Posted 5 months, 18 days ago in 
Loading ...
Apparently, it’s official — Barack Hussein Obama is “propelled into history (at least by the media) as the first black standard-bearer for either major party!”
But, considering past history, might it be prudent to wait to find out what the meaning of the word “is” is? Perhaps, we need reminding that “It ain’t over ’til the weight-challenged lady sings.”
If Obama is the Democrats’ candidate, isn’t it time to consider his record?
His campaigning as “an agent for change” is a good starting point. Hasn’t he already demonstrated, dramatically, his abilities in this respect?
– Hasn’t he “changed” churches and “changed” ministers?
– Hasn’t he “changed” his mind about meeting with our enemies?
– Hasn’t he “changed” his image from an idol to a carnival barker?
But even more important:
– Will he change from being the most liberal member of the Senate?
– Will he change his negative attitude toward our great nation?
– Will he change the people with whom he associates?
The last “change agent” was Jimmy Carter, who promised “Change what you can believe in and to return government to the people.” So much for slogans and promises.
The Democrat Party certainly excels in making “changes” — especially, disregarding established rules and altering accepted procedures. So, is another strategy developing? Is there a move underway to run “co-candidates” rather than president and vice president? Wouldn’t that heal the wounds of the campaign, produce party unity and provide overwhelming voter appeal?
Having co-presidents represents dramatic change! But, what about top billing? Would it be “Barack&Hillary” or “Hillary&Barack” — including or excluding Bill?
RICHARD DORAN
Parachute
330 Responses to “Obama as the “change” candidate”
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
obama’s own words as comment:
From obama’s book “Audacity of Hope”
“I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION”
HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH THE AMERICANS!!!!!
Barrack Hoessein Obama was born in Hawaii to a black Muslim father, citizen of Kenia, not an american, and an american mother, a white atheist from kansas.
They divorced when Hoessein Obama was 2 years old. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro a radical Muslim from Indonesia, where they moved. Barack Hoessein Soetoro was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is a radical teaching followed by the Muslim terrorists waging Jihad against the western world.
He visits his paternal grandmother in Afrika often, 3 times in the past year. He is quick to emphasize his maternal grandmother’s influence on him, but never his parental influences.
Do you want this in the White House?
Do you want this one influencing the world scenario?
I do not!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
By choosing Senator Obama as their candidate, Democrats have shot themselves in the foot once again. Since Jimmy Carter, who barely squeezed out an election on the heels of Watergate/VietNam/double digit inflation and unemployment, only their Bill Clinton was able to win the presidency and he did it without a majority in his first term (thanks to Ross Perot). They have offered us McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. They could not beat George W. twice, a man who they consider stupid and a bumbler. And now, the most liberal candidate ever. The Democratic party fails to understand that folks who are neither Democrat nor Republican, those in the middle, those who determine the outcome of presidential elections, are not liberals. So, in this next election, in an environment where Republicans should have zero chance of winning, the Democrats will be looking for excuses once again as John McCain is sworn in.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BullishFrog: “So, in this next election, in an environment where Republicans should have zero chance of winning, the Democrats will be looking for excuses once again as John McCain is sworn in.”
This is an exercise in wishful thinking. The previous comment by loesk123 is an exercise in scurrilous lies and misquotations out of context (not to mention the misspellings).
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let’s revisit WMDs. Could it be that the reason Bush was authorized to invade Iraq is the same reason that Obama will lose the election? Nobody could prove the presence of WMDs, but after 9/11, most of us including Hilary Clinton realized that we couldn’t take the chance. Whether Obama sympathizes with the terrorists or not, only he really knows. And can we afford to take the chance?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52, yes, I would like to see John McCain elected. I would just say to you, that if we weren’t are war, Senator Obama might be lucky to win one state. As it is, it will be very close. But in the end. McCain will win. And yes, race will be an issue. But a bigger issue is Senator Obama’s lack of experience and his radical liberal positions. McCain is a centrist Republican; a conservative would have been defeated.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
meh….i’ve said it before and i’ll say it once more….there isn’t a decent candidate in the whole of government at the moment….once more, the general election will be to choose the lessor of evils rather than the best leader
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
G.W. Bush has already secured the Dems election, as those who STILL refuse to believe that most thinking Americans are fed up with the Repubs disregard for the needs of ALL of our country’s citizens refuse to admit…paranoia about the dreaded “liberals” does not explain the continuing messes that this current “conservative” administration is still making, but continuing to dream on about a McCain “landslide” might make you feel better…..at least until November.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hitek,
No decent candidates? I beg to differ, and hope you will consider my choice. I intend to cast all three of my votes for Dewey Needone.
Vote and vote often.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
you’re surely hoping, aren’t you, roland?….it’s a long way to november, and anything can happen between now and then….while i don’t care for mccain, he’s a better choice than obama, and even better than what we have now….unfortunately, as it was once said, “the man smart enough to lead the country is too smart to take the job”
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish Frog: “But a bigger issue is Senator Obama’s lack of experience and his radical liberal positions. McCain is a centrist Republican; a conservative would have been defeated.”
But “radical” is a relative term and depends upon who is using it. I regard any candidate who says that we may be in Iraq for 100 years as radical in the extreme. If Obama is radical, then a whole lot of American people must be classified in that same category (including the vast majority of the voters under 30 which he has rallied). I would argue that Obama is a centrist. No one can really predict the outcome of the election, but if I could find any takers, I would bet money on the DEMS next September.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well Roland, keep kicking Dubya all you want. And I don’t see where anyone is talking of landslides. Keep nominating liberals my friend, you will be forever disappointed. The Republicans were smart emough to nominate a Republican who is about as “unRepublican” as the party has. Democrats never learn. They could have nominated someone like Joe Bidden and coasted to the White House. But no, they go with someone who can tell them a nice story. We’ll see.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“But “radical” is a relative term and depends upon who is using it. I regard any candidate who says that we may be in Iraq for 100 years as radical in the extreme.”——————–Classof52, PLEAZZZZZZZZZE. Have you bitten into this lie being propagated by Democrats that McCain intends to keep fighting the war for 100 years? I heard the comments made by McCain, live, at a town hall meeting. He said we could have a “presence” in Iraq for 100 years as we do in Korea, in Germany, and in Japan. Not fighting a war. Not having Americans in battle. He expects the American involvement in that war to be practically over in his first term.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Who cares about Obama and McCain - the real joy will be when Dan Robinson and Dickie Lewis replace Craig “Never met a polluter I didn’t like” Meis and Janet “Ms. Bestiality” Rowland as Mesa County Commissioners.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
A second false quote has Obama saying he would “stand with the Muslims,” words that don’t appear in his book. What he actually said is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II:
Misleading e-mail: From Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Actual quote from “The Audacity of Hope” [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I look at what’s on the slate and I’ve just about decided it’s either going to be a Lou Dobbs write in or Ron Paul. This country has got to get back on its feet and I have no faith at all in the two mainstream candidates. I mean, they both have decent ideas but they also both have really scary ideas and of the scary, they are so important to me that I cannot vote for either one. I think it’s going to have to be Lou. For the first time in my life I’ll be knowoingly wasting my vote (though voting what I can beleive in) and as a veteran - that is something that does not sit lightly with me.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot,
Please explain the reference to Janet Rowland as “Ms. Bestiality”?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lisa,
You are not wasting your vote? You are voting your conscience. Voting for someone you don’t agree with, someone elses choice for who should represent you, voting for someone that is “scary” would be wasting your vote. It is after all, your vote.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ooooh ooooh … can I?
From the Rocky Mountain News
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,drmn_24736_4920192,00.html
“Rowland’s comments on gays came in March [2006], during Colorado State of Mind, Rocky Mountain PBS’ public affairs show, during a discussion on gay marriage.
“Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle. That doesn’t make it a marriage.” Rowland said.
“For some, bestiality is an alternative lifestyle. Do we allow a man to marry a sheep? At some point, we have to draw a line,” she said.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah, but McCain is getting elected. Unless the country has a major freak-out moment and panics, probably becuase McCain will do something totally stupid. But even then, he will probably still get elected. When people are scared, they don’t take more risks. They grow more conservative - it is a survival instinct. Democrats? I just shake my head. The whole two-party system just makes me nuts and as a registered independent I wasn’t able to vote for who I would have liked to support in the beginning. Shut out of the process because I won’t colude with either dominant party (and haven’t for over twenty years). That’s also something that doesn’t sit lightly with me.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot
Who cares about Obama and McCain - the real joy will be when Dan Robinson and Dickie Lewis replace Craig “Never met a polluter I didn’t like” Meis and Janet “Ms. Bestiality” Rowland as Mesa County Commissioners.
I just do not see that happening—-too many smart people around here!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix - During the “same-sex marriage” debate here in Colorado several years ago, Janet appeared on the PBS program “Colorado State of Mind,” during which she shocked the host, her fellow participants and the general public by equating same-sex marriage to bestiality, polygamy, “manage a trois,” and a host of other very nasty things. To find out more, simply “google” the Sentinel archives from 2006. The Denver Post also covered the incident in detail.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6, please don’t expect snookems to respond with an honest answer.
It found a cutesy catchphrase and is playing with it until it tires of its game.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
snookems, the discussion was not on ’same sex marriages’.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Roland’s infamous bestiality quote WAS during a discussion on gay marriage, Willis. See post 18
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Typo: Rowland
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What will Obamaman change?
I believe he will change us from a somewhat safe nation to to an unsafe nation of terrorists attacks.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Points To Ponder.
obama is a political opponent of the clintons.
Historically speaking, political opponents of the clintons do not fare well.
Some have been known to cease living under very mysterious circumstances.
In fact, nearly anybody that may pose a threat to a desired goal of the clintons usually end up in undesirable circumstances.
Some live, some die, some get audited by the IRS, and some even get raped. Some have even been known to have their FBI files magically appear in the possession of the clintons.
And teddy kennedy still has a drivers license.
What’s the odds on obama making it all the way to the election?
What about, should he get elected, making it to inauguration day?
His first month? His first year?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nobody knows what will happen. That’s why they call it the future. Today’s question and the question on election day will be “can we afford to take the chance?” Is there a safer bet?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Naw, it was where does Society draw the line on what is acceptable practices in the sexual arena, and should animals be allowed to marry lowlife human types.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
B.Frog: “Classof52, PLEAZZZZZZZZZE. Have you bitten into this lie being propagated by Democrats that McCain intends to keep fighting the war for 100 years? I heard the comments made by McCain, live, at a town hall meeting. He said we could have a “presence” in Iraq for 100 years as we do in Korea, in Germany, and in Japan. Not fighting a war. Not having Americans in battle. He expects the American involvement in that war to be practically over in his first term.”
But I said “be in” not fighting a war. So I think I quoted him accurately.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And what is wrong with “being in” a democratic muslim country? Is that a radical idea? Is that any more radical than being In Germany, South Korea, or Japan?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Boy, I leave the forum for 30 minutes and return to see the Mesa County radical right wingers hyperventilating and having panic attacks over the prospect of Obama in the White House. (WLJ, that paragon of moderation and good taste, is even (hopefully) predicting his assasination)
Better get used to it folks. The American public as a whole is going to vote you extremists right out of Washington DC next September.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashugger - see how quickly Willis changed the subject when you called him on his ignorance of the Rowland “bestiality” affair! Totally pathetic, don’t you think?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It begins. And reading the original letter, it is obvious that our so-called “conservative” friends intend to conduct a campaign in order to once again a candidate that will insure them a “governance by gossip.” What scares them most of all is that they may, for once in their lives, start accepting some responsibility for the country they “claim” to love. For, that is what the Obama message really is.
Perish that thought,and one just has to love their thinking. They are “flag waving” all over the place and yelling “Support the troops!” But, look at them, what they want is more tax cuts for themselves.
They want to “be protected”, but for what? So that they can go on enjoying themselves? Maybe they are waiting for “the troops” they so happily and gladly sent over there to come back and pay for the war also. Sure seems like it. When younger, I learned that part of “growing up” meant accepting responsibilities, not shirking them.
Not too long ago, in my mind, I constructed a new flag for these new and modern “conservatives.” While the design remains basically the same, several things do change.
1) The red stripes remain but are changed to represent the blood and sweat of others they are prepared to shed.
2) The white stripes are changed to yellow to illustrate their own lack of courage in accepting any responsibilities.
3) The blue background is changed to green, to represent the envy they have for the property and qualities that others have, and in which they are sorely lacking themselves.
4) The stars are changed to golden dollar signs to represent their real god(s).
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot,
I googled it and read the whole argument from both sides. It appears, that it was a discussion on Gay Marriage.
What she said is posted below, but it appears to me that she was saying that if we change the law for one, will may be forced to change the law for all. Your know, equal protection. I also believe that she was trying to point out that nobody can control where it will end up.
from August 17, 2006 PBS
ROWLAND: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, that doesn’t make it a marriage. Some people have group sex — should we allow two men and three women to marry? Should we allow polygamy with one man and five wives? For some people, the alternative lifestyle is bestiality — do we allow a man to marry a sheep? I mean, at some point, you have to draw a line.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
B.Frog: “And what is wrong with “being in” a democratic muslim country? Is that a radical idea? Is that any more radical than being In Germany, South Korea, or Japan?”
We should not have a military presence in any of these countries. It lends credence to the worldwide criticism of us as an aggressive, militaristic nation simply flexing our muscles. A normal diplomatic presence is sufficient. Would you consider the presence of Russian military bases in the U.S. as anything but a radical notion?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor gene…
making up stuff as he goes along trying to be relevant…
Classof52
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm PM This User Report this comment
Boy, I leave the forum for 30 minutes and return to see the Mesa County radical right wingers hyperventilating and having panic attacks over the prospect of Obama in the White House. (WLJ, that paragon of moderation and good taste, is even (hopefully) predicting his assasination)
Better get used to it folks. The American public as a whole is going to vote you extremists right out of Washington DC next September.”
No jeannie, I am not hopeful for any persons impending death, that’s a hardcore liberal fantasy.
All the ‘extremists’ are going to be gone? Does that include biden, kennedy, schumer, clinton….
oh bother! It would take too long to list all 100 senators, 435 representatives, and gawd knows how many lobbyists and other kooks are in Washington DC.
And, the election is held in NOVEMBER. But as smart as you pertend to be, it wuz a deliberate screw up wuzn’t it jeannie?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot — Yup.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rlaitres, if Democrats were for personal responsibility, I would be a Democrat. Raising taxes as a matter of standard operating procedure, so the government can take care of people, instead of people taking care of themselves, is not a policy of personal responsibility. Raising taxes is bad for economic growth. You will pay for the war faster with a good economy than with a bad one. What you will get with Senator Obama, if he were to be elected president, is higher taxes and an economy that gets worse, not better. For example, the man wants to raise capital gains taxes. Not because it will raise government revenue (which history shows it will not), but because it is the “right thing to do”. And what does he mean by that? He means punish the rich. I don’t think that is good policy.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bobbie,
Oh, would that you could, in your imagination, change our scars, and replace our spilled blood. And then you would be as useful to us, as you are to yourself, in your imagination.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix - regardless of what she meant, those statements (and further ones) created a firestorm in statewide political circles when they surfaced after she was chosen by the Republicans to be the running mate “Bungling” Bob Beauprez for Governor. When the campaign found out, she became a virtual “non-person” on the campaign trail. Her remarks have doomed any chances at state-wide public office she may have entertained running for in the future.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix speaks of “drawing the line.” Permit me to ask her who, and at what criteria is to be used to “draw” that line. Are they mine or hers? Seems to me that, unless nobody is harmed by the choice someone else makes, even if I do not agree, that it is none of my buisness. Some may believe that it is theirs, but I do not and will not allow anyone else to draw such a line for anyone else.
As far as the issue of “marriage” dear lady, that has always been a civil contract, not a religious one. Although, some in the “right religious fringe” would like to claim ownership of it and control it.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The thing about McCain - well ONE thing, is that he does not seem to be able to define either ’success’ or ‘faiure’ yet, he seems willing to commit to a costly policy despite a vague and pretty egotistical seeming inclination.
I saw the dumbest darned thing on CNN this morning. Some dufas talking about how to, I don’t know, live like an executive…? He wrote some book on the subject and advocates “Making decisions even when you are confused.” Well, if that’s how executives operate it’s no damn wonder this country is in the shape it’s in considering it is run by executives of one type or another.
I don’t want the head of the executive branch of our gov’t behaving that way for gosh sakes. I want someone who ISN’T confused making decisions.
Cripes.
Terrorism isn’t going to be won with brigades of troops. If it will ever be won at all, it will be through outstanding intelligence and equally outstanding small special ops teams.
The whole idea of our military strung out in these wars - like Afganastan - the endless and forgotten war - is ridiculous, and I have a really sick feeling that because of a lack of foreign policy development and ‘confused’ decision-making, not only can we count on God knows how many more years of war, but a draft to sustain it.
Yippy frigging skippy.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“We should not have a military presence in any of these countries. It lends credence to the worldwide criticism of us as an aggressive, militaristic nation simply flexing our muscles. A normal diplomatic presence is sufficient. Would you consider the presence of Russian military bases in the U.S. as anything but a radical notion?”——————OK, I get you. We should just take care of our business and the next time some rogue nation atacks one of our allies or our foreign interests, we should just say, no thank you, we are not going to do anything about it?
As far as Russian military bases in the US, the answer is, of course not. We have no need for them to be here. By the same token, if Japan, Korea, Germany, or Iraq, wanted us out of there, we would leave. We are doing them a favor by being there. They need our protection.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now bobbie, you should know better, (you misspelled ‘business).
” RLaitres
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm PM This User Report this comment
grandmasix speaks of “drawing the line.” Permit me to ask her who, and at what criteria is to be used to “draw” that line. Are they mine or hers? Seems to me that, unless nobody is harmed by the choice someone else makes, even if I do not agree, that it is none of my buisness. Some may believe that it is theirs, but I do not and will not allow anyone else to draw such a line for anyone else.
As far as the issue of “marriage” dear lady, that has always been a civil contract, not a religious one. Although, some in the “right religious fringe” would like to claim ownership of it and control it.”
Marriage is a ’societal’ contract that pre-dates even rudimentary forms of government.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFog:”We should just take care of our business and the next time some rogue nation atacks one of our allies or our foreign interests, we should just say, no thank you, we are not going to do anything about it?
What in the world does that have to do with our continued military presence in these nations? A different subject altogether.
“We are doing them a favor by being there. They need our protection.”
From whom? This is a myth that right wingers love to propagate. I travel in Europe extensively and have yet to hear any of my colleagues, friends or people on the street in Germany who express that sentiment. To a person they want American military bases out. Any poll of the population in Germany would show that. I can’t speak for Japan and Korea because I have been there only 5 or 6 times, but it would surprise me if the population eagerly welcomed American military bases. Their governments tolerate our presence for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are the big bribes we pay them right out of the American taxpayers pockets in the form of economic assistance.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yup, I think we should just up and pull our military completely out of every country where we have even an inkling of a presence.
Stick the troops on the border with ’shoot to kill’ orders, and let the economies of all those countries bottom out.
And, as an aside, I think the next time france cries for help, we let the answering machine catch the call.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52, we have vast global interests and responsibilities. Our economy today is being kept from the collapse that the housing crisis would have generated, because of our exports and our manufacturing overseas.
Our economy depends on oil imports. As an example, if a Saddam Hussein, or an Iranian dictator, were to take over the oil fields and deny us the oil, we would have to go to war far away from here. Without those bases we would have a very difficult time conducting that war. We might have to resort to ICBMs. I doubt you would prefer that.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
For those who still believe that “marriage” is “religious”, cast a gander at the following. If you disagree then provide me your sources, and please don’t tell me that “I believe.” That pig just won’t fly.
“Due to the property aspects of marriage the early Protestant reformers considered marriage primarily as a civil contract and authorized that the wedding ceremony be performed by civil magistrates. Such was the practice in the middle and New England colonies during the seventeenth century; not until 1692 was marriage by clergymen legalized in Massachusetts. In the eighteenth century, when religious ceremonies became common, the minister acted as an agent of the state. The Anglican Church in the South affirmed the principle of marriage by the clergy, but due to the union of church and state, the clergyman acted as a representative of the civil government as well as of the church,”
Re: The Roots of American Civilization; A History of American Colonial Life, 2nd Ed, Curtis P. Nettels, Cornell University, Meredith Publishing Company 1963.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rl, just what in the world does that have to do with the current subject?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok bobbie.
” Marriage is a ’societal’ contract that pre-dates even rudimentary forms of government. ‘
WLJ circa 2008.
And, just for the record, as you sit there hoping you sound as though you are ‘waxing eloquently’, a question if I might?
”
What institutions of higher learning have you attended, and what specific degrees have you earned that allows you to feel smarter than anybody else?
And, since you have been known to be less than honest in your posts, I require names and dates for verification.
By your continued refusal to answer I can only surmise that you are a self taught individual that is incapable honest, intelligent conversation and need to rely on childish attempts at character assassination and belittling others to make yourself seem more intelligent than you actually are.
If facts that prove your positions false arise, you feel perfectly within your rights to discount any facts that you choose to not believe, then base your arguments on your self imposed ignorance of those facts. ”
I have posted this question numerous times.
Can we get an answer yet?
I know that you are one of the leaders of the BBB, but you are not above providing honest answers are you?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “Classof52, we have vast global interests and responsibilities. Our economy today is being kept from the collapse that the housing crisis would have generated, because of our exports and our manufacturing overseas.
Our economy depends on oil imports. As an example, if a Saddam Hussein, or an Iranian dictator, were to take over the oil fields and deny us the oil, we would have to go to war far away from here. Without those bases we would have a very difficult time conducting that war. We might have to resort to ICBMs. I doubt you would prefer that.”
I do not believe that you can defend either one of those points for the following reasons:
Our imports exceed by a factor of 4 to 10 (depending on the month) our exports.
We had no bases in the mideast when Saddam attacked his neighbors and threatened our oil supply. Yet we managed to respond effectively without using ICBMs.
And I point out that we do not own that oil and have no moral justification for calling it “our oil supply”. Any mideast country including Saudi Arabia could peacefully decide to stop selling it to us. This is why we cuddle up to a country which violates nearly all the human rights that the U.S. stands for. Of course they need us as one of their best customers. What would they do with their oil if they could not sell it to us? In a few years that may become a crucial question if China and India continue to advance economically. All the more reason for us to become energy independent as quickly as possible.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hiteredneck, you will have to go back a few posts to find the target(s) of my post.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix - If I were you, I’d be deeply offended by WLJ’s use of the term “dear lady” in reference to you. How condescending of him. However, can one expect anything else from a sexist, honky “cracker?” I think not.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres,
So you have no morals at all. If the sheep doesn’t object, then it is OK
Wonder why they have that guy from your home town charges with bestiality?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Laitres: I practically fell off my chair laughing at the latest response from WLJ to your comment. He wants names and dates of your your education and degrees. This is from a person who refuses to provide data for anything he writes and makes up figures out of his own head (like the 97% false rating for MSNBC) all the time. Nor has he ever provided us with a single piece of data regarding his own education (or lack thereof), his real name, the business that he runs or anything else except that his wife divorced him because he could not support her adequately. It is just too funny!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ummmm….willis, just what is wrong with being self-educated?….and rl, i read the target of your post, it just doesn’t suit the subjet of the thread itself…i’m not moderating or anything, i’ld just like to get back on topic…with that being said, i don’t care for mccain due to the fact that he’s just like every other politician…he’ll govern by popularity polls just like they’re all doing….i don’t like obama for the same reasons and more….anybody willing to capitulate(read-hold discussions) with terrorists has no business being in office….tho i will admit that either man is a better choice than clinton
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hitekredneck,
Actually, my post was in response to an above post from Sugarfoot referring to one the county commissioners as “Ms. Bestiality?”
Mr. Laitres just likes to stick his 1 cent into someone elses business all the time.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hitekredneck is correct we all “drift off” or go off on tangents from the subject. I must apologize for “amusing” myself at times in what I call “tweaking the twit”. It is not nice, I know, but we are all at times capable of surrendering to temptation. It must be part of my perverse nature that I enjoy it. That said, I promise to try to do better in the future, if only as a courtesy to hitekredneck.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being self educated, it is usually a more fully developed education over what one gets in the bowels of a ‘grate university’ that gene constantly brags about.
And mckainnedy is just a media slut that will do, or say anything as long as it gets him in the limelight.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And from the BBB toadie.
” Sugarfoot
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm PM This User Report this comment
grandmasix - If I were you, I’d be deeply offended by WLJ’s use of the term “dear lady” in reference to you. How condescending of him. However, can one expect anything else from a sexist, honky “cracker?” I think not. ”
That the best ya gots snookems?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hitek, I hereby do apologize in advance for that which I am about to do…
” I must apologize for “amusing” myself at times in what I call “tweaking the twit”. It is not nice, I know, but we are all at times capable of surrendering to temptation. ”
Bobbie, please refrain from plucking your nose hairs online.
Thank You.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52, if you do not believe that our exports are responsible for keeping the economy afloat today, you had better go read some GDP reports. The fact is that while we still import more than we export, the trade deficit has been shrinking as exports are booming. Most of that deficit is imported oil. It is the manufactured goods exports that are fueling our economy.
“We had no bases in the mideast when Saddam attacked his neighbors and threatened our oil supply. Yet we managed to respond effectively without using ICBMs.” And we sure as hell established one big base in Saudi Arabia in order to fight that war. Next time Saudi Arabia could well be run by a muslim extremist and we would be out of luck. And, by the way, that base in Germany sure came in handy.
“And I point out that we do not own that oil and have no moral justification for calling it “our oil supply”. Any mideast country including Saudi Arabia could peacefully decide to stop selling it to us. This is why we cuddle up to a country which violates nearly all the human rights that the U.S. stands for. Of course they need us as one of their best customers. What would they do with their oil if they could not sell it to us? In a few years that may become a crucial question if China and India continue to advance economically. All the more reason for us to become energy independent as quickly as possible.” ————————-Now you are speaking to the quire————-Anwar anyone?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot,
Actually, it was RL that called me “dear lady” in an earlier post. WLJ was just copying it.
I am not a woman who objects to being called one, but RL is condescending in everything he posts.
In a more recent post he said he was “tweeking the twit” just to amuse himself.
That is offensive, but then what do you expect from someone who thinks bestiality is OK
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hitekredneck - I would disagree with you on Obama as what lays at the foundation when he speaks of “Change” what he predicates change on is “change in our way of thinking”, something that is required to effect any real change. It is also a “generational change”, vey much as what happened when JFK was elected. Some, I am very much afraid, have an almost pathological reaction against change, and in any form. Some criticize him for not being “specific” but we are not looking for, nor do we want to be promised anything. What we, you and I, and everyone must begin accepting responsibility for our own country, and not leave it up to either special interests or professional politicians (of either or no party). At least that is the way I see Obama, you may see something different. I can only tell you how I see him, and what promise he holds for tje future of the country. The similarity of his message, with that of JFK, is quite close.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh gene?
You posted a couple of LIES here.
” Classof52
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:14 pm PM This User Report this comment
Mr. Laitres: I practically fell off my chair laughing at the latest response from WLJ to your comment. He wants names and dates of your your education and degrees. This is from a person who refuses to provide data for anything he writes and makes up figures out of his own head (like the 97% false rating for MSNBC) all the time. Nor has he ever provided us with a single piece of data regarding his own education (or lack thereof), his real name, the business that he runs or anything else except that his wife divorced him because he could not support her adequately. It is just too funny! ”
Provide facts to support your statements or provide an acceptable apology
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rl, i don’t have a problem with a “change” in my thinking in most area’s except one….when it comes to terrorists, and by that i mean anybody that targets not only innocent unsuspecting people, but their own people at that…there’s no room for change in that arena of thought for the simple fact that once you give them anything they want, you end up being held hostage the next time they decide to raise the stakes….i do agree that we should accept responsibility for our actions, both good and bad, and we need to stop legislation by wealthy lobbyists….i see little similarity between obama and jfk….kennedy would be considered a conservative in today’s political arena, even more so than mccain, imho….
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well……This certainly has evolved into an adult conversation of topics hasn’t it? Willis, how many slaves do you have out in the barn, (that you beat regularly) since we now have been informed that you are a cracker?
Sugarfoot, would you refer to a black person with the “N” word? They really do have the same “sting” to them. How about a mexican, what slur would you use for them?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
(six, but don’t tell whitey, he might come an’ takem frum me)
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
odd, the instant I mentioned gene telling lies again he just pops out into the ether as though he never existed.
What a man!
But, typical of what we have come to expect from the leader of the BBB.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hitekredneck - That we face dangers from abroad is no secret, nor is it anything new. However, like anything else, the way we handle it is what is most important.
Have you ever heard of the saying to “keep your friends close but your enemies closer”, that is what Obama is talking about. It does not mean that one has to agree with them but it IS necessary to know what they are doing and thinking. The only way to do that is to open and maintain contact. What we don’t want to do is, as has been done over most of the last 6 years, strut around talking “machismo” and not really acting up to it.
How much of a threat does Cuba pose to this country today, or how much has it posed for the last 40 years? Actually, none that I can think of. The last time it did, was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which some of us then on the East coast, remember quite well.
For that matter, how much of a danger does the nation of Iran pose to us physically? Not much and, despite the hype surrounding their nuclear program, they know full well that if they ever launched any such weapon against us or any of our allies, that their entire country would become but a footnote in history. They know that, and people should realize that they do. They are not about to commit national suicide, no matter what the reason.
As to terrorist, that is something completely different. We may be able to fight individual terrorist or groups of them but, attempting to suppress an “idea” is not possible physically. So, what really motivates them? That is where we have to be effective. It is the same as at the personal level. Why does one persona dislike or hate another? There may be a reason, real or imagined. If real, then change it. If imagined, change the perception.
Some may like existing in a state of fear, apparently many have accepted it, post 9/11.
So, it was a horrible thing but what I have found is that it is not the people in New York that obsess about it but those who were not even close to the events of that day. The world didn’t come to an end, so why constantly try to relive it. Things happen, some good and some bad so, take lessons from it and move on.
We all know some people who, when they get a little “boo boo” consider it a catastrophe. Others of us don’t and, quite frankly, have little tolerance for those who do. So we got smacked, so what? It was not the first time,and will probably not be the last. What is important is how we react to such situations. We can either lay down, some like that as it is a way to get sympathy, and some others get off their “duffs” and get on with life. I would like to think that I am in the latter group. Others may choose theirs.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
jen - Rightly or wrongly, society seems to find it perfectly acceptable for persons from similiar ethnic or racial groups to refer to others of the same groups in terms that are unacceptable under other conditions. African-Americans commonly refer to each other using the otherwise detestable “N” word. Hispanics use similar derogatory terms when referring to each other. Along the same lines, one Caucasian referring to another Caucasian as a “honky” seems to be perfectly acceptable in contemporary society.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 4:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Laitres: “We may be able to fight individual terrorist or groups of them but, attempting to suppress an “idea” is not possible physically. So, what really motivates them? That is where we have to be effective. It is the same as at the personal level. Why does one persona dislike or hate another? There may be a reason, real or imagined. If real, then change it. If imagined, change the perception.”
This is an important sentence, expressing an idea generally ignored by the militarists among us. A physical occupation and brute force has never been able to suppress an idea whose time has come. Nor will our continued presence in Iraq get the Iraq people to love us.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class52 in post 52 “We had no bases in the mideast when Saddam attacked his neighbors and threatened our oil supply. Yet we managed to respond effectively without using ICBMs.”
I beg your pardon sir. My son was stationed in Rihyad, Saudi Arabia for 6 months in 1986-87 with the Air Force. Unless the geography has changed since I was in school, that would be real close to Iraq, (like bordering it?). Also, this was somewhat prior to anyone having a notion that Saddam might be foolish enough to attempt what he did.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 5:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As Jen and Sugarfoot have broached the issue, although not directly, why is is that we are just about the only country in the world who continue to hypehnate our citizens. African-Ameican, Asian-American, German-American, Italian-American, etc. The last time I checked, the Constitution of this country did not hyphenate citizenship, can anyone show me where it does?
Those who do it to themselves must somehow be afflicted with some serious form of identity problem. Or, are they perhaps trying to live off of contributions made by their ancestors instead of making any of their own? Enlighten me, please!
It is about as silly is “I am a native” or “My ancestors came over on the Mayflower.” What does any one of those have anything to do with citizenship? Does it make anyone of those more of a citizen than another? Last I checked there was no distinction whether one’s ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or in a flower sack. Can anyone tell me different.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 5:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The difference lies only in minds governed by fear. All people are Gods’ children.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 5:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rl, i respect your stance, but disagree on several points….while i’ts vital to maintain intel on individual terrorists, they themselves would consider any type of capitulation or compromise as a weakness, which in turn leads to an open invitation to more attacks…i would say that rather than utilize an overwhelming force with indiscriminate bombing raids, we use small, well-equipped special ops teams with surgical strikes….in other words, take out the targets we want instead of all the collateral damage that large-scale operations such as in the first gulf war as well as the present mess we have…i know it’s an unpopular stance, but even though iraq is a mess, if you go strictly by the numbers recorded since the civil war, we’re still relatively unscathed as far as a body count, but it doesn’t matter….we can do much better without all the proselytizing (hope i spelled that correctly) shown after 9/11…..i happen to agree with you about cuba….there’s no reason for the embargo’s to remain in place, what with one castro out of power and they would be more valuable to us as allies, esp with the issues of venezuala….as to their motives and beliefs, well, think of it as an extreme measure of what you feel is happening here with the religious right….forced indoctrination or death is what they believe in, and is what everything comes down to….and class, my daughter was in an orginization called the vfw junior girls….it’s similar to girl scouts, just through the vfw org…they “adopted” 2 platoons, one in iraq, and one in afghanistan….in both cases we recieved videotapes from members of those platoons…they showed perfectly happy kids playing soccer with the troops as well as other interaction….i do think we need to turn iraq loose, but first we must make sure they can stand for themselves….we screwed up by sticking our nose in it, now we have the responsibility to clean up after ourselves.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hitekredneck, perhaps I was not clear enough. An terrorist, or groups of them have to be confronted and destroyed, and on that there is no disagreement. When speaking of “ideas” what I was really addressing is “What causes a person to join a terrorist organization; i.e. why does one become a terrorist. Then, those need to be addressed. And, that is not on a “one on one” basis.
As to Iraq, there is no disagreement as to the fact that, not only the administration, but also the Senate “screwed up big time.” As Robert Byrd stated in his speech in opposition to it, it is a blot on its record that the Senate will forever bear. We can do nothing about what was done. That has been done.
As an avid student of things political, and speaking to the future, let me say this. Whether Iraq stands on its own or not is up to them, very much as it is with us. Either they recognize that they are Iraqi first, and Shia, Kurd or Sunni second that is not something over which they have any control. If they are unwilling or unable to do so we should not be the “propping power” attempting to hold them together. In fact, it is impossible for us to do it.
Do I want a “stable” Iraq? Yes. Do I want an independent Iraq? Yes. Do I want a power vacuum in the area? No. But that is their country and, with the surrounding countries, it is also their neighborhood and their part of the world, and they need to take care of it. If they can’t or won’t, no matter how long we stay there, the problems will never get “fixed.”
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rl,
And this ties into Obama how?
Or are you just “amusing” yourself again.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 6:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“How much of a threat does Cuba pose to this country today, or how much has it posed for the last 40 years? Actually, none that I can think of. The last time it did, was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which some of us then on the East coast, remember quite well.”
Cuba was a threat to all of Latin America when they attempted to promote communist revolution in the 70s. Remember Che?
I am a Cuban American. I left Cuba in 1961. I was in Cuba 3 years ago on a legal relief mission. The Cuban people who thought of Castro as the messiah when he came in in 1959, have had enough of his BS and his excuses that Cuba’s disastrous economy is due to the US embargo. Communist Cuba produces nothing but cigars and the lifting of the embargo would not benefit Cuba at all unless they would accept a significant change to their economic model. I am all in favor of lifting the embargo because it has been a complete failure.
Cuba’s government is very repressive. There are no fredoms whatsoever. I would favor a move to get closer to Cuba but only if there were indications that the government is willing to move towards a Chinese type of model.
“For that matter, how much of a danger does the nation of Iran pose to us physically? Not much and, despite the hype surrounding their nuclear program, they know full well that if they ever launched any such weapon against us or any of our allies, that their entire country would become but a footnote in history. They know that, and people should realize that they do. They are not about to commit national suicide, no matter what the reason.”——————-I wouldn’t be so sure about that conclusion. This is a country that has an army of children whose sole purpose is to step on land mines so soldiers can cross the battlefield. While the average Iranian would probabaly be happy to toss their government and get closer to the West, they are led by crazy fanatics. I read some time back from a predecessor of the current head of Iran that once they got an atomic bomb they would drop it on Israel knowing full well that Israel would retaliate. But he figured Iran would still survive in some form while Israel would disappear. You are dealing with a culture of suicide bombers. I believe that allowing them to develop a nuclear weapon, as with did with North Korea, would be dangerous in the extreme.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 6:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“as to their motives and beliefs, well, think of it as an extreme measure of what you feel is happening here with the religious right….forced indoctrination or death is what they believe in, and is what everything comes down to”————————-you have got to be kidding. You want to compare Cuba’s government to the religious right in this country? Please……………That is like comparing Stalin to an extreme form of Obama.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 6:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog stated that he wouold favor a raprochement with Cuba if they moved toward a Chinese style. If you recall, the changes in China occured AFTER closer ties with the US, NOT before. Prior to that, there was none. Every party was “bunkered down” in their positions. While some may not like it, lines of communication must be opened first. That may disturb some of the “old guard” in Florida but, that is not really the issue. What is, is what is in the best interests of this country now and in the future.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, you can be 100% sure that lines of communications exist.
You may recall that both Carter and Clinton attempted to remove the embargo. In both cases, Castro caused incidents to keep tensions high and keep the embargo from being lifted. The last one is when he shot down a plane being flown by an exile group in international waters. Castro did not want the embargo lifted. It was his excuse. Castro has nothing to gain from lifting the embargo because he has nothing to trade.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 6:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
By the way, just to be clear, I would be in favor of lifting the embargo without preconditions.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 7:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog states that there was a plane shot down while in international airspace. Who says it was in that space? I am not so sure after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, nor what has happened with the lead-up to the war in Iraq. While one would like to believe that we are always told the truth, many times, I am not so sure. As to “having nothing to trade”, as I recall when we opened the doors with China, they did not have much to trade either. Yes, the embargo should be lifted unconditionally, even if for but humanitarian reasons. I doubt that such would represent much of a threat to our security.
All this talk of Cuba yet, is this not all in the past? Seems to me that some are attempting to hold onto fears from that period. As times and conditions change, so must we all.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 8:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm PM This User Report this comment
Boy, I leave the forum for 30 minutes and return to see the Mesa County radical right wingers hyperventilating and having panic attacks over the prospect of Obama in the White House
I do not think there are any radical right wingers on this site.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I do believe that mr j. eugene fox, in post #56 spouted off a few LIES about me for which he has yet to explain, prove, or apologize for.
Not MAN enuogh to admit a mistake?
Not MAN enough to apologize for lying about another poster on this website?
Typical of a liberal.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So who will be the VP candidate? Hillary?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: Could be. But the Kansas governor, a female DEM who has been doing a very good job in that ultraconservative state is also being talked about. (The Kansans finally got fed up with Bush and the anti-evolution crowd and elected a progressive democrat governor. We will see lots more of that in November)
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 7:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Regarding the plane shot down by Castro as Clinton was about to lift the embargo, RL says: “While one would like to believe that we are always told the truth, many times, I am not so sure.”——————As far as our discussion is concerned, it matters not whether it was over international waters or not. The plane posed no threat to Cuba. Castro was fully aware that the issue of lifting the embargo was on the table and his decision to shoot it down was obviusly aimed at making the lifting of the embargo politically impossible. It was a clear indication that he does not want the embargo lifted. This is not unlike what you see in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Every time there is progress made on peace talks, Palestinians who do not want a 2 state solution will cause some outrageous act of terrorism to stop the process. Castro will not admit that communism does not work and his only excuse left is that Cuba’s problems are the fault of the US.
Next RL writes: “As to “having nothing to trade”, as I recall when we opened the doors with China, they did not have much to trade either. Yes, the embargo should be lifted unconditionally, even if for but humanitarian reasons. I doubt that such would represent much of a threat to our security.”————–I totally agree with this. And so do most Cuban Americans even though some of the louder ones in Miami continue to oppose it. If lifting the embargo leads to better things for the Cubans, that would be a big plus. We have nothing to lose by lifting it.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 8:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog - I totally agree with you that the Cuban embargo should be lifted. Unfortunately, the Cuban-American lobby in South Florida is so powerful that no candidate from either major political dare publicly propose lifting it at least until Fidel Castro dies.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 8:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ,
Your conservative thinking is showing. There is no imperative for liberals to tell the truth or to be responsible for their actions. On conservatives, that restriction is self imposed by values. Liberals play by a different set of rules. They make assertions and then put you on the defensive because of your self-imposed burden of absolute proof you feel is necessary in order to debunk their lie. As a result, the greater percentage of their lies goes unchallenged. Your expectation of an apology, or a withdrawal, when you present absolute proof is based on your values. It is quite frustrating to a conservative when liberals show a complete lack of remorse and when they exhibit a total absence of either shame or honor. Again, these things are based on your value system. The sooner you realize that liberals consider themselves to be on a mission to save themselves from what they consider to be the conservative evil, the sooner you will realize that their actions and words are based in the premise that the end justifies the means.
You are at a serious, self imposed disadvantage. In order to be effective against liberal thinking, you must give up your values, and then you become what you fight. If you do so, they will be the first to point out that you have violated your own values.
Their methods, as witnessed by the moral decline of our nation over the past thirty years, gives no thought to the consequences, rather they only consider their immediate goal; the destruction of all opposition to their lack of values.
It is necessary, in order to understand their thought process, that you see yourself as they see you. You are an irritant to their soul. Your values stand like a flashing neon sign directing the worlds attention to their self loathing and their inability to give or receive unconditional love.
This is the barrier they seek to conceal. Their lack of values keeps them forever imprisoned, and they see you as the wall.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 8:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot, I believe that the majority of Cubans in Miami want the embargo lifted. The problem is that the ones making all the noise are those who do not while those who want it lifted are afraid to speak out.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 8:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog states: “As far as our discussion is concerned, it matters not whether it was over international waters or not. The plane posed no threat to Cuba.” With that, I would beg to differ. It does matter if the plane was/was not over international waters. As this country does not tolerate others our airspace, we should not violate the airspace of another unless there is a very pressing to do so. As to not “posing a threat to Cuba”, that appears to be a conclusion based upon our perspective, not theirs. Neither does a threat involve only armed aircraft. Intelligence gathering on one’s defenses also poses a “threat.” Bullishfrog then reaches the conclusion “his decision to shoot it down was ovviously at making the lifting of the embargo politically impossible”. While it may be true, that would appear to be a conclusion drawn by bullishfrog based, not on “established fact” but rather on what he and others believe was the motivation behind the act.
One cannot deny, as bullishfrog states, that some do not want to cease any conflict, as that would diminish their own power and influence or, in some cases lead to loss of business, and therefore profits. It is also true that Castro may not want to admit that Communism does not work. However, one would think that such is really up to the Cuban people to change, not the United States or any other country. It is, after all, their country and not ours. One thing learned from history is that no “government” in any country can or will survive without either the support or passivity of the population. The first makes renders it really not the affair of any external power, and the second is something which must be faced by the population itself. Whether at the personal or international level, we have to remember one thing. “It is impossible to fight another’s battle.”
While it may sound “brutal” to some, we all suffer from the malady of not wanting to admit that we may be wrong. Such is emotional reaction, not a reasoned or logical one. And, while that may not be significant to others when resttricted to a “one on one” relationship, when a population (or a majority of it) allow themselves to be led by it, a human catastrophe, even war, will quite often result.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 8:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog - I tend to agree with you. The Cuban community (especially in Miami’s “Little Havana”) is still tightly controlled by a dying generation of ex-patriots and Bay of Pigs survivors who are adamant (and still have the political “juice”) about keeping the embargo as long as possible.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 8:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot, I do believe you are correct in your assessment of the non-values of those erstwhile proponents of liberalism in America.
The social and economic values of the founders of this nation, and the vast majority of the citizens are being overrun by the mindless corruption visible in nearly all the posts by co52, sugarfoot, rlaitres, etc ad nauseum…
I find it odd that mr laitres needs to couch his messages in so many words.
Is that because he thinks we can be easily impressed with his vocabulary?
Does he view himself as a master wordsmith? I believe he does.
I also believe he is not quite accurate in his self appraisal.
classof52 has a habit of correcting everybody else’s typos and punctuation errors, but seldom responds to his own errors, misstatements and lies being pointed out to him.
he holds everybody else to a much higher standard then he, himself can ever hope to attain.
sugarfoot, seldom has anything of value to add to any conversations. And which generation of aliases are we dealing with when this ‘person’ appears?
His style is limited to sniping from the sidelines, much like the toadie to the schoolyard bully.
His opinions seem limited to what he thinks his betters in the BBB will allow him to present.
And the most bothersome part of this is, they all seem to support Obama, a person who sat in the same church for 23 years and never once noticed that the ‘preacher’ was spewing anti-American hate, as well as all his racist crap.
How does one sit for that many years without noticing?
Oh better, WHAT was he noticing, if not the contents of the sermons being screamed into his face?
Why has his wife never been ‘proud’ of the nation that has provided her with so much?
Obviously she was listening to the mindless brainwashing the ‘preacher’ was spewing, and ignoring the wonders of the world around her.
Yeah, that’s what this country needs, a mindless robot incapable of learning anything, even after constant screaming in his face, and a imbecilic female as his ‘first *lady(?)*’.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 8:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“As this country does not tolerate others our airspace, we should not violate the airspace of another unless there is a very pressing to do so.”——————–First of all, it was a plane flown by a Cuban exile organization. Second, it was a plane delivering leaflets. It wasn’t the first time this plane dropped leaflets. Mr. Laitres should become better acquinted with the incident before he starts making conclusions. Certainly, Mr. Laitres is inclined to believe Castro before he believes anything the US says.
“Bullishfrog then reaches the conclusion “his decision to shoot it down was ovviously at making the lifting of the embargo politically impossible”. While it may be true, that would appear to be a conclusion drawn by bullishfrog based, not on “established fact” but rather on what he and others believe was the motivation behind the act.”—————————-If Mr. Laitres knew the facts of the incident, that the plane had dropped leaflets and was headed back to Miami, instead of trying to guess the facts, he would then realize that the conclusions reached by bullishfrog are reasonable.
“It is also true that Castro may not want to admit that Communism does not work. However, one would think that such is really up to the Cuban people to change, not the United States or any other country. It is, after all, their country and not ours.”————————It is, in fact, up to the Cuban people to change. And they will suffer for many, many years, before they are able to rid themselves of the tiranny. But Mr. RL, we do not need to sympathize with the opressors, as it is beginning to appear to me that you do.
“While it may sound “brutal” to some, we all suffer from the malady of not wanting to admit that we may be wrong.”————And the unfortunate fact is, that too many in this country have convinced themselves that it is the US who is usually in the wrong.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bob, from Delta?
” RLaitres
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 8:32 am PM This User Report this comment
Bullishfrog states: “As far as our discussion is concerned, it matters not whether it was over international waters or not. The plane posed no threat to Cuba.” With that, I would beg to differ. It does matter if the plane was/was not over international waters. As this country does not tolerate others our airspace, we should not violate the airspace of another unless there is a very pressing to do so.”
WE, as in the United States military, did not violate cuban airspace, it was a civilian aircraft.
And please fill us in on how many civilian aircraft crossing our borders have been shot down?
If any, were they in the process of committing a criminal act?
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 9:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This thread has become an absolute train wreck. Congratulations. Try to keep in mind that train wrecks like this are the underlying cause of the derailment of our country. Culture war, hatred, intolerance, personal attacks, and shameless ignorance will be the death of us all.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 9:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Noting the last reply by bullishfrog, while promising at the beginning, would appear to have descended into little more than “flag waving”, and ascribing to others intent and motivation, to the extent of insinuating that others “sympathize with the oppressor” and that “too many in this country have convinced themselves that it is the US who is usually in the wrong”. Both are leaps that one cannot reach from anything previously posted on my part. It would appear to be an insinuation, drawn totally from bullishfrogs very unique interpretation and overgeneralization, of what he “believes” what was said, that instead of what was actually stated. Such is truly unfortunate as such inferences renders any further rational discourse impossible.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 9:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, and welcome to the campaign season. If trends continue, it should be the most disgusting 5 months in the history of Man, both here in the happy valley and throughout the rest of our blighted country.
Posted June 6th, 2008 at 9:20 am&n