great Presidential speech

[billg]

Sept 14, 2009, 5:43pm, drew wrote:Here's a new article you may enjoy, well... not ObamaAfghans are taking to democracy like a duck takes to a swimming pool filled with Jello and gravel http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... tnum=0What we need is a new czar, here's a few I'd recommend:img]http://jimtreacher.com/bc01.jpg[/img]I'm better at picking out czars than the O isOK, I read the article."President Barack Obama has made Afghanistan the Pentagon's No. 1 priority after the Bush administration for years poured most of its resources into Iraq."So because Afghanistan was neglected by Bush to the point that any efforts now may be too little too late is somehow viewed as Obama's fault?Obama has been in office a mere 8 months and is either being held responsible for everything that veered off track in the past 8 yrs. under Bush OR he's being condemned for not having fixed it yet. This mess wasn't created overnight and it can't be fixed overnight.A great idea would be for folks to get information from a source other than talk radio or Fox news because it seems as if there's some brainwashing going on.I was driving around yesterday running some errands and had the radio on Rush then Hannity. Both seem to me to be trying to incite violence in a real sneaky passive/aggressive way.Hannity's chants of "I want my country back" hopefully will only give his followers a new slogan to scrawl on their signs.

[jonathanm]

I didn't read the article. And I'm not in favor of much of what Obama proposes. But whether Bush were still in office, or if McCain were president, or as is now with Obama as president, we'd have to be in Afghanistan. That's where the head of our enemy is, holed up in the mountains somewhere. We were attacked by Al-Qaeda, and we need to be prosecuting war against them somewhere. Where Bin-Laden is seems a pretty good war front at this point.Bush rightly got us in there, and Obama should rightly continue it until a better war front presents itself or we defeat our enemy. The only criticism Obama should have in it is if he doesn't prosecute the war well. Too early to make a judgment on that. Give him a chance.

[drew]

Maybe I get it now, my 'jokes' about the O are taken as attacks on him. I thought the duck line was funny (it is!). I try to make my posts entertaining and a little in-your-face except when I feel I'm defending myself from a confrontation.The vicious attacks on Bush for the last 8 years were understandable and perfectly acceptable in some minds, but pointing out the words right from O's mouth is unfair, racist and disrespectful. If I'm reading this wrong, let me know.I've done no personal attack on any individual here, I will show respect to my buddies that share this board with me. Though when someone is disrespectful to me I may drop it to them in return.I found our debates here to be a lot of fun, I don't get wrapped up in disagreement/hating. True, I think O is a facade and when he supports that feeling with his own actions and statements I'll point that out, but not by quoting any media idiots, left or right.My posts are aimed at making you chuckle, not to make your head blow up. Chill.

[ggalen]

Maybe it would be better to offer ideas about what would work better, and WHY, rather than simply shooting down Obama's efforts to make things better.How about that? You see, hearing people continually repeat Limbaugh/Hannity atacks, and posting links based on those, doesn't fix anything.I am most interested in the WHY when I hear a "better idea".As far as healthcare, I love the idea of a non-taxpayer funded "public option", to offer some real competition to greedy insurance companies, hospitals and doctors, to force them to lower prices and streamline their system.

[drew]

Sept 15, 2009, 6:10am, ggalen wrote:Maybe it would be better to offer ideas about what would work better, and WHY, rather than simply shooting down Obama's efforts to make things better.How about that? You see, hearing people continually repeat Limbaugh/Hannity atacks, and posting links based on those, doesn't fix anything.Where have I quoted Rush/Hannity attacks? I've posted links from from more lapdog sites than conservative, unless I knew it would be actual news you weren't hearing. I mostly quote Obama, he's the one who can help us or hurt us. If you are believing media instead of listening to Obama's actual words you should correct this.How about that?

[ggalen]

Drew,Maybe you have not been the one of those quoting Limbaugh/Hannity.Personally I am not really interested in hearing more complaining from the anti-Obama camp without them offering a better idea with some reasoning behind it.Because otherwise it's really just complaining about not having a Republican in power any longer. If Bush had done a better job running the country, you'd have McCain and Sarah Palin running things now. Then you'd be happy, but I sure wouldn't.

[suzdoyle]

Sept 14, 2009, 11:34pm, fusilierb wrote:Sept 14, 2009, 10:04pm, suzdoyle wrote: In Prometheus Rising, Robert Anton Wilson presented the idea that political liberals move new ideas forward (sort of like the accelerator on a car), and conservatives tend to slow down the momentum of new ideas (applying the brakes so the car doesn't go wildly careening off the cliff), which makes things move forwarded in a more grounded manner.I never, in a million years, expected to see Robert Anton Wilson quoted on these boards. You just blew my mind Suz! Awesome!BMy daughter introduced me to Promethius Rising a few years back; it's one of my all time favorite books, especially how he overlay's all the various life and evolutionary systems of thought. Yahoo! And Glenn, I heartily agree . . . complaining for complaining's sake doesn't seem to be a productive practice, in my view. Recreational agitation seems to be too much the rage these days . . .I'd rather hear OTHER suggestions to resolve an issue from those who are not satisfied with a given proposal. Brainstorming, not bashing, gets a lot more done . . . Suz

[foglyte]

Robert Anton Wilson indeed. I actually have an autographed piece of blotter art by this guy. Non-dosed of course.Fog

[drew]

A lot was said before my first post, example:All are edited to shorten contentSept 10, 2009, 12:27am, remmet wrote:As for the republicans, their embracing of the crazies and ill-informed have made them almost entirely irrelevant. RSeveral others made derisive comments about Bush/Chaney, et al. Before I made my first post totally about O's speech:Sept 12, 2009, 7:57am, drew wrote:I finally have some time to interject some pointless, un-civil lies into this thread. The O constantly called the questioners of his plan liars, and worse. A Great Speech? It was the same as the previous ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN speeches he has given on health care, nothing new except one item. A yapping Chihuahua with sub-titles would have been as effective for the people that want their questions answered. That’s why people (his supporters) have quit watching and supporting him. He doesn’t need the support of the folks who didn’t vote for him or the Rep party. But the independents and moderates who helped elect him are backing away in droves, not because of what Reps say, it’s because of what O says and won’t say.A few excerpts from his speech:edited outThe day before this speech a ‘friendly’ reporter looking for something to promote after the speech asked Gibbs, ’WTF? There’s nothing new here, people have heard this.’ Gibbs response was along the lines of ‘we don’t know that, people haven’t heard him say this in front of a joint session of congress’, and other even more ridiculous stuff. I was laughing and snorting as usual for Gibbs’ responses.No lies or name calling, unless you don't like him being called a lawyerThen this:Sept 12, 2009, 8:33am, ggalen wrote:Drew,The people, like Sarah Palin, who said there would be "death panels" to pull the plug on seniors were lying and distorting the facts. There is not, nor have there ever been, plans to have panels designed to euthanize senior citizens.You do know that, right?If you don't, then I understand your last post in a new light.I found the last two line to be personally antagonistic, not generally as to all republicans, you can't convince me otherwise.Then this opinionated post, which I didn't respond to in kind, such as "Bush didn't lie, Birthers = BAD vs Truthers = Whitehouse czar jobs, etc., only the "get over it" phraseSept 12, 2009, 9:06am, billg wrote:I think it was mentioned in this thread that all politicians manipulate the truth. I guess that's always going to be the case, and with politics you need to pick your poison. I have to draw the line at supporting the group of people who blindly stood behind the administration that lied to us about reasons we needed to go to war. Nothing in my lifetime compares to that lie, a lie that resulted in many deaths and nearly wiped out our economy.It blows my mind that there are people who will still try to defend that. And the BS that flows from the Rush/Palin/Hannity asylum would be comical if it wasn't for the fact that there are actually folks who believe in it. Birthers, Death Panels, etc., blah, blah.Obama's not perfect BUT is much better than what we had and right now he represents the people who appear to have not quite lost all of their marbles. That's the #1 reason he's the boss now, and he will be for at least three and a half more years so some folks are just gonna have to get over it. ThenSept 11, 2009, 7:14pm, heinsite wrote: i'm very happy that at least this prez can READ. but i will admit, that without the teleprompter, cheney is a MUCH bettter liar than anybody i've seen in a long time, certainly better at it than the current president of the united states--in spite of how some of you folks don't like that.oops, time to go back and watch FOX, so we can get the REAL facts... warrenI feel my post below should be considered helpful:Sept 13, 2009, 6:05am, drew wrote:Ern, thanks for the conversation As I have said several times, which only gets *crickets* as a response, the BIG O doesn't need the support of conservatives, he lost his moderate and independent support by his OWN ACCORD. He ran as a centrist bipartisan moderate, earning the faith of people who would never vote for a tax-and-spend liberal, they feel betrayed by what he has done, not by what the above conservative list of folks has done. Fox, et al have never influenced an election any more than all the liberal media has and as pointed out their viewer numbers don't get close to the lapdog numbers. Americans are truly and rightly fearing the looming taxes his reforms are going to bringBlaming conservatives for the O's failures right now is a waste of breath, HE DOESN'T NEED THEM, he pointed this out himself many times. Hell, the one, un-civil, idiot member, Wilson, should have helped his cause.My free advice to BHO, get your support back without attacking Rush, Beck, etc., go straight to the people with answers, not repetitive speeches. We've heard it all before. You are not campaigning anymore. However, a tax-and-spend economy will be a tough sell in America.That looks like truth and advice to me, though it is the wrong opinion to some.Sept 13, 2009, 3:44pm, drew wrote:Point taken, I'll try to be more careful... Nothing wrong hereThen I posted a few funny aritcles teasers that didn't support the popular views on the board with this disclaimerSept 13, 2009, 6:23pm, drew wrote:Sorry for all the fun I'm having guys, been stuck in a hotel on a rainy weekend. I'd rather be out riding my bike.So, obviously I don't agree with the notion that I alone have been unfair or rude with my comments. More advice from me, Get a funnybone and Chill!

[ggalen]

Drew, I was not meaning to be personally antagonistic asking if you really believe that there would be "death panels". And if you were to believe that such panels were planned, then of course I would see that your reality is quite different from mine.I don't know you. Maybe you believed that death panels were indeed part of the plan, and that Obama is not legitimately our president because he is not a us-born citizen...and all kinds of stuff the Far Right believes.So, I asked you.