# just WHO is Barack Obama?



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... spell.html

interesting read and damn sure something to think about. ask yourself, have you ever seen people get caught up in this kind of thing before?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I didn't have to read any further than the author's name.Even though I did read it....Charles Krauthammer is about as ultra conservative as you can get.What else can you expect to find under his name?He is on Fox news at 5:40 lots of times with Mort Kondrekke,who I like,and Fred Barnes,who I can't stand.

Not that I agree with all of Obama's ideas.....In fact I am seriously considering voting for McCain.But this klind of one-sidedness can be found everywhere.Was Ronald Reagan any less messianic to his followers.He is basically called the "High Priest" of conservativism.Afrer all he wasn't called "The Great Communicator" for nothing.

I can use his statement and just change a few words......"This kind of sale is hardly new. Republican conservatism has been offering a similar commodity -- salvation -- since Barry Goldwater in 1964."

If you don't believe me.....just think of what was promised to us from Reagan,both Bush's,and especially Newt Gingrich and his revolution to cure all our ills.We are still sick.....no cure found yet.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good read. This guy is nuts. First of all if your Christian the world was made as it should be, we screwed it up. Second hope without religion isn't worth anything. You do everything you can, then hope is the desire that God helps you achieve your goals. Without the religious aspect there is no value to hope. Without religion hope just prolongs the misery of man. Liberals would like you to think that you can just sit on you behind and "hope". The only connection Obama has for hope is for the truly lazy. Vote for Obama and hope he increases your welfare benefits. Don't forget it will be at the expense of the hard working people of this nation. Yup, hard working, not lucky, not hopeful.



> WASHINGTON -- There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns -- boat, shoe, clock -- by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.
> And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.
> This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity -- salvation -- for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."
> "We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be."


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

believe me, Krauthammer is not the only one suspicious of this guys' real ambitions. a guy who authors 15 pieces of anti gun law legislation while senator for 4 years in Illinois and is an advocate of the UN making world laws against private gun ownership is a dangerous individual.

i will say i told you so, if he gets elected. he will do everything he can to take away your 2nd amendment rights, just watch. and he will take your hard earned money in the way of higher taxes and give it to the poor, who are lined up with open hands instead of looking for work.

i don't mind helping anyone, but they need to haul *** out of bed, 5 days a week at 3:30 a.m. like i do and get home by 5:00 p.m. no effort, no benefits.

there is a whole damn network of illegals over here, dying to work and keep working, so don't tell me there is no opportunity!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> i don't mind helping anyone, but they need to haul a$$ out of bed, 5 days a week at 3:30 a.m. like i do and get home by 5:00 p.m. no effort, no benefits.


In an ideal world that would work, but we have to be realistic here. Ever heard the term "developmentally delayed". We have more than our fair share here and no job is going to change that. Not saying they can't work, but until you have worked with these people and see how difficult it is for them to get their feet underneath them you can't regulate them by saying "live by MY standards".

I also think you need to take a better look at our welfare system because it has seen tons of changes and people just don't "just get checks". I can't quit my job tomorrow and expect to live on welfare. It won't happen. I could try and it won't happen.



> he will take your hard earned money in the way of higher taxes and give it to the poor,


Bush has spent more than any other President and now we have a bunch of liberals who think we should keep spending this kind of money. One item I read about Obama is that he wants to double the money given to Headstart. I have no issues with this. I see firsthand what this program does for low income families and I have seen what happens when you underfund a good program like this for the past 8 years.



> if he gets elected. he will do everything he can to take away your 2nd amendment rights, just watch.


This is a concern for me and why I won't vote for the guy, but I keep wondering something...Obama talks about city gun control. I think that is a much different animal than what we think of as gun control. Whenever he talks about gun control it seems he is focussed on gangs/criminals. I am all for making it harder for criminals to get access to guns. I also support making sure the penalties fit the crimes. That was something Clinton failed to do....Enforce the laws we have and I think if we did that we wouldn't need more gun control laws.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Obama talks about city gun control.


That doesn't equate to gang gun control. Unfortunately that just singles out an innocent portion of our society and says that because they live in a city they don't have the right to self defense like people in rural areas. That is divide and conquer techniques. Maybe the rural people want care now, but they will come next.


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

A vote for either Billary or B. Hussein Obama is a vote to get rid of guns!! NOT voting for McCain is the same thing. Let's just hope and pray that the GOP can take back some seats in both chambers of Congress this November!!!!!!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Obama will be the next President of the United States. The writing is on the wall. The sheer magitude of the size of the crowds he is attracting is staggering.

The best you can hope for is that R's will recover some Congressional seats and tie up some of his more radical ideas.

He isn't this big scary monster all of you are making him out to be. I read some of the things written in this forum and just shake my head in disbelief. I could take time to refute some of the lies, but few here are going to change their minds.

There is alot more to do with the world than simply gun control. Barack is a man of reason and prudence. His style of processing thoughts into decision making stances is admirable. I wish others had his demeanor.

This country is changing guys. The makeup of this country is vastly different than it was even 8 years ago. I'm resigned to the fact that hunting, the outdoors, etc etc.. are all facets of our culture that are forever changed.

I'm tired of politics as usual. I'm tired of the corruption, the good ol' boy syndrome, and big $$$ corporate interests swaying every political decision in Washington. I'm voting for Barack because he "gets" this frustration that I (and 50 million others like me) have with the way business is done in Congress.

There is a reason that Barack is generating incredible followings at his speeches. He inspires people to believe that there is a hope for serious permanent change.

Many of you younger guys should look at the big picture of your lives and decide who best represents your quality of life.... all aspects of your life.

There is more to your life than hunting and fishing. If you cannot afford to go hunting and fishing, then what is the point?

Ryan


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

the point is the guy is totally naive and so are many of his "sheep" listening to his story, which is all about change, but he never tells you how he is going to get there, how we can afford to support these changes financially, etc.

He is a great orator, loud, direct, inspirational, kind of like a revivalist minister (yes we can!), whooping the crowds into a frenzy, ah yes, it is showtime, the likes politics has never seen, at least in modern day times.

the election of Barack Obama *will not *stop the continued use of lobbyists or influential groups in Washington.

the election of Barack Obama *will not *stop partisan politics and some of the deep rooted differences between Republicans and Democrats.
he will find that he can not reach across the isle and make others with strong opposing views capitulate to his ideas.

the election of Barack Obama *will not *make us any more respected in the world, especially in the middle east, where radical factions are already applauding the projected removal of our troops and their resurgence of radicalism. Iran will quickly fill the vacuum in Iraq as our troops are withdrawn and our new beach head against terrorists will be the borders of this country instead of over there. But honestly, that is exactly what liberals want, to bury their head in the sand and hope the bad guys will go away. They damn sure have forgotten 911 already and that folks is a crying shame.

Obama is an enigma, nothing more, with no original ideas and only providing hope for many of his ideas, which will be implemented as tax and spend exercises.

Anyone heard a word from him regarding balancing the budget or how we are to afford social security for the retiring boomers? No and with good reason, as he is simply pounding his chest regarding all the great things he is going to accomplish, while bankrupting the country and redistributing the wealth to illegal aliens and those who have not worked hard enough to be satisfied with their position in society.

Barack Obama is a showman, selling dreams and making promises he will not be able to afford to keep!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I agree with Ryan on this one. Obama's message is a about hope and optimism. Frankly, the US needs a little of both. I also agree that he is not the gun-grabbing monster that the endless email chains make him out to be. In fact, I saw a recent statement of his in which he is in full support of private gun ownership.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I saw a recent statement of his in which he is in full support of private gun ownership.

He will say anything to get elected. Most politicians will. They know their partisan loyalist will swallow any cool-aid they mix up.

The man is a dreamer. There is no way he can accomplish what he says. If he does he will bankrupt the American worker. I notice many blame the companies going off shore on Bush. Tax the heck out of them and they will leave in droves. All these childish dreams of Obama's will drive more offshore.

You need hope Bigdaddy? Crap in one hand and hope in the other and see which fills up first. Hope belongs with religion. In the real world hope will not take the place of taking action and control of your own life. In the real world hope simply prolongs the misery of the suffering and the lazy. I know Obama is inspiring hope. Illegal aliens hope to remain here. The lazy hope for a larger welfare check. The gays hope for legalized marriage. Etc etc. etc. What is it you hope for Bigdaddy. World peace? Good luck with that. Respect of other nations? That will go the other way, because they will see us as weak and someone to dump on. The hopes of the lazy will come about, but not the hopes of the taxpayer, not the hopes of the productive, not the hopes of our soldiers. If you are productive you will be used to fulfill the hopes of the lazy.

You hope when something is impossible and you look to god for a miracle. Or you hope when your to lazy to be responsible for your own life.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

I truly do pity people as cynical as you appear to be.

JFK inspired this country when it also needed hope and optimism. He did it by convincing the country that we would overtake the Russians in the space race by coming together, focusing on goals, and investing in math and science education, and investing in scientific research.

Obama has a similar message. However, the hope that he has is that we will unite as a country and get over the red vs blue state mentality. His message is also about eliminating poverty, providing quality public education, investing in clean energy technology, and trying to create an American economy that can thrive in a flat world.

When I elect a president, I elect a leader. That is somebody that can inspire others, surround themselves with quality advisors, and make good decisions. I think that Obama is best suited for that job.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> However, the hope that he has is that we will unite as a country


You liberals have to stop with the touchy feely bull. He can hope all he wants, and you can help him, but that want to jack. Every liberal in the country can hold hands with him, sing cumbya, hope, and you know what? Nothing will happen. I guarantee. It takes action to get things done. Hope doesn't do anything. You can hope that water will run uphill for the rest of your life and it just isn't going to do it. That's not cynical, that's reality. To think otherwise is akin to thinking the world is flat. I just can't believe how adults can let emotions over rule logic.

I noticed Hillary called him on plagiarism the other night. She claims many of the things in his speeches he has gleaned from others. Maybe he isn't the great orator your infatuated with.

Next time you do your checkbook BigDaddy hope that it balances out at one million in the plus. Let me know how that turns out.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

When the love fest is finally over with between Hillary and Obama, should Obama become the nominee for the Democrats, don't be shocked when McCain starts pounding Obama to explain just how he intends to fulfill those hopes and the rats start jumping from a sinking ship. When everyone suddenly find out they are false hopes and he has to start answering real questions it will be a different campaign.

BTW, Kennedy wouldn't be allowed to run as a Democrat today, he would be to conservative and don't forget it was Kennedy that brought us closer to a nuclear war than any other President. His abandoning thousands at the Bay of Pigs should be remembered also. Thats what voting for someone promising only hope will get you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> When I elect a president, I elect a leader.


I must have missed that part BigDaddy. I guess I misunderstood. The way you were talking I thought you were going to vote for Obama.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Look, Bill Clinton said he was for the private ownership of guns, then he sat down and signed the AWB. Heres a quote from Obama regarding gun control...

"I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets. "

Notice he leaves out the part that its ALREADY COMPLETELY ILLEGAL to own a firearm in the city of chicago. So is pepperspray, tasers, and IIRC, a leatherman could get you in hot water with the right cop. Also notice he mixes his words a bit, to imply that our firearms heritage is a tradtion (that can be changed) and not an inalienable right. Hes been a senator a short time and has already set it in stocne that he is anti gun. To say anything less is well, hopeful and optimistic, but complete and utter crap too.

I especially like it when someone says were going to "eliminate poverty," There are only 2 ways to do this. Make everyone dirt poor through socialism, so technically, everyone is rich, or drug test all welfare recipients and drop them from the system after a short amount of time so they can either sink or swim. Which way do you think Obama (or any other socialist) wants to do it?

Im sorry, I know republicans aren't perfect. I can accept that. What I cant accept is the liberal doctrine of "CHANGE" when we all know very well that it will have little to do with changing us back to the good ole USA we know and loved, but infact change us into the USSR. Sad fact is just 17 years ago the USSR proved without a reasonable doubt socialism doesnt work. They are but one of many countries that proved it. But here we are, at the brink of electing what could be the most socialist president we've had since FDR, and STILL you wanna argue that were better off voting for a democrat.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

I'm with hunter9494 & plainsman on this. I am 57 and have been self employed practically all my working life. I have been woed by all kinds of salesmen and this guy is a slick talker. Somewhere I heard him say that he wanted to say what the people wanted to hear. BS. They need to hear want is needed to be done that is responsible. Not a lot of empty promises that have no way of coming to fruition. This is the type of salesman that I like to mess with when they try to sell me something. They talk all around their product very eloquently but don't have any idea how it actually works or how it would help my business. Just trying to hit on any one thing that might get me to believe it would be the right thing for _me_ so he can close the sale/vote.

McCain has had some agendas that don't really appeal to me but at least I know what he is about.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken



> If you don't believe me.....just think of what was promised to us from Reagan,both Bush's,and especially Newt Gingrich and his revolution to cure all our ills.We are still sick.....no cure found yet.


thats correct but not because Newt didn't have sound ideas, infact when he was running the house Clinton benefited from Newts fiscal restraint.

If the republicans would of implemented Newts ideas and weren't a bunch of selfserving self interested crooks just like the Democrats they would still be in control instead of being sent to the woodshed as a bunch of shamed liars.

*Note when I say Republicans and Democrats I mean the ones in congress not the run of the mill citizens like you guys.*

I did see a couple play on words type funny handles for Obama

"Hope a dope"  and "obamassiah" 8)

Of McCain Obama and Hillary I believe Obama has the most integrity even though he is a for real communist.

Pitiful choices this time around. I think that if voters look at what Obama is saying he will lose but if he is able to continue to keep people "hopeing" he will win in a landslide like Reagan did.

The Republicans really peed in the conservatives cherrios and that doesn't bode well for McCain many real conservatives unlike the far left actaully read and study what the candidates do and say and that will really hurt McCain. Platitudes like Obama is already famous for mean nothing to us but your record does and McCain is not a conservative.
I for one will not vote for him even though he is a way better choice than Hillary 
( I reserve my opinion of Obama until I see what he actaully does,you really cant believe anything they say they will do).

I would like to see Newt walk in and take the nomination like Eisenhower did.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I just read what Krauthammer said which I hadn't done before. Very conservative he is but for the most part he is usually right on the money and I think he is this time also. Make note he did not say Christianity but used the words organized religion. That covers the Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, and others that promise everything but account for nothing when it comes to themselves. Even Islam would be covered by his words. Religion does offer hope and demands faith to achieve that hope. Put your faith in the new God of government and Obama assures you all your problems will be solved. You will forever be blessed and lead a fulfilled life if you just vote for him and allow him and the government of angels to care for all your needs, but don't ask us how we intend to do it. I think that was the message Krauthammer was putting across.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

take away two words from Obama's campaign rhetoric..."change and hope"

without those 2 words, he is just another average politician, "hoping" he can "change" partisan politics in Washington....not going to happen.
there are a lot of folks that will simply not support his "dream" agenda.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Just think how much complaing you guys will do when he wins and is President for 4 years.I can hardly wait. :stirpot:


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

If obama wins its because liberals target needy people. His new campaign slogan should be IF YOU FEEL LIKE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY FOR YOUR EXSISTANCE VOTE FOR ME. The democratic slogan should be KEEP AMERICA DUMB AND LAZY. It is funny to that bigdaddy is a lib. I dont really know anyone from ND thats a lib. I only know a handful of lazy farmers and a couple of people in unions that would vote lib for pres. Ryan does not surprise me. No offense Ryan you have just been hanging out at to many coffee shops listening to the hippy rant to bring down all the hard working people in America. I think the federal government should do 2 things protect us from foreign threats and fund federal lands. Everything else should be done on a state level. That way if they lazy people can have states that they can go to and the hard working people could have states that they can go to. Then everyone can be happy.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

FlashBoomSplash said:


> If obama wins its because liberals target needy people.
> 
> Ryan does not surprise me. No offense Ryan you have just been hanging out at to many coffee shops listening to the hippy rant to bring down all the hard working people in America. I think the federal government should do 2 things protect us from foreign threats and fund federal lands. Everything else should be done on a state level. That way if they lazy people can have states that they can go to and the hard working people could have states that they can go to. Then everyone can be happy.


No offense. You just really have no idea who I am. (btw... I don't hang around coffee shops. I'm much to active to sit around reading a newspaper, though Starbucks is one of THE places to find hotties in a pinch)

I'm not one of those types of liberals FBS. I've taken the political leanings test in this Politics forum, and I've actually come out on the conservative side of some here.

I'm a moderate Progressive Libertarian if we are intent on labeling my political beliefs. There is a huge gap. You should learn the differences, instead of using a broad brush to include everyone who doesn't vote Republican across the board. I'm issue driven, not party driven. Huge difference.

When (not if) Obama wins, it would be a sweeping mandate by people who are fed up with the overall war effort, fed up with GWB's stepping on the Constitution when it fancies him, and fed up with how the office of the Presidency has been sullied by the President who has taken the most agressive liberties of the inherent power of the office.

I've got some news for you. When Obama draws 25,000 people on a cold winter night to a stadium to here him speak.... they AREN'T needy liberals. They were people from all walks of life, all races/ethnicites, all income levels (think about mine and my peers), and all age levels.

THAT is why he will landslide the election if it were held today. His broad base of appeal across all those different strata of the population transcends any type of "demographic" critera you try to box him into. I really doubt most are "needy" in your terms.

Just wait until you see what happens next month. In case you didn't realize, he is now receiving in excess of $1 million dollars a day in campaign donations from average citizens. His average donation is $100, and his donor list is 10 times that of McCain. Wait until you see what having a $50 Million dollar war chest compared to McCain's $5 Million in the bank will do for his Presidential aspirations. The Repugs are in some serious trouble in a few scant weeks....

Ryan


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Ryan I was just joking with you on the coffee house thing. I saw you were from Washington home of the coffee house. Now I will agree with you that something's Bush has done should be questioned. But tell me in what way has he impacted your life in a bad way. (YOUR LIFE). Obama will crush me if he gets elected. He will raise my taxes take my guns and make it harder for my family to live. My family is a bunch of hard working tax payers not Hard sitting welfare collectors. Tell me one thing Obama will do to benefit my life or yours for that matter.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

ryan-

you are correct about the money he has raised, an enormous amount which tilts the playing field to his side and he will now renig on taking public funds and only those funds to support his run for the white house, so now he has "$#@#ed backwards" on his first pledge, not to do that. 
but it is OK, cause his is a grassroots organization. uke:

if you make over $50,000 a year, he considers you rich and will roll back tax breaks for us "rich bastards" and suck the life blood savings out of you and your plans to put your kids through college.

yeah, i know, all the vague promises on rebates, tax breaks for kids going to college and for health care....i got a news flash for you, watch how that is implemented. those breaks won't apply to those making over $50,000 a year, nope, we will be the poor saps paying for other lazy bastards so they get the breaks. commonly referred to as socialism, even in most coffee houses!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I'll give a longer response later... I have some meetings today that I can't ignore.

My quick response is... be careful on spouting too many stats without fact checking them first. The $$ Obama is receiving is from every day folks. He is not receiving them from huge corporate interests. His fund raising is indeed grass roots. That is not going against his campaign promise.

edit: And if you do make over $50,000, you are well over the mean (average) income in North Dakota. I believe median income was in the low 30's last time I checked. You are definitely not scraping by on minimum wage or social security like many in North Dakota.

There is a difference.

Ryan


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

My head hurts even thinking about how bad this guy is going to screw up the USA. Remember when even democrats were conservative or at least they took pride in being hard working Americans. Now we are working in reverse. We wonder why India is producing so many doctors and business owners in America its because of people like Obama dumbing down America making people think the goverment owes us something. As I type this I am sick to my stomach. Its easy to get votes from people who want something for nothing. Obama might win but he will divide this country thats for sure.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

that is a fact, there will be a huge division at the end of 4 years, just the opposite of his promise. he will be the most polarizing president ever.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

hunter9494 said:


> that is a fact, there will be a huge division at the end of 4 years, just the opposite of his promise. he will be the most polarizing president ever.


He has a long way to go to beat GWB when you talk about polarizing.GWB is the king of that.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

> He has a long way to go to beat GWB when you talk about polarizing.GWB is the king of that


 :huh: Explain


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Explain.....this country is more polarized.....we vs them....than ever before.....liberals hate GWB and anything he says or does.Now we will elect a liberal and everything will swing back the other way again.I don't think the "opposite" party has hated a president more than Bush in a long time.

But when Obabma wins.....conservavtives will then be in the same position as liberals are now.Especially if the Democrats control both houses of Congress.Rush and his ilk will have enough venom to blast away for another 4 years.

Which is why it would probably be best to elect McCain.As he is more likely in the middle of the road.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Thats the exact answer I expected Libs are a relatively new party and they are the ones dividing the country and it will be a hell of alot worse if obama gets elected.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well Ken you are correct they hate Bush. And everytime that you have correctly stated that they hate him I've asked why. You have never yet told me, Bush is pretty liberal and did almost everything they asked.

I am not being sarcastic I really dont see why in the world they would hate Bush.

The "venom" as you say has been aimned at Bush since day one undeservedly,even before Iraq. I've never understood that.

I've never ever heard Rush say he hated anyone or recommend anyone else do so,not once and I listen to his show fairy often as I drive along. Rush is always mischaracterized by people that cannot discount his comments on a factual basis. So they call him names, claim hes mean ect. It just isn't true.

If you are going to make those types of statements maybe you should listen to his show regularly first.

The far left Liberals that currently control the Dems are the meanest spirited among us by far and I can come up with many examples, but will not waste my time.

Obama is a exception to that, a breath of fresh air really, and thats why he will be the next president.... people are really tired of statements like you made in your post.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

bob.....basically because he is a conservative Republican who got us in a war they feel we should not be in.That's all it takes.

Is the hatred by conservatives any less for Obama or the Clintons?I don't think it is.That's how polarized we have become.This forum is proof of how much the conservatives hate "Billary."You don't have to look very hard to see the evidence.Now it is Obama's turn.Just wait until he wins.

.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Just wait till America wakes up and everyone sees that Obama really has nothing to offer but more liberal BS!!!!
Besides last time I checked liberals were mentally unstable :lol: 
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=49883


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken I just typed a long well thought out post and my computer deleted it when I tried to submit it :roll:

But they hated Bush before 9-11 before Iraq , they have hated him from day one. Explain that.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> And if you do make over $50,000, you are well over the mean (average) income in North Dakota. I believe median income was in the low 30's last time I checked. You are definitely not scraping by on minimum wage or social security like many in North Dakota.


So you feel anyone in North Dakota making $50,000 a year should be taxed more? In effect dropping their net income down to the median level so all can feel equal and no one has more than their neighbor. Sounds a lot like socialism to me. Maybe that is not what you meant but that is what you said.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cwoparson said:


> > And if you do make over $50,000, you are well over the mean (average) income in North Dakota. I believe median income was in the low 30's last time I checked. You are definitely not scraping by on minimum wage or social security like many in North Dakota.
> 
> 
> So you feel anyone in North Dakota making $50,000 a year should be taxed more? In effect dropping their net income down to the median level so all can feel equal and no one has more than their neighbor. Sounds a lot like socialism to me. Maybe that is not what you meant but that is what you said.


No not at all what I meant. He was just stating that he was barely getting by with that kind of salary in North Dakota. I believe he was implying what you are, indicating that he felt that he was doing ok now, but was worried that if he was treated as a "rich" guy, then he'd be taxed heavily thereby dropping his income down to the median level.

I agree it could have been taken that way.

Obama is talking about those individuals making 6 figures (100,000 + ) (or $200,000 married combined married income) a year as the "rich". I'm agreeing that a 6 figure salary puts you in the upper 15% income bracket in this country.

Anyone making that kind of money is getting by pretty easily, and has no worries (or need) about any of the current social solutions being proposed. They have the best health care, plenty of $$$ for gas at any rate, multiple homes, etc etc.. & they have tax lawyers or accountants that assist them with finding tax writeoffs/loopholes to lower their tax burden or shelter their assets thru flaws in the tax code.

Those are the folks that really need scrutiny...


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Thats where I have a hard time when I see a figure used to identify someone as rich. $100,000 a year may seem rich to some in Fargo, I don't think it is in todays world but some may think so, but in San Francisco or New York you can literally starve to death on $100,000 a year. I would think you, where you now live would recognize that it often requires that a person has to spend more just to earn more. Rich is often in the eye of the beholder but all to often those labeled as rich cannot afford the taxes placed on them by those that want the poor vote. $100,000 a year and in a 35% tax bracket is hardly rich in my world. Ditto for $200,000 a year. It just mean a better quality of life and a few more goose decoys than some. Now when you start making a run on that first 7 figure income it is a different ball game.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Ya know, there is a problem with using a standard number to define rich in this country.

My wife and I brought in 40k last year, give or take a grand. We own a house, newer car, I've got play toys and I get a few new guns every year.

I've got a friend in North Cali that made 82k last year. He cant even afford to buy a house. He pays close to 50% more to rent his house than I do to own mine. Another 18k dollars and you've just lumped this poor guy into a group of people that you say own multiple homes and dont sweat gas price increases and increased utilities costs.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

and that is exactly the problem. my brother in law in NY pays over $3.50 a gallon and has to travel 75 miles each way to work, his job moves around continuously. he makes good money as a union plumber, but they are far from wealthy, with 2 kids to raise and fund college tuitions plus they are about to take in their mother in law and begin caring for her as well. not everyone is single with no dependents making good money!


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Ryan you just proved the point that liberals target the lazy. Anyone can make it in America if they put some effort into it. Thats why I will never vote for a commy like obama. He wants America to be dumb and lazy for his own personal benefit. Who in there right mind would punish someone who works hard thats just not the American way.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm said:


> Ken I just typed a long well thought out post and my computer deleted it when I tried to submit it :roll:
> 
> But they hated Bush before 9-11 before Iraq , they have hated him from day one. Explain that.


Bob.....far out Liberals will hate all Conservatives and visa versa.......just look at the bile on this site there is for Obama and Clinton....neither of whom are president yet.That's what I'm saying......one side will hate the other from day 1.We are a very polarized country.And those furthest out on the end yell the loudest.

Just look at the cartoons posted here lately.Look at the threads on this forum.Every single one is an attack thread by Conservatives on Liberals. Is that kind of hate any different than how Liberals dislike Bush?

Is it any wonder that basically only conservatives post here.The rest of us get tired of the constant brow beating. :eyeroll:

We can still be friends.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> We can still be friends.


   Yup, and we can both dislike McCain, and I can dislike Obama and Hillary. There is nothing wrong with disliking someone who is against your value system and for many things you think degrades the moral fiber of our nation.

Bob, I think the liberal hate is mostly based on Bush winning in Florida. It was so close that it makes it hurt all the more. The liberals thought they owned the supreme court. They appointed activist judges, and when they didn't get their way in congress they would run to the court. The Florida election must have really been evident for Bush or the liberal supreme court would surely have sided with Gore. 
In congress the liberals had been in power for 40 years until the contract with America. Loosing something they thought was theirs forever must also have stung. 
I think we are polarised because the politicians want us polarised. They retain power by keeping us polarised. I don't think Obama or McCain are any different. Both say what people want to hear. They may appear different, but that's what they are trying to do. Be prepared for the same old thing.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

> We can still be friends.


I will agree with that. I would proudly stand next to any American in a fight. Its kind of like family we can argue but if someone else messes with us your in a world of hurt.

On a side note and someone can tell me if I am wrong but isnt the base of the conservative party to be treated equally. How is that polarizing? Liberals want to cater to all the special interest groups. If anything thats polarizing.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

FlashBoomSplash said:


> > We can still be friends.
> 
> 
> I will agree with that. I would proudly stand next to any American in a fight. Its kind of like family we can argue but if someone else messes with us your in a world of hurt.
> ...


There are many things in the past 20 years that has caused much polarization. The problem I have is from my perspective it sure has been a one way street. What they stand for is right, and what we stand for is polarizing. 
For years the liberals would hold up Kennedy as their hero. Reagan put him in the shadows, and that angered the liberals. Then the most dividing person to ever come along was Hillary. Liberals didn't like that and many want Bush to take her place. The loss of the congressional control caused by the contract with America, and the loss of the election with the decision on Florida decided in their pet supreme court further angered them. They are licking their wounds and hating us. Meanwhile always remember it's ok to hate what they stand for, but not the person themselves. Some of our liberals friends understand that, some don't. Old Militant Tiger didn't understand it.
The confusing experience I have with liberals is they are at both ends of the spectrum. Some are the nicest people I have met, yet the most vile and vicious people I have ever met were also liberal. It's a head scratcher, and it bothers me when I can not logically explain something.


----------

