DescentBB

Well once again Glorius Leader has said that the economy and jobs are his number one concern. Yet what is he really doing?:

"President Barack Obama turns his attention to campaign politics Monday night, as he headlines two events for the Democratic National Committee and his re-election campaign.

According to the White House schedule, the president first attends a gathering of approximately 140 guests at a private residence in the nation's capital. A DNC official says proceeds from the $15,000 per family gathering will go to the Obama Victory Fund, with the money raised shared by the president's re-election campaign and DNC."

So while Barack "Nero" Obama fiddles around while the country rapidly burns around him, he is doing exactly what he said about jobs. Getting more cash to stimulate his re-election campaign and trying to preserve his employment is where his his laser like focus is beamed in to. I wonder how many corners to his mouth he has.

I wonder how many times you can post some ridiculous hyperbole before even you realize the absurdity of it. Or are you going to ignore the fact that almost every president since Washington has conducted re-election activities?

And how many of those presidents had the countries credit rating downgraded and were facing a market melt down?

What do you want him to do, dissolve Congress and declare himself Supreme Leader of These United States so he can fix everything? We've only ever had one Emperor, we don't need two.

It kind of strikes me when I see Cuda calling out tunnelcat for some of her one-sided comments that you're pretty much worse than she's ever been, woody. Like, has there been a single post of yours in here over the past year that isn't full of childish partisan insults and illogical insinuations? You're pretty much a walking parody at this point.

Call him "Thunderbunny's mini-me" ?

Grendel wrote:Call him "Thunderbunny's mini-me" ?

Nope Grendel, that's your role....now get back in my lair, mini-me!

[ Post made via Android ]

Top Gun wrote:It kind of strikes me when I see Cuda calling out tunnelcat for some of her one-sided comments

I do that because TC and I have an agreement. we like each other.
she opens her eye and I poke her in it. I don't agree with the rhetoric of specifically TB's posts and sometimes Wood's posts. even though I sometimes agree with the premise, I think Rhetoric and name calling is getting us no where. and is the Chief cause of our nations problems today.

null0010 wrote:What do you want him to do, dissolve Congress and declare himself Supreme Leader of These United States so he can fix everything? We've only ever had one Emperor, we don't need two.

Well....stuffing his face with birthday cake and partying with the Hollywood types shows us how much he is focused on our problems. What I would of liked to see is a actual economic plan from him instead of doing the Hitler act from Glorious Bastards and beating on his desk saying "Nein nein nein" to every plan the House passed. I'd like to see him give a coherent speech that makes sense instead of the last one where the stock market dove even more after he was finished. I'd like to believe he is trying to encourage job growth but I don't see it when he forces 50k jobs to be lost because he thought we should shut down gulf oil production. I don't see it when all we see are his self appointed czars spewing out ever more regulations to choke business's. Show me something he has done in the last 2.5 years that shows he has a clue as to what needs to be done.

He is still doing a pretty good job of blaming Republicans for everything…I think that works for his side.

woodchip wrote:Well....stuffing his face with birthday cake and partying with the Hollywood types shows us how much he is focused on our problems. What I would of liked to see is a actual economic plan from him instead of doing the Hitler act from Glorious Bastards and beating on his desk saying "Nein nein nein" to every plan the House passed.

You are aware, of course, that the President cannot author legislation? He can use the bully pulpit and make suggestions, but he cannot write a bill. He cannot even write a bill and submit it to a Congresscritter and ask them to put their name on it. He can try to convince Congress to go with a particular bill, but when you have people fanatically devoted to their team to score points, like the Congressional leadership people seem to be, that is very difficult. Personally, though I am rather angry with the way this situation has turned out, I cannot, logically, blame only Obama. I must blame Reid, Boehner, Pelosi, and McConnell as well, and by extension, almost the entire rest of Congress.

If you are truly interested, here is a website with some things Obama has done.

woodchip wrote:Well....stuffing his face with birthday cake and partying with the Hollywood types shows us how much he is focused on our problems. What I would of liked to see is a actual economic plan from him instead of doing the Hitler act from Glorious Bastards and beating on his desk saying "Nein nein nein" to every plan the House passed. I'd like to see him give a coherent speech that makes sense instead of the last one where the stock market dove even more after he was finished. I'd like to believe he is trying to encourage job growth but I don't see it when he forces 50k jobs to be lost because he thought we should shut down gulf oil production. I don't see it when all we see are his self appointed czars spewing out ever more regulations to choke business's. Show me something he has done in the last 2.5 years that shows he has a clue as to what needs to be done.

wow, you really are on your own little hate planet, aren't you?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well....stuffing his face with birthday cake and partying with the Hollywood types shows us how much he is focused on our problems. What I would of liked to see is a actual economic plan from him instead of doing the Hitler act from Glorious Bastards and beating on his desk saying "Nein nein nein" to every plan the House passed. I'd like to see him give a coherent speech that makes sense instead of the last one where the stock market dove even more after he was finished. I'd like to believe he is trying to encourage job growth but I don't see it when he forces 50k jobs to be lost because he thought we should shut down gulf oil production. I don't see it when all we see are his self appointed czars spewing out ever more regulations to choke business's. Show me something he has done in the last 2.5 years that shows he has a clue as to what needs to be done.

wow, you really are on your own little hate planet, aren't you?

True to good liberal form, you try to deflect by denigrating the messenger. Is there something I posted that is not true? My planet is based on reality, unlike the persistent Anime world you live in.

Hey…don’t piss on Anime!

woodchip wrote:True to good liberal form, you try to deflect by denigrating the messenger. Is there something I posted that is not true? My planet is based on reality, unlike the persistent Anime world you live in.

*sees someone in E&C use "liberal" as an insult*

*takes another shot*

My poor, poor liver...

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:True to good liberal form, you try to deflect by denigrating the messenger. Is there something I posted that is not true? My planet is based on reality, unlike the persistent Anime world you live in.

*sees someone in E&C use "liberal" as an insult*

*takes another shot*

My poor, poor liver...

Methinks you need:

Liver-Aid, now comes in color-changing strawberry kiwi!

I think the Obama campaign should hire woodchip, because the more woody talks about Obama, the less inclined I feel for voting republican.

Krom wrote:I think the Obama campaign should hire woodchip, because the more woody talks about Obama, the less inclined I feel for voting republican.

Great Scott, you've figured it out! Woodchip's a secret liberal!

I knew I smelled Poe's law!

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:It kind of strikes me when I see Cuda calling out tunnelcat for some of her one-sided comments

I do that because TC and I have an agreement. we like each other.
she opens her eye and I poke her in it. I don't agree with the rhetoric of specifically TB's posts and sometimes Wood's posts. even though I sometimes agree with the premise, I think Rhetoric and name calling is getting us no where. and is the Chief cause of our nations problems today.

I'm touched CUDA.

Yeah, name calling doesn't accomplish anything, but when emotions run high, it gets the better of us sometimes, including me, or should I say, especially me.

But you'll have to remember, when conservatives keep saying the word "liberal", or claim "liberal ideas" as insults, you're going to get some name calling once and awhile. Respect should go both ways. I believe in my ideals just as much as others believe in theirs.

Krom wrote:I think the Obama campaign should hire woodchip, because the more woody talks about Obama, the less inclined I feel for voting republican.

So you are letting your vote be decided by a obscure poster on a obscure forum? With voters like you, it is no wonder Obama got elected on the first election.

tunnelcat wrote:But you'll have to remember, when conservatives keep saying the word "liberal", or claim "liberal ideas" as insults, you're going to get some name calling once and awhile. Respect should go both ways. I believe in my ideals just as much as others believe in theirs.

and on the flip side when those on the left say "Conservative Christian" as an intended insult.

Old style conservatives, like Mark Hatfield from Oregon, no problem for me. Modern Christian Cults, which have partnered with conservatives, I do consider a personal threat to my way of life, scare me and deserve my attention. Liberal thinking looks positively tame in comparison to this:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... formation/

I don't want these ideas in our government, at all.

tunnelcat wrote:Modern liberal Cults, which have partnered with Democrats, I do consider a personal threat to my way of life, scare me and deserve my attention. Christian thinking looks positively tame in comparison

Fixed it for ya.

Is that really the best you can come up with, Cuda? I can't say that I've stumbled across any extreme socialists making a run for national office. Perry, though, is one of those genuinely scary types that could actually attract a significant portion of votes from the drooling masses. Roger Ebert had a fantastic column about him yesterday; the guy knows more than just movies.

The Error of Political Prayer

(I think my favorite quote in there is from the comments. It starts out something like, "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others.")

Top Gun wrote:Is that really the best you can come up with, Cuda?

I didnt need to come up with anything better. it's the exact same comment that TC made. But I see you've only chosen to pick on my comments so are you being a "Hypocrite"?

(I think my favorite quote in there is from the comments. It starts out something like, "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others.")

Matthew 6:5 wrote:"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

I guess your first challenge would be to Show Perry is a Hypocrite in his faith. just because you pray in public doesn't mean your being a Hypocrite. doesn't mean your not either.. but I will ask you. how are you qualified to just his heart?

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Is that really the best you can come up with, Cuda?

I didnt need to come up with anything better. it's the exact same comment that TC made. But I see you've only chosen to pick on my comments so are you being a "Hypocrite"?

No, I think I'm being a realist. Your inference doesn't mesh with reality, while hers certainly does. As I noted, one can find groups of fundamentalist whacko "Christians" scattered all across the political landscape, but I think you'd have to look a lot harder to find a corresponding group among those who deem themselves "liberals." Maybe that's because they're too busy smoking pot and tye-dying shirts, I don't know.

I guess your first challenge would be to Show Perry is a Hypocrite in his faith. just because you pray in public doesn't mean your being a Hypocrite. doesn't mean your not either.. but I will ask you. how are you qualified to just his heart?

I don't know that he's a hypocrite, but I do know that he's an annoyance, and more than a little bit of a whack-job. This was the guy who was paying lip service to the vague idea of Texan secession a year or so ago. And throwing the office of the governor behind a strictly-religious event seems a very poor choice. Anyway, hypocrisy aside, anyone who has to make a big song-and-dance out of their religious beliefs doesn't sit well with me. I thought "they'll know we are Christians by our love," not by massive thinly-veiled campaign promotion events.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Is that really the best you can come up with, Cuda?

I didnt need to come up with anything better. it's the exact same comment that TC made. But I see you've only chosen to pick on my comments so are you being a "Hypocrite"?

No, I think I'm being a realist. Your inference doesn't mesh with reality, while hers certainly does.

Wrong she labeled ALL Christians as cults

Modern Christian Cults, which have partnered with conservatives

Her intent was to label every Conservative a Christian and every Christian as a cult or a nut job. there has been no "teaming of Conservatives with Christians. and FYI Christianity is not exclusive to the Conservative movement. your last three Democratic Presidents have called themselves Christians. so are Christian Cults teaming with the Democratic party?? or are you only a Cult if your a Conservative Christian?? which it is??

I guess your first challenge would be to Show Perry is a Hypocrite in his faith. just because you pray in public doesn't mean your being a Hypocrite. doesn't mean your not either.. but I will ask you. how are you qualified to just his heart?

I don't know that he's a hypocrite, but I do know that he's an annoyance,

to you maybe but not to his supporters. which there are many of (present company excluded)

and more than a little bit of a whack-job.

based on what??? your opinion??
just because you don't agree with Parry's stance on Prayer doesn't make him a Hypocrite and it doesn't make him wrong, any more than it makes you right. and so what if he talked about Texas Seceding from the Union. first he didn't do it. or for that matter even attempt it. and second it wouldn't have been the first Time Texas did secede or for that matter the first state to try it, 11 other states seceded from the union once before. were they crazy?? I'm sure all those that died for that right didn't think so. PLUS with the economic hell that this nation is in. Texas is one of the few states that actually has a growing economy and the natural resources to support itself

TG wrote:This was the guy who was paying lip service to the vague idea of Texan secession a year or so ago. And throwing the office of the governor behind a strictly-religious event seems a very poor choice.

So I guess Obama made a very poor choice by having an Iftar dinner to mark Ramadan.

CUDA wrote:Wrong she labeled ALL Christians as cults

...no she didn't. You posted the exact quote yourself. "Modern Christian cults" in no way implies that anyone who calls themself a Christian is a cultist.

to you maybe but not to his supporters. which there are many of (present company excluded)

An annoyance to anyone who has half a brain cell, then...which pretty much excludes his supporters.

and so what if he talked about Texas Seceding from the Union. first he didn't do it. or for that matter even attempt it. and second it wouldn't have been the first Time Texas did secede or for that matter the first state to try it, 11 other states seceded from the union once before. were they crazy?? I'm sure all those that died for that right didn't think so. PLUS with the economic hell that this nation is in. Texas is one of the few states that actually has a growing economy and the natural resources to support itself

No, I don't think they were crazy, but the underlying reason for that secession was about as evil as they come. Anyone who attempts to reference said secession as Perry did is at best a fool with absolutely no sense of history.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:Wrong she labeled ALL Christians as cults

...no she didn't. You posted the exact quote yourself. "Modern Christian cults" in no way implies that anyone who calls themself a Christian is a cultist.

then please explain to me what a "Modern Christian Cult" is and how they have teamed up with the Conservative party

to you maybe but not to his supporters. which there are many of (present company excluded)

An annoyance to anyone who has half a brain cell, then...which pretty much excludes his supporters.

well, those of with Full brain cells say your wrong

and so what if he talked about Texas Seceding from the Union. first he didn't do it. or for that matter even attempt it. and second it wouldn't have been the first Time Texas did secede or for that matter the first state to try it, 11 other states seceded from the union once before. were they crazy?? I'm sure all those that died for that right didn't think so. PLUS with the economic hell that this nation is in. Texas is one of the few states that actually has a growing economy and the natural resources to support itself

No, I don't think they were crazy, but the underlying reason for that secession was about as evil as they come. Anyone who attempts to reference said secession as Perry did is at best a fool with absolutely no sense of history.

I'm not sure if this is a shot at me or not. but here is your History. the reasons for secession are Evil to us today yes, but in it's day they were not. at least have a "sense of history" Slavery was the Norm in the 1800's People owned people Legally..and those people didn't want that right taken away. you could use the same argument today about abortion. it's a right that many people don't want to lose and just as many people think is evil. the only difference is that outlawing slavery was tantamount to economic destruction to the south. you were removing a societies ability to make an income. that was the reason for secession. That is the historical fact.

CUDA wrote:I'm not sure if this is a shot at me or not. but here is your History. the reasons for secession are Evil to us today yes, but in it's day they were not. at least have a "sense of history" Slavery was the Norm in the 1800's People owned people Legally..and those people didn't want that right taken away. you could use the same argument today about abortion. it's a right that many people don't want to lose and just as many people think is evil. the only difference is that outlawing slavery was tantamount to economic destruction to the south. you were removing a societies ability to make an income. that was the reason for secession. That is the historical fact.

Abortion law isn't determined by the states. Abortion isn't given a specific deadline by the Constitution. Abortion is not propping up the economy of half the nation.

Bad analogy.

The only reason that slavery was the backbone of the southern economy was because those idiots let it be that way, knowing that there would be conflict over it eventually. Same short-sighted behavior that people indulge in today. Furthermore, slavery was not exactly "normal" in the mid-1800s either. If it was, then why would a nation go to war over it?

The nation didn't go to war over slavery. They went to war over economic reasons, and slavery became an issue LATER on. Which brings us to today. Now we are all slaves.

null0010 wrote:...
Furthermore, slavery was not exactly "normal" in the mid-1800s either. If it was, then why would a nation go to war over it?

We didn't have a war over slavery. Declaring the slaves free was a tactic to undermine the economy of the enemy more than anything else. If the north needed slaves to churn out uniforms and weapons and fund their war effort Lincoln would not have made freeing the slaves an issue.
There was a higher percentage of people in the north in favor of freeing slaves than the in the south but that wasn't 'why we had a war'. It was about federal government control of the states, slavery being one of the many controls in dispute.

null0010 wrote:

CUDA wrote:I'm not sure if this is a shot at me or not. but here is your History. the reasons for secession are Evil to us today yes, but in it's day they were not. at least have a "sense of history" Slavery was the Norm in the 1800's People owned people Legally..and those people didn't want that right taken away. you could use the same argument today about abortion. it's a right that many people don't want to lose and just as many people think is evil. the only difference is that outlawing slavery was tantamount to economic destruction to the south. you were removing a societies ability to make an income. that was the reason for secession. That is the historical fact.

Abortion law isn't determined by the states. Abortion isn't given a specific deadline by the Constitution. Abortion is not propping up the economy of half the nation

Bad analogy.

it wasn't a bad analogy .you just ENTIRELY missed the point. it was about attitude towards an issue not the legality of said issue.

null0010 wrote: slavery was not exactly "normal" in the mid-1800s

According to the http://wiki.answers.com/What_was_US_population_in_1864# Almanac, the population of the United States in 1860 was 31,443,321. If four million of those were slaves, that would mean about 1/8 of the current population were slaves at the beginning of the civil war.

1 in 8 seems pretty common place to me.

I heard Obama say just the other day that the Emancipation Proclamation actually provided for the north's wealthiest to keep their slaves.

CUDA wrote:then please explain to me what a "Modern Christian Cult" is and how they have teamed up with the Conservative party

I think the sort of whack-job fundamentalists who try to get people like Christine O'Donnell elected to national office provide a pretty clear example.

An annoyance to anyone who has half a brain cell, then...which pretty much excludes his supporters.

well, those of with Full brain cells say your wrong

If I don't acknowledge that any of his supporters have brain cells, why would I care about their opinion?

And about your abortion analogy, many people in the antebellum US viewed slavery as being morally wrong. There were various abolitionist movements at the time...hell, the Republican party was originally founded on that issue. There was very much a strong moral component to that entire debate.

flip wrote:The nation didn't go to war over slavery. They went to war over economic reasons, and slavery became an issue LATER on. Which brings us to today. Now we are all slaves.

That's actually false, in a sense. Reading the Confederate constitution, which is largely cribbed word-for-word from the US Constitution, proves a bit of an eye-opener. There are several clauses in it that not only established the right to own slaves, but essentially made it a cornerstone of the Confederacy. Whether your average Johnny Reb knew it or not, he was fighting very specifically to preserve slavery as a status quo. People often forget that the "states' rights" issue that started the Civil War was slavery.

flip wrote:I heard Obama say just the other day that the Emancipation Proclamation actually provided for the north's wealthiest to keep their slaves.

That's true in a sense, since the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states "in open rebellion" against the US. Slaveowners in Northern slave states, such as Delaware or Maryland, weren't affected by it initially.

In my investigations, this is what I discovered and believe to be the case. I may be wrong but probably not. Up north, they mostly made goods. Down south, was mainly agriculture. The dispute started over pricing of goods compared to the prices of raw materials sent up north. The dispute finally culminates into the south seceding into what they thought would be an entirely different nation, and then the Union and Confederacy would discuss trade agreements.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:then please explain to me what a "Modern Christian Cult" is and how they have teamed up with the Conservative party

I think the sort of whack-job fundamentalists who try to get people like Christine O'Donnell elected to national office provide a pretty clear example.

but are they a cult?? by it's very nature calling something a Cult is a derogatory term. it would be no different than calling it a cult of liberalism. I stand by my statement

I wrote:Her intent was to label every Conservative a Christian and every Christian as a cult or a nut job.

The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.[1] The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s
The popular, derogatory sense of the word has no currency in academic studies of religions,

And about your abortion analogy, many people in the antebellum US viewed slavery as being morally wrong. There were various abolitionist movements at the time...hell, the Republican party was originally founded on that issue. There was very much a strong moral component to that entire debate.

I agree. and that was the point I was trying to make to Null but he missed it

flip wrote:The nation didn't go to war over slavery. They went to war over economic reasons, and slavery became an issue LATER on. Which brings us to today. Now we are all slaves.

That's actually false, in a sense. Reading the Confederate constitution, which is largely cribbed word-for-word from the US Constitution, proves a bit of an eye-opener. There are several clauses in it that not only established the right to own slaves, but essentially made it a cornerstone of the Confederacy. Whether your average Johnny Reb knew it or not, he was fighting very specifically to preserve slavery as a status quo. People often forget that the "states' rights" issue that started the Civil War was slavery.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civ ... il_war.htm