# Change



## tekhead1219 (May 16, 2008)

More thought for the politically inclined:

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

1. Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2. Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3. The unemployment rate was 4.5%
4. The DOW JONES hit a record high --14,000+
5. American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'!
So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE'!

1. Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2. Gasoline is now over $ 3.5 a gallon & climbing;
3. Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase)
4. Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;
5. 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6. THE DOW is probing another low 11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.
Now the democrat' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man'--
Claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand? :anim_lol:


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

tekhead1219 said:


> More thought for the politically inclined:
> 
> George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
> 
> ...


This is kind of short sighted and inaccurate.

Dubbya took office in January 2001. When he took over the White House, he had a budget surplus (!), a strong economy and a Republican controled congress. And by that summer, we were in the middle of the Dot-Com bust and the first of our financial difficulties under Dubbya's watch.

Remember when Enron and World Com took a dump? I do. I was doing a lot of work for cell phone companies at the time and was shortly thereafter unemployed for the next 6 months. And when I finally did find a job, I was hired as an Engineer for less than $30k a year and had a 70 mile commute each way. Yeah, good times!

So by late summer, after Bush & Co. ignored intelligence briefings for several months we got 9/11, then the real fun started. From a Republican President and Congress, we got more new government expansion and spending since FDR. We got the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Homeland Security, etc.

Then for the first rational move of his administration, we went after those who attacked us in Afghanistan (we ignored the Saudis though). And almost as soon as we started making progress, we decided to divert resources from Afghanistan and instead attacked Iraq based on made up intelligence. But in Dubbya's defense, Saddam did say bad things about Poppa Bush, so I guess we really were justified.

From then until 2006, Bush & Co. spent more and more of our $$$ and got less and less in return until finally the American people got fed up enough to vote some incumbents out of office. We got a Democrat controlled congress and Bush got a scape goat.

Now, we've got a big mess to clean up, Dubbya's looking forward to playing cowboy on his ranch and making some Slick Willy $$$ doing speeches, his oil buddies are making money hand over fist, and we're trying to figure out how to keep our homes warm this winter.

Blame the Democrats if you want, but we've been getting the short end of the stick for longer than the last 2 years.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Looks like another "copy & paste" email to me.......just like the "Top ten poverty cities" post.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> Looks like another "copy & paste" email to me.......just like the "Top ten poverty cities" post.


Whats the matter? Cant you guys stand the truth? :numbchuck:

:watching:


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

The truth is that things have been going down hill for the last 8 years, not just the last 2.


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

Nice post.

The truth hurts, doesn't it boys??

But once again, true to liberal bylaws, let's dismiss facts as irrelevant. Facts are powerless against liberal revisionism.

But you are right about one thing kev, the Sub-prime mess has been brewing and festering a long time. The Democrat's culpability for this does begin longer than two years ago. Fannie and Freddie's colossal collapse was nurtured by years of liberal expansion of entitlements. The American "Dream" of _working_ to own a home wasn't enough for liberals. They insisted that everyone was entitled to a home, regardless of their income, down payment, or credit worthiness. Lending institution were forced to make ridiculous home loans to uncredit worthy citizens, or face government sanctions.

So with the home entitlement blueprint so successful, what's next? I know, let's make health care an entitlement. And then, how about a college education?

Don't you liberals get it? Barely half of our citizens currently pay any income tax. And yet Obama says that he will give *95%* of Americans a tax cut. Doesn't any one wonder how that can work???

More and expanded entitlements is the answer to one and *ONLY ONE* question: "What can Democrat's do to get elected?"


----------



## Method (May 6, 2006)

kev74 said:


> This is kind of short sighted and inaccurate.
> 
> Dubbya took office in January 2001. When he took over the White House, he had a budget surplus (!), a strong economy and a Republican controled congress. And by that summer, we were in the middle of the Dot-Com bust and the first of our financial difficulties under Dubbya's watch.
> 
> ...


Someone who does their homework. A man after my own heart.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

That shift from "ignored intelligence" to "made up intelligence" say's it all doesn't it.

If it happens to fit your wishes it is good intelligence if it doesnt fit your desired outcome it's bad intelligence.

Give me a break.

Hopefully a few more years under your belt will bring you to a bit more rational conclusion.

It may be too late by then however.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

TOF said:


> That shift from "ignored intelligence" to "made up intelligence" say's it all doesn't it.


Back after Dubbya was elected and before he took office, Clinton's national security team briefed Bush's national security advisors - including Condoleezza Rice - that there was a credible threat to the US from al-Qaeda. The briefings included meetings between Richard Clarke (remember him?) and Rice. This happened in December 2000. Bush's administration sat on the intelegence. They did nothing with it - they "ignored" it until April 2001, then played pass-the-buck with it until August 2001. This was *after* al-Qaeda blew up the USS Cole in October 2000, and after they had previously tried to knock down the World Trade Center.


> The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.


This article from Time makes a pretty clear time line.

Next, when we were making the case for attacking Iraq, Colon Powell addressed the United Nations with charts and diagrams and said we had "proof" that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction", mobile weapons laboratories, centrifuges for enriching uranium, and parts to make rockets. Bush addressed the nation on prime time TV and said the same thing. And Rumsfeld said the same thing. And all of this was based on information from one exiled Iraqi that the government - the CIA had deemed as "not credible". All these claims of Iraqi weapons programs were based on the claims of one man who didn't live in Iraq, who was trying to advance himself in the eyes of other exiled Iraqis, who our government didn't believe. *And since none of these weapons were ever found, and since we said we knew where they were and what they looked like - but they weren't there - it means the intelligence was made up!*

Just because you want to keep your head in the sand and refuse to believe that any Republican could do any wrong doesn't mean its true.

:watching:


----------



## Ptarmigan (Jul 4, 2008)

The logic contained in the original post is flawed in my opinion. I seem to remember many Republicans saying that all the economic success this country saw during the Clinton years all had been "set up" by the former Republican administrations or that the economy goes up and down despite who is in office. 

Also, according to the more right leaning members here the president is all powerful and can take our gun rights away. According to this post, however, the president all of a sudden has no control over anything and Congress made a mess of everything. I am really impressed with the Democrats and their ability to screw everything up so quickly with such a small majority.

Now which is it? If it is the past administration that dictates the economy of a sitting administration, then it is all Clinton’s fault, right? By that logic anything good that happened with the economy during the Reagan years was of course due to Jimmy Carter. We all know that this is not the case.

By the logic of this post the evil Democratic Congress would have already taken our guns away since the president has nothing to do with what happens anymore. But then again, the president is so powerful that Obama will personally show up at all our door and collect each and every gun we own. 

Make up your mind. Who has the power and control? I know some will argue that Obama will have a Democratic Congress etc. and that will most likely happen. Keep this in mind: Bush stated from the beginning that he would sign the Assault Weapon Ban into law should it be passed by Congress. Congress, even in the past year and a half with a Democratic majority, has not passed the AWB even though they knew that Bush would sign it. What makes you think that they will when Obama becomes president?

It is fine to have your own opinions and fight for your side but some of this is getting pretty silly. Someone once said, or wrote, "There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics." You can make stats support any argument you want, it does not always make it correct. 

Right wingers, vote for McCain and earn the right to complain the next four years because you did not vote for the president in office. Left wingers, vote for Obama and earn the right to be blamed for everything that goes wrong the next four years by the people who voted for McCain. 

As for me, I will continue to sit here on my fence and attempt to be objective.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

The original "checks and balances" no longer exist.
Congress, whether Republican-dominated or Democrat-controlled, has ceded so much unrestrained and unsupervised power to the Executive Branch that the balanced government we once knew is no more.
One simple example: The regulatory excesses of the BATFE.
We are now more ruled by regulation (_i.e._, Executive-Branch _fiat_) than by law. Further, Congress does nothing to regain its power, but rather complacently sits back and watches its function erode into nothingness.
So, it is not that Obama, if elected, would personally show up at your door to collect your guns, but rather that an Executive-Branch agency would very likely be there to do so, under Obama's direction.

(I was tempted to joke that Obama wouldn't personally show up to collect them, but Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton, and Feinstein might.)


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Change...?

Failing borders, Failing economy, Failing military, Nationalizing the banks, Skyrocketing foreclosures, Ex-Vice President calling for civil disobedience, Higher taxes coming, Tax payer bailouts...

Here's more of the change that's coming to America...








> "You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

:smt078 I may lose my extra weight before winter after all. :smt078


----------



## Ptarmigan (Jul 4, 2008)

Steve, based on the opinions in your post the original post is incorrect then. If the executive branch has all the power it cannot be Congress' fault that the economy went to crap but rather the fault of the president.

I personally do not agree that it is as bad as you described but I do agree that we have seen a shift in the last seven and a half years. Never in history have we had a vice preseident as involved and powerful as now. 

With regards to Obama's views on guns, I do believe that his record shows that he is not pro gun but no one has provided any evidence to convince me that he is the most anti gun candidate in history or whatever it was Bill T would like us all to believe. "Because the NRA said so" is not valid nor convincing proof in my opinion.

I predict that we will see no changes in our gun laws when Obama is elected and both houses of Congress gain an even further Democratic majority. My hope is that the next president and the 111th Congress will focus on the economy when they start work in January.


----------



## JustRick (Sep 14, 2008)

Just wanted to make a few points here.



kev74 said:


> Dubbya took office in January 2001. When he took over the White House, he had a budget surplus (!), a strong economy and a Republican controled congress. And by that summer, we were in the middle of the Dot-Com bust and the first of our financial difficulties under Dubbya's watch.


The dot-com crash was well underway under the Clinton administration. Lest we forget, Clinton had nothing to do with either the "internet" boom of 1992-1998, or its end in 1999-2001. We have a president, not a king, although you certainly wouldn't know that from the way people leap to assigning credit and blame for things entirely out of the president's control. And Clinton certainly benefited from the tax collected during the biggest capital spending binge since WWII. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

You make a good point that the dot com crash wasn't Clinton's fault, but the boom wasn't due to his efforts either.



> Remember when Enron and World Com took a dump? (...)


And how was the the administration's fault? Greedy businesses have been around for a long time, and a lot of them go under. Enron, for example, was instrumental in the downfall of Grey Davis, but California had shot itself in both feet and a lung before Enron came along to finish the job. This was not the fault of the feds.



> So by late summer, after Bush & Co. ignored intelligence briefings for several months we got 9/11, then the real fun started. From a Republican President and Congress, we got more new government expansion and spending since FDR. We got the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Homeland Security, etc.


You can't blame 9/11 on the administration, unless you are willing to accept unprecedented interference from the feds in our lives. The lack of terrorism in the US in the last seven years is a pretty good sign that 9/11 was the one that slipped through. Let's not forget that a Democrat was president during the first attempt to blow up the WTC. It wasn't his fault, either.

I'm with you all the way about the Patriot Act. Why hasn't the Democratic congress moved to repeal this legislation? I think it's because they are no different from the Republicans. It's a lot easier to whine about something you can't change than to take action to change it.



> (...) attacked Iraq based on made up intelligence.


Invading Iraq was easily the dumbest move by an American president since Johnson ramped up the Vietnam War and Clinton played the sax and bombed pharmaceutical plants while a variety of "ethnic cleansing" was going on in east Africa and the Balkans. We didn't risk much, but we didn't do any good, either.

I have nothing but admiration for the courage, dedication and sacrifice of the sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines who fight and have fought in Iraq, but it was a dumb war -- at the wrong time against the wrong people. Now that we're there, though, it would be immoral for us to walk out and stand by watching millions of civilians die.



> From then until 2006, Bush & Co. spent more and more of our $$$ and got less and less in return until finally the American people got fed up enough to vote some incumbents out of office. We got a Democrat controlled congress and Bush got a scape goat.


I don't think there is anti-nausea medicine powerful enough to make me happy having Nancy Pelosi in a position of power. Has anyone noticed that Congress' approval rating is much lower than the president's? No one loves Pelosi, Reid and gang.



> Blame the Democrats if you want, but we've been getting the short end of the stick for longer than the last 2 years.


Here's a crying towel and a pass to see the chaplin. The government is not your friend today, they weren't your friend in the past, and they won't be your friend in the future. They have the same goals that any large organization has: more money, more power, more perqs, and to enlarge their organization indefinitely. I'm way more of a fan of pre-FDR America in terms of politics. The best way to deal with governments is to cut off their money. Any volunteers?

I also wanted to add that the years we had a Republican congress with a Republican president, they spent money like drunken sailors on leave. It was a bad combination. The same was true in the 60s when Johnson and a heavily Democratic congressed wasted trillions on the Vietnam War and the incredibly stupid "War on Poverty." I'm a huge fan of having a president from one party and a congressional majority of the other. This may have moved me from "undecided" to McCain. Congress is going to be Democrat -- I want a Republican president.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> Next, when we were making the case for attacking Iraq, Colon Powell addressed the United Nations with charts and diagrams and said we had "proof" that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction", mobile weapons laboratories, centrifuges for enriching uranium, and parts to make rockets. Bush addressed the nation on prime time TV and said the same thing. And Rumsfeld said the same thing. And all of this was based on information from one exiled Iraqi that the government - the CIA had deemed as "not credible". All these claims of Iraqi weapons programs were based on the claims of one man who didn't live in Iraq, who was trying to advance himself in the eyes of other exiled Iraqis, who our government didn't believe. *And since none of these weapons were ever found, and since we said we knew where they were and what they looked like - but they weren't there - it means the intelligence was made up!*
> 
> :watching:


I honestly think that I'm one of the only people left on this planet who is informed and has any memory whatsoever... I mean come on...kev.

Here's a reminder for you.

follow the link, please

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Ptarmigan said:


> Steve, based on the opinions in your post the original post is incorrect then. If the executive branch has all the power it cannot be Congress' fault that the economy went to crap but rather the fault of the president...


Ah, but _which_ president?
The Executive Branch has been usurping power, and Congress has been allowing it, since F.D.R., although it was a less-serious matter until L.B.J. came along.
No, I say that it's Congress's fault, because they have been _allowing_ the Executive to usurp the power and to rule by regulation.
If you need to place the blame on any particular president for the present financial mess, look at Carter and Clinton.


----------



## Ptarmigan (Jul 4, 2008)

Steve, you are good. I must give you that. I do, however, not share your gloomy outlook and I feel that checks and balances are a live and fairly well in this country. I also think you are reaching a bit when you try to lay all this current mess on Carter and Clinton. But of course by the logic that it is never the sitting administration's doing when the economy goes to crap or is doing well, of course it is all Clinton's fault. But then you must accept that Carter was the reason for anything good doing the Reagan years. You can't have it both ways.

The current mess is caused by the administration (the one in office right now) and by Congress. It was also caused by private business and the consumer. As someone else wrote in another post, we are all at fault to some degree.

Of course if one wants to keeping going back the current problem is surely the fault of King George III somehow.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

The mortgage-market meltdown we are presently experiencing is the result of legislation that Congress passed and Carter signed, exacerbated by a Clinton executive _fiat_ requiring very lax controls on who should be granted a mortgage. This was then further exacerbated by the bundle-and-resell activities of the financial-derivatives market, which remained unregulated in any way by Congress. Further still, Congress is now continuing to wreak economic damage by passing its "Wall Street bailout" bill, which will inflate our money further, save the greedy brokers' hides, and burden the middle class with all of the costs.
Thus I lay the blame for the economic debacle we now face on the Carter administration, the Carter Congress, the Clinton administration, all members of Congress since Carter, and, finally, the Bush administration for promoting a stupid attempt at "fixing" the problem, and then signing the bill into law.
But I lay most of the blame on Congress for its lack of oversight, lack of control, and general laxity, political, economic, and intellectual.
(Of course, in the end the fault is all ours, because we voted the congresspeople into office, and we've kept them there.)


----------



## tekhead1219 (May 16, 2008)

js said:


> I honestly think that I'm one of the only people left on this planet who is informed and has any memory whatsoever... I mean come on...kev.
> 
> Here's a reminder for you.
> 
> ...


I'm still waiting for kev's response to that clip JS. Another example of facts not agreeing with the fiction I guess...:anim_lol:


----------



## Ptarmigan (Jul 4, 2008)

Steve, very informative post and I learned something. Based on your evidence I have to admit that you have convinced me to some degree and that I agree with your analysis.


----------



## RightTurnClyde (Oct 24, 2007)

Meh... I'm so tired of the Democrats vs. Republicans game. Neither of them deserve to be commended for much recently. They are all corrupt and out for themselves. They care very little about what the American people actually want. And the old addage about congress is more true now than ever. "Congress is good at doing two things: Nothing, and over-reacting."


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

tekhead1219 said:


> I'm still waiting for kev's response to that clip JS. Another example of facts not agreeing with the fiction I guess...:anim_lol:


Sorry to keep you waiting, but I've been at work and videos are a no-go on this computer.

I'll be sure to share my wisdom (BS! :mrgreen: ) when I get a chance to look at it from home. :smt023


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Thus I lay the blame for the economic debacle we now face on the Carter administration, the Carter Congress, the Clinton administration, all members of Congress since Carter, and, finally, the Bush administration for promoting a stupid attempt at "fixing" the problem, and then signing the bill into law.


So, Carter and Clinton are to blame, but Reagan and HW Bush hold no responsibility for a problem that, according to you, sat around unacknowledged for the entirety of their administrations? And the Republican love of deregulation and open markets had nothing to do with this mess either? I stand by my previous statement - Just because you want to keep your head in the sand and refuse to believe that any Republican could do any wrong doesn't mean its true.


Steve M1911A1 said:


> But I lay most of the blame on Congress for its lack of oversight, lack of control, and general laxity, political, economic, and intellectual.
> (Of course, in the end the fault is all ours, because we voted the congresspeople into office, and we've kept them there.)


We are to blame not for electing our congressional representatives, but rather we are to blame because we were too lazy to pay attention while they let their power and influence corrupt them.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

kev74 said:


> ...We are to blame not for electing our congressional representatives, but rather we are to blame because we were too lazy to pay attention while they let their power and influence corrupt them.


Agreed!


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Ptarmigan said:


> Steve, very informative post and I learned something. Based on your evidence I have to admit that you have convinced me to some degree and that I agree with your analysis.


OK. So now, please tell me why you name yourself after a boreal bird, while exhibiting the face of a tropical primate as your avatar. How do the two fit together?


----------



## Ptarmigan (Jul 4, 2008)

Check your PM in a moment.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

tekhead1219 said:


> I'm still waiting for kev's response to that clip JS. Another example of facts not agreeing with the fiction I guess...:anim_lol:


as we wait for a response, why don't we take a quick musical intermission with one of my personal favorites from Slipknot... that just happens to be titled... "Before I Forget" :smt077






as you were...


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

js said:


> I honestly think that I'm one of the only people left on this planet who is informed and has any memory whatsoever... I mean come on...kev.
> 
> Here's a reminder for you.
> 
> ...


Sorry to keep you waiting for my long awaited words of wisdom...

First, back in 1998, the big threat was that Saddam _was going to_ acquire WMDs and biological weapons. At that time, the UN sanctions were still in effect, weapons inspectors were still in Iraq and were still getting the access they requested, and nobody found any WMDs or biological weapons. I find it a bit amusing that those who have criticized Clinton for blowing up an aspirin factory based on bad intelligence are now saying that there was a credible threat in Iraq at that time that would have required intervention.

Next, in 2002, the only evidence for WMDs or biological weapons in Iraq was the word of the Bush administration. Any democrats who said there was did so based on the word of Bush & Co. Remember, this was happening almost exactly 1 year after 9/11, and right before a mid-term election. Anyone who disagreed with the administration on this would have been shooting themselves in the foot and would have hurt their party right before an election.

Third, if Iraq had WMDs or biological weapons, where did they go? Why haven't we found them in the last 6 years?

If you haven't heard about him, you might want to look up Scott Ridder - Marine and chief UN Weapons Inspector from 1991 - 1998. Audio U-tube


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> Sorry to keep you waiting for my long awaited words of wisdom...
> 
> First, back in 1998, the big threat was that Saddam _was going to_ acquire WMDs and biological weapons. At that time, the UN sanctions were still in effect, weapons inspectors were still in Iraq and were still getting the access they requested, and nobody found any WMDs or biological weapons. I find it a bit amusing that those who have criticized Clinton for blowing up an aspirin factory based on bad intelligence are now saying that there was a credible threat in Iraq at that time that would have required intervention.
> 
> ...


:anim_lol:

It's amazing people have completely forgot the 8 years of Clinton/Gore telling the world, on almost a daily basis, that Saddam had WMDs. Completely amazing. Talk about having your head buried in the sand. Again, I will repeat... I have to be one of the only persons left on this planet who has actually retained a memory of the past.





















and here's the classic...


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

No js, you aren't the only one that remembers. But the mainstream media has buried such footage to perpetuate the myth that GW and the evil and omni powerful Dick Cheney are the only ones to blame. But to keep it simple and with fewer words, Cheney is dropped. That way, the mindless hordes of liberal sheeple can remember the four words to the liberal battle cry: Bush lied - people died.

But the real problem here is the impotence of facts as they pertain to most liberals. See most people are empowered by facts. Facts are kinda like Superman. But liberal spin and revisionism is like kryptonite. And Superman is no match for kryptonite.

Most liberals already have their minds made up about things. They don't like to be bothered or confused with facts.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

James NM said:


> ...Most liberals already have their minds made up about things. They don't like to be bothered or confused with facts.


Please change the word "Liberals" in that sentence to "people," and I'll agree with you completely.
Willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity are not solely Liberal traits.


----------



## hideit (Oct 3, 2007)

the tip of the iceberg has just been seen
most of us have not felt it yet
get ready for a real cold 5 years to recover

i am thinking the DJIA will bottom at 7,000


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Please change the word "Liberals" in that sentence to "people," and I'll agree with you completely.
> Willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity are not solely Liberal traits.


Dang Steve, I already toned it down when I said "most liberals". I originally just said "liberals", but decided to leave some of our more enlightened or open minded liberals an "out".

Wait, is "open minded liberal" an oxymoron?:mrgreen:

Anyways, if I listen to you I'm afraid you'll water down my posts to where it'll be just like "bla bla bla". Where would be the fun in that?

But you are right of course. Liberals don't have an exclusive paten on being closed minded. They have just perfected it to an art form. How else could you explain Barack Obama?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

James NM said:


> ...is "open minded liberal" an oxymoron?:mrgreen:...


Funny you should ask...
I was just having that very same conversation with a friend I've known for more than 40 years (we met in college).
He remembered that his father had taught him that a "Liberal" was a person with a mind that was open to new ideas. I remember that my own parents told me essentially the same thing.
My, how definitions, and attitudes, change!

I would blame it on the '60s and '70s, and recreational drugs, but I was indulging myself in that way at that time, and it didn't close _my_ mind.
After a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion that recreational-drug use was only one of the symptoms of the problem that caused the closed minds of the Hippie generation. I believe that the real cause is the normal convinced egocentrism and self-indulgence of 'teen-age, without the moderating influence of parental discipline and control.
Parents of the Hippie generation's kids were, for the most part, WW2 survivors who had pledged themselves to give their children a better life in a better world. It is our great misfortune that the "better life" was seen as an unfettered and uncontrolled one, and that the "better world" was the one their kids were going to create in that condition of absolute freedom.
What a mistake!
:watching:


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Well if you go purely by these definitions then I'm a liberal:

Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

Open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

But if you just go by this - http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal - then I am not. I agree with some of those.....but disagree with many.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I guess, Fred, that we have to remember the difference between a "liberal" and a "Liberal."
The dictionary definitions you found fit "liberal." It's a term describing a particular philosophy and outlook.
The definitions on Conservapedia fit "Liberal." It's a term that describes a political position, usually one that's set in concrete.
Now, maybe, we should also look at "Conservative."


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

js said:


> It's amazing people have completely forgot the 8 years of Clinton/Gore telling the world, on almost a daily basis, that Saddam had WMDs. Completely amazing. Talk about having your head buried in the sand. Again, I will repeat... I have to be one of the only persons left on this planet who has actually retained a memory of the past.


Alright, I've been working almost nonstop since Saturday, so I'm not as sharp right now as I should be. Please help me out with this.

Are you saying that:

1. Clinton's *air strikes* on Iraq based on (as of yet in this thread) undisputed evidence that Saddam was *attempting to construct* WMDs and biological weapons is the equivalent of *Bush's 6+ year ground war* that was based on shaky evidence of existing weapons stockpiles and laboratories (both mobile and fixed) *that haven't been found* even though we turned the country inside out looking for said weapons and labs?

2. Clinton the draft dodger did something correct militarily?

3. All that "Wag the Dog" talk coming form the Republican right during the last part of the 90's was incorrect and uncalled for, and that it was just a coincidence that Bill's Monica Lewinsky "troubles" happened to coincide with a truly dangerous escalation of Saddam's power?

             

I think "normal" is now on extended hiatus. :smt1099


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

Change we can believe in


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> Alright, I've been working almost nonstop since Saturday, so I'm not as sharp right now as I should be. Please help me out with this.
> 
> Are you saying that:
> 
> ...


I'll just make it simple...

Bill Clinton & Al Gore (including all Democrat leadership) said for 8 years that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States...and that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and would use them...as he already had before. Clinton bombed Iraq almost weekly...via "no fly zones"

George Bush II & Dick Cheney said for 2 years that...Hussein was a threat to the United States...and that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and would use them...as he already had before. (now insert 3,000 dead Americans from 9/11) Now a threat from Saddam, a threat that 2 administrations said was real... Bush acted on the threat using the same intelligence from the 8 years before he was president.

Me personally, I strongly supported invading Iraq... because of the pure shit that Clinton & Gore filled my head with, not from anything the Bush administration said.

Our war footing with Iraq began in 1992... not 2002.

you really need to watch the video below... it shows the true colors of Democrats. It's a shame... It's also a shame that 95% of Democrats today are just as stupid. Of course, they support someone like Obama... that just says it all. Democrats support killing terrorist and their supporters, yet they will put someone in the white house with direct ties (personal and business) to a domestic terrorist and who is today.... proud to admit it. Pure hypocrisy...
\


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Again, in 1998, Clinton's air strikes were used "*to prevent Iraq form acquiring*" WMDs and biological weapons.

Bush's protracted ground war was "justified" by faulty intelligence that *Iraq WAS IN POSSESSION OF* WMDs and biological weapons.

Where did these WMDs and biological weapons go? And why weren't they found? Or were we lied to because Bush & Co. wouldn't have gotten any support for an invasion without phonying up their intelligence.



> It's also a shame that 95% of Democrats today are just as stupid.


Since we're making up statistics and calling names, 4 out of 5 Republicans smell like poop! :mrgreen: :smt1099


----------



## thomasward00 (Jan 3, 2008)

I for the life of me just don't quite understand why there are so many democrats "Liberals" on this site? Anyone voting for Obama are inviting an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights, and the truth is they will deserve it.


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

thomasward00 said:


> I for the life of me just don't quite understand why there are so many democrats "Liberals" on this site?...


I've been pondering that myself lately. I think some of them are not really handgun enthusiasts. In fact, I'm quite certain some are nothing more than liberal trolls. :buttkick:

The only thing I can think of is that unknown to the administration here, there must be a link to this site at the Daily Kos and/or Move ON.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

thomasward00 said:


> I for the life of me just don't quite understand why there are so many democrats "Liberals" on this site? Anyone voting for Obama are inviting an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights, and the truth is they will deserve it.


Some of the "Liberals" on this site, while they are handgun enthusiasts and respect and honor the 2nd amendment, realize that McCain has sold his soul in his quest for the presidency and is no more a friend to gun owners than Obama. Does anyone else remember when the NRA said McCain was a threat to gun owners because he disguised himself as a conservative? What epiphany has John McCain experienced since 2000 that changed his outlook on the 2nd amendment? Bush has said he would sign another assault weapon ban. McCain has been marching lock-step with Bush.

Remember back when McCain took a (figurative) dump on the families of the Vietnam POW and MIAs? McCain used to be against torturing enemy combatants, he rolled over for Bush on that one. McCain used to stand up to the religious right (America's Taliban), now he's in bed with them.

While I won't vote for Obama, I'm glad it looks like he will keep McCain from getting the Oval Office.

:smt1099


----------

