A question for Republicans/Conservatives

Date 02-25-2009 17:53

I seem to like him. I'm an independent but lean a lil more to the right most times but the left has some things that I like as well. It'd be nice if we could get someone inbetween but that's got a snowball's chance in hell of happening as long as I can see. I could vote for him but have to see where he sits on the issues and then make my mind up. Voting for someone just because he has a D or R in front of his name is just a waste of a vote, imho.

By js55

Date 02-25-2009 22:38

Bryon,
I'll certainly reserve judgment until I know more about him, which is pretty much nothing at this point. My problem with him, which may sound shallow but indeed is not on my part, is that he doesn't "look" presidential. He could very well be the candidate for the job when or if he runs but he doesn't seem to have that TV appeal. At least I don't see it yet. The greatest asset Obama has is that he does indeed look presidential. He's got that smooth confident good looking air about him that comes off well on TV. And in this day and age appearance on TV means more than anything you actually stand for. That is not intended as a slam on liberals because conservatives as well will vote without knowing anything at all about their supposed candidate. Its a sad truth that stubborn ignorance runs rampant on both sides of the aisle in American politics. Lookin and talkin pretty goes along way towards gettin you elected, though there have been exceptions. To a certain extent.
To say that American Presidential elections, or any elections for that matter, though most important and obvious on that level, are decided based upon the issues is absurd. The great majority of the American electorate wouldn't know the issues if you smacked em on the forehead with a volume of such.
And though I'd certainly vote for a conservative instead of a liberal under most any circumstance, I'd hate to lose an election because the other sides candidate looks better on TV.
Uh, didn't that just happen. :)
Of course, I'm holding out for Sarah Palin. Now there's some TV appeal. Not to mention a very successful, competent, and popular governor. And,,,she took on the unprecendented onslaught of hatred, lies, and vitriole (generated from left wing fear and panic) and kept on smilin. :)
If Jindal can stand up to that kind of heat and maintain her kind of composure well see.

By swsweld (****)

Date 02-26-2009 03:02 Edited 02-26-2009 03:04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg5BLDPckVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct7398SIhS8

js55,
They are starting early, just in case Jindal gets the nod for 2012. My local morning talk radio station ripped him to pieces as they still do Palin on an almost daily basis. I like Jindal, not your typical Republican and I think that will be necessary to have a chance in 2012. M. Steele (new RNC chairman and an African-American) IMO will not be successful if he runs. They (media/black community) will paint him as a gimmick or sell out, like they did Condi and Colin before Colin endorsed Obama. Then Colin was great.

I also think some republicans helped throw Palin under the bus.

I have to go ice my legs. Torn quadriceps and calve muscles in both legs. I tried to keep up with Nancy Palosi last night as she leaped to her feet to give standing ovations every minute of the speech. 65 ovations. I couldn't keep up.
I think she's on steroids.

I was waiting for "Say it ain't so Joe Biden" to punch her out and say "Sit down and stay down woman!!"

By js55

Date 02-26-2009 13:30

Yeah, did she have a spring on her butt or what?
It was hilarious!!
Did you also notice the couple of times she hesitated bobbing up and down partially before fully committing?
I was laughin my azz off.
Clearly there was no spontaneity about it. She just missed her timing a couple of times.
I think she wore old Joe out.

By swsweld (****)

Date 02-26-2009 14:21

I couldn't help but notice her over anxious uprisings. Order decaf next time Nancy.

I wondered what was on the note she received about half way through her workout, um the speech?
My guess is it was Axelrod telling her to sit and stay put that she was making a spectacle of herself and drawing attention from the chosen one.

And by chosen one I mean elected one, not messiah like ;)

By CWI555

Date 02-27-2009 05:35

, The dems have apparently not learned their lessons from the last time they got thrown out of D.C. Despite the fever pitch in which the liberally biased media went after anyone even remotely questioning their messiah, there is only so much the majority of Americans will put up with. Obama has been doing his best to put distance between himself and the promises he made to get elected, and has already went back on several campaign promises. His nominees and appointees have been screwing up on a regular basis, he can't get some positions filled, and in short, the shine and fanfare are going to give way to reality in the near future.

He talked a big game, and took advantage of the anti war movement to win the liberals over, but even some liberals are starting to get disturbed by what they are seeing.
Bottom line is, it's history repeating itself. The 103rd congress had a democratic president, and a house and senate majority. The liberals went all out then as well. History has shown when a given political party strays too far to the extreme they find themselves looking for a job. Starting with the 104th congress they were thrown out of office, and the congress began life as a republican controlled majority. Then Al Bore lost the election in 2001.

History is on another cycle, and this time the liberals have went all out. Unfortunately the beginning of the end for the 103rd/104th congress was when they started screwing with the gun owners. Now Pelosi and crew are doing the same thing. Only now they have went one better, they are doing it in the midst of chicken little's the sky is falling obama with dire predictions almost on a nightly basis. Had they been smart, they would have relaxed, tried to work without partisanship, and taken a more moderate approach to the wars, economy, and civil law. That would have assured the next congress would be Democratic, improved their political standing, and likely gotten obama re-elected in 2012. Nope, they went for the jugular, and in 2010 when everyone is sick and tired of excuses as to why they didn't and couldn't get anything done, obama is going to be facing a much more hostile congress. The blue dog dems have already seen the writing on the wall, in that the American public will only put up with the sky is falling routine so long. They will only put up with blaming bush for so long as after a year of it, it's going to sound more like an excuse than a reason.

What disturbs me about it is, there should be some measure of liberalism in congress, as there should be some conservatism. The dems are going to end up getting run out of town by alienating the majority of americans with their ultra liberal aggenda just like they did in 94, and then the balance of power is going to be even more hosed. As with any pendulum, it's going to be an equal and opposite reaction. In my eyes an ultra conservative is just as dangerous as a ultra liberal congress such as the one we have now. This country was set up with checks and balances for a reason. As with anything taken to far to the extreme, somewhere in the middle there tends to be a lot of stress and damage. That middle is the general middle class public. Between the two, our constitution is being shredded before our eyes.

The only way this is going to be stopped, is to disband both parties. Unfortunetly, I don't see that happening.

By js55

Date 02-27-2009 14:04 Edited 02-27-2009 14:06

Gerald,
Wonder what Obama's anti war constituency thinks of his increaaing our presence in Afghanistan.
He better be careful or they'll end up calling it Obama's war.
Of course what's more likely is that if the anti war group starts getting nasty and loud he will cave like he always has and he'll tuck tail and run and try to blame it all on Bush.
Either we're fighting terrorism or we aren't. Bush made up his mind. Lets see what this president does.
No absentee voting in the White House. There you actually have to take a stand on something. And there's few places to hide if you screw it up.

By hogan

Date 02-27-2009 16:09

From what I remember Obama has seen the need for troops in Afghanistan. I think this is not new news to his constituency. He is no Bush, this means that he will not make up reasons to start wars his daddy was smart enough to avoid(killing more Americans than Osama in his infinite wisdom). The idea of it becoming Obamas war is extremely funny.

"Of course what's more likely is that if the anti war group starts getting nasty and loud he will cave like he always has and he'll tuck tail and run and try to blame it all on Bush."
Again funny. How could he blame it on Bush? Mission was accomplished! LOL. If that genius had not invaded Iraq there would be a different situation in Afghanistan. Somebody was doomed to repeat history.
How is Obama not fighting terrorism? He is scaling back our nation building in Iraq. Increasing forces in Afghanistan. Not following you on this idea?

By js55

Date 02-27-2009 17:09

Yes, the anti war group was not oblivious to Obama's campaign 'bravery' when trying to court moderates tough on terrorism. But it is almost certain they also felt confident they could get him to capitulate as he ALWAYS HAS to them. Let me emphasize, ALWAYS HAS. And it is undeniable that the media spent precious little time even talking about it.
As for Obama's war,,,,,well see.
We'll see if when the Taliban really turns up the heat and the media starts showin body bags if Obama still has the stomach for Afghanistan. The Taliban is bettin he don't. And if he does have the stomach for that lets see if he has the stomach to try and quell the liberal voices that to be consistent should start shouting Vietnam!! Vietnam!! Quagmire!!! Quagmire!!!as they did to Bush. We heard it for Iraq. Scaling back says oops, no quagmire.
Also, there never was such a 'mission accomplished' statement about Afghanistan. And the very fact that Obama can continue scaling back in Iraq (a scaling back by the way that was already in the works long before his capitulative (see Pelosi) azz came to office-and by the way he changed his stance on it at least three times, from his extemist position, during the campaign to once again court moderates tough on terrorism) would have to argue that it has turned out to indeed be mission accomplished in Iraq. Lets just hope Obama don't get in a hurry and screw it up.

Yup, yup, yup. Watch the liberals all of sudden get hawkish on Afghanistan. Of course, while at the same time gutting the military budget (where they always go first) in a desperate and pathetic attempt to balance the budget in the face of out of control spending.
Talk about funny.
If it wasn't so deadly serious.
Of course they'll be hawkish until the going gets tough, to borrow a phrase from another Democratic icon, who was anything but close to the extemsits that have hijacked the Democratic party, of which so few Democrats seemed to have noticed.

This is gonna get interesting.

By hogan

Date 02-27-2009 17:40

Yes Obama is the devil. We need to shoot every democrat then the world will be as it should, as you want it. That's what is really important

By js55

Date 02-27-2009 18:54

Not the devil. But he certainly is naive to the extent that is destructive of this country. As are all who hide behind euphemisms like 'progressive'.
The fault is not his.
Its ours.
We, in a delerium of naive hope gave the most extreme liberal in congress (so liberal he even scares Barbara Boxer on the abortion issue-a stance of which I have no doubt 90% or more of the American public would find frightening, if they knew) a mandate.

And I wouldn't advocate shooting them. Just firing them. At least until they get the mesaage that we really want them to move back towards the middle. Right wingers too. Extremism, fed by radical blogs is a cancer in our society.
And consider this, As Gerald pointed out. If you get extreme left, you will eventually get extreme right.

Also, I have gone on record here is this forum as being critical of McCain, Bush, and other republicans. I have yet to see serious criticism of the left from those who argue that side. So who is in a better position to substantiate a moderate position?

And it doesn't work to say wait and see on Obama. Are you telling me you voted for a guy you know nothing about?

By hogan

Date 02-27-2009 19:25

First of all I never said I voted for anyone. It seems odd to me that you are so in tune with politics in the US, yet prior to the election where were the post critiquing party in power? The president and everyone in congress was elected, it is what the people decided. This seems to be a difficult issue for you. You justify your point by calling the American people crazy and stupid (in a delirium of naive hope).

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 02-27-2009 20:03 Edited 02-27-2009 20:09

We are stupid. "delerium of hope" indeed.

Who do we hate more than Bush? Congress of course!

Republican Majority Congresss.... not very good approval numbers

Democrat Majority Congress... Way worse than the republicans..

Do we vote them out?   No... Because we are collectively stupid!

Are Millions of Americans sitting back with expectations that the current administration is going to fix their lives and problems without themselves as individuals changing their own lifestyles......... Oh yes they are.

Did conservatives vote in representatives over the last 16 years that acted like liberals when it came to pork spending.......?    Yes they did.. Were these reps reelected several times?   Again Yes...   Stupid!   Note that the Conservatives were finally voted out not because of a great liberal mandate... But rather because the conservative legislators were conducting business like liberals.

Did the Liberal majority in the legislature help or hinder the American economy over the last 5 years ? (Yes the Senate makes the budget)....... Did we not vote in even more liberals who actually campaigned on a platform of increased government spending??? Yes we did...   Stupid!

The very Evil Corperate Executives, Wall Street Barons, and Bank Managers who are credited with the boondoggle that is our economy, ressession and crisis.   Are these men not also the very men our current president has chosen to lead his cabinet and advisory groups?..........   And this is supposed to inspire hope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    Stupid!
Naive is too weak a term.

By js55

Date 02-27-2009 20:09

Well,
I think my support, and fear for the future of, democracy should be quite clear. Remember, the most comprehensive tyranny's we saw in the 20th century did not come from the Right. They came from the Left.
Thats not saying that it couldn't indeed come from the Right. But that isn't where we are heading. And it is a fundamental misconception of such that keeps many from seeing it.
Also, is it your argument that there is an inconsistency with the support of democracy and disagreeing with the choice that American people have made? In other words, are we actually forced to say that because this person is elected it is by default a good choice?

By hogan

Date 02-27-2009 20:33

Aside from *****ing about it here, what are you doing about it?

By js55

Date 02-27-2009 20:55

I'm not exactly clear what it is you feel it is incumbant upon me to 'do' or to justify.
Are you saying for example one must run for office or shut up?
Should I be a revolutionary?
Write letters to the editor?
If I write a book, am I a better citizen?
Who would read it?
Just those that agree?
Or is it good enough to vote and to dialogue?
If you argue that perhaps I am not doing enough I might make the same argument. Though if your assumed complacency is due to the fact that you think everything is fine then I suppose at least you could make the argument that you are consistent.
Or, if I am more concerned is it then required of me to do more?
Is it better, or more consistent if I don't voice opposition?

Oh, I get it. I will read less, oppose less, be aware of less, and then I can vote liberal with a clean conscience? Cool. :)

But rest assured. This is America where we can have conversations like this without fear. Even if they do get a bit testy from time to time. And its a good thing. I want it to stay that way.

By CWI555

Date 02-27-2009 20:42

With all due respect to both of you (hogan and js55)
There is no reason to get personnel on the issues.
As for "in a delirium of naive hope" the world delirium was a bit extreme, but naive hope is accurate. Neither extreme is capable of balancing and repairing the country. Therefore it's a naive hope to think one man can do so.

As for elected, unfortunetly to get elected in modern times you've got to go with who got you elected. You have to tell them everything they want to hear, and none of what they need to hear. It's kind of like dealing with managment. They don't want to hear the negative, all they want to hear is it will be shipped on time, schedule and under budget. Well contrary to popular belief, not everything welds up right the first time, and there are matters out of the control of the production workers. So politicians in general have taken to pissing on our collective legs and telling us it's raining. This is not a party specific condition, if a congressional or presidential candidate is speaking, Vegas odds have them lieing through their teeth. It just so happened that obama and the dems wagged the dog more efficiently by scaring the hell out of the American people by convincing them the sky is falling.
So lets talk about the American populace. Penn and Teller I believe at least look at things logically, even if it offends them. So lets take this first link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw&feature=related
So the people in this video mindlessly signed a ban on water. These are the kind of people I believe Jeff was refering to. Unfortunetly, there are a lot of sheoples in the country now. They cannot think for themselves, and will follow the crowd without a shread of research, not even so much as opening a dictionary. Facts are facts, these people exist, and they are getting closer and closer to being the majority as our educational system systematically indoctrinates our youth into believing the government has all the answers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPhje8wepyg&feature=related
As mentioned on the first video, the indoctrination is utilizing political correctness to corner those with a different view, and paint them out as devils if the "DARE" disagree with the liberal left take on reality. By the same token, the ultra right will and has done the same thing and would again if they can get away with it. Everyone wonders around scared of their jobs if they utter one offensive word. Problem is, it's hard to keep track of the latest and greatest in whats offensive. Now the government is stepping in and legislating what is offensive. Those on the right did it with porn, language, and other things like that, those on the left did it with global warming, and social ideals. With both of them we are going to find ourselves so afraid of offending our neighbors that we no longer speak to them. When that time comes how the hell are we going to communicate when half the langauge has been deemed offensive? The average citizen is having their first ammendment rights slowly but surely stripped from them in the name of political correctness. No wonder we no longer have the stomach for a fight. We can't even fight with words, much less arms with the stranglehold of PC in place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related
They make a lot of sense to me on the second ammendment. However; people don't want to hear that. They prefer to go after guns on the basis of duck hunting. The stark reality is the second ammendment was written for the very distinct purpose of protecting the country from a tyrannical government who took to much power into itself. It didn't a thing to do with duck hunting, nore restriction of the publics rights. This is yet another victim of the uneducated PC elite.

So lets all keep at each others throats, lets all forget what being polite to each other means, and while we are at it, completly disregard all of written history and repeat all the same mistakes all over again. Have at it.

By js55

Date 02-27-2009 21:00

Gerald,
I am not taking it personal. I'm finding it challenging and stimulating. And I would hope this is the case with Hogan whom I respect very much (though I do not presume to speak for him).
I'm fixin to go have Friday beers with family and friends. Yes I have them. :)
Ya'll have a good weekend.

By hogan

Date 02-27-2009 22:55

Gerald,
js55 and myself have had a few differences of opinion, but do have respect for the other. Not all of our conversations are in threads.

js55,
"Remember, the most comprehensive tyranny's we saw in the 20th century did not come from the Right. They came from the Left." - I'm wondering what you are trying to say? Could you be eluding to democrats as being something evil? Or brilliant stagiest?

"Thats not saying that it couldn't indeed come from the Right. But that isn't where we are heading. And it is a fundamental misconception of such that keeps many from seeing it." - Do you seriously believe that Americans are so naive that they can not see a parties intent?

"In other words, are we actually forced to say that because this person is elected it is by default a good choice?" - It is a position that deserves the respect of Americans. If you respect it as you see fit, you diminish it and what it has cost.

"Also, is it your argument that there is an inconsistency with the support of democracy and disagreeing with the choice that American people have made?"- No, but looking through elephant glasses.

By js55

Date 03-02-2009 14:01

Could you be eluding to democrats as being something evil? Or brilliant stagiest?
Not evil. But extreme left Democrats idealisitcally delusional. And one would certainly have to admit some brilliance in the fact that the extreme left has hijacked the democratic party and so few seem to be aware of it.

Do you seriously believe that Americans are so naive that they can not see a parties intent?
Naive. Apathetic. Ignorant. I don't know. But there sure is a lot of people not only 'not aware' of the roots and long long history of this "Change We Need", but stubbornly refusing to investigate it.

It is a position that deserves the respect of Americans. If you respect it as you see fit, you diminish it and what it has cost.
No. That is isn't true at all. You do not have to agree with the choice, think its a good one, and support the choice in order to respect and support the institution of Democracy. It never has been that way. The old cliche' holds. And I paraphrase. Democracy sucks. But its better than anything else we've come up with.
Or better, Democracy is the worst of all possible political systems. Except for all the others.
Also, the very fact that we have the ability to re-elect our representatives every so often is a Constitutional admission that we make mistakes. That we can be wrong.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 02-26-2009 00:21

I'm pro-life. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)

IN his limited national exposure ... I like what I"ve seen.

By michael kniolek (***)

Date 02-26-2009 00:58

well, im my very brief research on this man, all i can say for certian is there are two very different groups already in disscusion about him.
MDK

By 522029

Date 02-26-2009 01:01

Bryon,

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????

By NEQA

Date 02-27-2009 00:25 Edited 02-27-2009 00:37

Piyush?

Ok - imagine a younger, skinnier, darker version of Rush or Huckabee - that's Piyush Jindal. Ultra - ultra conservative. As a Dem., I'd love to see a Jindal/Palin ticket in '12 or a Palin/Jindal ticket. But, that's asking too much.

http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=6423

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 02-27-2009 02:30

[deleted]

By NEQA

Date 02-27-2009 03:31

Well, if you read what's going on at CPAC, the big star - the Republican getting all the attention is - Joe The Plumber. The Repubs. really have to try to find someone who can win some northern states, because Obama is making inroads into the South.

After Tuesday night's debacle - Puyish needs a lot of work before he will be ready for prime time.

By uphill

Date 02-27-2009 15:27

3.? trillion budget isnt a major mistake? The money is something like if you spent $1,000,000 a day it would take 3000 + years to come up to the budget. 2 and 1/2 times the old budget. WOW I hope its not too late to change.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 02-27-2009 16:46

[deleted]

By uphill

Date 02-27-2009 18:23

The country has landed into the toilet because of NAFTA, Illegals , Wall Street and the constant bashing of Bush to name a few. People have been led blindfolded to believe global warming is Americans fault so Pay Pay Pay. On Sept 17th of last year a huge run on Money markets caused by Large invertors or someone in the money laundery biz almost shut down the whole banking industry in America. I can imagine the war is only a small fraction of our self inflicted money woes. Everyone says "Let "O" have a chance. If "W" would have tried to piss this much money at social re-engineering (thats all that is happenning) he would have been run out on a rail. For 8 long non-supportive years he withstood an unpressedented backstabing. If the Dems would have focussed on our country and not have made Fanny and the other pet housing prodject such a joke maybe??

How much was spent on 8 years of defacing "W" and crying wolf about the normal climate chamges? The "New Route" tripples spending while cutting taxes? The country is already about 30% owned by foriener investers, oops that was before the new age of printing money we dont have. Sorry but we can do without a lot of this bill , specifically anything that does not put a carrot on a string to all of the states. Either make these changes or you wont get the money, all that does is get folks to conform to the new age spending.

The next election will bring scores of new faces into politics, hope some of them will be financially educated with some real experiance.

The country will be broke by then.

By hogan

Date 02-27-2009 19:29

So it was Obama that came up with the 900 billion idea?

By uphill

Date 02-27-2009 20:30

If its the healthcare bill yes it is an "O" bill. By most estimates up to 40% of healthcare and assistance in the US goes to illegals. If the amnesty bill gets put through there could be another 100 Million coming soon to a housing prodject near you and me.

By hogan

Date 02-27-2009 20:36

Again, was it Obama who iniceated the stimulus package?

By uphill

Date 02-27-2009 20:41

I believe "Pelousy" wrote most of it. "O" just pushed it. What you were looking for?

By swsweld (****)

Date 02-27-2009 03:25

NEQA,
If President Obama (ultra ultra) liberal keeps spending 100 BILLION a day the country will be begging for an (ultra ultra) conservative in 2012. Scratch that...they'll just be begging... period.

Piyush can't give better speeches than Obama but I bet he would easily beat Obama in Cricket :)

President Barak Obama
President Piyush Jindal

How bout them names??

By NEQA

Date 02-27-2009 23:39

President Barak Obama
President Piyush Jindal

10 years ago - who woulda thunk it?

By uphill

Date 03-02-2009 17:52

Ten years from now how many will be able to spell it?

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 03-02-2009 19:47

every 1 will
every 1 of the reeducated sheep. :)
MDK

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 03-02-2009 22:28 Edited 03-02-2009 22:30

I want to formally announce my candidacy for the Presidency of the these UNITED STATES of AMERICA!!!

We'll bring all of our troops back form both IraQ and Afganistan... Lob a few tactical nukes over there just to keep - em guessing what our next move will be, then we will simultaneously invade both Mexico and Venezuela to secure our southern borders!!! Finally, I will issue an executive order to prosecute TOTAL war on the island nation of CUBA, and make it the 53rd state after Mexico and Venezuela.

If the Colombians do not get the message by then, I'll just issue another executive order to lob a few tactical nukes over there so they finally understand that we as a nation will no longer stand idle in our war on drugs... We will then give Brazil (They really deserve it after Canada!) our most favored nation status that currently belongs to China, and finally we'll win this war on drugs!!!

This is the real terrorist threat!!! once we cut off the main sources of their funding (Nuke all of the poppy fields in Afganistan!!!) the terrorists will no longer be the threat they currently pose to our real way of life!!! So, Vote for me, and i'll set you FREE FOR REAL!!!!

After these objectives are met, we can then start to dismantle both parties which have become a cancer to the real American way of life!!!

Respectfully,
Henry

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 03-02-2009 22:50

[deleted]

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-03-2009 04:58

Not to worry, I bet a really good chemist could synthesize caffene from coal, of which We have plenty. They could put it in drinking water, right along with the flouride. Those of Us with wells could inject it when the pump runs, I already have the hardware, I use it to keep the PH neutral.

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-03-2009 05:00

Damn, Henry, now I have to choose. Kay hasn't posted Her platform yet. Your sounds pretty ambitious, not that I disagree.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 03-04-2009 03:13

TEDDY ROOSEVELT WAS ONE OF MY FAVORITE ROLE MODELS, STILL IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT UP THERE WITH THE BEST OF THEM!!! ;) ;) :) MAYBE ME AND KAYE CAN RUN TOGETHER ON THE SAME TICKET??? I DON'T CARE!!! SHE COULD BE THE PREZ AS LONG AS I CAN STILL LOB THOSE TACTICALS AND WATCH THEM BURN UP & RUN LIKE RAID ON
COCK -a- ROACHES!!! ;) ;) ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-04-2009 03:27

Sounds good to Me. :-) :-) :-)

By Stringer (***)

Date 03-04-2009 04:06

Bobby Jindal will know what corruption looks like by the end of his term in Louisiana, that's for sure. I was hoping the Governor of Kansas (Sibelus) was going to be the vice-president, and maybe after that the next president but I see she's been appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services. I hope she does well there. I think the appointments have been even-handed so far and I like the president's approachability by Republicans. I don't view him as leftist or liberal and I'll judge him by his words and actions, not by what people say about him. I gave Bush the same courtesy and Clinton before that.

By swsweld (****)

Date 03-04-2009 04:55

Stringer,
I'm not arguing that his appointments are good or bad. He has had trouble with their tax woes though.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/282510.php

Kirk is the fourth to get busted for taxes. Then count Richardson bowing out due to ethics issues.
I think lots of politicians reps and dems hide "favors" from uncle Sam. But when you get tapped for a cabinet position you get exposed.

I'm not against everything Obama does but he has spent an incredible amount of money so quickly on top of Bushs' irresponsible spending, that will lead to out of control inflation. Just my opinion and I hope I'm wrong on the inflation.

By js55

Date 03-04-2009 13:55

"I don't view him as leftist or liberal and I'll judge him by his words and actions, not by what people say about him."

Its his words and actions his entire professional career in politics that is the very thing that defines him as leftist/liberal. He did not just spring new to the world at the beginning of this campaign. And it is this refusal to even consider his record that is the very problem we face. Its the old "give him a chance" mantra. Give him a chance to do what? Continue the agenda he has had his entire career. Let me repeat. Entire career!! The only hope we have in my opinion, and of course Obama supporters are big on hope choosing to ignore his past, is that he indeed does move towards the middle. But in light of an 800 billion dollar liberal social spending bill thats being rammed down our throats as an economic stimulus package it ain't looking good. No movement towards the middle yet. And as for approachability by Republicans that only works if they capitulate to his policy. If not then they're obstructionists and ignored as such. Thats the truth of it so far.
In other words we've heard a lot of talkin the talk (of which he is very smooth and convincing-obviously), ain't seen no sign of walkin the walk yet though. But give him a chance right?

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 03-04-2009 14:25

[deleted]

By js55

Date 03-04-2009 15:13

Bryon,
Thats really the crux IMO. What we are calling change isn't change. Its turning the clock back. There's nothing new in it. Nothing at all. Its the same'o same'o. You put a diaper on grandpa, its still grandpa.
I believe America's place in the world is as a leader. Having said that, to me this doesn't mean repeating the same mistakes that have been tried and failed in countries all over the world. Which is essentially the bulk of the Left agenda. It is also my opinion that the bulk of the electorate is unaware of the age and history of this grizzled agenda and is being lulled into selfishness through promises of the Government dolling out some to them.

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 03-04-2009 19:05

FORCE is the key word

let me say the right should force the pace of the country and im sure hogan will be all over me like a monkey on a cupcake.
mdk