Bush is a hero
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160148 Mar 13, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's rude and unbecoming, no matter what your political views are.
Oh, give it a rest. That was nothing. If I told you what I really think of Obama, I'd report my own post for vulgarity and start looking out my window for drones.

And you aren't one to talk anyway. You have referred to the Catholic Church as an "international pedophlile crime syndicate" which is rude and unbecoming no matter what your religious beliefs are and that didn't stop you.
=====

And while I have you on the phone Mr. Duplicitous, remember this post?
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like country music.
However, I don't denigrate those who do like it.
And for those who do like country music, denigrate means put down.
Seems you're the one who needs the vocabulary lesson.
Denigrate- criticize unfairly, belittle, disparage, blacken, mock slander, defame, vilify, asperse, malign


You may not DENIGRATE those who like country music but you sure DENIGRATE daily those who's religious and political beliefs differ from yours. It's curious to me why I don't see you post on threads which declare and support your beliefs instead of just parking your tepee on threads where your primary MO is to put down the beliefs of others.

....maybe it's because your positions and beliefs are so hard to defend and you're a low information American with nothing in your arsenal but a "feel good" plan.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#160149 Mar 13, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, give it a rest. That was nothing. If I told you what I really think of Obama, I'd report my own post for vulgarity and start looking out my window for drones.
And you aren't one to talk anyway. You have referred to the Catholic Church as an "international pedophlile crime syndicate" which is rude and unbecoming no matter what your religious beliefs are and that didn't stop you.
=====
And while I have you on the phone Mr. Duplicitous, remember this post?
<quoted text>
Seems you're the one who needs the vocabulary lesson.
Denigrate- criticize unfairly, belittle, disparage, blacken, mock slander, defame, vilify, asperse, malign
You may not DENIGRATE those who like country music but you sure DENIGRATE daily those who's religious and political beliefs differ from yours. It's curious to me why I don't see you post on threads which declare and support your beliefs instead of just parking your tepee on threads where your primary MO is to put down the beliefs of others.
....maybe it's because your positions and beliefs are so hard to defend and you're a low information American with nothing in your arsenal but a "feel good" plan.
That I engage in lighthearted humor does not minimize your lack of respect for the office of President of our great country.

And speaking of drones....
lisw

Georgetown, OH

#160150 Mar 13, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That I engage in lighthearted humor does not minimize your lack of respect for the office of President of our great country.
And speaking of drones....
Lyndi appears to have your number and speaking of a little humor. How do you know that much of what is said about Obama here is not humor. Humor helps to cope with what you find horrendous. And Obama is horrendous (as a president i.e. he probably made a great community organizer)
lisw

Georgetown, OH

#160151 Mar 13, 2013
Another thing that shows Obama leads us to a ruling class whether he wants it or not is his offer to let anyone stay for a night at the whitehouse with a 500,000 donation to his campaign group to gain the house in 2014. It just occurred to me that may be why he decided to cut out white house tours. It didn't save any money but made the stay at the whitehouse that much more alluring.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160152 Mar 13, 2013
lisw wrote:
Another thing that shows Obama leads us to a ruling class whether he wants it or not is his offer to let anyone stay for a night at the whitehouse with a 500,000 donation to his campaign group to gain the house in 2014. It just occurred to me that may be why he decided to cut out white house tours. It didn't save any money but made the stay at the whitehouse that much more alluring.
Is this that humor you were telling Catcher about?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160154 Mar 13, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I understand you believe your opinions to be 'the truth.'
I don't think it's true. I think it's crazy talk not very different from the kind 'truth' proclaimed by the rebels without a clue in Occupy.
They don't think they're stupid, either.

You might be surprised at how much of what Cosby said I agree with, ditto with at least some of the things that you suggest Obama should use his star power/bully pulpit to point out.

There's even just enough truth to what you say about the tactics Democrats use to win election, enough to make it plausible IF you're not aware that there are other tactics used by Republicans to win elections.

What I wonder is if you know that you're using those?
Willie, even if you agree only a little with what Cosby said, how on earth can you defend Obama and so much of the Democratic party? And you DO defend them, you know it and so does every other regular on this thread. I know you're a Democrat and a liberal, I understand that. But you are ALSO an absolutely brilliant man, one of the smartest people I've ever met online or offline, AND you have common sense.

There is no doubt, NO doubt whatsoever, that Obama is using that bully pulpit, and every other means at his disposal, to increase government control over the lives of ordinary Americans, and to encourage Americans to rely on the government to look after even the most mundane details of their lives. With your knowledge of law and of history, you know very well that this is COMPLETELY opposite to one of the most important ideas on which this country was founded: that the government is to have limited power, it is NOT to interfere in people's lives, and that most people are not only capable of looking after themselves, but prefer to do so.

Willie, HOW can you defend Obama, and I'd also like to know, WHY are you doing it?

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160155 Mar 13, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Willie, even if you agree only a little with what Cosby said, how on earth can you defend Obama and so much of the Democratic party? And you DO defend them, you know it and so does every other regular on this thread. I know you're a Democrat and a liberal, I understand that. But you are ALSO an absolutely brilliant man, one of the smartest people I've ever met online or offline, AND you have common sense.
There is no doubt, NO doubt whatsoever, that Obama is using that bully pulpit, and every other means at his disposal, to increase government control over the lives of ordinary Americans, and to encourage Americans to rely on the government to look after even the most mundane details of their lives. With your knowledge of law and of history, you know very well that this is COMPLETELY opposite to one of the most important ideas on which this country was founded: that the government is to have limited power, it is NOT to interfere in people's lives, and that most people are not only capable of looking after themselves, but prefer to do so.
Willie, HOW can you defend Obama, and I'd also like to know, WHY are you doing it?
I believe the following is utter rubbish:

"Obama is...increas[ing] government control over the lives of ordinary Americans, and to encourage Americans to rely on the government to look after even the most mundane details of their lives".

I do not believe what you are saying is true, any more than I believed Bush was 'tearing up the Constitution' in going to war in Iraq or in prosecuting the war on terror or any of the other things that some people who opposed him bleated.

It's really simple. If I was scornful of false and ridiculous criticism of a President I didn't vote for either time, why would I not be scornful of the same sort of absurdities when they're hurled at one I did vote for?

No doubt? Hardly.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160156 Mar 13, 2013
I was watching CNN today, while the debate over a bill designed to 'prevent the HHS from waiving (upon state application) the FEDERAL welfare-to-work requirement IN ORDER TO FACILITATE IMPLEMENTING STATE-BY-STATE PLANS' raged in the House of Representatives. I was appalled at the folks who were for this measure. The measure seeks to insist on Federal rules, in place of assenting to any State's request to implement its OWN welfare to work plans. I thought allowing states latitude in implementing Federal law, in order to best serve the people of a particular state, was the whole idea behind de-centralization of the government. And isn't that what Republicans/conservatives are about? So confusing.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160157 Mar 13, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
I was watching CNN today, while the debate over a bill designed to 'prevent the HHS from waiving (upon state application) the FEDERAL welfare-to-work requirement IN ORDER TO FACILITATE IMPLEMENTING STATE-BY-STATE PLANS' raged in the House of Representatives. I was appalled at the folks who were for this measure. The measure seeks to insist on Federal rules, in place of assenting to any State's request to implement its OWN welfare to work plans. I thought allowing states latitude in implementing Federal law, in order to best serve the people of a particular state, was the whole idea behind de-centralization of the government. And isn't that what Republicans/conservatives are about? So confusing.
Your answer is right here on this page, SKL.

The thinking goes that Obama doesn't really want people to get off welfare. He doesn't really want to give states the authority to waive the five year requirement, he wants to encourage dependency on the state.

So ... you may THINK that what some governors have requested is based on the current economy, but (according to that thinking) you'd be wrong. It's all part of Obama's master plan.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160158 Mar 13, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Your answer is right here on this page, SKL.
The thinking goes that Obama doesn't really want people to get off welfare. He doesn't really want to give states the authority to waive the five year requirement, he wants to encourage dependency on the state.
So ... you may THINK that what some governors have requested is based on the current economy, but (according to that thinking) you'd be wrong. It's all part of Obama's master plan.
Thanks for this.
I had a link to a site called 'The Hill', which started off thusly:
"The House voted Wednesday to block the Obama administration's attempt to waive a requirement that people must work or prepare for a job in order to receive federal welfare benefits." But that's not EVEN what the bill was really about, as far as I could discern from the debate.

As I said, it's very confusing.
And thanks for not referring to me as 'shovel' too.

:)

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160159 Mar 13, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I believe the following is utter rubbish:
"Obama is...increas[ing] government control over the lives of ordinary Americans, and to encourage Americans to rely on the government to look after even the most mundane details of their lives".

I do not believe what you are saying is true, any more than I believed Bush was 'tearing up the Constitution' in going to war in Iraq or in prosecuting the war on terror or any of the other things that some people who opposed him bleated.

It's really simple. If I was scornful of false and ridiculous criticism of a President I didn't vote for either time, why would I not be scornful of the same sort of absurdities when they're hurled at one I did vote for?

No doubt? Hardly.
Another thing I don't doubt, Willie, is that if you perceived Obama to be doing the things that not just I, but millions across the land, believe him to be doing, you would indeed criticize him for it. But I am flabbergasted that you don't. For someone who is usually so clear-sighted, your vision is strangely clouded here.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160160 Mar 13, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I explained to you that using Reverend Wright for 20 years as a mentor with his "God Damn America" speeches if not SCARY was disturbing and his lessons are deeply ingrained in Obama. He taught him to turn the tables on the white folk, level the playing field through whatever means necessary, get the money, build an underclass and keep the power.

And if you follow Obama's behavior he's throwing the little people scraps while he's running around living the high life like a kid in a candy store. Is that an elitist or should we just chalk it up to someone who falls into the category of nouveau-riche because having money and power is new to him and he's still in the giddy stage?

You can take the boy out of Chicago but you can't take Chicago out of the boy.
God, this is going to be a long 4 years.
Yes, it is. I can't help thinking of a mid-level drug dealer, who a...uh...friend to the people in the 'hood, paying their electric bills, buying them fancy clothes, etc. He'd be a much better friend to them BY NOT SELLING DRUGS, but as long as he keeps them happy with expensive pacifiers, they're not likely to care or even notice.

And then there's this, found it on the 'Net just now:

__________

In Juvenal's time (55-127 A.D.)...the power of the emperors grew stronger and stronger. The once proud Senate...atrophied into a figurehead of an institution. However, Juvenal felt that the populace took the duties of citizenship far more seriously during the days of the Republic than in the virtual dictatorships of the Caesars.

He lamented that "the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and longs eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses."

Those scornful words "bread and circuses,"...become more meaningful when you understand that Roman citizens became increasingly addicted to free distributions of food and the violent gladiatorial...contests held in the Coliseum ...He felt that Romans had lost the capacity to govern themselves so distracted by mindless self-gratification had they become.

Thus, bread and circuses, is a phrase now used to deplore a population so distracted with entertainment and personal pleasures (sometimes by design of those in power) that they no longer value the civic virtues and bow to civil authority with unquestioned obedience. Bread and Circuses has also become a general term for government policies that seek short-term solutions to public unrest.

Unfortunately, Juvenal's words apply quite strikingly to the United States...

__________

http://www.thomasjamesmartin.com/breadcircus....

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#160161 Mar 13, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is. I can't help thinking of a mid-level drug dealer, who a...uh...friend to the people in the 'hood, paying their electric bills, buying them fancy clothes, etc. He'd be a much better friend to them BY NOT SELLING DRUGS, but as long as he keeps them happy with expensive pacifiers, they're not likely to care or even notice.
And then there's this, found it on the 'Net just now:
__________
In Juvenal's time (55-127 A.D.)...the power of the emperors grew stronger and stronger. The once proud Senate...atrophied into a figurehead of an institution. However, Juvenal felt that the populace took the duties of citizenship far more seriously during the days of the Republic than in the virtual dictatorships of the Caesars.
He lamented that "the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and longs eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses."
Those scornful words "bread and circuses,"...become more meaningful when you understand that Roman citizens became increasingly addicted to free distributions of food and the violent gladiatorial...contests held in the Coliseum ...He felt that Romans had lost the capacity to govern themselves so distracted by mindless self-gratification had they become.
Thus, bread and circuses, is a phrase now used to deplore a population so distracted with entertainment and personal pleasures (sometimes by design of those in power) that they no longer value the civic virtues and bow to civil authority with unquestioned obedience. Bread and Circuses has also become a general term for government policies that seek short-term solutions to public unrest.
Unfortunately, Juvenal's words apply quite strikingly to the United States...
__________
http://www.thomasjamesmartin.com/breadcircus....
What's everybody's take on the new Pope?

My peeps.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160162 Mar 13, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What's everybody's take on the new Pope?
My peeps.
Everything old is new again...and an interesting choice, if only in a political sense.

The Monarchy of Papal Rome, is as relevant to Catholics as they want it to be.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160163 Mar 13, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is. I can't help thinking of a mid-level drug dealer, who a...uh...friend to the people in the 'hood, paying their electric bills, buying them fancy clothes, etc. He'd be a much better friend to them BY NOT SELLING DRUGS, but as long as he keeps them happy with expensive pacifiers, they're not likely to care or even notice.
And then there's this, found it on the 'Net just now:
__________
In Juvenal's time (55-127 A.D.)...the power of the emperors grew stronger and stronger. The once proud Senate...atrophied into a figurehead of an institution. However, Juvenal felt that the populace took the duties of citizenship far more seriously during the days of the Republic than in the virtual dictatorships of the Caesars.
He lamented that "the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and longs eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses."
Those scornful words "bread and circuses,"...become more meaningful when you understand that Roman citizens became increasingly addicted to free distributions of food and the violent gladiatorial...contests held in the Coliseum ...He felt that Romans had lost the capacity to govern themselves so distracted by mindless self-gratification had they become.
Thus, bread and circuses, is a phrase now used to deplore a population so distracted with entertainment and personal pleasures (sometimes by design of those in power) that they no longer value the civic virtues and bow to civil authority with unquestioned obedience. Bread and Circuses has also become a general term for government policies that seek short-term solutions to public unrest.
Unfortunately, Juvenal's words apply quite strikingly to the United States...
__________
http://www.thomasjamesmartin.com/breadcircus....
Those hood'rats are just taking Capitalism to its logical conclusion: Make the most of what you perceive to have.

Do you really think industrialists, or Wall Street, or any pure-profit seeker, plays by inherently different rules than these?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#160164 Mar 13, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Everything old is new again...and an interesting choice, if only in a political sense.
The Monarchy of Papal Rome, is as relevant to Catholics as they want it to be.
I guess.

I find it all very strange.

One minute, he's a regular guy.

Next minute, he's infallible.

Go figure.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160165 Mar 13, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What's everybody's take on the new Pope?
My peeps.
I'm not Catholic, but for what it's worth, I liked what I saw and heard of the man today. There's something about him I found very appealing, even though I never heard of him before this.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160166 Mar 13, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Those hood'rats are just taking Capitalism to its logical conclusion: Make the most of what you perceive to have.
Do you really think industrialists, or Wall Street, or any pure-profit seeker, plays by inherently different rules than these?
I don't know whether or not those industrialists, etc. DO play by inherently different rules. I DO know that as long as the rules they're playing by are legal, they can play by 'em if they want.

Good to see you, Kat :)

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160167 Mar 13, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess.
I find it all very strange.
One minute, he's a regular guy.
Next minute, he's infallible.
Go figure.
The Lord works in mysterious ways, his wisdom to perform..........

'Splains damn near everything, what?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#160168 Mar 13, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not Catholic, but for what it's worth, I liked what I saw and heard of the man today. There's something about him I found very appealing, even though I never heard of him before this.
Me, too.

Seems like a good, humble, decent, caring, and intelligent person.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min June VanDerMark 599,911
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 5 min WasteWater 6,314
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 11 min WasteWater 6,523
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 12 min marvindo 40,893
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 17 min middleman1 2,787
New Local state and federal prisons ARE A MUST 20 min Doctor REALITY 3
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 20 min Buck Crick 865,344
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 1 hr Oop 463
The Christian Atheist debate 10 hr Kaitlin the Wolf ... 2,016
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 23 hr Frannie 44
More from around the web