Man-Love for Lee Iacocca - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 25th, 2008, 11:17 PM   #41
mojo
Wha Happen???
 
mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-17-07
Location: Roseville, Michigan
Posts: 209
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via MSN to mojo Send a message via Yahoo to mojo
Default

I dont read post that require more than one full revolution of my scroll wheel.

That one took a good 3.5!!
mojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old April 26th, 2008, 07:41 AM   #42
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
liberalism
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1: the quality or state of being liberal
2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party.
That's great, except this is the definition of "classic liberalism" what is refered today as a libertarian.

The Democratic party is not based individual freedom, free competition, and a self regulating market. Please!

Here is a comparison of a classic liberal and a modern liberal....

http://www.conservative-resources.co...f-liberal.html

"Put simply, the difference between the classical liberal and the modern liberal is that the classical liberal of our age tends to be more concerned with freedom, while the modern liberal is more concerned with equality."

You said it your self you want things to be "fair" fair=equal. It's too bad that you have to give up freedom to be equal. Personally I'd rather be free, thanks anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
So is the building of highways, schools, having police departments, fire departments, JAILS, Marxist?.
Let's break it down....

Building Highways. See Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" on this one, it's his third duty of government. Call me a parrot if you will, but I can't say it any better than he did.

"the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society."

Although I find this to be a bit of a slippery slope, for my tastes. I'd still say no.

Schools: Government education is #10 in the communist manifesto planks.

http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist...to-Planks.html

So, yes.

Police & Fire: I'd say this falls under the area of the constitution about protecting the people from internal and external threats. (I am paraphrasing of course.)

So, no.

Jails? This seems to be an extension of the police and fire example to me.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 10:52 AM   #43
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Interesting, but I'm not sure what your point was. You are right about what Halilburton is, but my complaint is that they will be a Dubai based corporation now, but with full U.S. corporate privileges. If Ford moved to China but wanted all the privileges of a U.S. corporation, would you approve? Please tell us yes or no. If not, then why Haliburton?

So what are the "privileges of a U.S. corporation"? This, by context, can't be a rhetorical question, so am I to understand that you don't actually have any idea?No, I don't personally like that they're moving overseas, but there's obviously a reason why - that's what we need to ask ourselves. What about our business climate is such that this firm felt the need to move overseas? You are either naive or partisan. There is no way that anyone that understands the business and it's connections actually believes that.

There is no way of knowing, and unfair to speculate either way, as to what might have happened had someone else been president on 9/11, so we need to look at what DID happen:

W just sat there while the kids kept reading,


Fair enough.

You must be a Bush employee or something. Come on. First of all, Bush lied late rin a public address and siad he saw the first strike on the news on the way in to the classroom, but the attack didn't happen until after he was in there. The warning specified airline hits to the WTC and when one hit wouldn't you have assumed that that must be the attack? Oh wait, Bush andRice ignored the warnings, so why would they assume that?

The protocol in the event of an attack was followed - just like it would've been no matter who was President. Until it became clear that there was something larger going on than a plane striking a building there was no need to make a move. You can then join the naysayers who claimed he was "hiding" when they scrambled Air Force One to put the CIC out of harm's way. Again, following the well thought-out and well-rehearsed plan.

W and his administration ignored warnings of Bin Laden planning airline attacks on U.S. soil (several intelligence officials provided testimony to and documentation of such),

we attacked the wrong country, No response?

we never got Bin Laden and W even said he doesn't spend much time thinking about it,


Clinton likewise had intelligence about Bin Laden and didn't act. Hmmm... Let's see. Cliinton was warned. There were no attacks. Bush was warned. We were attacked..... Hindsight is 20-20. I'm sure both administrations received intelligence about a whole host of others threats too - including domestic nutjobs like those in OKC as well. Which do you act on? All of them.

Bin laden is a tough one. We have a "friendly" ally in Pakistan, except that in parts of Pakistan the central government really isn't in control. Do we attack into Pakistan and risk destabilizing a friendly regime? We had access to him a long time ago when we first attacked and didn't bother because soldier eyewitness acounts stated that we were too busy protecting Haliburton trucks and oil wells. Gawd you're naive.

we were lied to about WMD's and the W administration was almost exposed so they pulled the weapons inspectors before they could make a final report that there were none, to this day the inspectors keep saying that they told the administration, the press and U.N. that there was nothing there (I used to hear and see this on the noncorporate news sources all the time), and now our own military has proven them right,

WMDs (chemical weapon stockpiles) were found in Iraq. Which ones? Where? When?I have no doubt many other items of interest were shipped off to Syria in the near-nonstop caravan of materials sent there before the war started. There is no evidence of that, and considering our sophisticated system of surveillance and intelligence, we are either completely inept, or there was nothing.

we are in the worst economic coondition since the depression, no response?

foreclosures are at an all time high,

homes are plummeting in value,


Because of too-loose mortgage lending policies that resulted in people receiving loans they couldn't repay the mortgage and housing market is correcting. I wouldn't attribute this to a specific administration, although more vigilant oversight would've helped. I see, so you're blaming the "free market" governed by an administration that believes in fewer regulations for the problem, and suggestiing that more regulations would have helped.... Do you even see your contradiction?

corporations are leaving the country,

wages are tumbling too,

unemployment is at an all time high,

more citizens are below the poverty line than since the depression,

all this happened with an 8 year run by a Republilcan president and a Republican house and senate. They had rubber-stamp control on pretty much everything, and look what happened.


Our economy is cyclic Huh? Demonstrate that.- no party can change that When you demonstrate the former, you will disprove the latter.. The real problem is that, unlike previous downturns, we aren't going to bounce back after this one but I thought you just said that it's all "cyclic"... . The jobs are moving overseas, because (especially here in MI) a lot of folks think $70 - $100K a year (before benefits) is reasonable for a non-skilled factory hand. A Mexican worker will do the same job, with the same quality for a fraction of that. So will I pal,.... So will I.Look at all those Mexican-built 5.7 litre Chrysler Hemis out there. And Ford Fusions/Mercury Milanos/Lincoln MKZs. All Mexican built.

Taxes are a necessary evil. Roads need to be maintained, bridges need to be built, controls need to be in place so we don't have total anarchy. Since W has been in office my taxes have gone UP. I am paying more than ever and getting squat back. Everyone that I know is experiencing the same thing (even the Republicans).

Are you paying "more" because you're making more? Nope. In fact, when adjusted for inflation I'm making quite a bit less.Real tax rates have dropped slightly in Dubya's administration Name them.- something Hillary and Obama are honest enough to both say they'll change. And don't start the "tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor" crap - you know better than that. Huh? Name the cuts and name the increases. If oyu actually do the research you'll see you're wrong.


Hillary is a joke. If she wins I may have to leave the country.

Agreed.

Ron Paul can't win, but he would be my choice.

I like a lot of what he says - but he's not a "complete package". And he comes off a little nutty.

Obama can win, and may very well win, so rather than sit around and throw empty, baseless insults (like "empty suit") when he has a proven track record of standing up FOR THE PEOPLE and getting things done, and voting AGAINST attacking Iraq, maybe you could consider what he is saying: that he will be in office to serve US, represent US, do OUR bidding. Imagine that, an empty suit waiting for US to fill it. Government BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. We don't need leaders, we need representatives. Would you know what to do if you had a president that was waiting for YOU to tell HIM what to do? What would be the first hing you would ask for? After you figure that out, check out his website and see if he is already talking about DOING IT. You may be pleasantly surpirsed.

Oh, I think Obama can win too - that's what scares me.

When I say "empty suit", I mean that Obama is "all sizzle and no steak" - kinda like Bobby Kennedy was. Charismatic? Yes. Excellent speaker? Yes. A "gimmick"? Yes (he's the black guy, like RFK was JFK's brother). Take the time to look at his record instead of parroting Rush Limbaugh. Think for yourself.

We need more in a CIC and President than a slick speaker delivering inspirational platitudes.

Maybe the reason that the NeoCons don't want populist rule is because they are realizing that a new generation is taking over that wants things the "new way", so they would rather impose fascist rule to cling to their values....?

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.


I don't see more patriotism now than I did as child. Right around 9/11 there was a lot, but it abated. It doesn't say ANYTHING about an increase in patriotism. It demonstrates the increase in symbolism as a tool to make those that dissent seem unpatriotic, when this country was founded on dissent. That's what the regime is afraid of.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

What if instead of invading Iraq, a change of regime was accomplished by a CIA operative putting a .300 Win Mag through Saddam's braincase? Or Hitler's? No thousands of U.S. lives lost, no billion$ spent?

If one U.S. serviceperson's life would be saved, I would have no compunction stringing up every nonmilitary prisoner in Gitmo. If we have to waterboard a few or shoot a few low value ones to loosen the tounges of a high value one, then so be it. Okay, so in order to save the lives of several Germans you believe that they should have tortured more Americans? And to save Viet Cong lives they should have tortured even MORE Americans? It's called the GEneva Convention, and it was AGREED to by all the signing countries, including the U.S., for that reason.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

What about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"? Is that he best you can come up with is a wisecrack?

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.


Did you serve? Yes. Did you?

I don't see the military being "glamorized". I do see it being respected, which is appropriate. Our freedoms exist because of our military people - not politicians. There is a difference between showing appropriate respect and what is going on now. We don't send chain e-mails recomending that we do some silly gesture or other for our mail carrier, now do we? We don't put stickers all over everything commemorating the service of our Secretary of State Drivers License Photo Takers either, now do we?

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

Sorta like "It Takes A Village"? The destruction of the family unit by generations of welfare-driven dependency and welfare policies that favor fathers abandoning their children? Don't redirect. That's not what was said. Is that the best you can do?

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

The mass media is so incredibly liberal that it defies reason, a fact that cannot be denied. Talk radio is entertainment. Telling a human interest story is liberal? Ignoring what is really going on and talking about human interst stories instead is neither liberal OR conservative. The study never showed any liberal or conservative difference. What is cited is that they just don't bother reorting what is important, and instead talking about garbage.

However, I will make an unpopular statement. We need less media coverage of war. War is an ugly, non-telegenic business. How would the Normandy invasion have looked if covered live on TV by embedded reporters? Iwo Jima? Ardennes Forest? Antietam? War is something that nees to be covered at a distance. Not distorted, but put into context. It's barely even DISCUSSED.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. No response?



8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. No response?



9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. No response?



10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

Is labor being suppressed? Unions are being broken, and have been since Reagan first did it to the air traffic controllers. The U.S. Dep't of Labor has been gutted and the leading staffers have been fired and replaced with several people that have a long record of antilabor initiatives. You really don't know what's going on there, do you?

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

I oppose all government funding for the arts. Let the market rule - if someone likes it, they'll pay for it. I mean, look at rap music. If that means "classical" music fades away, then so be it. I don't see the importance of 300 year-old European pop music to today's culture. If we want to preserve something, let's preserve some Jerry Lee Lewis and Carl Pewrkins.

As far as censorship and suppression of academia, see what happens to a scientist who points out the global warming is just an unproven theory. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition... Lot's of "scientists" have that very thing about global warming, and I would be interested in hearing your take on exactly what "happened to them"....

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

To date, nobody has been able to identify a foregone civil liberty for me. Wiretapping of foreign nationals (non-citizens) doesn't count. Aw Geez man... Can you say "Habeus Corpus"? I could go on and on about this, but here's one of hundreds of links that will spell it out for you: http://mondoglobo.wftk.org/wiki/Chro...h-Era_Timeline) What I find interesting is that you don't even realize that you call anyone that speaks in protest or dissent a "liberal", creating the groundwork to villify anyone that protests.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

A characteristic of politicians of every race, creed, color, and party. Then look at Obama's record and what he is currently refusing to do and what he intends to do if he is president. Just because someone says they want to change things doesn't automatically mean they're a liar.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Okay, Al Gore lost because he received fewer votes. No conspiracy, just some sour grapes and confused Floridians. No conspiracy, no dark secrets - nothing like the votes JFK got in Chicago in 1960... Again, I could go on and on, but here's another of many links I know you won't bother to read because that's your style: http://archive..com/display.cfm?id=181
Look dude, I was a staunch Republican for many years, but felt that my party was being hijacked by the neocons, and they are now firmly entrenched, wrapping themselves in the flag and religion to impose fascist government, all the while calling people that speak out in dissent and civil rights "liberals" and "unpatriotic". You really need to watch the ball, not the game.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 01:38 PM   #44
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

if anyone thinks the dems or reps have our/the people's best interests at heart you're fucking sheep.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 03:30 PM   #45
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
if anyone thinks the dems or reps have our/the people's best interests at heart you're fucking sheep.
I agree with you regarding party politics per se, but for some reason alot of people think that anyone that runs for office is automatically a crook. Some people actually care enough about what's happening around them to run, and some of them even get elected.

Look, the current competitors, Obama aside, are collecting millions of dollars from special interests and lobbyists to land a job that pays only $400,000.00 per year...... Is it the dental plan? I think not.

The fact that Obama is REFUSING the special interest money is more than any other person can say that has run for president in I don't know how long.... But a very long time. Nonetheless it's a step in the right direction.

And look at what he wants to do with campaign finance..... No more privately funded advertising wars.... Anyone that would run would get equal funding and air time paid for by our tax dollars and that's IT. you know what that means? It means that even you could run...... And maybe win. No more buying the presidency. :miff:
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 04:33 PM   #46
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

I think you're smoking way too much Obama flavored weed myself. Any good politician knows you can't change the system from the presidency. Only through hard work as a senator or rep can oyu make change happen. Plus you can stay in the job for life votes pending.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 11:59 AM   #47
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
The fact that Obama is REFUSING the special interest money is more than any other person can say that has run for president in I don't know how long.... But a very long time. Nonetheless it's a step in the right direction.
It isn't a fact at all read......

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-04-19.html

“You don’t escape special-interest influence-giving simply by banning lobbyists from being able to give to you,” said Nick Nyhart, the president of Public Campaign, which advocates public financing of elections. “Most of the givers are in some way connected to entities that employ lobbyists. The interests are there even if the individual [donors] are not lobbyists themselves.

“By collecting $1,000, $2,000, and $2,300 checks, you’re simply walking into the interests of special-interest America.
“I think it’s a positive gesture,” Nyhart said of Obama’s ban on lobbyist contributions, “but to the extent it makes people think candidates are not taking special-interest money, it’s just wrong.”

Sorry, I really do think you drank the Kool-Aid, or smoked the flavored weed if that is your custom.

It isn't too late for you to discover the truth. Here is my favorite column on Obama today......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...d_newness.html

Also did you see how Obama is intertwined into the supreme court ruling on voter ID that went down yesterday?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209...n_commentaries
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 12:21 PM   #48
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

nice article. now I see why detroit is so gung ho obama.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 12:37 PM   #49
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,038
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
Our economy is cyclic Huh? Demonstrate that.
serious? are you in high school or something?expansion/prosperity/contraction/recession?
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 04:20 PM   #50
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
It isn't a fact at all read......

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-04-19.html

“You don’t escape special-interest influence-giving simply by banning lobbyists from being able to give to you,” said Nick Nyhart, the president of Public Campaign, which advocates public financing of elections. “Most of the givers are in some way connected to entities that employ lobbyists. The interests are there even if the individual [donors] are not lobbyists themselves.

“By collecting $1,000, $2,000, and $2,300 checks, you’re simply walking into the interests of special-interest America.
“I think it’s a positive gesture,” Nyhart said of Obama’s ban on lobbyist contributions, “but to the extent it makes people think candidates are not taking special-interest money, it’s just wrong.”

Sorry, I really do think you drank the Kool-Aid, or smoked the flavored weed if that is your custom.

It isn't too late for you to discover the truth. Here is my favorite column on Obama today......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...d_newness.html

Also did you see how Obama is intertwined into the supreme court ruling on voter ID that went down yesterday? There's nothing wrong with people having to show ID to vote. There is no reasonable hardship to obtaining such.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209...n_commentaries
I love how you left out these other paragraphs from the same article:

"
“This ban is part of Obama’s best effort to address the problem of money in politics,” said Burton. “It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem, and it isn’t even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates.”

One Obama fundraiser who said he did not feel comfortable speaking on the record said Obama has left millions of campaign dollars uncollected by eschewing lobbyists’ contributions.

“There is an enormous amount of money he could have collected from folks who are lobbyists who are not contributing or fundraising, at least in the D.C. area,” he said. “I’ve called a lot of people; more of them are registered than I understood.”

The financial sacrifice enhances Obama’s effort to portray himself as a reformer and new brand of politician. Such an image is potentially helpful on the campaign trail, but as the year wears on, a saintly reputation could become a liability if opponents successfully frame it as an exercise in hypocrisy.

“Senator Obama is in a very difficult situation — he wants to wage a serious campaign for the president when the entire public-financing program has been abandoned by everyone who is a serious candidate for president,” said Craig Holman, an advocate of public financing with Public Citizen. “He has to raise $300 million to $400 million or $500 million. He’s trying to do that at the same time he is trying to clean up Washington.”

I never said he's perfect. I said that he is at least trying to go in the right direction. You can spend all day trying to find his imperfections. He has plenty. So do you. So do I. I don't give a rat's ass if he's not perfect. I just want him to TRY to represent the very things many of YOU have been saying on this site all along. But go ahead. Keep pointing out the little imperfections of anyone that wants to try to stand up for people. Go ahead. When we meet in person I bet I can sit around and point out all of your imperfections too. It doesn't take any smarts to do that. Nor valor. In fact, it takes a pretty weak person to do that because they are too afraid of the bullies. I am not afraid, and I plan to stand with the ONLY candidate that is offering to start cleaning the mess up. If he gets elected there is a strong chance that the bullies will put a bullet in his head, and he knows that, and he's running anyway. Too bad none of you have the guts to do that. All you do is microcriticize and sit on the sidelines. You say Obama stands for nothing? I think you're all sitting on your tails in the safety of your little homes instead of getting out on the streets and taking a stand for something. When you're standing on the sidelines you might just see me in the crowd trying to change things.... And I am willing to stand up to bullies and risk my freedom and even my life to take that stand. If you really stand for whatever it is you've never bothered to articulate, and it opposes my beliefs, then I challenge you to meet me in the streets, the conventions, the polling places, and everywhere else people like me will be and put up your best fight. If Obama is a fraud like you say and he gets elected it will be because people like me beat you down, or you never even bothered to fight. Which is worse?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 04:22 PM   #51
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smasheromalley View Post
serious? are you in high school or something?expansion/prosperity/contraction/recession?
I honestly believe that you are far too smart to have not known exactly what I meant.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 06:07 PM   #52
upchuck
Senior Member
 
upchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-16-07
Location: grand rapids, Michigan
Posts: 1,100
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Thank you for posting the guides to our own fascist state. Eyes blinded by lapel pins only help to further the agenda thru ignorance
upchuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 07:08 PM   #53
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,843
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

You must be a Bush employee or something. Come on. First of all, Bush lied late rin a public address and siad he saw the first strike on the news on the way in to the classroom, but the attack didn't happen until after he was in there. The warning specified airline hits to the WTC and when one hit wouldn't you have assumed that that must be the attack? Oh wait, Bush andRice ignored the warnings, so why would they assume that?

OK, you've got me. Dubya planned the whole thing, and therefore wasn't alarmed when it happened. He and the tripartite commission planned the whole thing to raise the price of Halliburton stock and oil so he and Dick Cheney could get richer.... :chiefwoohaw:

So, let me see - all conservatives (or to use the media tagline "neocons") are evil, bad people and all liberals are good, caring people. That about seems to sum up you position.

What else?

Our economy isn't cyclical when are in office and increased costs/reduced productivity driven by parasitic labor unions hasn't destroyed the U.S. as an industrial power.

Reduced tax rates have made taxes higher.

The failure to extend habeas corpus and Geneva Convention protections to non-uniformed, non-military, non-U.S. citizens who don't receive those protections erodes your personal freedoms.

Recognizing the contributions of members of our military is silly, because serving in Iraq is just like being a suburban mailman.

Dissent is squashed, which is why we have "Little Bush" cartoons, so many "Bush is dumb" jokes that they ceased being funny (God, the man is a poor speaker), and all manner of seditious speech being tolerated with no recourse.

And to top it all off, a junior Senator from IL (not the one from NY who is really from IL) is the front runner because:

1) He's never done anything, so he hasn't done anything wrong
2) He doesn't take lobbyist money
3) He actually voted against the Iraq war
3) He speaks really well
4) His speeches are filled with "hope"
5) His platform is a bunch of feel-good gesture politics, and unworkable class-warfare pandering.

And anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and/or clueless.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2008, 09:35 AM   #54
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
You must be a Bush employee or something. Come on. First of all, Bush lied late rin a public address and siad he saw the first strike on the news on the way in to the classroom, but the attack didn't happen until after he was in there. The warning specified airline hits to the WTC and when one hit wouldn't you have assumed that that must be the attack? Oh wait, Bush andRice ignored the warnings, so why would they assume that?

OK, you've got me. Dubya planned the whole thing, and therefore wasn't alarmed when it happened. He and the tripartite commission planned the whole thing to raise the price of Halliburton stock and oil so he and Dick Cheney could get richer.... :chiefwoohaw: Hmmmm... I never said that. Why would you?

So, let me see - all conservatives (or to use the media tagline "neocons") are evil, bad people and all liberals are good, caring people. That about seems to sum up you position. I never said that either. Why would you?

What else?

Our economy isn't cyclical when are in office and increased costs/reduced productivity driven by parasitic labor unions hasn't destroyed the U.S. as an industrial power. I didn't say that either. Why would you?

Reduced tax rates have made taxes higher. I never said that either, however I will point out that I know of no one that paid LESS since Bush was in office. Everyone I've talked to is paying MORE.

The failure to extend habeas corpus and Geneva Convention protections to non-uniformed, non-military, non-U.S. citizens who don't receive those protections erodes your personal freedoms. Now I'm just shaking my head. Maybe this is over yours.....?

Recognizing the contributions of members of our military is silly, because serving in Iraq is just like being a suburban mailman. You never answereed my question before... Did YOU serve? When? Where?

Dissent is squashed, which is why we have "Little Bush" cartoons, so many "Bush is dumb" jokes that they ceased being funny (God, the man is a poor speaker), and all manner of seditious speech being tolerated with no recourse. That's not dissent. Dissent is when people discuss things like dismantling the current government or revolting against it, sort of like the way this country was founded....?

And to top it all off, a junior Senator from IL (not the one from NY who is really from IL) is the front runner because:

1) He's never done anything You obviously haven't looked at his record. He's done more than YOU that's for sure., so he hasn't done anything wrong He's made lots of mistakes.
2) He doesn't take lobbyist money
3) He actually voted against the Iraq war
3) He speaks really well
4) His speeches are filled with "hope"
5) His platform is a bunch of feel-good gesture politics, and unworkable class-warfare pandering. You have a serious prejudice against even ATTEMPTING to consider what he is saying.

And anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and/or clueless. Where did I say that?
I don't recall having ever said those things. I believe you have. It would appear to me that you are getting really upset and running purely on emotion. That's fine. I can wait until you calm down. I look forward to hearing from you. Hopefully it will be in the spirit of actually trying to SOLVE the problems America is having instead of just criticizing and blaming.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2008, 12:15 PM   #55
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
I love how you left out these other paragraphs from the same article:
Yes I did that because I thought "the president of Public Campaign, which advocates public financing of elections" would have a less biased opinion than an Obama fund raiser. The article looks at the issue both ways and comes to the conclusion that he is a hypocrate for saying that he doesn't take money from special interests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
I never said he's perfect. I said that he is at least trying to go in the right direction. You can spend all day trying to find his imperfections. He has plenty. So do you. So do I. I don't give a rat's ass if he's not perfect. I just want him to TRY to represent the very things many of YOU have been saying on this site all along. But go ahead. Keep pointing out the little imperfections of anyone that wants to try to stand up for people. Go ahead. When we meet in person I bet I can sit around and point out all of your imperfections too. It doesn't take any smarts to do that. Nor valor. In fact, it takes a pretty weak person to do that because they are too afraid of the bullies. I am not afraid, and I plan to stand with the ONLY candidate that is offering to start cleaning the mess up. If he gets elected there is a strong chance that the bullies will put a bullet in his head, and he knows that, and he's running anyway. Too bad none of you have the guts to do that. All you do is microcriticize and sit on the sidelines. You say Obama stands for nothing? I think you're all sitting on your tails in the safety of your little homes instead of getting out on the streets and taking a stand for something. When you're standing on the sidelines you might just see me in the crowd trying to change things.... And I am willing to stand up to bullies and risk my freedom and even my life to take that stand. If you really stand for whatever it is you've never bothered to articulate, and it opposes my beliefs, then I challenge you to meet me in the streets, the conventions, the polling places, and everywhere else people like me will be and put up your best fight. If Obama is a fraud like you say and he gets elected it will be because people like me beat you down, or you never even bothered to fight. Which is worse?
No one is perfect but he is running for president, I am not. So the extra scrutiny is more than justified. A good leader will stand up to the scrutiny, unfortunately your guy's facade is starting to show cracks now that people are looking at him closely.

We disagree because you think he is going in the right direction and I don't think that. Fighting for a leader that will take my money and give it to others who didn't earn it isn't something you will find me fighting for, but you go ahead and have fun with that. I'll be fighting on the side of Liberty.

Most people want change but his type of change is more government, higher taxes and less liberty. My type of change is less government, lower taxes, and more liberty.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 10:39 AM   #56
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Yes I did that because I thought "the president of Public Campaign, which advocates public financing of elections" would have a less biased opinion than an Obama fund raiser. The article looks at the issue both ways and comes to the conclusion that he is a hypocrate for saying that he doesn't take money from special interests.



No one is perfect but he is running for president, I am not. So the extra scrutiny is more than justified. A good leader will stand up to the scrutiny, unfortunately your guy's facade is starting to show cracks now that people are looking at him closely.

We disagree because you think he is going in the right direction and I don't think that. Fighting for a leader that will take my money and give it to others who didn't earn it isn't something you will find me fighting for, but you go ahead and have fun with that. I'll be fighting on the side of Liberty.

Most people want change but his type of change is more government, higher taxes and less liberty. My type of change is less government, lower taxes, and more liberty.
Nicely said! I'm curious to know just who you support and what issues they support. For example, if you want lower taxes but support our presence in the Middle East then there is a huge contradiction there because our presence must be paid for. Right now we're borrowing from other countries because Dubya won't raise taxes to pay for it, and so far their promise that this would all be paid for by the revenues from the oil Haliburton's pumping out haven't yet materialized.

Maybe I missed it in your earlier comments, and if so I apologize, but would you tell me who you support and why? If you say "no one" then you really aren't contributing to a solution. If you support someone that isn't in "the race", at least you are supporting something no matter how unlikely it is to take office. That's essentially where I am. I'm settling for Obama.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 11:20 AM   #57
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
Nicely said! I'm curious to know just who you support and what issues they support. For example, if you want lower taxes but support our presence in the Middle East then there is a huge contradiction there because our presence must be paid for. Right now we're borrowing from other countries because Dubya won't raise taxes to pay for it, and so far their promise that this would all be paid for by the revenues from the oil Haliburton's pumping out haven't yet materialized.

Maybe I missed it in your earlier comments, and if so I apologize, but would you tell me who you support and why? If you say "no one" then you really aren't contributing to a solution. If you support someone that isn't in "the race", at least you are supporting something no matter how unlikely it is to take office. That's essentially where I am. I'm settling for Obama.

That's a problem isn't it? I tend to lean Libertarian for the most part and none of the candidates fit the bill. Ron Paul is very close, but I disagree with his anti-war stance. I think the war is money well spent unlike many other things they spend our money on. Protecting us from external threats is a constitutionally granted power of the federal government, and I do feel we have been threatened by outside forces in the middle east. I don't think Ron has a snow ball's chance in hell of winning, too bad.

McCain claims to have some things I agree with like not raising taxes & closing the border. Although I don't trust him to follow through after the election.

I think you know my stand on Obama and I don't see a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary, sorry no Democrat vote here.

With a race that appears to be so close, like 2004, it's about who I DON'T want in the white house as much as it is to who I DO want.

If he went that way, I'd give Ron Paul my vote as an independent or a Libertarian candidate but not if it means giving the white house to the Democratic candidate, so that means, in a close race, to keep them out, I have to vote for McCain. I have a lot of reservations about giving him my vote too, but lesser of two evils as they say. Or is it the enemy of my enemy? Anway.....

For now I am staying uncomitted, and watch how it plays out. If the Democrats continue to implode like they have been and my vote isn't needed to keep them out, then I'll vote independent, otherwise McCain wins by default.

As far as cutting taxes goes I can find a lot of ways to do that, I'd start with welfare, medicaid, medicare, all government subsidizes, Dept of education, IRS, FDA, FCC..... there is no shortage of ways to reduce the Federal government and give the powers back to the states or the people respectively.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 04:47 PM   #58
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
Nicely said! I'm curious to know just who you support and what issues they support. For example, if you want lower taxes but support our presence in the Middle East then there is a huge contradiction there because our presence must be paid for. Right now we're borrowing from other countries because Dubya won't raise taxes to pay for it, and so far their promise that this would all be paid for by the revenues from the oil Haliburton's pumping out haven't yet materialized.

Maybe I missed it in your earlier comments, and if so I apologize, but would you tell me who you support and why? If you say "no one" then you really aren't contributing to a solution. If you support someone that isn't in "the race", at least you are supporting something no matter how unlikely it is to take office. That's essentially where I am. I'm settling for Obama.

Did you vote for Granholm?
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 04:57 PM   #59
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
I agree with you regarding party politics per se, but for some reason alot of people think that anyone that runs for office is automatically a crook. Some people actually care enough about what's happening around them to run, and some of them even get elected.

Look, the current competitors, Obama aside, are collecting millions of dollars from special interests and lobbyists to land a job that pays only $400,000.00 per year...... Is it the dental plan? I think not.

The fact that Obama is REFUSING the special interest money is more than any other person can say that has run for president in I don't know how long.... But a very long time. Nonetheless it's a step in the right direction.
And look at what he wants to do with campaign finance..... No more privately funded advertising wars.... Anyone that would run would get equal funding and air time paid for by our tax dollars and that's IT. you know what that means? It means that even you could run...... And maybe win. No more buying the presidency. :miff:
This is from an article in the Boston Globe

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2008, 08:49 AM   #60
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
Did you vote for Granholm?
Nope.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.79244 seconds with 80 queries