houstonmacbro Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 ... I have my reasons.We're waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojeaux131 Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 No, I do not agree. The extent to which vets ought to receive benefits should be a function of what it takes to fill recruitment quotas. And comparing economic conditions of any war after World War Two to World War Two is profoundly short-sighted.Of course there must be limits to the extent of benefits, but I think it's noteworthy that McCain would oppose even just the 21st Century G.I. Bill. It's not like the vets get everything for free after they return. I'm not trying to get off topic here, but are you saying that the extent of veterans' benefits should be contingent on how recruitment at the time of their enlistment is going? If that be the case, I would have to strongly disagree. If one goes to war for one's country, one's benefits should be no less than those of older veterans who enlisted before and who fought in prior wars. My only point with the postwar boom comment was just to say that the first G.I. Bill was good for the economy. You cannot convince me otherwise, whether or not any "comparison" in my post was short-sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 What is Obama gonna be able to do to reduce gas prices Red ? Nothing, becuase he isn't going to authorize drilling to pacify the treehuggers, and high gas prices, are gonna piss you people off. Ok, you do not have to believe that it will only take a few generations for oil supply to be scarce, but you have to agree that America's oil consumption has an environmental impact that is anything but positive. Sadly, without the government taking steps to get us off of oil, too many Americans mirror apathetic "dog eat dog" China. With that said, what will drilling for oil anywhere we can get it and lowering gas to $2 a gallon do but increase our disproportionate rate of using a quarter of the the world's natural resources when we hardly make up five percent of the world's population? Atleast give out the alternatives before spoiling folks with the perpetual use of the non-renewable. Makes sense to me. THIS is what I actually want Obama to do before, if it is even in his power, lowering gas prices. I understand there are too many folks, including Dems, who want to have their cake and eat it and that is a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 I'm not trying to get off topic here, but are you saying that the extent of veterans' benefits should be contingent on how recruitment at the time of their enlistment is going? If that be the case, I would have to strongly disagree. If one goes to war for one's country, one's benefits should be no less than those of older veterans who enlisted before and who fought in prior wars.More or less. The government should be paying as little as possible to do the job effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 More or less. The government should be paying as little as possible to do the job effectively.I disagree. I think the government ought to pay them everything they are asking for.They are risking their lives and doing jobs none of us want to do to safeguard this country.We owe them that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeats Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Who's seen the cover of the newest The New Yorker? Story here: Scare Tactic Thoughts? ETA: The issue goes on sale on July 21st; it's not on newsstands yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Actually, a few months ago, he was change. Now, he's turning into a suckup, just like that bozo McCain. At this point, I'd just as soon see John 'The Economist' McCain win, so he can finish ruining the economy that Bush started. At least the CNBC hotties are sexier when they breathlessly exclaim, "the market's going down!" Besides, I want to hear "the nation of whiners" ask why our gas prices haven't gone down after McCain opens everything for drilling. It'll be great fun. The country's gonna suck for several more years no matter who is in charge. It might as well be McCain. That'll be the end of the GOP for the next 40 years.Obama better be careful. There are lots of VERY pissed off people walking around Boston this week. Is he trying to give Nader's campaign a boost?His speech on expanding faith-based programs means he wont get another $ from me. If he continues this pursuit of the "middle" then he might even lose my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Who's seen the cover of the newest The New Yorker? Story here: Scare Tactic Thoughts? ETA: The issue goes on sale on July 21st; it's not on newsstands yet. What thoughts should someone have, typical satirical trash rag, that makes it's living printing garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Who's seen the cover of the newest The New Yorker? Story here: Scare Tactic Thoughts? ETA: The issue goes on sale on July 21st; it's not on newsstands yet. Bet that it never makes it to the newsstands. Too much negative publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeats Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 What thoughts should someone have, typical satirical trash rag, that makes it's living printing garbage. I think a lot of people are going to get so turned off by the cover that they won't even make it to the article inside. It's a shame, since the article actually discusses how the "conservative media" uses such "scare tactics" as implying that Barack Obama is a hardcore Muslim fundie or that Michelle Obama is a militant feminist who hates America to draw the public's attention away from the real issues at hand. So, basically the magazine article preaching the opposite of what the cover suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share Posted July 15, 2008 What thoughts should someone have, typical satirical trash rag, that makes it's living printing garbage.The West Virginians are saying: "OH NOEZZ. TEH REPBULICANS WERE RIGHT!! ITS TEH BALACK SADDAM OSAMABAMA!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I disagree. I think the government ought to pay them everything they are asking for.They are risking their lives and doing jobs none of us want to do to safeguard this country.We owe them that much.We are in total agreement right there. Give them ALL that they need to get the job done and get out. The way you win wars is to keep morale as high as possible, and "...to make the other poor dumb sumbitch die for HIS country." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I think a lot of people are going to get so turned off by the cover that they won't even make it to the article inside. It's a shame, since the article actually discusses how the "conservative media" uses such "scare tactics" as implying that Barack Obama is a hardcore Muslim fundie or that Michelle Obama is a militant feminist who hates America to draw the public's attention away from the real issues at hand. Actually we hope we are wrong on the whole "Muslim" thing. If he wins and we are right.... ? We DO however believe that Michelle DOES hate America, as she has stated, she has only recently become "proud" of her country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 So, now NEITHER candidate is who he claimed to be. What the hell kind of campaign strategy is that! There is only one campaign issue that matters...THE ECONOMY! So what do these two morons do? "Hey, let's go suck up to evangelicals." And evangelicals can't stand either one of them! So, evangelicals don't like them because they are not authentic fundies, and the rest of us don't like them because they are....not authentic at ANYTHING! This election has turned to total sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share Posted July 15, 2008 I know right. I'm hoping it turns out for the better (with Obama). I don't agree at all with the FISA bill. We definitely flip-flopped on that. But outside of that, he has been good and consistent in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Actually we hope we are wrong on the whole "Muslim" thing. If he wins and we are right.... ? We DO however believe that Michelle DOES hate America, as she has stated, she has only recently become "proud" of her country. You know, I'm just as weary of Obama and his wife as the next radical right-winger, but even if he does reveal himself to be Muslim once in office, what harm is that really going to do? As if suddenly that will somehow change how anything is done in Washington? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share Posted July 15, 2008 Wow. You're scared of Michelle Obama because of something the right-wingers spun the wrong way? Come on TJones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 As if suddenly that will somehow change how anything is done in Washington? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Wow. You're scared of Michelle Obama because of something the right-wingers spun the wrong way? Come on TJones.It's just like they say on the Daily Show - he's got Baracknophobia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 sigh. Count me in with Red. Was all excited, then the typical Dem move to center is leaving me unfulfilled. The FISA vote, and then the faith based stuff? Ugh. Far more fun watching the Fannie/Freddie meltdown. Mmmm, hello even suckier dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Yeah, but seriously, what is going to change? He's already revealing that he won't pull the troops as quickly as he first promised. So even with all the information that was out there a year ago about Iraq, did he say that just to appease and win over primary voters, or did he just not understand the situation over there until more recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojeaux131 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 sigh. Count me in with Red. Was all excited, then the typical Dem move to center is leaving me unfulfilled. The FISA vote, and then the faith based stuff? Ugh.It's still a flip-flop, but it made me feel a little better that the faith-baseds would only receive funding for secular services. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/...gail&st=cseThat doesn't mean that we shouldn't still abolish them or that the FISA thing wasn't terrible, either. He'll still be better than McCain. At least Obama didn't oppose the New G.I. Bill. He'll still make a better president than McCain would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 It's still a flip-flop, but it made me feel a little better that the faith-baseds would only receive funding for secular services. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/...gail&st=cseThat doesn't mean that we shouldn't still abolish them or that the FISA thing wasn't terrible, either. He'll still be better than McCain. At least Obama didn't oppose the New G.I. Bill. He'll still make a better president than McCain would.Not saying much. Kinda like saying he can't be any worse than Bush. Well, duh, nobody could be worse than Bush!Honestly, watching CNBC the last couple of weeks (my attempt at non-drug induced sleep aid), I am growing more convinced that the economy is going to get much worse before it gets better. Afghanistan is going to get much worse. Oil is going to stay where it's at. And, banks are going to fail. Whoever is president will get the blame, but neither of these two can stop it. Since Obama wants to play footsie with the fundies and neo-cons, I'd really just as soon see McCain take the fall for an unavoidable and painful correction. In fact, since he has Phil Gramm advising him, he'll probably make it worse. Then maybe a Democrat can come in in 2012 and do what needs to be done. Americans...and these two clowns...still aren't ready to admit that we're ruining the country with our insane policies. I think another 4 years of Bush oughta do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Not saying much. Kinda like saying he can't be any worse than Bush. Well, duh, nobody could be worse than Bush!Honestly, watching CNBC the last couple of weeks (my attempt at non-drug induced sleep aid), I am growing more convinced that the economy is going to get much worse before it gets better. Afghanistan is going to get much worse. Oil is going to stay where it's at. And, banks are going to fail. Whoever is president will get the blame, but neither of these two can stop it. Since Obama wants to play footsie with the fundies and neo-cons, I'd really just as soon see McCain take the fall for an unavoidable and painful correction. In fact, since he has Phil Gramm advising him, he'll probably make it worse. Then maybe a Democrat can come in in 2012 and do what needs to be done. Americans...and these two clowns...still aren't ready to admit that we're ruining the country with our insane policies. I think another 4 years of Bush oughta do it.The above is sad but the total truth.Honestly, my "hope for change" with Obama is pretty much gone. He's following the same DNC practice of courting voters he'll never win instead of energizing a solid base and registering new participants to take part in our relative Democracy.Hell, if this were the McCain of the 2000 Campaign, I'd consider voting for him.That said, since I live in Massachusetts, a Commonwealth McSame has no shot of winning, I just might end up voting for Nader again (I voted for him in 2000). It wont matter in the end, but I will at least know I voted FOR the things I believe in like universal healthcare, cuttin' and runnin' from the Middle East, and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojeaux131 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Not saying much. Kinda like saying he can't be any worse than Bush. Well, duh, nobody could be worse than Bush!Honestly, watching CNBC the last couple of weeks (my attempt at non-drug induced sleep aid), I am growing more convinced that the economy is going to get much worse before it gets better. Afghanistan is going to get much worse. Oil is going to stay where it's at. And, banks are going to fail. Whoever is president will get the blame, but neither of these two can stop it. Since Obama wants to play footsie with the fundies and neo-cons, I'd really just as soon see McCain take the fall for an unavoidable and painful correction. In fact, since he has Phil Gramm advising him, he'll probably make it worse. Then maybe a Democrat can come in in 2012 and do what needs to be done. Americans...and these two clowns...still aren't ready to admit that we're ruining the country with our insane policies. I think another 4 years of Bush oughta do it.I think you're oversimplifying things. He was bound to do something sooner or later that a lot of his base didn't agree with. I'm not saying I know the whole picture, but for whatever reason this junior senator from Illinois was able to tear up the primaries and become the presumptive nominee. I don't think all those votes and all that trust will turn out to be completely misplaced just because he flip-flopped. I know it's easy to expect the worst (especially in the world of politics) but let's see what happens before we forecast doom and gloom. Maybe an Obama presidency is just what this country needs to cure its PBTSD (post Bush trauma stress disorder). I'm not naive enough to believe he could stop the economic downturn, but I think what he's planning to do will turn things around much more quickly and be better for the country long-term than if McCain were elected. He's just the better candidate. So he'll get my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I think you're oversimplifying things. He was bound to do something sooner or later that a lot of his base didn't agree with. I'm not saying I know the whole picture, but for whatever reason this junior senator from Illinois was able to tear up the primaries and become the presumptive nominee. I don't think all those votes and all that trust will turn out to be completely misplaced just because he flip-flopped. I know it's easy to expect the worst (especially in the world of politics) but let's see what happens before we forecast doom and gloom. Maybe an Obama presidency is just what this country needs to cure its PBTSD (post Bush trauma stress disorder). I'm not naive enough to believe he could stop the economic downturn, but I think what he's planning to do will turn things around much more quickly and be better for the country long-term than if McCain were elected. He's just the better candidate. So he'll get my vote.I am not upst that he may have flip-flopped. That is a lame Republican term that means zero to me. I am not offended that someone changes their mind. The REASON for the change may be a problem, but not necessarily changing one's mind in and of itself.No, the problem here is that he changed his mind IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. His FISA vote is inexcusable. The old FISA rules were still in effect and protected us and the gov't agents just fine. And we need less religion in government, not more. Now, if you are suggesting that he may not mean what he is saying, well, that puts him in the same boat with McCain. We don't know which McCain would take office, and we don't know which Obama would take office. And that is very depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 You know, I'm just as weary of Obama and his wife as the next radical right-winger, but even if he does reveal himself to be Muslim once in office, what harm is that really going to do? As if suddenly that will somehow change how anything is done in Washington?On the surface, nothing. But I would fear that some insane redneck would take serious offense and arm up his militia in some violent form of protest. Or worse yet, some other insane redneck will try to take him out. Then again that might happen regardless of the muslim thing, igorant redneckery knows no bound and has too many (actual) weapons. I'm not saying I know the whole picture, but for whatever reason this junior senator from Illinois was able to tear up the primaries and become the presumptive nominee. I don't think all those votes and all that trust will turn out to be completely misplaced just because he flip-flopped.I think his tearing through the primaries was as much anti-Hilary as it was pro-Obama. I really think the dems missed a great chance to throw a really great candidate in there and just run away with this election. Yeah, the media and public poke holes in every candidate, but these two have been extra easy so far.EDIT: damn homonyms lead to typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I think a lot of people are going to get so turned off by the cover that they won't even make it to the article inside. It's a shame, since the article actually discusses how the "conservative media" uses such "scare tactics" as implying that Barack Obama is a hardcore Muslim fundie or that Michelle Obama is a militant feminist who hates America to draw the public's attention away from the real issues at hand.So, basically the magazine article preaching the opposite of what the cover suggests. Anyone who is freaking out about the cover doesn't understand political cartoons. The media that is making a big deal of it do know, yet we know they're doing this only to make a buck. Do we know what "conservative media" it's talking about? If we're talking biased right wing websites, then yes. But really, is Rush, Hannity and Fox News reporting that garbage? No. And like someone said, even if he is Muslim, why is that a bad thing? If asked if he was a Christian, would it be okay for him to laugh it off as ludcrious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojeaux131 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I am not upst that he may have flip-flopped. That is a lame Republican term that means zero to me. I am not offended that someone changes their mind. The REASON for the change may be a problem, but not necessarily changing one's mind in and of itself.No, the problem here is that he changed his mind IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. His FISA vote is inexcusable. The old FISA rules were still in effect and protected us and the gov't agents just fine. And we need less religion in government, not more. Now, if you are suggesting that he may not mean what he is saying, well, that puts him in the same boat with McCain. We don't know which McCain would take office, and we don't know which Obama would take office. And that is very depressing.You have a fair point here. I truly believe he might not mean what he's saying. But I'm actually fine with that, because I believe his intended course of action will benefit the country more than McCain's would. Yes, it's unfortunate that for whatever reason he chose to embrace the faith-baseds and vote in support of the FISA, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and I wouldn't mind a candidate being slightly disingenuous in order to get elected if I thought that person's policies would truly benefit the country. Unfortunately I think politics and common American mindsets have degenerated to the point to where he feels actions like this are necessary in order to secure his ascension to office. Nobody wants to do their homework anymore. Nobody wants to find out what the issues are. The vast majority of voters are "low information" voters and they get most of their information from soundbites and it's a damn shame. Crap like that is what necessitates shameful politics. If Americans took more responsibility for educating themselves about the issues and policy, we wouldn't be so pissed off by politicians all the time. In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. And while I think Obama has strayed a bit from his original greatness, I've no doubt his presidency would be more beneficial for our country than McCain's. That is my only point and the only reason I continue to post in this thread, regardless of how fed up with politicians many HAIFers seem to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Personally I 'got it'. I am not pro-Hillary, pro-McCain, or pro-Obama. I think we take ourselves far too seriously.I got a kick out of the combat boots and the fist bump.Right on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.