Obamas State of the Union Speech

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby TomKat » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:54 pm

GlimmerJim,
What distresses me the most is how all of us, R and D alike, have become complacent with the poor job the government has done, especially in the last thirty years. We are all so busy chasing a buck that we have let the beast become the master. A LOT of the crap they do is against the constitution.

You speak of a search for truth. I have found mine. Our parties are not all that different; they are both bought and sold and answer more to their sponsors than they do to the rank and file citizen. It makes me sad to see what we have evolved into.
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas


Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:40 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:. There is just a rabid fervor expressed here to denigrate and castigate every move Obaa makes.



Was this a Freudian slip? It does sound remarkably like a sheep.

:lol3: I don't think we can label him both the imprial president and a sheep at the same time, though.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:59 pm

TomKat wrote:GlimmerJim,
What distresses me the most is how all of us, R and D alike, have become complacent with the poor job the government has done, especially in the last thirty years. We are all so busy chasing a buck that we have let the beast become the master. A LOT of the crap they do is against the constitution.

You speak of a search for truth. I have found mine. Our parties are not all that different; they are both bought and sold and answer more to their sponsors than they do to the rank and file citizen. It makes me sad to see what we have evolved into.

I would agree with you 100% percent TK. The daily travesties of simple representation superceding those of personal gratification and advancement are indeed appalling. It's like gaining weight. It happens so incrementally that we don't notice the transition. Or even driving a car. All feels fine to us until someone else drives it and says "Jeez, man, these brakes are spooky".
You said something in one of our last personal posts that really got me to thinking. And it also really put the brakes on my need to show Obama's achievements. You asked if I was really a supporter of Obama, or if I was more just an adversary of his opposition, which we can loosely designate as the Republicans. I think, after a lot of reflection, that you are right. I try to support Obama's moves because I simply don't like the platform or the representatives of the Republicans. Astute of you to see that. I would even go so far in admission as to say that I will at times irrationally support a liberal position because of that aversion.
I am frankly much more apolitical than I profess. I think it is due to what I perceive as a rapidly spiralling spirit of political divisiveness that completely disegards the health of the nation, by putting one-upmanship at the top of the agenda.
I do have some perceptions that can only be perceived as liberal. But I also see the basic platform of the conservative as necessary and vital.
I don't want to get overly loquacious in this addressing of a fairly simple subject, but I just wanted to say that I see your point and I believe you evaluated my position well, Tommy. Better than I had admitted to myself actually! :thumbsup: ,
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:23 am

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:. There is just a rabid fervor expressed here to denigrate and castigate every move Obaa makes.



Was this a Freudian slip? It does sound remarkably like a sheep.

:lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56807
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:25 am

TomKat wrote:GlimmerJim,
What distresses me the most is how all of us, R and D alike, have become complacent with the poor job the government has done, especially in the last thirty years. We are all so busy chasing a buck that we have let the beast become the master. A LOT of the crap they do is against the constitution.

You speak of a search for truth. I have found mine. Our parties are not all that different; they are both bought and sold and answer more to their sponsors than they do to the rank and file citizen. It makes me sad to see what we have evolved into.

But yet, you believe the FED has altruistic motives.....wonderful... :tongue:


***edit to add
TK, there are some wonderful people that work at the FED. That is not what/who I am referring to. I hope you see that... :thumbsup:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56807
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby TomKat » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:14 am

Inda,
For the record I was never, ever A fan of QE. And I think the appointment of Yellen was from page one of Chicago machine politics. I dont often agree with their monetary ideas either.
Keith I see a lot of the good they do as far as market research and regulation of member banks. Its the boring stuff that never makes it on the news. Suffice it to say that they are an impressive organization in those areas.

GlimmerJim
We are all more alike than we are different. We all want the same things- national security, good jobs, good health. The disagreement is how we accomplish the goals. The two party system forces all of us to make a choice- is or them. It divides us perfectly in half, and the result is the current and ongoing deadlock we have had for a long time.
Like you, I lean more towards one side than the other. But I have been forced to evaluate my old party, the Republicans, and I dont like what I have seen. I think the Dems have done a poor job with their time in power. The only constant I see are politicians getting rich and citizens losing more and more money and freedom.

Enter the Libertarians.

An odd mix of personal freedom and reduced government. Something new that neither party can truly claim. This idea scares the hell out of both dog crap parties. The only thing the two Dog crap parties can agree on is they don't want to see any third party of any kind emerge. Why would they? Things are going great if your first name is Senator, no matter what dog crap party you belong too.

Jimmy, rise above the issues for a while and take an honest look at both group of liars. Do you think either side cares about you? Cares about the constitution?
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:17 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:. There is just a rabid fervor expressed here to denigrate and castigate every move Obaa makes.



Was this a Freudian slip? It does sound remarkably like a sheep.

:lol3: I don't think we can label him both the imprial president and a sheep at the same time, though.

Sure, his shepherd is an all powerful executive like all leftists and he blindly follows that path to imperialism.

See that wasn't very hard :wink:

Glimmerjim wrote:I think it is due to what I perceive as a rapidly spiralling spirit of political divisiveness that completely disegards the health of the nation, by putting one-upmanship at the top of the agenda.

Yet, that is the ONLY end point for a diverse nation such as our own, if we are forced to accept one size fits all decisions made in DC. There are things that different parts of the country will NEVER agree upon. So the resolution is not via compromise, it is via pure political power. Abortion for example. That was imposed by force, not by compromise. No one should be surprised when force is met by force. Another is religions role in public life. I truly believe if San Fran wants to ban Jews from circumcising their children, they should be allowed just as some backwards town should be allowed post a giant mural of the 10 commandants right next to the Last Supper and a giant crucifix over the courthouse bench or some small Muslim enclave should be able to mandate everything stop when time for prayer or ... They just cannot violate our Constitutional rights which have been so bastardized by political power imposed by the Supreme Court who should only interpret things in the most straightforward manner and give the benefit of the doubt to the people and not the government which has been turned on its head.

We were probably far more diverse in many regard when our nation was founded, but today we are in different ways. However, people at our founding got to live their life as they saw fit and the community standards were set by the community and not by political power imposed by the central government. Our nation would have failed long ago had that been the case. That was the part where the South was correct, but unfortunately they were horribly wrong about the slavery part, which while eliminating one great evil ushered in the era of a lesser evil.

If we don't decentralize decision making in this diverse nation, one that ironically claims to celebrate diversity while insisting in one size fits all community standards, we will tear our country apart. I think that will play out, not as many on the right think as a physical break up, but as an iron fisted central government where the Executive Branch completely dominates the other two branchs because that is the only way to overcome the political divisiveness that impedes progress. So in the name of progress we will regress to a de facto strongman government. Our Harvard educate constitutional scholar seems to believe his pen is mightier than the Constitution. He's on board. He's not the first. He's just the next step in a long line down that path. Our only hope is that he steps too far and people freak out and get paranoid about it. Otherwise
Glimmerjim wrote:It happens so incrementally that we don't notice the transition.


In some ways we really do need more central government. For example, interstate and international commerce has never needed more regulation, but that has been perverted into the government being able to regulate intrastate commerce because all commerce has some impact in some way across state boundaries, so the government can regulate everything even though it can never have the resources nor the knowledge nor represent the diverse community standards for effective regulation. Same with the danger represented by the world and Congress has basically punted all power to the Executive Branch and we see the out of control behavior we are getting in that area.

There are 535 members of Congress to oversee an insane number of bureaucrats. Shear numbers dictate that they will be dominated. Move those decisions to the state and that number increases probably to the 10,000 to 20,000 members of the legislature to oversee the bureaucrats. Move it down to the local level and we are probably talking about 500,000 to 1,000,000 members of the legislature to oversee the bureaucrats. Who will do better? 535, 15,000, or 750,000? Who will be more responsive to the people and who to the powerful? Who will be more stable and who will be more unstable? Just look at the wild swings in Congress over the last few years and even more so in the Executive Branch which is why it must have its power constrained.

BTW, I'll give you my dog crap theory of politics. All political parties are dog crap including the loser parties like the libertarians which nominated Bob Barr as their candidate the other year. If that doesn't prove it, well, they are living in denial. It is that denial that all political parties are dog crap and they must be overcome and not think we can find the right pile of dog crap and scoop that up and expect to have clean hands that is the problem. It is figure out how to minimize the harm of that dog crap which is a given if you have dogs and in the politicians are those figurative dogs are our politicians and regardless of the label, you will not prevent the Obama's or whomever you dislike most from seeking power under their banner. Obama would claim to be a libertarian if that is what it took and to think otherwise is dog crap.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16054
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby beretta24 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:27 am

TK,
The problem is your party is in shambles, and have put crap candidates up. Gary Johnson was hardly less hypocritical than Romney, and over spent on top of it as a Libertarian. I have little against their ideals, but the Lib party isn't the solution because, in part, the makeup of the party is too diverse to get them well organized.
If your included Gary Johnson, there was three piles of crap on the ballot.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5711
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:31 am

beretta24 wrote:TK,
The problem is your party is in shambles, and have put crap candidates up. Gary Johnson was hardly less hypocritical than Romney, and over spent on top of it as a Libertarian. I have little against their ideals, but the Lib party isn't the solution because, in part, the makeup of the party is too diverse to get them well organized.
If your included Gary Johnson, there was three piles of crap on the ballot.

What bothers me, while I am in general agreement with what most libertarians view as libertarian principles and 20 years ago, I identified myself as a libertarian and thought much like TK, the flaws with that path are obvious. Ron Paul, while not my ideal candidate, showed the path forward for libertarians if they are serious about influencing the path of our nation and not simply providing their narrative on what they don't like about the path chosen by others.

The Tea Party, like 'em or hate 'em, has in a very short time had more influence on the direction of the country than libertarians have had over many decades. Yet, Libertarians are still advocating the same path forward as decades ago and like liberals seem impervious to learning from experience. But hey, maybe this time it will work :rolleyes:

We don't have a two party system. We have a winner take all and loser go home system. And the last thing we want is a system where you don't vote for an individual, but vote for a party list. When you vote for the individual and not the party, it doesn't matter what path you choose to get on the ballot, but only that you win. Ron Paul could have remained a complete unknown had he limited himself to just one path to electoral victory by running on a libertarian ticket. By winning the Republican primary, it avoids splitting votes in the general election. Did anyone see Ron Paul as a sell out or not as a libertarian? Of course not. He was smart. Few libertarians are smart, so they do not get results. And if you don't get results, well it's a dog crap approach if that has any meaning.

I wonder if Libertarians are really afraid to put their views to the test. If they cannot win a Republican primary, how on earth will he win a majority in a general election? I think many of them, like liberals, take things too personal, and don't want to risk getting rejected by voters, so they sabotage themselves and then claim they are just too smart for the stupid people. Losing is losing and it makes you a loser. If you are so smart, you can find a way to win if you care about the country and not about yourself. My experience and the reason I no longer label myself as a libertarian is that they are self-centered as the liberals. It's about feeling good and not about doing good.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16054
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby TomKat » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:27 pm

Something has to give fellas.

For me, I am in total agreement with the Libertarian platform on foreign policy. We have no business nosing around in other countries business. That policy has broke the bank and created armies of haters in foreign lands I couldn't care less about.
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:45 pm

Indaswamp wrote:Hmmm....wonder where dhunt ran off too. He was so much fun.... :sarcmark:

There was something fishy in Denmark there Inda. I still haven't decided if he was serious about his posts or if he had a hidden agenda. :huh:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby beretta24 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:24 pm

TomKat wrote:Something has to give fellas.

For me, I am in total agreement with the Libertarian platform on foreign policy. We have no business nosing around in other countries business. That policy has broke the bank and created armies of haters in foreign lands I couldn't care less about.

I can get that, but I have to agree with spinner that the most practical means of implementing those objectives is by running as a dem or repub. The potheads and militia men of the lib party aren't going to come together.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5711
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:35 am

beretta24 wrote:
TomKat wrote:Something has to give fellas.

For me, I am in total agreement with the Libertarian platform on foreign policy. We have no business nosing around in other countries business. That policy has broke the bank and created armies of haters in foreign lands I couldn't care less about.

I can get that, but I have to agree with spinner that the most practical means of implementing those objectives is by running as a dem or repub. The potheads and militia men of the lib party aren't going to come together.

Exactly beretta. Trying to introduce a new party at this stage is well nigh impossible. I have read books about Ralph Nader's attempts to become a viable third party. It is fraught with impediments from the two ruling parties that make it nigh impossible to become a viable contender. What needs to be done, irrelevant if it is the Rep or Dem party, is to restructure themselves. Take the issues that divide....abortion, welfare, influence in foreign affairs, divisiveness between the two choices making us pick one or the other.......and start fresh. Take the 200 year old constitution and make it relevant to today's society. Change is the only constant in life. To expect us to abide and follow without reservation mindsets that were relevant 200 years ago is just silly. Technology, population, instant national media have changed all that.
That, I believe honestly, is why I have defended Obama and his structure since his election. We are in a hugely transitional period, with too many hanging by tooth and nail to hang onto antiquated concepts of democracy and freedom. No one even knows how to deal with the Westboro Church and the Freedom of Speech laws anymore. Everything is a quandary, beset on one side by traditional Constitutional precepts, and on the other by an awareness that they no longer function in our society.
What we need, and what is going to be difficult to obtain, is a group/representative that can alter our mind set to do that which allows us to prosper. It will take a certain regrowth of trust in our system, which is abhorrently absent currently, and a renewed commitment to sacrifice immediate personal gain for the long term strength of our nation, and vis a vis our children and grandchildren. Since the mid 70's and bolstered hugely by the 80's, the average citizen has seen their purpose in life as acquisition of material goods. Those who die with the most toys wins. The media and politics and wall street have fostered this position as a method of self validation, their own material success contributing to their conviction.
Time for a change. Show me a candidate for any political position that sees this and I will devote myself to their election.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby TomKat » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:11 am

GJ,
You talk about having faith and doing whats best for society as a whole through sacrifice. How we have declined since the 1970's. And yet you never responded to my post about God. The things you mentioned above are all found in the bible, yet you and your party insist on taking God out of school, out of government, out of our language. Who is a better role model, Mother Teres or Miley Cyrus?

You reap what you sow brother. Open your eyes to the truth.
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:25 am

TomKat wrote:Something has to give fellas.

For me, I am in total agreement with the Libertarian platform on foreign policy. We have no business nosing around in other countries business. That policy has broke the bank and created armies of haters in foreign lands I couldn't care less about.

But we have a right to protect our business and our business extends beyond our borders and always has.

Allowing Germany to build up their massive war machine was our business, was it not?

Allowing Al Qaeda to build up their evil war machine was our business, was it not?

The Somalia pirates attacking our shipping is our business, is it not?

Iran building nukes will be our business someday, so doesn't that make it our business today?

We have business around the globe. And it is not our business until after the enemy throws the first punch, especially if that punch will be nuclear.

Ignoring our enemies until they are fully prepared and ready to engage us on their terms is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

Defining our business is incredibly complicated without a crystal ball. No doubt about that. It is extremely complicated. Clearly standing up to the Soviets was our business because like Japan in WWII, who else was going to stop them? The same today is true of the Islamo-fascists. All this is why we have representatives. This should be a major part of their time. This is one of the huge problems with our massively over bloated federal government. It's a lot more fun to spend money then debate serious, complicated issues with no clear and obvious answers. Congress should set our foreign policy and not wildly shifting every time we get a new President. Now, it's just a battering ram for power hungry politicians to gain power and money as opposed to the very serious debate about what our business is and what we are willing to do to defend it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16054
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby TomKat » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:55 am

Sorry professor, I disagree with you.

The reason Al Quida and other bad folks want to attack us is WE USUALLY DESERVE IT. We harass them with our ships off their shores, we send the CIA in to start revolts, F*$k we even spy on our allies leaders phone calls.

No wonder they hate us.

Business interests? Bullslit. How does protecting So Korea for free for 70 years (on my tax dollars) protect business interests?? So we can help them develop Hyundai and Kia to put GM out of business??

PLEASE don't write a 900 word response or post any charts or graphs. On this particular issue you cannot, and WILL NOT convince me your point is right and mine is wrong. Just move along, k?
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:07 am

TomKat wrote:PLEASE don't write a 900 word response or post any charts or graphs. On this particular issue you cannot, and WILL NOT convince me your point is right and mine is wrong. Just move along, k?

I know you are not open minded. How could you be if you believe this.

TomKat wrote:The reason Al Quida and other bad folks want to attack us is WE USUALLY DESERVE IT.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16054
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby TomKat » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:12 am

So Spinner, are we better off with over 300 bases all over the globe, or repairing our own bridges and roads?

We have to take care of US first, not be the policemen of the world.

I don't have time to be open minded. I have made 50 + orbits around the sun, I know what I know from my own experience.

Protecting business interests at the cost of the taxpayer, so said business can send profits to Grand Caymen, outsource work to India, pay no corporate taxes? Sounds like a bad deal to the rank and file taxpayer.

We probably agree that we cannot continue to spend in the red at the rate we are going.
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:49 am

TomKat wrote:So Spinner, are we better off with over 300 bases all over the globe, or repairing our own bridges and roads?

We are better off with the Federal government maintaining bases around the world and Congress debating how many and where.

We are better off with the state and local government maintaining our roads and bridges and state legislatures and local councils debating those issues.

TomKat wrote:We have to take care of US first, not be the policemen of the world.

Agreed.

TomKat wrote:I don't have time to be open minded. I have made 50 + orbits around the sun, I know what I know from my own experience.
The mind usually closes with age. That's not a solid argument :tongue:

TomKat wrote:Protecting business interests at the cost of the taxpayer, so said business can send profits to Grand Caymen, outsource work to India, pay no corporate taxes? Sounds like a bad deal to the rank and file taxpayer.
Bad behavior is not an argument against doing the right thing. This results from over bloated and excessive federal government. The U.S. should be the safest and most profitable place in the world to have and invest your money. We should be the Grand Caymens. We insource a crap pile of jobs that are of far more valuable and desirable than those we outsource. If were were the best place in the world to make large capital investments, there would be a lot of wage inflation as those investments have to compete for the limit American workforce. The limiting factor on investing in the U.S. should not be taxes and regulations or fear of what the government will do, but the cost of labor.

TomKat wrote:We probably agree that we cannot continue to spend in the red at the rate we are going.
I think we agree at least 80% if not a lot more as to how things should be. Where we disagree is how we get there. I'll bet even foreign policy, we we agree far more than we do not, but my guess is that is our largest point of disagreement. Our current policy is a disaster. It has to be a top priority of Congress and not roads and bridges, education, social welfare, etc. etc. Those were all rightly delegated to the states.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16054
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby aunt betty » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:04 am

Dangit guys.
The D's are pointing at the R's saying it's their fault. The R's are pointing at the D's saying it's their fault.
Like...two children with cookie crumbs on their shirts that are being asked by mom, 'who got into the cookies?".

I believe TK must have read President Washington's farewell address and took it to heart.

Read it!
Its on the internet.

After you read it you'll go, "oh, I see why we're floundering now".

We are not the world police and need more isolationist policies is what TK is saying. (I think)
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
hunter
 
Posts: 11165
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby TomKat » Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:38 am

AB you got a lot of it.

We spend a LOT of money on military stuff that seems excessive to me.
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby TomKat » Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 am

Spinner we probably are a lot more alike than different in our views.
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby aunt betty » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:16 pm

TomKat wrote:Spinner we probably are a lot more alike than different in our views.

I think so too and if spinner would dumb down his posts a little bit to where my simple mind could understand...I believe we'd find that we agree on most everything. You're alright spinner. :)
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
hunter
 
Posts: 11165
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:53 pm

TomKat wrote:Sorry professor, I disagree with you.

The reason Al Quida and other bad folks want to attack us is WE USUALLY DESERVE IT. We harass them with our ships off their shores, we send the CIA in to start revolts, F*$k we even spy on our allies leaders phone calls.

No wonder they hate us.

Business interests? Bullslit. How does protecting So Korea for free for 70 years (on my tax dollars) protect business interests?? So we can help them develop Hyundai and Kia to put GM out of business??

PLEASE don't write a 900 word response or post any charts or graphs. On this particular issue you cannot, and WILL NOT convince me your point is right and mine is wrong. Just move along, k?

Islam does not need any other reason to attack us other than what is written in the Koran. We are infidels to them.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56807
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:18 pm

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56807
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests