The opinion of Actinanass: Milk carton leadership...

actinanass · Jun 25, 2010

thoughtone said:
Post them.

To respect QueEx rule of name calling, I will just say your are amazing! Obama has bent over backward to work with with republicans. You lost the White House, Congress and Senate with a 60, 40 split. He is under no obligation to work with republicans. When GW lost the election in 2000 and was installed by the Supreme Court there was no call for GW to work with the Democrats. However, President Obama has turn out to be more right than left. I guess your idea of working with republicans is that he should adopt everything the party of NO wants. If you want that, win the presidency.

We will see who has painted themselves in to a political corner. The republicans are running these extreme right wingers and we will see how they will do this November.

Upgrade Dave said:
You were doing better not clarifying your point. Once you fleshed it out, it didn't make any more sense.

Maybe he means the Sestak situation that's turned into a big nothing, no matter how hard the Right has tried to make it mean something.

Indeed.

As in scandals, notice I said the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION not Obama himself. I was really pointing towards Blago case, and the situation in Colorado. Please, do not be so naive to think that this, or any administration, is totally clean. As fast as the left is turning against Obama now, just think if he actually do some bipartisan stuff...like ACTUALLY FIGHT THE WAR.

Now, Dave, I need you to clarify this Obama doing things in a Bipartisan manner. From my standpoint, Obama has been pushing his agenda, and just ask republicans to join. That's the closest he has been as bipartisan. Most republicans I hear from wants to fix the spending, and cut taxes for business to light up the jobs market. Obama has been pushing for more spending. How is that "bending over backwards" for republican support?

Another thing, I need to know what's an "extreme" right winger is. Please clarify that statement.

Upgrade Dave · Jun 25, 2010

actinanass said:
As in scandals, notice I said the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION not Obama himself. I was really pointing towards Blago case, and the situation in Colorado. Please, do not be so naive to think that this, or any administration, is totally clean. As fast as the left is turning against Obama now, just think if he actually do some bipartisan stuff...like ACTUALLY FIGHT THE WAR.

So his increasing troops in Afghanistan isn't a case of him fighting the war? Please give me a better example.

Now, Dave, I need you to clarify this Obama doing things in a Bipartisan manner. From my standpoint, Obama has been pushing his agenda, and just ask republicans to join. That's the closest he has been as bipartisan. Most republicans I hear from wants to fix the spending, and cut taxes for business to light up the jobs market. Obama has been pushing for more spending. How is that "bending over backwards" for republican support?

Another thing, I need to know what's an "extreme" right winger is. Please clarify that statement.

Since Thought said that, I'll let him speak for himself. But to me, an extreme right winger would be Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, people will have shown a propensity to revise their own history, words, and actions to be on the opposite side of Obama, Democrats, progressives/liberals, or whoever the "enemy" is at the moment they're speaking.

Obama is supposed to push his agenda, he won the election. That's what he was elected to do. A lot of the dissatisfaction in polls comes from his supporters not thinking he's aggressive enough in pushing it hard enough. He's openly asked Republicans for input and ideas on every issue and they've chosen to either stonewall or offer ideas that might sound good on the surface but are ineffective or counterproductive in practice ( the health insurance reform debate was full of these). He's appointed or attempted to appoint Republicans to his cabinet and even kept some Bush holdovers.

thoughtone · Jun 25, 2010

actinanass said:
As in scandals, notice I said the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION not Obama himself. I was really pointing towards Blago case, and the situation in Colorado. Please, do not be so naive to think that this, or any administration, is totally clean. As fast as the left is turning against Obama now, just think if he actually do some bipartisan stuff...like ACTUALLY FIGHT THE WAR.

Now, Dave, I need you to clarify this Obama doing things in a Bipartisan manner. From my standpoint, Obama has been pushing his agenda, and just ask republicans to join. That's the closest he has been as bipartisan. Most republicans I hear from wants to fix the spending, and cut taxes for business to light up the jobs market. Obama has been pushing for more spending. How is that "bending over backwards" for republican support?

Another thing, I need to know what's an "extreme" right winger is. Please clarify that statement.

. Most republicans I hear from wants to fix the spending,

Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter…"

and cut taxes for business to light up the jobs market.

Ah Einstein, he has cut taxes for business. The stimulus was over 1/3 tax cuts. Which was a huge mistake since all the business did was bank the money from their taxes and not use them as they were intended. Hire people! But of course you wouldn't know that because Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck hadn't pointed that out in between their lies about President Obama hating white people. How in the hell can you engage in a debate about current events and not have any knowledge about a subject that was all over the news over a year ago? You are pathetic!

I need to know what's an "extreme" right winger is. Please clarify that statement.

All of the republicans in the congress and Senate except the two Senators from Maine. The republican party was hijacked by the lunatic right in 1980.

Upgrade Dave · Jun 25, 2010

thoughtone said:
[

Ah Einstein, he has cut taxes for business. The stimulus was over 1/3 tax cuts. Which was a huge mistake since all the business did was bank the money from their taxes and not use them as they were intended. Hire people! But of course you wouldn't know that because Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck hadn't pointed that out in between their lies about President Obama hating white people. How in the hell can you engage in a debate about current events and not have any knowledge about a subject that was all over the news over a year ago? You are pathetic!

And the current round of stimulus spending includes mostly tax breaks for businesses and unemployment benefits, money that would go right into the economy. On top of that, most of it was paid for and not being added to the deficit.

actinanass · Jun 25, 2010

Upgrade Dave said:
So his increasing troops in Afghanistan isn't a case of him fighting the war? Please give me a better example.

Since Thought said that, I'll let him speak for himself. But to me, an extreme right winger would be Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, people will have shown a propensity to revise their own history, words, and actions to be on the opposite side of Obama, Democrats, progressives/liberals, or whoever the "enemy" is at the moment they're speaking.

Obama is supposed to push his agenda, he won the election. That's what he was elected to do. A lot of the dissatisfaction in polls comes from his supporters not thinking he's aggressive enough in pushing it hard enough. He's openly asked Republicans for input and ideas on every issue and they've chosen to either stonewall or offer ideas that might sound good on the surface but are ineffective or counterproductive in practice ( the health insurance reform debate was full of these). He's appointed or attempted to appoint Republicans to his cabinet and even kept some Bush holdovers.

1. First of all, Obama didn't send the amount of troops his generals wanted/needed. Secondly, he took is sweet time sending the troops. Third of all, the rules of engagement were screwed up.

2. Well damn, the left is known to do the same tactics seems like. Politics is the game of words, and governing philosophy. Can you give me specific issues that make a person the "extreme" right winger? I think this could be a good discussion overall. Maybe we all would learn something....

thoughtone said:
Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter…"

Ah Einstein, he has cut taxes for business. The stimulus was over 1/3 tax cuts. Which was a huge mistake since all the business did was bank the money from their taxes and not use them as they were intended. Hire people! But of course you wouldn't know that because Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck hadn't pointed that out in between their lies about President Obama hating white people. How in the hell can you engage in a debate about current events and not have any knowledge about a subject that was all over the news over a year ago? You are pathetic!

All of the republicans in the congress and Senate except the two Senators from Maine. The republican party was hijacked by the lunatic right in 1980.

If you believe that the whole republican party is full of nut job right wingers than its obvious that you are on the opposite extreme.

BTW, Thought, the republicans aren't as extreme as you think. They did, indeed, work with Clinton to balance the budget. Extreme political minds would not work with anyone outside their own ideology.

Another thing I find rather funny is the fact that you only like 2 republicans, and they are the most liberal republicans in the GOP. Not to mention, they didn't even vote for Obamacare...

I know you hate labels, but I'm starting think that you're political bigot. No different than any "lunatic" right winger that you so kindly point out. You believe that your side is 100% correct on every issue, and if anyone who does not agree has no credibility.

Also, I think my thoughts/opinions truly bother you. Kinda like this Chris Matthews vs Rush Limbaugh feud. Been a couple of years, and your beef with me is still strong. I have to give you an "a" for effort....

nittie · Jun 25, 2010

Originally Posted by nittie

I'm just saying that it's 2010 and we are still living in the 16th century. The technology has changed but the attitudes are still the same if this country doesn't make some overhauls soon it will fade away. We can't defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan because we can't adapt and they are using 12th century tactics it's sad. The Gulf coast is drowning but the Constitution limits the president's power not to mention the gridlock between a 2 party system. There is a better way but either we are afraid of change or the people in power would rather lose the republic than lose their money.

This system was designed to keep rich white men rich. Last year the economy created almost a million new millionaires despite being on the verge of a double dip recession. The oil spill got worst but the govt doesn't have the power or equipment to stop it. And our top general in Afghanistan was forced to step down. These are structural problems of a old systems, rich people will keep getting rich, the infrastructure will crumble and our military will not be prepared for 21st century threats. But the worst part of this is we are now global, our way of doing business is the norm, we have exported America attitudes abroad which means as this country fades foreign nations will treat the U.S the way the U.S treated them.

Upgrade Dave · Jun 25, 2010

actinanass said:
1. First of all, Obama didn't send the amount of troops his generals wanted/needed. Secondly, he took is sweet time sending the troops. Third of all, the rules of engagement were screwed up.

But he sent troops. Thousands.
"Wanted" is the word, not needed.
He had to make sure he sent in troops with a plan and not just sending in more targets. Again, someone criticizing the President for not rushing in and considering all options and the consequences.

2. Well damn, the left is known to do the same tactics seems like. Politics is the game of words, and governing philosophy. Can you give me specific issues that make a person the "extreme" right winger? I think this could be a good discussion overall. Maybe we all would learn something....

I've already given my opinion on what makes one an extreme right winger, I thought.
Specific issues such as the governors of Gulf states clamoring to open rigs on their coasts without them being checked so to avoid another disaster. Or siding with the offending company instead of the President while that same President is getting money set aside to make whole people affected by that company's mistakes.
It's an extreme right wing attitude that thinks the Civil Rights Act went too far in making discrimination illegal in private businesses.
It's an extreme right idea that torture now works for us when it's historically been proven unreliable for everyone else.
It's clearly only extreme right wingers who think every amendment in the Bill of Rights is negotiable except the Second, which is so absolute, they vote against laws to keep weapons away from people with mental illness or on the terrorist watch list.

thoughtone · Jun 25, 2010

actinanass said:
1. First of all, Obama didn't send the amount of troops his generals wanted/needed. Secondly, he took is sweet time sending the troops. Third of all, the rules of engagement were screwed up.

I can't believe I'm responding to you. Send troops to where? How many did they want and how many did the President send? Do you know what you are talking about?

2. Well damn, the left is known to do the same tactics seems like. Politics is the game of words, and governing philosophy. Can you give me specific issues that make a person the "extreme" right winger? I think this could be a good discussion overall. Maybe we all would learn something....

If you believe that the whole republican party is full of nut job right wingers than its obvious that you are on the opposite extreme.

Name a elected federal moderate or liberal republican.

BTW, Thought, the republicans aren't as extreme as you think. They did, indeed, work with Clinton to balance the budget. Extreme political minds would not work with anyone outside their own ideology.

They did not work with Clinton. Clinton won in 1992. The 103rd Congress had a 57 to 43 Democratic Senate majority and 258 to 176 House of Representative Democratic majority. In 1993 Clinton passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 without one republican vote. In 1994, the so called Republican Revolution, the 104th Congress flipped with a 47 to 53 Republican Senate majority and 230 to 204 House of Representative Republican majority. The Republicans had majorities in both houses until 2006. During the rest of Clinton's Presidency, the Republicans did very little to work with Clinton. Choosing to spend their time using the tax payers money to hunt for Clinton scandals. Something you still seem to be fixated. My eight year old nephew has more historic curiosity than you.

Another thing I find rather funny is the fact that you only like 2 republicans, and they are the most liberal republicans in the GOP. Not to mention, they didn't even vote for Obamacare...

Who said I liked Snowe and Collins. They are the most liberal Republicans in today's congress, but historically, the would be considered moderates by their voting records. If you compare them to the current Republicans in congress they are definitely more liberal. They are they type of Republicans who traditionally would work across the isles. But they have been coerced, like all of today's Republicans from crossing the Republican leadership, Rush Limbaugh.

I know you hate labels, but I'm starting think that you're political bigot. No different than any "lunatic" right winger that you so kindly point out. You believe that your side is 100% correct on every issue, and if anyone who does not agree has no credibility.

No, 'my' side is not correct all of the time. In fact Upgrade Dave hit the nail right on the head. President Obama's poll numbers have been going down because he is loosing support from his constituency like me. We feel he has kowtowed to the Republicans even when they have made it clear that their political strategy is to oppose everything he does for political gain at the expense of moving the change agenda he promised.

Also, I think my thoughts/opinions truly bother you. Kinda like this Chris Matthews vs Rush Limbaugh feud. Been a couple of years, and your beef with me is still strong. I have to give you an "a" for effort....

In all honesty, I have low tolerance for ignorance. I respect counter opinions to mine, but you continually post information which is totally false and inaccurate. You would do yourself well to read history, not revisionist history.

QueEx · Jun 26, 2010

Upgrade Dave said:
<font size="3">Afghanistan</font size>
But he sent troops. Thousands.
"Wanted" is the word, not needed.
He had to make sure he sent in troops with a plan and not just sending in more targets. Again, someone criticizing the President for not rushing in and considering all options and the consequences.

<font size="3">Recalcitrance</font size>
I've already given my opinion on what makes one an extreme right winger, I thought.
Specific issues such as the governors of Gulf states clamoring to open rigs on their coasts without them being checked so to avoid another disaster. Or siding with the offending company instead of the President while that same President is getting money set aside to make whole people affected by that company's mistakes.
It's an extreme right wing attitude that thinks the Civil Rights Act went too far in making discrimination illegal in private businesses.
It's an extreme right idea that torture now works for us when it's historically been proven unreliable for everyone else.
It's clearly only extreme right wingers who think every amendment in the Bill of Rights is negotiable except the Second, which is so absolute, they vote against laws to keep weapons away from people with mental illness or on the terrorist watch list.

3A, I was waiting to read the response to this.

QueEx

actinanass · Jun 29, 2010

Upgrade Dave said:
But he sent troops. Thousands.
"Wanted" is the word, not needed.
He had to make sure he sent in troops with a plan and not just sending in more targets. Again, someone criticizing the President for not rushing in and considering all options and the consequences.

I've already given my opinion on what makes one an extreme right winger, I thought.
Specific issues such as the governors of Gulf states clamoring to open rigs on their coasts without them being checked so to avoid another disaster. Or siding with the offending company instead of the President while that same President is getting money set aside to make whole people affected by that company's mistakes.
It's an extreme right wing attitude that thinks the Civil Rights Act went too far in making discrimination illegal in private businesses.
It's an extreme right idea that torture now works for us when it's historically been proven unreliable for everyone else.
It's clearly only extreme right wingers who think every amendment in the Bill of Rights is negotiable except the Second, which is so absolute, they vote against laws to keep weapons away from people with mental illness or on the terrorist watch list.

McCrystal wanted, I believe, around 65k boots on the ground. He only got 40k. Also, Obama waited a good 3 months to send them. I think he was distracted by the all too important HEALTH CARE BILL....

I'll ask you this, what constitutes a mental health issue? I'm asking this because, if you haven't noticed, damn near everyday, there's a new report talking about new disabilities. Who is going to determine who has these issues? A government board? Doctors? Lets say they did do this, are you saying it will curtail mentally disabled citizens from getting a gun? BTW, you say terrorist watch list, do you actually think they are buying their guns LEGIT? Have it ever occur to you that maybe they want people on the Terrorist watch list to buy a gun? Maybe it creates a paper trail that could lock them fuckers up? Isn't that the point....

*and they say I'm the ignorant one*

thoughtone said:
I can't believe I'm responding to you. Send troops to where? How many did they want and how many did the President send? Do you know what you are talking about?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z5xTxcFA398&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z5xTxcFA398&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gv0siXm2cpc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gv0siXm2cpc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3O2rBz9gwo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3O2rBz9gwo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Name a elected federal moderate or liberal republican.

They did not work with Clinton. Clinton won in 1992. The 103rd Congress had a 57 to 43 Democratic Senate majority and 258 to 176 House of Representative Democratic majority. In 1993 Clinton passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 without one republican vote. In 1994, the so called Republican Revolution, the 104th Congress flipped with a 47 to 53 Republican Senate majority and 230 to 204 House of Representative Republican majority. The Republicans had majorities in both houses until 2006. During the rest of Clinton's Presidency, the Republicans did very little to work with Clinton. Choosing to spend their time using the tax payers money to hunt for Clinton scandals. Something you still seem to be fixated. My eight year old nephew has more historic curiosity than you.

Who said I liked Snowe and Collins. They are the most liberal Republicans in today's congress, but historically, the would be considered moderates by their voting records. If you compare them to the current Republicans in congress they are definitely more liberal. They are they type of Republicans who traditionally would work across the isles. But they have been coerced, like all of today's Republicans from crossing the Republican leadership, Rush Limbaugh.

No, 'my' side is not correct all of the time. In fact Upgrade Dave hit the nail right on the head. President Obama's poll numbers have been going down because he is loosing support from his constituency like me. We feel he has kowtowed to the Republicans even when they have made it clear that their political strategy is to oppose everything he does for political gain at the expense of moving the change agenda he promised.

In all honesty, I have low tolerance for ignorance. I respect counter opinions to mine, but you continually post information which is totally false and inaccurate. You would do yourself well to read history, not revisionist history.

McCain, Lindsey Graham just to start out... Do I have to name more?

Actually Thought, he *obama* is losing the independent vote. That's the part that's killing him. Liberals, like you, will be unhappy anyway. However, once 2010 comes around, you will be sucking the democratic dick like always. Enjoy the dress Monica...

This revising history comment is straight comedy. Everytime you use it, I keep thinking Kayanation. My point is, everyone looks at history out of their political prism. You happen to think everything about this country, up to this point, has been bad for the world.

BTW, are you in mourning over Robert Byrd's death? I know you supported his values right?

*edit* why would I review youtube links I've already watched?

QueEx said:
3A, I was waiting to read the response to this.

QueEx

been busy dude....

Upgrade Dave · Jun 29, 2010

actinanass said:
McCrystal wanted, I believe, around 65k boots on the ground. He only got 40k. Also, Obama waited a good 3 months to send them. I think he was distracted by the all too important HEALTH CARE BILL....

You can think that but it's more likely he was deciding what the best solution was long term instead of just sending McChrystal more bodies. You keep saying "3 months" like that's significant and it's not. We've been there 9 years and most of us would prefer to not be there another 9. If it takes time for the President to talk to his advisors and weigh his options (while in the midst of several other highly important issues including health insurance reform), then it takes time. We just had one dummy who jumped before he thought. We shouldn't expect this one to be the same.

I'll ask you this, what constitutes a mental health issue? I'm asking this because, if you haven't noticed, damn near everyday, there's a new report talking about new disabilities. Who is going to determine who has these issues? A government board? Doctors? Lets say they did do this, are you saying it will curtail mentally disabled citizens from getting a gun? BTW, you say terrorist watch list, do you actually think they are buying their guns LEGIT? Have it ever occur to you that maybe they want people on the Terrorist watch list to buy a gun? Maybe it creates a paper trail that could lock them fuckers up? Isn't that the point....

*and they say I'm the ignorant one*

Keep coming up with dumb answers like that and you'll keep proving them right.
A person with a documented history of mental illness should not be allowed to buy, own, or possess a firearm. That person's condition has already been determined by a doctor, usually more than one. Just because you don't know how the system works doesn't mean no one knows.
A person on the terrorist watch list can buy a gun illegally, a lot of people do, but they shouldn't be allowed to buy one legally. Your paper trail argument is ridiculous. If said suspect were to buy a gun legally and then use it, do you really think the official response would be "Of course we knew he bought a gun. We were trying to build a paper trail so when he shot some people, we would have more evidence."? How ridiculous is that? If a person is considered to be suspicious enought to need to be watched, he/she should be allowed to buy a firearm. Only right wing zealots (and people sucking at the teat of the NRA) are against even reasonable gun control measures.

McCain, Lindsey Graham just to start out... Do I have to name more?

McCain and Graham are NOT moderates. They are dyed in the wool conservatives. The fact that Graham isn't as batshit crazy and as quick to kneejerk reactions as others doesn't make him a moderate, it makes them crazy.

This revising history comment is straight comedy. Everytime you use it, I keep thinking Kayanation. My point is, everyone looks at history out of their political prism.

While the last sentence is true, revisionism has become one of the leading weapons by the Right. Just yesterday, Thurgood Marshall became an activist judge according to Jeff Sessions and John Kyl. The same Marshall who was so mainstream that when argued in front of the court, he usually won.
The State of Texas will be issuing school books in coming years that take revisionism to new depths. That isn't looking through a particular political prism, that's clearly changing what's written in books to indoctrinate young minds.

BTW, are you in mourning over Robert Byrd's death? I know you supported his values right?

Not mourning Byrd but only because I didn't know him well enough. His history in the Klan is well known and he's never denied it but he's spent the last 30 years apologizing. And it can't be said he was doing so for political gain since the Black population of W.Va is only 3% and he was guaranteed reelection just off his name. Jesse Helms never apologized for jack. Strom Thurmond, same. Byrd tried to make amends with his words and actions. So yes, I support his values.

QueEx · Jun 29, 2010

Upgrade Dave said:
Your paper trail argument is ridiculous. If said suspect were to buy a gun legally and then use it, do you really think the official response would be "Of course we knew he bought a gun. We were trying to build a paper trail so when he shot some people, we would have more evidence."?

. . . its too early in the morning to be laughing and shit !

Upgrade Dave · Jun 29, 2010

Sorry, Q.

actinanass · Jun 29, 2010

Upgrade Dave said:
You can think that but it's more likely he was deciding what the best solution was long term instead of just sending McChrystal more bodies. You keep saying "3 months" like that's significant and it's not. We've been there 9 years and most of us would prefer to not be there another 9. If it takes time for the President to talk to his advisors and weigh his options (while in the midst of several other highly important issues including health insurance reform), then it takes time. We just had one dummy who jumped before he thought. We shouldn't expect this one to be the same.

Keep coming up with dumb answers like that and you'll keep proving them right.
A person with a documented history of mental illness should not be allowed to buy, own, or possess a firearm. That person's condition has already been determined by a doctor, usually more than one. Just because you don't know how the system works doesn't mean no one knows.
A person on the terrorist watch list can buy a gun illegally, a lot of people do, but they shouldn't be allowed to buy one legally. Your paper trail argument is ridiculous. If said suspect were to buy a gun legally and then use it, do you really think the official response would be "Of course we knew he bought a gun. We were trying to build a paper trail so when he shot some people, we would have more evidence."? How ridiculous is that? If a person is considered to be suspicious enought to need to be watched, he/she should be allowed to buy a firearm. Only right wing zealots (and people sucking at the teat of the NRA) are against even reasonable gun control measures.

McCain and Graham are NOT moderates. They are dyed in the wool conservatives. The fact that Graham isn't as batshit crazy and as quick to kneejerk reactions as others doesn't make him a moderate, it makes them crazy.

While the last sentence is true, revisionism has become one of the leading weapons by the Right. Just yesterday, Thurgood Marshall became an activist judge according to Jeff Sessions and John Kyl. The same Marshall who was so mainstream that when argued in front of the court, he usually won.
The State of Texas will be issuing school books in coming years that take revisionism to new depths. That isn't looking through a particular political prism, that's clearly changing what's written in books to indoctrinate young minds.

Not mourning Byrd but only because I didn't know him well enough. His history in the Klan is well known and he's never denied it but he's spent the last 30 years apologizing. And it can't be said he was doing so for political gain since the Black population of W.Va is only 3% and he was guaranteed reelection just off his name. Jesse Helms never apologized for jack. Strom Thurmond, same. Byrd tried to make amends with his words and actions. So yes, I support his values.

1. First off, in most military plans, dealing with insurgencies tend to last for, at least, a decade. The fact that you think it should be over with already tells me that you do not fully understand the culture we are dealing with.

Secondly, talk to his administration? The only person that Obama should have full confidence in talking to, in his administration, is Gates. Anyone else is a waste of time IMO.

2. I just want you to clarify the mental illness statement. The only problem with your theory is how is it constitutional. In most cases, a true mental disabled person will more than likely have a caregiver to have rights for that person. Most gun stores owners/sellers use common sense if they think a person has issues. Plus, lets be honest, the cases where a mental disabled person gets a gun, and shoot up a crowd of people are few/far between.

3. If a person is on a terrorist watch list, chances are, there's surveillance following that person. If that wasn't the case, we would have way more terrorist attacks by now.
You underestimate our government...

4. You are showing your liberal stripes like Thought. On the right, they will consider McCain, and Graham as moderates. NO true conservative will make a bill for campaign finance reform. No true conservative will work on an immigration bill before fixing the border. You obviously do not understand the difference from liberal, centrist, moderate, and conservative.

Liberals tend to want to change everything, and give the government most of the power. They are for more gun control, environment control, market control/regulation, and eliminate the class system.

Centrist want similar things liberals want, but tend to lean right on military issues, and free market economy.

Moderates wants a strong military, lower taxes, maybe a social conservative on some issues, and want to work with the left on domestic issues. Issues like the environment, and immigration.

Conservatives want a strong military, strong/limited government, follow the constitution to the letter, and a big supporter of low taxes. Tend to support ALL businesses.

I'm sure you will disagree with how I see it...Oh well...

Another thing, you talking about indoctrinate young minds? Really? So the teachers can't explain history then?

QueEx said:
. . . its too early in the morning to be laughing and shit !

thoughtone · Jun 29, 2010

actinanass said:
McCain, Lindsey Graham just to start out... Do I have to name more?

McCain USE to be a moderate. His immigration stance was darn near the same as President Obama's until the more right wing primary challenger J.D.Hayworth made him play to the GOP wacky base and as far as Lindsey Graham is concerned, there are no moderate republicans in South Carolina. The most backward state!

Actually Thought, he *Obama* is losing the independent vote. That's the part that's killing him. Liberals, like you, will be unhappy anyway. However, once 2010 comes around, you will be sucking the democratic dick like always. Enjoy the dress Monica...

True liberals have long abandoned the Democratic Party, that's where the independents are. Liberals abandoned the Democrats back when Jesse Jackson ran for president. But given a choice between Falin or Obama you know who wins hands down.

This revising history comment is straight comedy. Every time you use it, I keep thinking Kayanation. My point is, everyone looks at history out of their political prism.

You gave me a description about event that happened with out any facts to back them up. You gave me an opinion. I gave you facts to back up my statement. History is not opinion. I was there, unfiltered by any right or left interpretation. As I have stated over and over, you are ignorant of facts. You like to debate opinion, but the actual events you are unable to grasp.

You happen to think everything about this country, up to this point, has been bad for the world.

You sound like a McCarthy era right winger. My view of my country is real. Not as I want them to be as they are. You can go through life with blinders on, but the world is not Texas.

BTW, are you in mourning over Robert Byrd's death? I know you supported his values right?

Why would I mourn over any politician's death. I am not in love with any politician, unlike you who seem to want to defend GW at every opportunity.

*edit* why would I review youtube links I've already watched?

been busy dude....

The truth is painful.

The republican party has gone ultra right wing. Just look at the current Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination hearings. Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions is trying to relitigate Thurgood Marshall 45 years later. Barry Goldwater, by no measure a moderate said before he died:

Conservative pioneer became an outcast

In 1996, Barry Goldwater sat in his Paradise Valley home with Bob Dole and joked about his strange new standing as a GOP outsider.

''We're the new liberals of the Republican Party,'' Goldwater told Dole, who was then facing criticisms from hard-line conservatives in the presidential campaign.

''Can you imagine that?''

Case closed!

Upgrade Dave · Jun 30, 2010

actinanass said:
1. First off, in most military plans, dealing with insurgencies tend to last for, at least, a decade. The fact that you think it should be over with already tells me that you do not fully understand the culture we are dealing with.

Secondly, talk to his administration? The only person that Obama should have full confidence in talking to, in his administration, is Gates. Anyone else is a waste of time IMO.

By 7/11, it would have been a decade. I think that's long enough to know if we're making progress.
I don't have to understand the culture of the Afghanistan insurgency anymore than you do because I'm not in a position to make military decisions.
The President absolutely has to get more views than just the generals or even Gates because there's more at stake than just the shooting battle. He has to know how much this is costing and where they're going to get the money from. No one, including Gates, is for an open-ended engagement. Whether tomorrow, 7/11, or 15 yrs. from now, the Taliban will still be there so eventually, we'll have to leave and find another tact.

2. I just want you to clarify the mental illness statement. The only problem with your theory is how is it constitutional. In most cases, a true mental disabled person will more than likely have a caregiver to have rights for that person. Most gun stores owners/sellers use common sense if they think a person has issues. Plus, lets be honest, the cases where a mental disabled person gets a gun, and shoot up a crowd of people are few/far between.

That is so not true in so many ways. Most people who have a history of mental illness do not have caregivers following them around. They come and go as they please, depending on the severity.
There is no such thing as "common sense" and the selling of firearms should be subject to something as subjective as how a seller feels about a perspective buyer.
They are few and far between but does that make it any less painful for the people who are victimized? There is no defense for allowing people with that particular history to purchase firearms and you're proving that.

3. If a person is on a terrorist watch list, chances are, there's surveillance following that person. If that wasn't the case, we would have way more terrorist attacks by now.
You underestimate our government...

What's that got to do with them being legally allowed to purchase a gun?
I don't underestimate anyone, much less our government. But clearly, as 9/11 showed, being under surveillance doesn't mean they'll stop them from doing something harmful. So you're okay with someone who's been deemed suspicious enough to be on the watch list buying a gun? You don't see that being a problem?
As I said, extreme right wingers see every other Amendment as negotiable but the Second. They get hard ons about their guns.

4. You are showing your liberal stripes like Thought. On the right, they will consider McCain, and Graham as moderates. NO true conservative will make a bill for campaign finance reform. No true conservative will work on an immigration bill before fixing the border. You obviously do not understand the difference from liberal, centrist, moderate, and conservative.

What I don't do is try to make these blanket, almost cartoonish and oversimplified generalizations about what constitutes a conservative, a liberal, or a moderate. McCain had one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate before he ran for President in 2000. He tacked slightly to the left against Bush but he was clearly a conservative (what's so liberal abour campaign finance reform?). When he lost, he tacked harder left to fuck with Bush, just as he's gone hard right since losing to Obama. The guy is a sore and vindictive loser. Graham's voting record is also very conservative. The fact that he's not a crazy conservative doesn't make him a moderate, just a politician that really does want to get something done sometimes.

thoughtone · Jul 8, 2010

actinanass said:
Actually Thought, he *obama* is losing the independent vote. That's the part that's killing him. Liberals, like you, will be unhappy anyway.

<iframe src="http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/major-factor-in-obamas-wapo-poll-slide-drop-among-dems-liberals/" width=800 height=1000></iframe><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

thoughtone · Jul 8, 2010

actinanass said:
Actually Thought, he *obama* is losing the independent vote. That's the part that's killing him. Liberals, like you, will be unhappy anyway.

Lamarr · Jul 22, 2010

Upgrade Dave said:
McCain and Graham are NOT moderates. They are dyed in the wool conservatives. The fact that Graham isn't as batshit crazy and as quick to kneejerk reactions as others doesn't make him a moderate, it makes them crazy.

How could anyone say Graham is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative? :smh:

Absolutely nothing conservative about this clown! McCaint's record looks about the same as Grahamnesty

500,000 SC VOTERS WHO PLEDGE TO DUMP LINDSEY GRAHAM IN 2014

Major Facepalm! F*** Lindsey Grahamnesty
Lindsey Graham...
*Supports cap-and-trade;
*supported McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill;
*supported and pushed the TARP bailout;
*supported anti-gun legislation;
*supported the 'Patriot' Act;
*has been a career-long Big Government Republican.
*loves LaRaza
*was the only Republican in the Senate Judicial Committee to vote for Sonia Sotamayor

thoughtone · Jul 22, 2010

Lamarr said:
How could anyone say Graham is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative? Absolutely nothing conservative about this clown! McCaint's record looks about the same as Grahamnesty

500,000 SC VOTERS WHO PLEDGE TO DUMP LINDSEY GRAHAM IN 2014

Major Facepalm! F*** Lindsey Grahamnesty
Lindsey Graham...
*Supports cap-and-trade;
*supported McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill;
*supported and pushed the TARP bailout;
*supported anti-gun legislation;
*supported the 'Patriot' Act;
*has been a career-long Big Government Republican.
*loves LaRaza
*was the only Republican in the Senate Judicial Committee to vote for Sonia Sotamayor

Was Barry Goldwater a conservative?

QueEx · Jan 1, 2013

The opinion of Actinanass: Milk carton leadership...

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star