far for my comfort. But again it was the fact that we knew it happened.

    Anyway I was just kind of shocked that he didn't prosecute them.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy