Mark B. Morrow Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. As soon as the whole "First African-American President to....." stuff wears out (hopefully quickly), Obama is going to have to govern. It could very easily turn out to be a long 2-4 years for you, as well. I'm a moderate and that is the direction I see him going. Even my Republican friends seem to be content with his pics so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Our local Temples and Synagogues have been raising money for Dafur refugee relief for years. It is a shame our Government didn't have the interest in stopping the genocide. For which I applaud them. But the Evangelical Christian churches have been doing this for years as well. The way a foreign government stops genocide is by invading said country and killing a fair number of bad actors, and threatening to shoot the rest. Which is the approach that has everyone up in arms right now regarding Iraq. At least, that is the truly EFFECTIVE way to stop genocide. Third-world dictators aren't too worried when George Clooney says mean things about them on Entertainment Tonight. That approach doesn't leave them quaking in their boots. Edited January 12, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 If Bush had taken the fascist approach to Enron, he would have used government money to prop up the company when it collapsed (like he has done with GM and Chrysler, urged on by the UAW and Democrats, who, I guess, are now fascists...who knew?). When Enron went broke, he ignored Ken Lay's pleas and let the company file for bankruptcy, which was the proper course of action. Incidentally, it was CLINTON'S Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, who urged a government bailout of Enron, which Bush ignored. So what are Bush, Paulson and Bernake considered for the biggest bailout in US history considered??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 So what are Bush, Paulson and Bernake considered for the biggest bailout in US history considered??? Don't leave the whole of CONGRESS out of that list. It's not like they sat idlely by as the administration forced their will upon the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 For which I applaud them. But the Evangelical Christian churches have been doing this for years as well. The way a foreign government stops genocide is by invading said country and killing a fair number of bad actors, and threatening to shoot the rest. Which is the approach that has everyone up in arms right now regarding Iraq. At least, that is the truly EFFECTIVE way to stop genocide. Third-world dictators aren't too worried when George Clooney says mean things about them on Entertainment Tonight. That approach doesn't leave them quaking in their boots. The Jewish institutions tend to be more left wing. My point was that it hasn't been the right that has been working on Darfur. Genocide was not the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. It was WMD and an illusory connection to 9/11 which Bush later denied and Cheney still believes. If Bush had raised the Darfur Genocide and rallied the world to follow the US in stopping it, he would have had more success. Sadly the mismanaged misadventure in Iraq (great job Rummy) had us occupied eleswhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Don't leave the whole of CONGRESS out of that list. It's not like they sat idlely by as the administration forced their will upon the people. The Congress didn't pass it at first. Remember these three and there fear mongering if they don't pass it? Point is that all this shit is going on while most Americans don't even pay attention. We need to quit playing the blame game and start holding all of them accountable, that is where they have us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The Jewish institutions tend to be more left wing. My point was that it hasn't been the right that has been working on Darfur. Genocide was not the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. It was WMD and an illusory connection to 9/11 which Bush later denied and Cheney still believes. If Bush had raised the Darfur Genocide and rallied the world to follow the US in stopping it, he would have had more success. Sadly the mismanaged misadventure in Iraq (great job Rummy) had us occupied eleswhere. Isn't it amazing the lengths some Bush apologists will got to to twist and spin the reasons we went into Iraq? What lies and BS will we see next? I can't wait to see the whining they do when Bush and Cheney are on trial for war crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I can't wait to see the whining they do when Bush and Cheney are on trial for war crimes. Give it up. Ain't gonna' happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Give it up. Ain't gonna' happen. Well hopefully it does for the sake of the rule of law, and for their victims. NOBODY is above the law, or do you think otherwise??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I'm a moderate and that is the direction I see him going. Even my Republican friends seem to be content with his pics so far. I'm what you would consider a moderate, when you compare me to the company I keep, so everything's relative. Now, I don't know about your Republican friends, but speaking for myself I am not content, but I am also not surprised. What would surprise me is if I had been content. I'll give Obama credit for Gates, and (to a lesser extent) Clinton (who I view as more of a pragmatist). His choice of Panetta, Holder, and Browner present very real problems, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Well hopefully it does for the sake of the rule of law, and for their victims. NOBODY is above the law, or do you think otherwise??? Given that you aren't "in the know" enough to know WHAT law has been broken (or even IF), and Obama himself has stated he has no desire to pursue the types of vengence investigations you advocate, I don't have to go very far to conclude you will be very disappointed. May I have your permission a few months from now to bring this back up and say, "I told you so" when nothing happens? (You are also welcome to do the same) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Fear Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The Jewish institutions tend to be more left wing. My point was that it hasn't been the right that has been working on Darfur. Genocide was not the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. It was WMD and an illusory connection to 9/11 which Bush later denied and Cheney still believes. If Bush had raised the Darfur Genocide and rallied the world to follow the US in stopping it, he would have had more success. Sadly the mismanaged misadventure in Iraq (great job Rummy) had us occupied eleswhere. Appears to me that you have the same mentality as the rest of the world. The U.S. should jump in wherever and save everyone in conflict. I am very sympathetic to the people of Darfur, but where was the rest of the world when this was going on? Are we to blame for not rushing in? Where was our worthless U.N.? We no longer have the resources or the military to defend the world and it's time people like you wake up and realize that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The Jewish institutions tend to be more left wing. My point was that it hasn't been the right that has been working on Darfur. Genocide was not the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. It was WMD and an illusory connection to 9/11 which Bush later denied and Cheney still believes. If Bush had raised the Darfur Genocide and rallied the world to follow the US in stopping it, he would have had more success. Sadly the mismanaged misadventure in Iraq (great job Rummy) had us occupied eleswhere. No, the Christian Evangelical Churches were the first to highlight what is happening in Darfur. They are usually considered to be part of the "right," so, yes, the right has been working on Darfur long before it became a big story in the media. And please note that plenty of Democrats - including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry - all believed that Iraq had either weapons of mass destruction, or the capability to make them. So Bush wasn't alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Isn't it amazing the lengths some Bush apologists will got to to twist and spin the reasons we went into Iraq? What lies and BS will we see next? I can't wait to see the whining they do when Bush and Cheney are on trial for war crimes. So I guess that all of those Democrats were spouting lies and BS when they said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or the capability to make them? I would suggest that you may not want that war crimes trial to happen. It might jog memories of what various individuals - not all of the Republicans - were saying in the late 1990s. Like many people, you appear to have a case of selective amnesia, that rears its head at convenient times, and is driven by ideology more than anything else. As someone once said, "Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it." For that reason alone, I'm tempted to say regarding a war crimes trial - "Bring it on." Edited January 13, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I agree let the war times trial begin, but it won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordxer Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 well he is no ralph nader, and he has joe biden as his VP, you can't go to much further towards middle of the road than that, unless your joe liberman I will repeat the question. Name 3 instances where he has reached across the aisle. Nobody can. So there is no use trying to say that he is middle of the road. And if you do, it is a bogus comment. He does not have a middle of the road bone in his body. Another question. If he is so high on the public school system. why weren't his daughters enrolled in the public school system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordxer Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) I can't wait to see the whining they do when Bush and Cheney are on trial for war crimes. What war crimes? I don't see any gas chambers being installed in the US. If that is the case then Bill Clinton should be tried for war crimes for NOT doing anything whan our embassies were bombed that killed americans, and when the USS Cole was attacked. Edited January 13, 2009 by fordxer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 What war crimes? I don't see any gas chambers being installed in the US. If that is the case then Bill Clinton should be tried for war crimes for NOT doing anything whan our embassies were bombed that killed americans, and when the USS Cole was attacked. It won't do any good, there are those that see only what is in front of their nose. Facts just irriatate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I will repeat the question. Name 3 instances where he has reached across the aisle. Nobody can. So there is no use trying to say that he is middle of the road. And if you do, it is a bogus comment. He does not have a middle of the road bone in his body. Another question. If he is so high on the public school system. why weren't his daughters enrolled in the public school system? do you honesty think any presidents daughters have been enrolled in public school since 1900? as for his middle of the road reaching i have yet to do any research on it but i bet he voted with a republican on something maybe even three times! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 do you honesty think any presidents daughters have been enrolled in public school since 1900? {inhale--exhale} The FAIL is strong in this one. {inhale--exhale} Amy Carter attended public school (in Washington D.C.) while her father was President. Amy Carter, an 8-year-old when her father, President Jimmy Carter, took office, was sent to Thaddeus Stevens Elementary School here, then to Rose Lees Hardy Middle School. She was the first child of a President to attend public school in the capital since Theodore Roosevelt's 11-year-old son, Quentin, in 1904. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The choice of schools for a Presidents daughter (or son) is a lot about security provisions, and how much disruption there would be for the other students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The choice of schools for a Presidents daughter (or son) is a lot about security provisions, and how much disruption there would be for the other students. Those concerns would seem to apply regardless of which type of school (public or private) the children would attend. The best way to avoid them would seem to be private tutors. (aka "home school") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Those concerns would seem to apply regardless of which type of school (public or private) the children would attend. The best way to avoid them would seem to be private tutors. (aka "home school") Yeah, but private schools are usually smaller, so the disruption would probably be less signfiicant. Plus home schooled kids are always weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) Those concerns would seem to apply regardless of which type of school (public or private) the children would attend. The best way to avoid them would seem to be private tutors. (aka "home school") You would have to check out the available campuses of local schools, both private and public. But private schools, in many places, tend to have a larger campus, more land separating it from other buildings and roads, etc, and with fewer students, thus fewer teachers and parents that have to be checked out and searched every day. A private school may make the job of the secret service easier. And more likely to be successful if the unthinkable were to happen. Ever read "Patriot Games"? I don't fasult Obama for his school decision. He also choose a school that had dealt with the secret service before. We don't (and won't) really know all that went into this sensitive and important decision. The girls are entitled to an education, with as little hassle as possible, as well as the other students of the school. Edited January 14, 2009 by Ralph Greene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) And the Obamas are getting a Labradoodle!! This was front page news. Seriously. Who gives a fuck what kind of dog the president is getting? I really hope the media starts treating Obama less like he's a cast member of "The Hills" and more like he's the Commander-in-Chief once his term begins. Edited January 14, 2009 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.