AWESOME Cartoon - from 1948

gamby wrote: Bill Hicks said it best: (paraphrasing) "There are two puppets--one on the left and one on the right. One guy says 'I like the puppet on the right'. Other guy says 'I like the puppet on the left'. Then they both realize there's one guy w/ a hand in each puppet". I'm still sick of the neo-con paranoid knee-jerk naysaying, but this Afghanistan thing is disappointing to me. Certainly not what I voted for.

Yep. Ever notice that both Bush's and Obama's Treasury Secretary came from Goldman Sachs.

No, I've been around a kittle while... You just seem a little more excited than your usual self.

Joey

I don't think McCain would have done any differently in any of these situations and I would have to dealt with seeing more of a certain governor from Alaska, which I already see too much of.

I think the real problem is the majority of American vote on party lines, and more often that not it's R or D. I think we need a Independent as President to mix things up.

PHeller wrote: I don't think McCain would have done any differently in any of these situations and I would have to dealt with seeing more of a certain governor from Alaska, which I already see too much of.

Oh, don't get me wrong--there's still no way in hell I'd want McCain and Palin in charge of this mess.

Datsun1500 wrote: Well when the rest of us were questioning what "hope and change" actually meant we were called racist.

When those same people were terrified him addressing students, I still call it racist. There's no other logical explanation because it was unprecedented.

Datsun1500 wrote: I'm racist for asking what the guy stood for? OK I guess I don't like the White half....

HW Bush and Reagan both addressed students and no one batted a lash. Obama did and it was panic. He's the President of the United States--not Timothy Leary or Huey Newton.

As little as a liked W., his addressing of students would (and should) be a non-issue.

gamby wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: I'm racist for asking what the guy stood for? OK I guess I don't like the White half....

HW Bush and Reagan both addressed students and no one batted a lash. Obama did and it was panic. He's the President of the United States--not Timothy Leary or Huey Newton. As little as a liked W., his addressing of students would (and should) be a non-issue.

Employing revsionist history is a bad way to make a point:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html

But why let facts get in the way of feelings, right?

mad_machine wrote: I still advocate we need a viable Third party for everyone in the middle who just wants to live their lives with minimal governmental, religious, and corporate meddling.

Oh, you mean like these guys? Libertarian Party

I do agree with the sentiment that we should just ditch political parties altogether. It's far too easy to just party-line vote without putting any thought into what (or who) you're actually voting for.

oldsaw wrote:

gamby wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: I'm racist for asking what the guy stood for? OK I guess I don't like the White half....

HW Bush and Reagan both addressed students and no one batted a lash. Obama did and it was panic. He's the President of the United States--not Timothy Leary or Huey Newton. As little as a liked W., his addressing of students would (and should) be a non-issue.

Employing revsionist history is a bad way to make a point: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html But why let facts get in the way of feelings, right?

Touche. I guess I just have no recollection of that incident (and I was a fairly politically aware college student then). I certainly don't recall footage of parents crying in panic that the president was going to brainwash their children.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/right-wing-mom-cries-on-cnn/

I'm sure race had nothing to do w/ that panic (granted, she's a crackpot who made for a great soundbite).

However, the Obama situation had a lot of public outcry. Seems like the HW one was more political outcry. IMHO, I didn't think HW was remotely as polarizing.

gamby wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

gamby wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: I'm racist for asking what the guy stood for? OK I guess I don't like the White half....

HW Bush and Reagan both addressed students and no one batted a lash. Obama did and it was panic. He's the President of the United States--not Timothy Leary or Huey Newton. As little as a liked W., his addressing of students would (and should) be a non-issue.

Employing revsionist history is a bad way to make a point: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html But why let facts get in the way of feelings, right?

Touche. I guess I just have no recollection of that incident (and I was a fairly politically aware college student then). I certainly don't recall footage of parents crying in panic that the president was going to brainwash their children. http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/right-wing-mom-cries-on-cnn/ I'm sure race had nothing to do w/ that panic (granted, she's a crackpot who made for a great soundbite). However, the Obama situation had a lot of public outcry. Seems like the HW one was more political outcry. IMHO, I didn't think HW was remotely as polarizing.

Keep in mind that since Al Gore invented the internet, and with the surplus of 24hr cable "news" channels, plus the current extreme partisan politics - flakes take the opportunity to make asshats of themselves.

Many achieve their 15 seconds of fame; way too many get 15 minutes.

You're absolutely right that the President is a polarizing figure, but I'll kindly suggest it's his politics and not his pallor that disappoint or infuriate his detractors.

It's definitely his politics and his color is only a handy PC type of rebuttal when they have nothing else to hang their hat on.

Datsun1500 wrote: Well when the rest of us were questioning what "hope and change" actually meant we were called racist.

and I was called unpatriotic and un american for not supporting a worthless war....

I'm with Datsun. I may disagree with the war in the first place, but if we're intent on having one, pull the stops and do it right. Give our troops everything they need to get the job done as quickly and safely as possible, let them do their job, and be done with it.

Yup. Someone may not want to fight, but if it comes down to that they better throw everything they have into it. Afghanistan could be completely secure in two weeks if the Commander in Chief would loose the dogs of war for real.

Jensenman wrote: Yup. Someone may not want to fight, but if it comes down to that they better throw everything they have into it. Afghanistan could be completely secure in two weeks if the Commander in Chief would loose the dogs of war for real.

This I agree with. George HW unleashed absolute hell in the first Gulf war and it was highly effective. Now, they're too worried about how we'll look to the rest of the world. Guess what? The rest of the world forgets a lot--very quickly.

Bring on the drones and bomb whatever we need to bomb into oblivion and call it a day.

So long as our President is voted in by a system that demands millions of dollars to be spent, the money will be sponsored by people who have an agenda.

My simplistic answer is.

Limit the funds allowed to be spent and make all the media outlets give each party an identical amount of time.

They should not be able to raise funds from any company or organization at all, they all have an agenda.

hmmmm.. I seem to remember some of those laws.. especially the equal air time thing..

I was expaining this at work yesterday. Every year we get to go fill out a questionare about our bosses and directors. The company prides itself on these (mostly) anonomous means of grading how our supervisors and directors are doing.

Usually they have a pretty hard time getting people to fill them out, maybe have the employees do. This year they are all happy because 90% of the employees filled them out. They have yet to realise that people only get motivated to do things like that when everything is bad.. just like voting.

the cartoon is very apt. the statistics have changed obviously, but ism sounds good until you have it.

the grass is always greener.

PHeller wrote: I don't think McCain would have done any differently in any of these situations and I would have to dealt with seeing more of a certain governor from Alaska, which I already see too much of. I think the real problem is the majority of American vote on party lines, and more often that not it's R or D. I think we need a Independent as President to mix things up.

Here ya go.

http://www.loudobbs4president.net/

aussiesmg wrote: So long as our President is voted in by a system that demands millions of dollars to be spent, the money will be sponsored by people who have an agenda. My simplistic answer is. Limit the funds allowed to be spent and make all the media outlets give each party an identical amount of time. They should not be able to raise funds from any company or organization at all, they all have an agenda.

Presidential candidates can opt for "public" funding, but making that choice limits other funding options. One of the candidates (last year) chose to forego public funding, reneging on a campaign promise.

Then, we also have the McCain-Feingold Act which defines and limits "hard" and "soft" campaign donations. The Act was/is considered unconstitutional (by some) and signed into law by a somewhat skeptical President Bush.

I tend toward requiring all presidential candidates to use only funds made available through public funding. Eliminate the funding "option" on tax return forms, designate a portion of tax revenues specifically for campaign expenditures and allocate said funding equally to the candidates.

Let all party nominees campaign on their merit(s) until the money is gone. Let the best candidate win.

oldsaw wrote:

gamby wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: I'm racist for asking what the guy stood for? OK I guess I don't like the White half....

HW Bush and Reagan both addressed students and no one batted a lash. Obama did and it was panic. He's the President of the United States--not Timothy Leary or Huey Newton. As little as a liked W., his addressing of students would (and should) be a non-issue.

Employing revsionist history is a bad way to make a point: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html But why let facts get in the way of feelings, right?

I would be suspicious of any link containing the words opinion, blogs and 'washingtonexaminer'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner

Of course we all know that Wikipedia is a socialist plot controlled by Obama zealots.

Snowdoggie wrote: I would be suspicious of any link containing the words opinion, blogs and 'washingtonexaminer'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner Of course we all know that Wikipedia is a socialist plot controlled by Obama zealots.

Suspicions should inspire curiosity, not cynicism.

Washington Post said: The Washington Post on Friday, October 4, 1991 said this: House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school. The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’ ” Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...] Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to “start using precious dollars for campaigns” when “we are struggling for every silly dime we can get” for education programs. Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants “to make him look good,” then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. “Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits,” Frost said, referring to Bush’s threat to veto legislation to extend benefits.

oldsaw wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: I would be suspicious of any link containing the words opinion, blogs and 'washingtonexaminer'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner Of course we all know that Wikipedia is a socialist plot controlled by Obama zealots.

Suspicions should inspire curiosity, not cynicism.

Washington Post said: The Washington Post on Friday, October 4, 1991 said this: House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school. The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’ ” Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...] Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to “start using precious dollars for campaigns” when “we are struggling for every silly dime we can get” for education programs. Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants “to make him look good,” then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. “Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits,” Frost said, referring to Bush’s threat to veto legislation to extend benefits.

Did they call him a facist, socialist nazi?

ignorant wrote: Did they call him a facist, socialist nazi?

No. Neither did he show leanings, or employ cabinet/staff members who could be perceived as embracing said ideologies.

Perhaps those omitted labels were retro-actively applied when Bush43 was in office. Who wants to miss two opportunities to make a single point?

Jensenman wrote: Yup. Someone may not want to fight, but if it comes down to that they better throw everything they have into it. Afghanistan could be completely secure in two weeks if the Commander in Chief would loose the dogs of war for real.

Absolutely. Make it another Puerto Rico. If the Obama pantywaists would only have the Cajones to see the world as the playground for American power that it really is. If not for the liberal mainstream media we would all realize that the war in Iraq was a cakewalk. Margaret Thatcher would know what to do. Afghanistan is allot like the Falklands, except with several million people of many different tribes that hate each other who live in an insanely mountainous and large country with no roads that has never been successfully invaded in known history. Hearts and Minds my ass, roast the hearts in napalm and the minds will follow. Palin 012!!!