# Does the President have no Shame?



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

...said Jewish Congressman Rahm Emanuel *responding* to President Bush, who stood before the Israeli parliament today and said, *http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/w...e9&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink*http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/w...e9&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink in a comment that was widely interpretedas a swipe at Barack Obama:



> Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.


Obama as Nazi appeaser?

The Obama campaign's response:



> George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.


And McCain agrees. *With Bush.* Go figure.



> "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'' Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.''





> From: Republican candidates for office, 2008
> To: President Bush
> 
> Please, please, if you care at all about the party, go back to Crawford and clear brush for the next six months. Do not issue any statement. If someone corners you, express doubts about John McCain and every other Republican; speak warmly of Obama. Please. :eyeroll:


This kind of stuff will guarantee a Dem in the White House come fall...

Good stuff.

This is the perfect way for Hillary to exit and claim the high road. She could hold a press conference and announce how outrageous she finds Bush's comparing of diplomacy to Nazi appeasement and go on to say that because of this type of behavior of the republican party she has decided it is imperative that the Dems unite to ensure that they retake the White House. She then drops out and pledges her full support behind Obama and asks her voters and delgates to do the same. This allows her to take the moral high road, to gain good favor among Obama supporters (and Dem insiders who have already chosen Obama), save face in leaving and if she wants it to give her a greater position to leverage the VP slot from Obama (Not to mention further chances at the White House down the road). There is no better backstop for her to land her campaign hard on then Bush and his horrible record. (Of course we'll have to politely ignore how on this very issue she seemed to be more in the opinion of Bush as far as not "talking with our enemies").

Ryan


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Obama and his followers have now grasped paranoia as an excuse to launch attacks on Bush and the republicans.....although Obama's statements earlier this year that he would indeed sit down and negotiate with Hamas and Iran are now coming back to haunt him.

honestly, Obama doesn't appear to have any well thought out foreign policy, as most former presidents refused to negotiate or speak directly with radical factional leaders of foreign countries.....hmmmmm, i wonder why??

Obama doesn't get it......liberals never will get it......


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

> This is the perfect way for Hillary to exit and claim the high road. She could hold a press conference and announce how outrageous she finds Bush's comparing of diplomacy to Nazi appeasement and go on to say that because of this type of behavior of the republican party she has decided it is imperative that the Dems unite to ensure that they retake the White House. She then drops out and pledges her full support behind Obama and asks her voters and delegates to do the same.


ahhhhhhh.......nice pipe dream......Hilary stated she wouldn't negotiate with terrorist leaders either......got to give here that much for some sense of dealing with rogue nations.....Obama's greatest liability as a potential leader is his total lack of understanding foreign relations....God help us all if this idiot gets elected.... :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, Obama has stated he would talk to many of those groups. That would lend them legitimacy and that is why every free nation on earth agrees not to negotiate with terrorists. Obama also said he would sit down with Ahmadinejad. There is a reason that when terrorists take over a plane they want to fly to dictatorship nations.

Whether this is appeasement of not only history would tell. When an American senator said in 1939: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler" we didn't know if he was wise or foolish. 
However, we now more about Hitler and to think one American senator could have changed his mind was foolish. I doubt if anything beyond instant surrender would have appeased Hitler. Today we do not know if Obamas statement is wise or foolish. Lets see they have sworn to kill us all hmmmmmm. Well, it looks like he wants to appease to me. Appeasement will only keep our head on a little longer though.

I don't think the idea is that Obama is a Nazi appeaser. Appeasing radical Islam may be much more dangerous than appeasing the Nazi. There are however similarities. Like the Nazi the terrorists all want Israel nonexistent and all Jews dead. So in 1939 and America senator thinks he can talk to Hitler and avoid WWII, and today we have an America senator that thinks he can talk to Ahnadinejad and terrorists and avoid conflict. Some of you don't see a connection?

America Senator compared to an America senator
Hitler (kill all the Jews) compared to Ahmadinejad (kill all the Jews)

Nope no comparison there.    Where is that scratching my head icon?


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

If Obama wants to negotiate let him try. We will see how far it gets him. I like Bush's response. With Obama's lack of foreign policy, if he makes it to the Whitehouse we will be attacked again within a year. Clinton was the same way. He didn't want to take action on terrorists and look what happened. I watched an interview with one of the guys that interigated Sadam and when he asked Sadam why he didnt get worried when Bush threatened to invade, he said the Clinton had made the threat numerous times so he didnt believe it. He was impresed that Bush came through. Obama is a serious threat to our country. Why else would the terror group Hamas endorse Obama and pray for his victory? They know if he becomes president, they have a loose leash.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Obama deserves all the hits he is going to take from opening his big mouth and saying he would sit down with Iran's president.

that and now Armandjahan saying he would wipe Israel from the face of the earth and Obama now pandering to the Jews for their votes......this guy has some balls! Obama has a lot of explaining to do, once again!


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yes, isn't it ironic, no one remembers 911 any longer, but here we are nominating a Muslim descendant to run our country.....yeah, that's some change alright......Americans are absolutely stupid, until we get attacked and some more innocent people are killed again.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Another irony is that the liberal appeasers live on the coasts of this nation. They will be the first to go up in smoke. It's not the conservatives in the center of this nation that radical Islam has the problem with. It's the life style of the decadent liberals along our coast. It's their gay marriage and abortion among other things that Islam finds abhorrent. Small town USA will not vaporize first, it will be those liberal bastions along the coast. Another irony is once the terrorists get rid of them it will be the conservative center of the nation that will survive and kick their behind into the stone age. What kind of cycle should we call this?

Lets hope it doesn't come to that, but Obama endangers us. Hillary less so, McCain even less, and the more conservatives even less. Being liberal doesn't necessarily make you a wimp no more than being conservative makes you a war monger, but other than Senator Lieberman. who is no longer a democrat, their is little guts in the democratic party. You know, I don't think it is a lack of guts, they sure hate us enough. It must be that they pander to those they think are gutless.

I think if I was liberal I would find the democrats insulting. You know, you gun totting fellow hunters who don't like terrorists blowing up our people are welcome to join us. We promise not to be rude and rub it in.


----------



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

*Clinton defends Obama* and slams Bush's attack, saying:



> President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy.
> 
> This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced.
> 
> *Unfortunately, this is what we've come to expect from President Bush.*


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Nice liberal spin but as expected and as you always do, you left out the rest of the story.



> White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says President Bush's remarks in Israel today weren't directed at Democrat Barack Obama. Here's the transcript:
> 
> Q: There's some question about his comment here about "some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong" -- you know the passage. And he talks about the "false comfort of appeasement." This is being seen in some quarters as a slam on Senator Obama. Is this in any way directed at Senator Obama?
> 
> ...


I've heard before the one with the guilty conscious is usually the first to jump up and complain. Certainly seems to apply here.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yes, on Obama's website, *he brags*, he is the only candidate to espouse negotiating with Iran without any preconditions.....now he wants to *change *his tune.....ahh, once again, this is the *change* we can believe in! hmmmmm, seems old baracke got a little camel dung on his shoes.... :lol:


----------



## FallsGuy16 (Oct 4, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Another irony is that the liberal appeasers live on the coasts of this nation. They will be the first to go up in smoke. It's not the conservatives in the center of this nation that radical Islam has the problem with. It's the life style of the decadent liberals along our coast. It's their gay marriage and abortion among other things that Islam finds abhorrent. Small town USA will not vaporize first, it will be those liberal bastions along the coast.


WOW


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

FallsGuy16 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Another irony is that the liberal appeasers live on the coasts of this nation. They will be the first to go up in smoke. It's not the conservatives in the center of this nation that radical Islam has the problem with. It's the life style of the decadent liberals along our coast. It's their gay marriage and abortion among other things that Islam finds abhorrent. Small town USA will not vaporize first, it will be those liberal bastions along the coast.
> ...


Well, it was New York last time. Who will they hit next? I would guess it will be somewhere along our perimeter. Our freedom is what they hate most, and some of it is what we do with our freedom. Why do you think the radical Islamic people hate us? Give us an opinion.

I doubt Bush was comparing the Senator wanting to negotiate with Hitler to Obama. Are the radical Islamic people better than the Nazi? I don't think so. Who was it again that wanted to negotiate with them. Bush maybe didn't make the comparison, but I will, and I will compare anyone else who wants to negotiate with terrorists to that same dumb Senator in 1939. Also, I don't care if they are conservative or liberal.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Reading this just confirms how out of touch with reality the Obama cheerleaders are!! I think the act of negotiating with terrorists should be considered treason!!!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

What amazes me is how fast the Democrats jumped on this in a defensive mode. What are they afraid of? Has guilt over rode their common sense? The President mentioned no person by name and no political party. What he said was something he has said many times before and considering where he was and to whom he was speaking to it is in line with other comments he has made. I would think if the President had a particular person in mind it would have been Jimmy Carter who just left the camps of the Hezbollah terrorists. there is no question his comments fits that guy. But no matter, the left wing extremists will try to make hay from this with false pictures as they always do. The only people that have no shame is the one's that try to shovel this garbage out.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

cwop.......

What you say is true. :eyeroll:

Kind of like the old saying "If the shoe fits.............."

MUST BE TRUE :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

McCain evidently doesn't know his history......."Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran."

Reagan did nothing to bring home the hostages from Iran.

"The crisis ended with the signing of the Algiers Accords in Algeria on January 19, 1981. The hostages were formally released into United States custody the following day, just minutes after the new American president Ronald Reagan was sworn in."

The Iranians waited until Carter was no longer president,then released them to make Carter look bad.McCains statement about how a tough Reagan wouldn't negotiate is :bs:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

The complete text of McCains comment is as follows.


> "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'' Mr. McCain told reporters."I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran; *he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'"* Asked if he thought that former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled with the hostage crisis, was an appeaser, Mr. McCain replied: "I don't know if he was an appeaser or not, but he terribly mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis.''


Release of the hostages only became serious and a deal was struck after the November election of Reagan who had campaigned not to negotiate with Iran but he would bring the hostages home one way or the other. It was no accident they were release the day he took office. McCain is not the one that needs a history lesson.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Negotiation Huh? 
Watch this.....


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

KEN W said:


> McCain evidently doesn't know his history......."Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran."
> 
> Reagan did nothing to bring home the hostages from Iran.
> 
> ...


Not even close Ken, they let them go purely becuause they feared Reagan, period.

Kadaffi soon did also.

Carter didnt need the Iranians to make him look bad, and he doesn't learn from his mistakes he still kisses the ***** of every dictator and depots in this world undermining both Clinton and Bush's foreign policies. He is a disgrace and should be in prison . And I'm serious about the prison comment.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

What, Bobm, cwoparson, Plainsman, fishless, wyogoose and hunter9494 said. Man, I read the first post and had a whole bunch of responses. But I kept reading down and found, pretty much, all I wanted to say. But it was said much better than I could. I am still amazed people defend a liberal spin on a HUNTING website.


----------



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

Ahem.

Responding the attacks of yesterday (which some were calling an attempted long-distance swift-boating by the president), Obama told a town hall meeting in South Dakota:



> That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world, and that's why we need change in Washington.


More, including charges that McCain is being a hypocrite on Hamas, here and here.

And here's the tape of McCain calling for, uh&#8230; talks with Hamas






Gee... I wonder if agreeing to "talk with Hamas" will come back to haunt McCain in the same way?

Some of you guys amaze me.

:eyeroll:

Anyone see the Obama Basher get smacked down last night?

&#8230;on live TV during last night's Hardball. As *Huffington Post's Jason Linkins eloquently explains, *"host Chris Matthews took up President Bush's pointed attack on the Democrats in the Knesset, asking if Bush was 'out of line.' Radio talk-show host Kevin James didn't think so, saying-and I'm paraphrasing-'RRRRAAAAAHHHH! OBAMA BLAAAAHHHH! HAMAS LOVES BARACK, YAAAAHHHH!'"

Then Chris Matthews proceeds to beat Kevin James like that pinata full of **** that he is.






Enjoy. I know I did. It sounds like some here at times.

:lol:

Ryan


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Now which of the 57 states is South Dakota. LOL


----------



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

fishless said:


> Reading this just confirms how out of touch with reality the Obama cheerleaders are!! I think the act of negotiating with terrorists should be considered treason!!!


Are we ready to charge with McCain with treason based on the video clip above?

Just curious...

The silence is deafening..


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

I don't know I can't go to You Tube at work. But I do know I would like Obama condemned for his known and admitted association (not his recent, got hand caught in the cookie jar, backpedaling) with Jeremiah Wright (racist) and William Ayres (terrorist). Just condemn. I wait for the next thing they find out about. You know what else I think is funny. Every time I enter Obama into my PC even the Computer wants to call him Osama. Coincidence&#8230;.hmmm&#8230;..I think not. I think Bill Gates knew this all along. LOL


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Quote:
> That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world, and that's why we need change in Washington.


I don't think Bush was talking about Obama, but I think Obama could see himself in that description. He knew others would see the similarity so he felt compelled to respond. I think responding was a mistake. He only succeeded in turning the spotlight on himself. A spotlight that didn't put him in good light.



> Gee... I wonder if agreeing to "talk with Hamas" will come back to haunt McCain in the same way?


It should. It only proves we have to foreign affair incompetents running for president. That doesn't take Obama off the hook, it should give them both a political Darwin award. Wait, that should be called a Carter award.



> Then Chris Matthews proceeds to beat Kevin James like that pinata full of &$#* that he is.


WOW I thought news guys were supposed to at least appear unbiased. I can't ever remember listening to Kevin James before. When Chris Matthews asked what Chamberlain did wrong, I would have thought he was asking about what he had said wrong. I would never have thought of Checkeslovokia. What an arrogant jerk Chamberlain must have been. Who did he think he was surrendering Checkeslovokian soil? Maybe the Checks would have had some idea about what they want to do. It's like France going to Mexico and telling them they can have the southern half of the United States. 
Anyway, back to the subject. I think Kevin James should have said, I have no idea what the man said to Hitler, do you? He evidently couldn't appease Hitler through promises whatever they may have been. He couldn't appease him with offering up another sovereign nation as a sacrifice. I can just see Obama giving part of Israel to the Palestinians come to think of it. Ya, the comparison comes into more clear focus all the time.

Obama, McCain neither one is worth much. It's just that McCain has some idea of what he is doing. Very little, but some. The only thing he has going for him is pro second amendment and defense. I don't see Obama having anything going. A sliver tongue maybe, but that slipping too. I can't wait to see these guys toe to toe.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

And I know you're waiting for an answer. Don't worry you'll get a conservative or Republican to answer. But you probably won't get it until the get home from work. You see I've found most Republicans or Conservatives are hard working individuals. They don't rely on the system they hold down jobs. So I'm sure there will be a response. (I am lucky I have some down time during the day to entertain myself with the liberal spin. LOL)


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i am amazed how hard the Obama camp is trying to change the subject here, which is simply this:

Obama has said he will negotiate with rogue, terrorist sponsoring countries, without preconditions.

the repubs are simply asking: why? why would you? why would you elevate a state such as Iran, to an equal stature on the worldwide stage and have negotiations with a country who has said, in so many different ways, they will annihilate the Israelis....

sorry, this is just like the Hitler threat, which will be fulfilled unless stopped in it's tracks....their is no room for discourse or discussion until the Iranians recognize Israel's right to exist.....only a naive President would think otherwise....until they utter that belief, what the hell is their to talk about?

common America, let's not stand by or pander to a country that wants to repeat history and eliminate the Jews.

this is so simple and basic in nature, if Obama can't grasp this, how in the hell can we trust this guy to make good decisions...on anything? :eyeroll:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Ryan,

Yopu obviously need to get the hearing checked. He said deal with Hamas in some way........He does not say that he will sit down and negotiate with them. Talk about a spin!!!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



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

djleye said:


> Ryan,
> 
> Yopu obviously need to get the hearing checked. He said deal with Hamas in some way........He does not say that he will sit down and negotiate with them. Talk about a spin!!!!!! :eyeroll:


Are we listening to the same clip? Listen to the question posed to him again. What context is the question being asked?

He is asked about how he would engage diplomatic relations with Hamas. Is that not sitting down and negotiating with them?

Spin? This is pretty basic stuff to understand. Who is spinning who?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

djleye said:


> Ryan,
> 
> Yopu obviously need to get the hearing checked. He said deal with Hamas in some way........He does not say that he will sit down and negotiate with them. Talk about a spin!!!!!! :eyeroll:


Thank you djleye, I missed that. I guess the power of suggestion is strong. As sceptical as I am about liberals I sucked into that one. I guess that's what they count on. I find some relief in that it is very obvious I wasn't the only one.

I suppose diplomacy takes many forms. I always thought it meant talking to the enemy. Today it includes economic preasure directly or through the United Nations.

I was listening to Obama today. He was describing how he would handle Iran. The funny thing is it is beying done already. What he described is what Bush is doing now.

I loose more respect for this silly little boy (Obama) every day. He is an iletist little snot that thinks the world owes him. Don't talk about my ears, don't talk about my mother, don't talk about my grandmother. Do any of you know how many things he says are off limits to talk about. If we followed the rules Obama appears to think he can lay down there would be nothing to talk about. He just gets to be president, because he is special.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> telling them they can have the southern half of the United States.


Too late, that has already happened!!!!! :wink: :lol:


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

R y a n said:


> fishless said:
> 
> 
> > Reading this just confirms how out of touch with reality the Obama cheerleaders are!! I think the act of negotiating with terrorists should be considered treason!!!
> ...


I stand by my original statement. And I dont like any of the 3 stooges running for president for that matter. The only thing I think we could agree on Ryan is the fact this country needs change. It needs to be changed back to the way the constitution was originally written!


----------



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

fishless said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > fishless said:
> ...


Agreed. :beer:

Here is Obama's reply this morning...

Spot on assessment of what REALLY happened. No spin. Plainly stated. Have the debate with Obama if you dare Republicans... If any Republicans out here can answer his questions startiing at the 3:24 minute mark, I"m all ears.

I'm neither for Obama or McCain. But Obama raises excellent points. The question is... who can unite the country? Either of them?

Watch this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp ... 5#24668115

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It depends on Ryan. If people take it the way I do I dislike him even more. He comes off as a spoiled whiny little jerk. Cry, cry, cry.

I was listening to a speaker a few weeks ago (don't remember who ) but he made the point that we don't need change, we need revival back to the great nation we once were. If you could see the 60 years I have we are not better off today. Sure some good things like civil rights are more protected, but there has been a sum loss.

Mostly the lazy have found a way to milk the working class. Most of the changes are simply feel good with no real value. Many were simply political power motivated, with little care as to their social or national value.

No, I really dislike McCain, but the more I hear Obama the more I can't stand to even look at the elitist punk. I like humble people, and Obama may talk like he is, but more and more his actions say otherwise.

The answer is no he can not unite the country. He may be more divisive than Hillary. As a matter of fact he makes Hillary look good.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

agree,...he will end up being the most divisive president ever and racism will be revived under his administration, i have no doubt about that...we will, under the dems, fail miserably to unite anyone in this country.....he will alienate the Jews as well......if elected, he gets one term and that's it.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Painsman

Good post!


----------



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

Plainsman I would expect that you are listening to the content of his message, and not falling back on repeating tired criticisms of the man.

Calling him a "spoiled whiny little jerk" is not very accurate. How is he spoiled? Spoiled means he is a privileged child given everything he wants. Is that his background? The word whiny is just an opinion. He speaks extremely strong eloquently and forcefully when needed. I don't believe I've ever heard him "whine".

Next...Let's see...you called him little? How big do you need to be? He is on average taller than most of our presidents at 6' 4"... heck McCain is 5'7" Did you by chance instead mean him? Then the word jerk? Well... I guess that is just political speak.

Frankly he is the epitome of someone who came from nothing, studied hard, got into a good school, made something of himself, then decided to take up politics to make a difference. Isn't that how we want everyone to strive for in politics? What exactly makes him elite?

Are people jealous because he busted his *** off to get into Harvard Law School to get his law degree? Are you all jealous that he made some key strategic decisions and sacrifices in his life in order to get to where he is?

He isn't heir to a fortune. He doesn't bounce a silly orange rubber ball and jump around in shorts to make millions. He doesn't wear silly jewelry, commit crimes and then rap about it to make his money.

He simply did what we strive for all our children to hopefully do some day. He had an upbringing that is worse than most everyone reading this. He overcame all that. He didn't allow hate, racism and bigotry to affect him. He rose above it all. Just so he can now have the pleasure of seeing his fellow average Americans bash him on blogs. Nice.

Gee... and someone recently asked me here to get into politics.

Wonder why I said no thanks? (see above)

:soapbox:
For the rest of you.... many of you have insinuated that since he is a Democrat, which means by proxy the Lazy taking from the working class if I understand Republican speak. Tell me.. *who is this infamous "working class"? *Can we get that defined? Since when do the democrats not represent the working class? Are the Republicans staking the claim on them now that they are politically important to win an election?

And another thing.. What defines working class? What is the average definition of "middle income" in America in 2008? I hear "middle class" getting bandied about constantly. What is it? Middle income given current inflation and prices to me is between $50,000 and $120,000 a year. If you make less, then I'd dare suggest you shouldn't be voting Republican, because you are getting screwed out of your vote on everything except guns....

Those "free" handouts subsidizing this country are going to benefit *you*.

All the "benefits" that are handed out are much more than welfare. If you find yourself needing that rebate check, if you find yourself with more than $10,000 in credit card debt, if you are struggling to hang on to your house because the mortgage is killing you... you damn well better vote Democrat or you are a hypocrite to any of the "assistance" that the Federal government is taking out of my taxes, because I don't get any of those "bennies" that is causing my taxes to rise to support your bailout.

*XXXX edited by me. I made my point and was not trying to do anything but demonstrate that not all non Conservatives are poor handout seeking socialists. *

I hear people touting the Republican party on this forum left and right.

Do any of you truly know the base platform you represent? Do any of you folks here (other than the 4 moderators who post here frequently) know what the economic policy of the Republican party is? A better question.. do any of you qualify as fitting the income demographic of the Republican party? Arent' they the party of the high income elitist? To my thinking, (guns aside), you better be making over $125,000 ($250,000 combined) in income to make a statement that you are Republican proud.

So many people here vote solely on the Second Amendment, and the fact that R's have a much more vested interest in protecting the Right to Bear Arms... great. I applaud them for it. However just because you grow up in a "Red" State, shoudn't mean you blindly follow Republicans simply because you always have and they represent hunting. So much of people's lives have so much more to do than hunting.

</end of Soapbox rant>

However if you think putting another Republican into the Presidency is going to unite this country.... :eyeroll:

The only way this country is united is with Barack. McCain will keep us engaged militarily for another 4 years. This country will go nuts in protest. The population centers of this country want nothing to do with that type of policy. It will be the key factor putting a Dem in the White House.

My .02

YMMV

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

So what? Stop patting yourself on the back all the time and come down to earth. You think you're the only one to ever pay a lot in taxes? And where do you get off assuming 90% of the people on here are lower income than yourself. That's being pretty egocentric in my book. Up until the Republicans got in control, coupled with the Bush tax cuts my wife and I were paying a hell of a lot more in taxes than what your crying about. We don't pay that much now because we are both retired but I assure you it wasn't because of the Democrats that our tax bracket was reduced. Even now my retirement income is being beat to death by taxes.

But thats alright, you just keep on believing what you want because if Obama gets elected with Democrats in control of the House and Senate, you are the very guy he despises and and has promised to raise taxes on. Obama has every intention of doubling your tax role.



> Do any of you truly know the base platform you represent? Do any of you folks here (other than the 4 moderators who post here frequently) know what the economic policy of the Republican party is?


 :eyeroll: Unbelievable. you really do need to take a step back and recognize just how conceited you just presented yourself. Should all us dumb ***** start bowing now or is their a specific time of day you desire?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman I would expect that you are listening to the content of his message, and not falling back on repeating tired criticisms of the man.


Actually I have been listening to him. The more I hear the more distasteful I find the man. 


> Let's see... little? How big do you need to be?


Not in stature, but in behavior. He responded to Bush's speech in Israel like a child would.

I think he is spoiled because sometimes when parents are not together a parent does no discipline wanting the child to have everything. I think he acts like someone who has never been told no, and had someone tell him how special he is every time he turns around. Why else would he think he can say that so many things like his pastor, is mother, his grandmother, can not be brought up in the debates. Who does he think he is?

I noticed one speech the other night, and when he has to speak without preparation he isn't that good.



> Since when do the democrats not represent the working class?


The democrats have in the past, but that changed about 40 years ago. They offer more and more money to those that don't earn it. I don't look at it as a class thing either, I look at it as working people. Liberals divide people into classes.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

The silence is deafening..


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

What happened to that deafening silence? LOL


----------



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

cwoparson said:


> So what? Stop patting yourself on the back all the time and come down to earth. You think you're the only one to ever pay a lot in taxes? And where do you get off assuming 90% of the people on here are lower income than yourself. That's being pretty egocentric in my book. Up until the Republicans got in control, coupled with the Bush tax cuts my wife and I were paying a hell of a lot more in taxes than what your crying about. We don't pay that much now because we are both retired but I assure you it wasn't because of the Democrats that our tax bracket was reduced. Even now my retirement income is being beat to death by taxes.
> 
> But thats alright, you just keep on believing what you want because if Obama gets elected with Democrats in control of the House and Senate, you are the very guy he despises and and has promised to raise taxes on. Obama has every intention of doubling your tax role.


I realize you've never met me before cwoparson. I am very down to earth. It's always interesting when people meet in person after typing on here for some time. Noone is who you expect them to be.

*XXXX edited by me. I made my point and was not trying to do anything but demonstrate that not all non Conservatives are poor handout seeking socialists.*

btw.. I could care less if Obama raises my taxes. I'll likely be seeking out a financial consultant and tax lawyer soon to shield my exposure to all these taxes....

It's the American way...

Ryan


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Since when do the democrats not represent the working class? 
The democrats have in the past, but that changed about 40 years ago. They offer more and more money to those that don't earn it. I don't look at it as a class thing either, I look at it as working people. Liberals divide people into classes.

the above statement is sooooo true.......it is divisive.......

speaking of *divisive*, Obama's favorite word......ever notice when Obama is confronted by a different or opposite opinion or comment from McCain or Bush, he so often sells it back to the unsuspecting voter, as the comment being "*divisive*"?........that's crap......just because he disagrees with the comment, the elitist, spoiled little brat assumes it is "*divisive*" to all the voters?

will all the stands taken or offered in future debates be characterized as "*divisive*" by team Obama?? my gawd people, can't you see the spin masters of his campaign at work here, speaking for the American people?? this is hogwash, pure hogwash and is insulting to me and should be to many other Americans.....i

i will tell you what is "*divisive*" and that is his assumption that all the voters think like him and that everything that has happened that is unfavorable in the past 8 years is all the fault of the Republicans, when the democratic controlled Congress is a disgrace and has an 18% approval rating...*lower* than even President Bush's rating.....

Obama doesn't fool me one bit with his childish, ridiculous rhetoric......he is a loser, an empty suit!


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
While speaking to the National Rifle Association in Louisville, McCain responded to Obama's remarks earlier today.

* (the correct response to a very naive senator running for office)*

"I welcome a debate about protecting America," McCain said. "No issue is more important. Sen. Obama claimed all I had to offer was the 'naive and irresponsible belief' that tough talk would cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. He should know better.

"I have some news for Sen. Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a 'stinking corpse' and arms terrorist who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.

"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment, and determination to keep us safe."


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> btw.. I could care less if Obama raises my taxes. I'll likely be seeking out a financial consultant and tax lawyer soon to shield my exposure to all these taxes....
> It's the American way...


No, it's not the American way. It's the socialist Democrat way. Then as usual everything will fall into place with the middle class having to pick up the tab for the tax hiding socialist and ending up paying for the lazy votes the Democrats bought to get elected. Glad to see your finally starting to see the light and it is comforting to see you using the word we so much now in reference to liberals. It would be a refreshing adventure if for just once you could not spin out of context everything someone says to you. Not one thing you attempted to repudiate from my post was in context or answered on topic.

I guess this is pretty much senseless though. You are who you are and what you are and nothing is going to change that. I just deleted two paragraphs that corrected your out of context crap about my post but I think most readers can see through your paper thin spin. You may not like the bashing against socialist liberals but your constant barrage of useless garbage about republicans and the Bush Administration is just as irritating to others. In your book that's alright though right? Us poor illiterate fools who don't even understand the party platform deserve anything you dish out. Enjoy yourself Ryan, you truly do deserve yourself.



> e·go·cen·tric (g-sntrk, g-)
> adj.
> 1. Holding the view that the ego is the center, object, and norm of all experience.
> 2.
> ...


It fits.

I think the best option is for me to try to ignore your Ryan. Your the type of personality that gets under my skin fast and I probable do the same to you. But God, it is going to be difficult.


----------



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

cwoparson said:


> > btw.. I could care less if Obama raises my taxes. I'll likely be seeking out a financial consultant and tax lawyer soon to shield my exposure to all these taxes....
> > It's the American way...
> 
> 
> ...


I think people see that I try and provide context to all my replies. I tried with yours. It wasn't to try and do anything but reply to your post cwoparson.

I do enjoy your tit for tat. You always provide insightful intelligent well thought out replies from a different perspective.

While I may not always agree with you, I do respect your point of view.

Ryan


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

lll


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Do you know how small this makes you look? Is this how you evaluate folks and how you want to be evaluated?:eyeroll:

Exactly how old are you??


----------



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

4CurlRedleg said:


> Do you know how small this makes you look? Is this how you evaluate folks and how you want to be evaluated?:eyeroll:
> 
> Exactly how old are you??


Hey Darin

Glad to see you are back. It's been what? A week now since you came here to put someone down or "put someone in their place"? Your ego must have needed a boost.

Feel better now?

Why is it you never post anything useful? When is the last time you had a post that wasn't takikng a shot at someone? Do you ever post anything of substance here anymore? Why are you sticking around? Talk about a personality issue.

It's sad to see that when I try using myself as an example, I instead get taken to task for having an ego. I've tried explaining the context in which I was thinking while doing it. It seems however that some would rather exploit that post as a chance to take a personal pot shot at me.

To answer your question, no it is not how I evaluate someone, not is it how I wish to be evaluated.

I think it does show that the Republicans on this forum need to keep their party stereotypes to themselves, and find something besides the same old tired rhetoric and lies about the other candidate.

I think I'm done explaining myself.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

:lol:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

R y a n said:


> I think I'm done explaining myself.


Because you can't. You fit the elitist liberal platform quite well, even though you try to claim otherwise. You claim the Republican Party is full of the rich and can only join if you have enough money. Then you come on here and claim we are a bunch of low income fools that know nothing about politics. It sure does show a lack of intelligence to spout off to so many you don't know.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

R y a n said:


> Glad to see you are back. It's been what? A week now since you came here to put someone down or "put someone in their place"? Your ego must have needed a boost.
> 
> Feel better now?
> 
> Why is it you never post anything useful? When is the last time you had a post that wasn't takikng a shot at someone? Do you ever post anything of substance here anymore? Why are you sticking around? Talk about a personality issue.


It is all you "Ryan". Keep yourself of the perch and I will not knock you off. You want to be a moderator then act like it. Debating a topic is one thing but demeaning others and their point of view is childish and arrogant. If you truly are in the top 20% then by god act like it with some honor and humility. 
Character....learn it...live it.

Useful?? :roll:


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

were waiting for a response Ryan.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

come on :eyeroll: no personal stuff use PMs if you must


----------

