Others' money

[progressive]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> Excuse me, but Obama happens to be wonderful! You must be insane if you think that Obama is anywhere near as bad as your hero Bush was!

you call them insane, and they call you sheepie. this is a battle of extremes, and boring! where does it get you? I have searched for cordial and civil conservatives, and found two or three, who are capable of strong argument and disagreement, without exchanging insults. It is really interesting! We stay on substance, mostly, with a few clever misinterpretations (from them) and indirect digs (from me, in repy) at times, but no real hostility or insults. Try looking for one! I found two! It is looking for a gem in a pile of needles, but they are there - somewhere out there! comparable to David Brooks or George Will, among the right-wing, but civilized, media types.

[progressive]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> You have no answer to the legal challenge comment, because no constitutional attorney would agree with your absurd position. BILLIONS of dollars have been spent, and are being spent, on these programs over the last half century, yet NO moron from the right has successfully challenged their constitutionality in court! The BULLCHIT Iraq war was Bush's way of getting back at Saddam for his comments about Bush senior, and also a great way to put Clinton's surplus taxpayer money right into the pockets of Bush's corporate cronies, and right into his sidekick Cheney's beloved Halliburton!! You morons on the right are so far removed from reality, that it's a wonder you fools can even think at all!

well, at least you are more specific here. That helps. I guess it sounds like you really mean it, and are not just trying to discredit Obama supporters. Without the occasional obscenity, insults and exaggerations, it would be an interesting comment, and well worth discussion. You are still to eager to lower yourself to the level of the worst of your opponents. Someone with no prior opinion, would lump you together with your oponents, as being exteme, and uncivil - and I think you could and should do better than that. especially since if you are sincere, I agree with you more than I disagree with you, but cannot endorse extreme comments, or simplistic ones, or tacky insults, or obscenities. just pretend that some nice little old lady with no opinions is deciding what to think based on the way you present your arguments - just once, to se how you would rephrase things! I know I don't go that far into goody-goody mode, and I do not expect you to stay there, but it might be fun to see you try it. If you are serious, and not doing mockery, I am more or less on your side and want you to be more impressive and effective, especially given the name you carry. I notice you never reply to me, and you must be very annoyed at my constant carping at your style - I admit I am a sort of politeness police, but hope not unreasonably so. I come from a very small town, where cordiality between folks who strongly disagree with each other is the key to survival and getting along, and yet many of us have very strong views and do not pull our punches on matters of substance. The letters to the editor in our local paper are filled with very strong disagreements at times, and yet the same folks speak to each other cordially, and work together on other projects, of benefit to the town. Perhaps you come from a big city, where that sort of culture is not necessary for getting along.

[progressive]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> Sorry that you have issues with our system of government. I suggest that you write and complain to your Congressman!

The comment by Anthony at 1157 was far less nasty and nuts that most other comments from folks on the far right. His views on the wars were promising, in fact. His worries were actually valid - about waste and earmarks. He should be a Jeff Flake fan, and maybe a Ron Paul fan, and those include some interesting and civil persons. I would not dismiss that comment in a flip way. I may go find it and reply to him, just to test if he can maintain a substance-oriented style. I candidly do not recall whether I have met him before or not, and at least I do not feel an automatic negativity toward him personally, as I do toward many with names I know - shady lady, most especially, or Florida, and some others we all know.

[progressive]

Anthony - I checked your profile, and found some of your comments. I disagreed with many, but not all, of your points. and some of your language was rough on the politicians whom you criticized, and on certain types of individuals, but you did not seem to relish lots of name-calling wiht other commenters, and used it sparingly, presumably in retaliation. So maybe you are one of those substance-oriented folks on the center-right withwhom it is possible to hold a civil and substance-oriented conversation. Surely you mut notice that others on the far right in the spectrum, are realy nasty, and some on the left retaliate in kind. I think there are a few on the center-left, like myself, who are nonetheless willing to be cordial with real, traditional, civilized conservativs, and only go after the extremist right-wing nut-cases with the full arsenal of routine insults (extremist ultra far hard-right-wing superstitious nut-cases, or some varient thereof). I do not sense that you belong in that category, nor in the idiot or greedy category either. I see glimmers of rationality and moderation and civility - sorry, that will probably get you in trouble with the nut-cases on the right, who expect all right-of-center folks to be dittoheads, nasty smear-mongers, and unthinking partisans, at least anti-Democratic partisans. You show too many signs of thinking! and independent opinion, to be one of the kind they are comfortable with.

[progressive]

Obama Rules - I suggest that you practice on cordiality and substantive discussion with Anthony - who would be less of a strain on your patience! I can understand your inclination to just let loose with insults against some of those other guys, though it did not reflect well on either side, all that car talk!

[progressive]

I am poor and charitable, and also favor taxing the superrich to help with food stamps for those who need them. but I do not want anyone to be able to buy soda, candy, bottle deposits, fattening and diabetes-causing foods, alcohol, tobacco, or other unhealthy substances with any tax money - so I favor more assistance that is tied to specific purposes, food, rent, clothing for children, health insurance for children, etc. and if someone asks me for money, I often ask "are you hungry, what would you like to eat, or what do you need?", and just go buy the person a gallon of milk, or give them a take-out lunch from the local food service meal site. Mostly I help cats and dogs, because only a few of them are conning me! I drive an older car with lots of miles on it, and some signs of dents and rust too, I don't care about status or cars! I am not altogether comfortable with ObamaRules, but I am more hostile to those who are both nasty and ultra-right-wing.

[Anthony]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> There is no such thing as a perfect politician or human for that matter! At least we have someone like Obama in office now, who knows what the hell he is doing, as opposed to that complete fool Bush!!

Bush was an obvious fool, a puppet of his big business, neo-con masters! The current Oval Office occupant is a more polished fool, beholden to his Big Labor, ultra-left wing masters. Different models, same results!

[Anthony]

progressive wrote:

Anthony - I checked your profile, and found some of your comments. I disagreed with many, but not all, of your points. and some of your language was rough on the politicians whom you criticized, and on certain types of individuals, but you did not seem to relish lots of name-calling wiht other commenters, and used it sparingly, presumably in retaliation. So maybe you are one of those substance-oriented folks on the center-right withwhom it is possible to hold a civil and substance-oriented conversation. Surely you mut notice that others on the far right in the spectrum, are realy nasty, and some on the left retaliate in kind. I think there are a few on the center-left, like myself, who are nonetheless willing to be cordial with real, traditional, civilized conservativs, and only go after the extremist right-wing nut-cases with the full arsenal of routine insults (extremist ultra far hard-right-wing superstitious nut-cases, or some varient thereof). I do not sense that you belong in that category, nor in the idiot or greedy category either. I see glimmers of rationality and moderation and civility - sorry, that will probably get you in trouble with the nut-cases on the right, who expect all right-of-center folks to be dittoheads, nasty smear-mongers, and unthinking partisans, at least anti-Democratic partisans. You show too many signs of thinking! and independent opinion, to be one of the kind they are comfortable with.

Thank you, Progressive, for the kind, civil words. I have no use for screaming, insulting partisan hacks, on either side of the aisle. We may disagree on many aspects, but we can do so cordially, with mutual respect. I look forward to further discussions with you.

[Gammler]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> Our government is quite compassionate, which is a lot more than I can say for many of its greedy citizens!

You're awful generous with other people's money aren't you.

[ohwell09]

Senior Member of Congress to Obama :
Obama: "Bye-Bye" I am going to Asia now, for nine days, bye bye, see you soon .... take care of the fort ..... I wish the kids could come - they are very interested in the Japanese culture ... but dang, they couldn't get out of school for 9 days. Bye .... text me bro ....
Congressman: Barack, you know i have children your age and so .... I ..... just have to say that I feel comfortable in telling you - "You have homework to do, so get your butt back home and do it".
Interesting Article Below:
Obama Heads to Asia, Breaks Foreign Travel Record
Posted by Mark Knoller
(CBS)
Even before President Obama sets foot on Air Force One tomorrow to begin a 9-day trip to Asia, he has traveled to more countries in his first year in office than any of his predecessors.
Since taking office, he has made 7 foreign trips and visited 16 countries, 3 of them twice.
The Asia trip – which takes him to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea – will bring his total to 8 foreign trips and 20 countries.
The only other president to come close to Mr. Obama's first-year-in-office globe-trotting numbers is President George H. W. Bush, who took 7 foreign trips to 14 countries.
His son traveled abroad five times to 11 countries during his first year. President Clinton only did 2 foreign trips to 3 nations in 1993.
Foreign travel by American presidents is a relatively new practice. No sitting U.S. president left the country until Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. He made a single foreign outing: a 3-day visit to Panama in November of that year to inspect construction of the Panama Canal.

Mr. Obama's destinations in Asia are all first-time visits for him – including two stops in China: Shanghai and Beijing. The showdowns with Iran and North Korea over their respective nuclear programs top the agenda with Chinese leaders – whose help the White House regards as indispensable. It's thought to be the reason one Mr. Obama declined a meeting last month with the Dali Llama – for fear a meeting with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader might irritate Chinese leaders just weeks before visiting with them.
Tokyo is the President's first stop in Asia. He'll confer there with the new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and also have a rare meeting with Japan's Emperor Akihito.
In Singapore, Mr. Obama attends the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to discuss efforts to promote global economic growth. Since Russia is an APEC member, Mr. Obama will have a one-on-one there with Pres. Dmitry Medvedev. He'll also hold a "bilateral" there with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, a nation in which Mr. Obama lived for 4 years as a boy.
"The president feels a great connection to Indonesia," said Ben Rhodes, White House Deputy National Security Advisor. GOOD THEN STAY THERE IN INDONESIA IF YOU ARE SO CONNECTED TO THAT AREA OF THE WORLD - IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW WE DON'T GIVE A FLYING FECK ABOUT INDONESIA RIGHT NOW !!!
Mr. Obama's final stop is South Korea, where he'll discuss the problems and threats North Korea poses with President Lee Myung-bak. He'll also visit with U.S. military personnel stationed in South Korea.
Some speculate the president might return home by way of Afghanistan for talks with newly reelected President Hamid Karzai. Mr. Obama is expected to announce soon after his return home his new strategy on Afghanistan – and how many additional U.S. troops he'll deploy there.[b]WHY ISN'T HE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS NOW !!!
This Asia trip is not Mr. Obama's last foreign foray of the year. He's scheduled to travel to Oslo next month to accept the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded in October. And he may stay or head back to Scandinavia to attend the United Nations Conference on Climate Change a few days later.
CLIMATE CHANGE - PLEASE -WE HAVE 20 % UNEMPLOYMENT HERE
It will further secure his record as having done more foreign travel than any U.S. president to date.

[Drink The Hive]

Money Where?

[OMG]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> Our government is quite compassionate, which is a lot more than I can say for many of its greedy citizens!

Coming from you, I consider that an oxymoron

[What]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> There is no such thing as a perfect politician or human for that matter! At least we have someone like Obama in office now, who knows what the hell he is doing, as opposed to that complete fool Bush!!

You just don't get it, do you? Bush and Obama, like many before them, work for the same bunch of global elitists who are hard at work to dissolve national sovereignty, drastically reduce population, and enslave the remaining survivors. You really need to step back and take a good look at the big picture!!! NO! Giverment is not compassionate!!! They do NOT have your best interest in mind. They are about dumbing people down, getting them dependent and complacent so they can strip us of our freedoms and wealth. They work for the owners of the central banks who are infinitely greedy and will stop at nothing until they control the entire world.
Perhaps this is just to scary for you, so you stick your head in the sand and prefer to believe your Obama is some kind of messiah, some kind of benevolent papa who will love you and take care of you and kiss your boo boos.....
Hate to bust your bubble, Obama'sfool, but you are believing a lie.

[What]

ohwell09 wrote:

......This Asia trip is not Mr. Obama's last foreign foray of the year. He's scheduled to travel to Oslo next month to accept the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded in October. And he may stay or head back to Scandinavia to attend the United Nations Conference on Climate Change a few days later.
CLIMATE CHANGE - PLEASE -WE HAVE 20 % UNEMPLOYMENT HERE
It will further secure his record as having done more foreign travel than any U.S. president to date.

All this extreme environmentalism, the push for the carbon tax is the main vehicle they are using to tax the entire world and further their diabolical agenda. Watch what happens in Copenhagen this December.

[Southern Rube]

progressive wrote:

I am poor and charitable, and also favor taxing the superrich to help with food stamps for those who need them. but I do not want anyone to be able to buy soda, candy, bottle deposits, fattening and diabetes-causing foods, alcohol, tobacco, or other unhealthy substances with any tax money - so I favor more assistance that is tied to specific purposes, food, rent, clothing for children, health insurance for children, etc. and if someone asks me for money, I often ask "are you hungry, what would you like to eat, or what do you need?", and just go buy the person a gallon of milk, or give them a take-out lunch from the local food service meal site. Mostly I help cats and dogs, because only a few of them are conning me! I drive an older car with lots of miles on it, and some signs of dents and rust too, I don't care about status or cars! I am not altogether comfortable with ObamaRules, but I am more hostile to those who are both nasty and ultra-right-wing.

Prog-
In the pretext of civil discourse, what do you see as the fundamental role of the fedral government, as opposed that of state and local governments?
I happen to think that most of the discord between Obama and the right lies in his interpretation of the US Constitution, of which he was some sort of professor at the distinguished University of Chicago Law School.
He (along with every single president before him)seems to seek to expand the authority of the federal government in direct opposition to the law of the land drawn up by men who overtly sought to limit the role of the federal government, as history has shown that centralized governments universally have a propensity to usurp authority at every occasion.

Obama, if nothing else, is a pragmatic politician, and will do what it takes to get re-elected. He seems to be insulated from the counsel of those who would pose reasonable counter arguments to his policies. If he maintains his trajectory, he could seriously diminish democratic majorities in both houses of congress in the mid terms.

If he is seriously considering winning the 2012 election, he had best study the political ways of Bill Clinton. This would take him radically to the center, alienate the extremists on the left, and take a big hunk of the middle.

By the way, a big difference between conservatives and liberals, is that liberals openly wanted Bush 43 to fail. Conservatives just want Obama to do what is right.

[ObamaRules]

Anthony wrote:

<quoted text>Bush was an obvious fool, a puppet of his big business, neo-con masters! The current Oval Office occupant is a more polished fool, beholden to his Big Labor, ultra-left wing masters. Different models, same results!

Bush is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people, and the loss of billions in taxpayers money. These is absolutely no comparison.

[ObamaRules]

What wrote:

<quoted text>
You just don't get it, do you? Bush and Obama, like many before them, work for the same bunch of global elitists who are hard at work to dissolve national sovereignty, drastically reduce population, and enslave the remaining survivors. You really need to step back and take a good look at the big picture!!! NO! Giverment is not compassionate!!! They do NOT have your best interest in mind. They are about dumbing people down, getting them dependent and complacent so they can strip us of our freedoms and wealth. They work for the owners of the central banks who are infinitely greedy and will stop at nothing until they control the entire world.
Perhaps this is just to scary for you, so you stick your head in the sand and prefer to believe your Obama is some kind of messiah, some kind of benevolent papa who will love you and take care of you and kiss your boo boos.....
Hate to bust your bubble, Obama'sfool, but you are believing a lie.

You are far to cynical and pessimistic. As I stated earlier, the party that has the most compassion by far are the Democrats. Stop deluding yourself into thinking that there are no politicians who really care.

[Marcellus]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> Bush is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people, and the loss of billions in taxpayers money. These is absolutely no comparison.

Obama stands to be responsible for generations of failure and death to freedom, not merely a fruit off the family tree but entire branches with his anti-American policy. You complain that soldiers died vowing to protect the freedom of each one of us, yet you support the shreading of that very freedom from within! You are a fools fool! That is paramount to any ill-concieved OPINIONS you have about any other presidents before this buffoon!

[Marcellus]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> You are far to cynical and pessimistic. As I stated earlier, the party that has the most compassion by far are the Democrats. Stop deluding yourself into thinking that there are no politicians who really care.

Merriam-Webster defines Naive as:

1 : marked by unaffected simplicity : artless, ingenuous
2 : deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment; especially : credulous b : not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation
3 : ObamaRules!

[Anthony]

ObamaRules wrote:

<quoted text> Bush is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people, and the loss of billions in taxpayers money. These is absolutely no comparison.

It's only been 11 months....He'll catch up!