| Name: |
water_watcher
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Get behind Obama
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2008 3:58:49 PM
|
And I am sick of all this talk how we need to all get behind Obama for the good of america and come together now that he won.
Why is it the liberals feel that everyone that has not agreed with them in the past should now rally behind Obama ? If they feel being united is so important for the country, why weren't the liberals rallying behind Bush and the republicans? One simple reason ... they did not agree. And 48 million people do not agree with Obama and the liberal policies he has preached.
There are many reasons the republicans lost ... but a big part is the dems would not support Bush and their tatics hurt and divided the country. So no ... now that the tables are turned you are not going to automatically get everyone supporting Obama.
Obama has to earn my support. If he does well I will say he does. But I do not agree with much of what he stand for and has proposed so I have my doubts.
And if history repeats itself, everytime the dems have had the whitehouse with an all democrat congress, things have been horrible economically and internationally.
Jimmy Carter - 12% infation, 21% interest rates, 11% unemployment, Oil embargo, hostage crisis
You liberals bash Bush, but aside from keeping us safe after 9/11, we had 6 years of great growth after he took over a recession from Clinton, plus 9/11. We are in a recession now caused by bad democrat policies, but unemployment still is not as high as it was under Clinton.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Get behind Obama
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2008 4:12:48 PM
|
WW. Once again you are forcing me to educate you when you ask a good question or make a point. You see, with liberals the term bipartisan means we abandon all our values and principals and go along with their destructive ways. If you continue to oppose their ill conceived policies then you are a partisan filled with hate and fear mongering. When a liberal says that Palin wants to take away your right to an abortion (as if the VP has that power) or Bush is responsible for the death of a black man (even though his murderers were convicted and sentenced to death) they are being fearless speakers of the "truth". When a conservative says that Obamination is a socialist that wants to redistribute wealth (which is exactly what he said) we are trying to divide America.
The fact is if the numbers were reversed not one of them would have asked that we all come together and sing We Are the World. Nope, they would be wailing and gnashing their teeth and wondering what was wrong with all these people that voted McCain. They would also make a point of the tens of millions of people that voted the other way. Meanwhile we would be syaing we don't need to want you to fall in lockstep with someone you don't agree with and can continue to oppose their policies. Here's what we oppose and will always:
Higher taxes
Bigger government
Endless entitlements
Dept of Education
Lack of partial privatization of Social Security
Silence of free speech using the unFairness Doctrine
Sureender to Islamofascism
Government control of health care
Government takeover of our 401k and IRA money
Reduction of the military by 25% making us vulnerable to our enemies
|
Thanks for both your post. I wanted to mention a magazine I received last week. It is called Townhall. If you have the opportunity to pick one of these up at the bookstore, DO! It was extremely informative. This is where I found the list of all those who have fanny/freddie in the wallets. Spencer Bachus was number #4 and he was on the oversight committee. I was so impressed with this magazine. My family will be receiving it for Christmas. The other family members that would not appreciate it, will be receiving a copy of of the Golden books "The little Red Hen" . Have a good week.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Get behind Obama
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2008 5:37:07 PM
|
You guys are in for a miserable 4 years. What a horrible time to be a Republican. I think you will find a more centalist move by Obama. I agree with Martini that I too would be upset to see that list implemented. Let's wait and see before you send him to the gallows.
Republicans need to embrace a more centralist approach to governing if they are going to win in the future. Bush and the Republicans ran on fiscal responsibility and they failed. Just look at out deficit!!!!!! You can't be proud of it!!!
Suggest you read a great book titled Chicken Little!!!!!
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Get behind Obama
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2008 6:04:09 PM
|
GF, I completely agree with on the Bush fiscal policies. Part of it is a reflection of 9/11 and the two economic slowdowns early on but the fact is that Bush and his compassionate conservatism in practice meant things like the new prescription drug program and an overall lack of fiscal restraint.
As for the comment about being centrist, I have another view. Where Republicans have had electoral success it has been to espouse conservative principals and adhere to them. If you want to fall inot the mantra of the left and try to make conservative a perjorative you will have lots of help with the media. Part of Bush's low approval ratings is a negative response of those of us who are fiscally conservative. What we need to do is win the minds and hearts of the majority of Americans that are right of center and right. Bush lost them, partly for good reasons in my view (i.e., the war on Islamofascism) and partly for wrong headed economic policies that have alienated conservatives.
I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but I am wildly pessimistic based on the few times when he has revealed himself (the gathering in SFO with the clinging comment, the interaction with Joe the Plumber, etc.). His ideological tendency is to go in the wrong direction and he will have plenty of help with the leftists running Congress. I hope for the sake of this country that he governs more like Clinton after Republicans controlled Congress. Right now there is no counter balance and it has the potential to be bad. Look for my SITYS as I fear they will be frequent.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Get behind Obama
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2008 7:13:04 PM
|
Bush was too far to the middle ... in an effort to cooperate he gave in to the dems too much ... I agree the republicans were not as fiscally responsible as they should have been. But can you imagine it now with the most liberal senator as president and Pelosi and Reid heading up congress. My God it is going to be like kids with keys to the candy store. Scary. They will want to get all their pet projects done and feel the answer is to just raise taxes. I hope i am wrong, but dont think so.
|
I voted for Bush both times. But his administration has done so many things that I think are unethical and manipulative, I turned against them watching how his people in my own Department operated.
Having said that, I think Gates is a pretty good SecDef and I'm a huge fan of Gordon England, the DepSecDef. I think he should be the next SecDef.
|
Let's not forget that it's the democratic majority in congress that has passed all the budgets and spending. Bush failed by going along with them as well as some of our other republican representatives. Greed and selfishness at it's best. All of this at the expense of the hard working tax payer.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Freshwater and Me
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2008 11:21:50 AM
|
Will someone please explain to Freshwater and me how the Democrats passed budget bills that President Bush signed without Republicans supporting it to reach the needed number of 60 votes?
|
| Name: |
Swimmer27
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Freshwater and Me
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2008 1:08:07 PM
|
Becuase budgets only need a simple majority which is 50. According to the constition ALL responsibillity for the budget lies in the House with Senate approval and POTUS signature. The POTUS can recommend, but has no POWER in the process except veto and the SUPREMES denied the line item veto.
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Freshwater and Me
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2008 1:20:56 PM
|
Don't cloud the issue with facts Swimmer.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Swimming
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2008 2:02:13 PM
|
Thanks. But, why didn't Bush veto those bills so it would go back and need 60 votes to override the veto? They would never has passed as the Senate is not veto proof.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Swimming
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2008 4:47:02 PM
|
And be accused of shutting down the Government because a few of those nasty old Republicans wanted to exercise a little fiscal restraint?
They tried that once before and it didn't work.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Worked for Me!
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2008 10:15:04 PM
|
We got 3 days off from work. We weren't supposed to get paid for it, but in the end, we did. No CRA that year.
Seriously, when the government doesn't pass the budget and the government has to shut down, it's a huge mess. People don't get their payments on time, work gets delayed and the workforce just rolls their eyes that the **&^ Congress can't get the job done. I'm old enough to remember when the govenment changed the end of the fiscal year from July to October because Congress could not get the budget done.
|
| Name: |
StrunkWhite
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Get behind Obama
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2008 1:21:18 PM
|
tatics? infation? You really need to invest in a new keyboard. And this time, try to buy one that includes the capitalization option, so you can show proper respect when typing words such as "America" and "American."
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Are you an adult?
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2008 5:41:57 PM
|
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That is false
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2008 6:01:45 PM
|
Hound: If you really worked for the federal government when they shut it down you would know that it was much longer than 3 days and in fact every single one of the federal employees were eventually paid. My wife worked for USEPA Region 4 as a federal employee and they told her when she took her paid vacation that they would be paid. That was why it sickened me to see these federal employees on the national news whining about how losing this income was going to ruin their lives when they knew full well they were going to be paid when they went back. AND THEY WERE!
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
No it is not.
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2008 6:33:24 PM
|
I worked for the federal government from April 1, 1974 until September 1, 2006. I don't remember the exact year, but it was during the Clinton Administration. We were called into a conference room one by one by our Driector, and told that the government did not pass the budget and that we were being furloughed until further notice. I had to sign a paper that I had been told this. We were off from work for 3 days, and then we were called back. We weren't supposed to get paid, but in the end we did.
Why would I lie about something like this?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
No it is not.
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2008 7:16:41 PM
|
Maybe we are talking about a different event. I am referring to the shut down with Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house. It was much longer than 3 days. Was there another shut down? I also re-read your post and realized you did say you were paid. My apologies as I misread it and thought you said you were not paid.
I asked my wife and she was off for over a week, possibly as much as two weeks.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here it is
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2008 7:19:03 PM
|
I checked and this is the one I referred to: Non essential government programs were shut down from November 14 through November 19, 1995 and from December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here it is
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2008 9:42:20 PM
|
I believe the one I'm thinking of is the November 1995. I didn't think it was a week, but it may have been. Maybe I'm confusing the week with the 3 days that we got off with pay one year when an extreme cold hit DC and to save the grid they closed down. We got paid for that one too. I stand corrected. Now that you mention it, there may have been another one, but I think Defense was exempted for some reason. Maybe they passed the Defense portion of the budget.
I remember being not too pleased about the furlough, since DH and I both worked for the government and the prospect of no pay for either of us for a week was not pleasant. I had forgotten about Newt. He really used to irk me and then he disappeared for a long time.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here it is
|
|
Date:
|
11/12/2008 10:07:41 AM
|
My wife worked for EPA from Feb 1989 to some time in 1998. I still remember being so aggravated listening to the Federal employees whining and moaning about how this was going to bankrupt them losing all this income when they knew and had been told they would be paid. It got me on two levels. One, they represented it like they were never going to get paid when they knew full well they would (they just lied and if they had told the truth most people would have reacted like I did, a 2-week paid vacation, even if deferred, doesn't sound too bad especially over the holidays when I was going to take vacation anyway). Two, if it was really going to bankrupt them then they had done such a poor job in managing their personal finances that a delay in pay of two weeks was their ruin. I can imagine having both incomes from the same source was a bit disconcerting but only because no one knew how long they would be out, not that they would not be paid.
There may have been an earlier event that was shorter but I only remember the big budget showdown that Newt and the Republicans won the battle but lost the war as they took 90% of the blame. Thank you biased mainstream media.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Connecticut Lakes
»
Hopeville Pond
Login
|
Home
