Yeah.. scary isn't it.. here is a woman who was not qualified to be one step from the big chair 3 years ago and she proved it by opening her mouth.. and now after quitting the governorship of Russia's American neighbor.. and jumping on the talk show/lecture circuit.. according to some she is now qualified to actually sit in the big chair..Originally posted by M_Gunz:
There -are- people besides O'Reilly who think that Palin would make a presidential candidate. From that POV.......![]()
The problem with you and people who think like you do is that when you folks say things like "the Big Lie Machine " it becomes quite clear that you are only seeing half the picture because you keep seeing the big "liberal" lie machine, when in truth the lie machine has elements on both sides of the political spectrum, yet you want to only see one side of it.Originally posted by Cajun76:
I don't think you give the people of this country enough credit, Gunz. Air America was a flop and MSNBC's ratings are pretty low. People are seeing through the Big Lie Machine for the most part.
We didn't get where we are today because of Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or Clinton, but because our elected officials on both sides of the aisle continue to cloud the real issues with smoke and mirrors and dodge the truth while "The American people" that the right claims to speak exclusively for are left looking for the pea under the shell. People who think like you do whether they admit it or not believe that the only true patriots are obviously republicans and if you do not share their views then you are a part of some vast liberal machine that wants to take away our freedoms and hand the country over to socialists and foreigners![]()
You need to open your eyes wider and see the whole picture.. Case in point.. the debt.. If all I listened to was Fox News I would think that the debt we have now was caused buy the current administration.. and that fiscal responsibility went out the window in 2009. In reality however, were it not for the two under funded wars and the Bush tax cuts, which by the way never did see the job creation and growth that many republicans still claim to this day will come from cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the future and the ever shrinking middle class, we would not be where we are today. Had the banks not been deregulated to the extent that they were in the 80s and 90s (read under Reagan & Clinton) the fiscal crisis we are still undergoing could not have occurred.. and had not every single administration since Johnson's not "borrowed" from the social security fund.. it would not be in the mess it is in... Had the pharmaceutical and insurance industries just to name a few not been allowed to write the current policy we have in dealing with health care (that is a fact .. the congress & senate just signed off on it but lobbyists and those who were not looking out for the "American people" wrote the current policies, that is why they favor the industry and not the people), it to would be in better shape and our currently aging population would not be looking at the dark days that are coming.
The election in 2000?
Well that was obvious.. regardless to what some say.. So if I believe that then why did I vote for Bush in 2004? Because I thought it was best for the country at the time considering we were in two wars and there was a lot of uncertainty. I felt that the folks who had their hands on the wheel of the ship of state were better suited to keep driving than to have someone new come in considering the delicacy of the situation ... but let's see how many folks who were initially opposed to president Obama might have that attitude with the current administration in 2012... I doubt there will be many. They would attempt to send a person who abandoned their post to the white house rather than look at or even acknowledge any accomplishments by the current administration.
Case in point.. bringing SP into a serious discussion.. but that is the mind set..
Originally posted by horseback:
I also remember the various Democrat 'action' groups who were intentionally registering Mexican Nationals who were in the country without proper documentation throughout California, promising them that if the Dems got into power, they would get all the goodies of citizenship without all the bother of actually following the rules and regulations that people whose countries don't share a border with the US have to follow...
The fact is that were were several other states where there were voting irregularities, and they almost all seemed to favor Democrat candidates, not just Gore.
Now on one thing, I am in total agreement with Gunz: you should have to present (in person) proof of your identity to vote at a polling place or obtain an absentee ballot, and that they should be able to confirm whether you voted (not how you voted) based on your Social Security Number.
I warn you though that you should be careful what you wish for: that particular requirement would in my opinion cost the Dems about 3 to 5 million Latino votes in California, Arizona, and Nevada alone.Me niether ... in 37 years.. Not only that.. the voting irregularities in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states, not only in 200 but 2004 as well were not small potatoes either..I have never been able to vote without showing who I am to match the rolls.
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Me niether ... in 37 years.. Not only that.. the voting irregularities in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states, not only in 200 but 2004 as well were not small potatoes either..
Ditto.. Lets also not leave out voting problems in Il.. That would be for any year in any race they have.. Used to be folks in Chicago were ok with the corruption as long as the garbage got collected, snow removal happened, and their kids in public school could read. They might be getting one out of three these days..
I was going to bust out my favorite Nietzsche quote here but that would only be stating a fact.
So, I am going with Hue Akston,
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
People keep claiming that right and left are somehow actually different. I would suggest that this is a load of dookie... The idea is based on a fairly pointless list of vague differences..
We are told that one side is the for religious looons... Yet, when was the last time either side elected an Atheist?
We are told that one is for big business while the other is for the people... Yet, when its time to collect donations they both take big fat dollars from General Electric, AIG and Morgan Stanly.
We are told that one side is a bunch of warmongers while the other side is the party of peace.. Yet, the peace party had a president that authorized the use of Nuclear weapons twice, another failed to invade Cuba and now we are dropping bombs on Libya without congressional approval.. I just don't think I can tell the difference..
Both claim to be for personal freedom.. But really, they only disagree on what personal freedom is.
If we plot the dems and the republicans on a line that starts at 0 government ( anarchy ) and ends at total government ( totalitarianism ) both are about as close to totalitarianism. The goal of the constitution was to land us somewhere pretty close to the middle of the line. You know, where there is just enough government to guarantee personal freedom and personal property.
Anyone can go online and get the budget information that counts from 1900 to last year. The info is year, money taken in and money spent. Note that printing -mo munny- counts as money taken in. Then look at the data and see what years the debt cranked. It's simple to see that every war we've been part of has put us in the position we are today because paying off the previous exercises never happens before the next more expensive thanks to inflation war comes along. The paying off and taking care of our own people part is especially shirked by one group who bawl about "tax and spend" while borrowing and spending a hell of a lot more "out of necessity" of course. And now it's so bad that borrow-borrow-borrow is also "out of necessity" and what's going to be the new answer? So far the 'answer' is get more partisan and secure control, ie fight while the boat sinks instead of bailing, we even have billionaires paying others to drill more holes just to force the issue.
Are we paying more in interest on the debt than the national operating costs? Look to the ones who profit on that!
Neither did I, until I moved to San Ysidro CA in 1986; when I inquired about that first time, the elderly lady behind the folding table explained to me that California didn't require people to produce an ID or even so much as say, an electric bill, because (and she said it with an absolutely straight face) it would have a 'chilling effect' on some minorities.Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I have never been able to vote without showing who I am to match the rolls.
That changed (somewhat) after 2000, but the California registration system is still criminally slipshod and easily gamed. I will point out that it was the Democrats who were always in the forefront of opposition to ID or proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration, and not just in California.
I would like to see a national voter registration system based on voters' SSNs and a federal standard requiring voters to produce an accepted form of identification before they are allowed to enter the polls.
By the way, B5, I wrote about my personal experiences and observations. I don't need Fox to tell me that my buddies overseas got thir absentee ballots after the election and I didn't need the National Review to tell me that my polling place's neutrality was being illegally violated six ways from Sunday. I was there; I saw and heard it myself.
I'm done here; you guys can go back to congratulating each other for being open minded and progressive.
cheers
horseback
In the form of a rant couched in reheated talking points leftover from Fox's Greatest Hits, 2002-2008 Edition about the "Democrat Party" and this and that and the other. What happened to the mods locking down on political discourse? Any time anything vaguely political gets brought up, the Fox Boys come out and post a bunch of the typical "Repub Party" propaganda. If we wanted to read that kind of stuff we'd head over to Free Republic for some chuckles.Originally posted by horseback:
By the way, B5, I wrote about my personal experiences and observations.
And for the record, I like the fact that it's so easy to vote in California, that is the way it should be. You give them your name, they show you your name and address on the rolls, and you sign your name. It's bad enough that it's easier to buy a gun in the US than to sign up for a library card or to get a driver's license, the least we can do is make it easier for people to participate in democracy.
The GOP wants to make it harder for people to vote because they know that most people, especially minorities and young people, are starting to wake up to their toxic and outdated politics that went out of style in the Gilded Age. Make it more difficult and you make it easier for people to have an excuse to not go and vote, while the GOP can continue to be kept afloat by their supporters who get whipped into a frenzy by Hannity and Beck and Co and who can be relied to go out and vote to give their rights and money away to corporations.
There, that was fun. I need a cigarette now.
Well BC, you attack Fox for behaving like the most of the media during Bush, and Gunz attacks talk radio and drops some Nazi reference, and yet I'm one of those referred to as "you and people who think like you" in a post talking about how I should open my eyes.
Sure, your latest post was more even handed, but I was responding to posts like this:
While I disagree with your characterization, at least different views are seen on Fox. On most liberal networks, the "conservative" view is served with heaping scorn and/or cynicism, and is never fairly presented or discussed. There's no semblance of debate in the MSM.BC posted:
They will mention opposing views .... but then they spend so much time restating their traditional views non stop so as to paraphrase it it would be something like... "This is the Joe Scho from the other side .. what do you think Joe..." Then Joe states his case.. for about 2 minutes and then they spend the next 58 minutes (well ok take off time for the commercials..) stating why his view is not only wrong but extremely dangerous and leading the country straight to Marxist,socialist,communist,Muslim Soros inspired slavery.
@B5: A topic is not "political" until there's an opposing view, which always comes as a shock to the (faux)-liberal minded. Many "non-political" topics around here are faux-liberal cheerleading threads like this one, and people like you complain if anyone dares to offer a different perspective.
Last I checked, driving and library cards weren't part of our bill of rights. What other rights do you think are bad?B5 posted:
It's bad enough that it's easier to buy a gun in the US than to sign up for a library card or to get a driver's license,
Originally posted by Cajun76:
@B5: A topic is not "political" until there's an opposing view, which always comes as a shock to the (faux)-liberal minded. Many "non-political" topics around here are faux-liberal cheerleading threads like this one, and people like you complain if anyone dares to offer a different perspective.![]()