oh hmmm i dunno maybe cause you called me racist?

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

...he does not seem like a fighter. Doesn't seem like he would commit us to back our allies, most of which he seems bent on disassociating us from.

He seems like somebody who on 9/11, would have apologized for making them do that to us. You guys seem really mad at the US. How have we offended? How can we make amends?

I despise Obama not because he is called African American by the MSM but because he is a liar parading around in sheep's clothing. He says one thing to one group, contradicts himself on the same subject to another, and plays idiotic Americans like a violin.

Obama's parentage does not qualify him to be called black anymore than his foreign birth qualifies him to called an American. To say people oppose him are racist because of his skin color is preposterous when he is neither black nor African American.

The Democrats have suddenly developed a keen sense of morality. John Edwards has been banned from making a speech at the democratic convention for having an affair and lying about it.

And Rep. Broun really thinks congress, the senate, the supreme court and any other government branches I forgot would let this happen? People would not protest? Does he (and you, OP) really believe America has become that weak? Never underestimate Americans, my friends.

GR said, "I would wager a bet that if we were back in the 50s and 60s people wouldn't be hiding behind the smoke screen of birth certificates, Ayers, abortion, gay marriage, etc."

Jan 3, 2005 | Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times paid a recent visit to the Washington headquarters of President Bush's inaugural committee, where 450 paid staff members have been busy planning concerts, balls and other events for the three-day swearing-in extravaganza.

The Bush camp has been taking some heat for the estimated $40 million it will raise and spend on the big party; such criticism seemed especially apt before the White House upped its initial paltry sum of $15 million for tsunami relief to $35 million, and then again later to a more worthy $350 million. (Though there are still plenty of ways to measure even the latter as modest at best.) Others had already taken note of what the $40 million could buy for some of the woefully underfunded U.S. troops in Iraq.

Nonetheless, Bush's legion of party planners were ready to defend their cause. Gordon C. James, a deputy director of inaugural events, pointed out that a presidential inaugural has never been canceled, even during world wars. He double-checked the history books to make sure: "The celebrations went on," he told Bumiller, "that's the lesson we learned."

Technically speaking, James is correct, though according to this recent AP piece, at the height of World War II in 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt "opted for a low-key inauguration to mark the start of his fourth term, with a simple swearing-in ceremony, a brief speech from the South Portico of the White House to a small crowd and a modest luncheon."

Meanwhile, another "senior inaugural official," who according to Bumiller "asked not to be identified," called the unflattering comparisons regarding the $40 million a "political shot." The official added that "people are not going to demand the cancellation of the Rose Bowl parade or the Oscars."

http://dir.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/01/03/party_on/index.html

Clinton won't be acting on her own accord. She'll be acting on behalf of the Obama administration. So, while she might not like the approach Obama has, she'll just have to suck it up and go with it. I think it would be in HER best interest to go with Obama on this one instead of going renegade, especially if she is still considering running for president in the future. If she does go renegade, the democratic party will eat her alive, especially considering Obama's popularity, something I'm sure she's well aware of.

I personally liked the pick of Clinton for SOS. Actually there really weren't that many differences between her and Obama on most issues. The differences they did have were just emphasized because they were running against each other. That's what candidates do -- point out differences between themselves and thier opponents.

Rember all that talk before the inauguration about how many people would be there? Remember all the people on this board who said it would be a crime fest? Check this out:

We already had a sense that the crime stats were much lower than usual this weekend, and the Examiner reported today that the long, four-day weekend -- at least up until to this point -- has been quite successful in terms of crime prevention. The U.S. Park Police say they have not made any Inauguration-related arrests as of this morning, and MPD spokesperson Traci Hughes told the paper that for the D.C. police, "it's pretty quiet." Obviously, a full evaluation of the weekend can't be accurately completed without factoring in today's activities and tonight's parties to come, but signs so far point to the significant police preparations panning out (even if they're the officers aren't good with directions).

http://dcist.com/2009/01/inaugural_crime_levels_low_so_far_k.php

How about this?

"Zero. There have been no inaugural-related arrest[s] reported by any of our law enforcement partners today," the Secret Service said, as of 5 p.m. ET. [That was on Jan 20]

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Inauguration/story?id=6683899&page=1

I wonder....does your church have nonprofit status? Tax exempt? And yet sooo involved in politics. Exactly how legal was that?

Thanks for the concern, but as I've said numerous times, the fate of the general public does not need to be regulated by an institution that only represents the beliefs of christians.

Since when has there ever been an intelligent conversation on here? This is a place where a bunch of women sit at home with nothing to do. These women aren't out in the real world on a daily basis. Seriously? Hoping for intelligent conversation? Ok, I got popcorn, I'll wait!

Probably just like I'm tired of hearing about the petty complaints about Obama....

Spending: Bush did plenty of spending with no protest whatsoever from pub Senators. Now they are all having a fit about spending all the sudden. Keep in mind that we had a deficit during all this spending. What's the difference in Bush spending and Obama spending? Bush spending included a rubber stamped check for 2 wars, one of which was unnecessary, and he didn't even count the cost of those wars in the budget. This is all money lost -- as in we don't see any results other than deaths from this. Obama spending is more of an investment....infrastructure, new energy sources..etc..etc.. We will see a return from this. Funny how pubs were more than happy to give up money for a unjust war, but when it comes to something like providing unemployment to US citizens they are all up in arms.

Pork: I think there is good pork and bad pork. Why do you think we have representatives from each state in Washington if not to ensure help to their respective states? Granted, a lot of the pork that is on the news is ridiculous, and no I'm not happy about some of the pork that Obama has signed.

Crooks: We all know there are crooked politicians on both sides. I haven't given Blago a free ride. That should tell you something. However, I don't happen to believe that Obama is in the "crooked" category.

Could Obama be doing a better job? Maybe. Do I agree with everything he does? No. But, do I think he's doing a good job overall? Yes, especially when it comes to foreign affairs.

It's not like he has the easiest job in the world. And yes, he is having to "fix" a lot of messes from the Bush admin as well as from the Clinton admin, which only makes his job harder. So, given the circumstances, I think he's doing an excellent job.

I've never heard this point of view before. Marriage has been the accepted word even with non-christians and atheists but the reason for a lot of people not wanting same sex marriage is because of their religious beliefs. Hmm....I will have to think about your point of view. I don't particularly like the idea of all "marriages" becoming civil unions but it would at least leave the actual title of marriage alone though. Hmm. That might be another way to compromise. Civil unions can be between any two people no matter what gender and the definition for marriage can be left between a man and woman through our religious beliefs. I'm sure that will still offend some people but I really do feel that a compromise in this situation wouldn't hurt. But that is just me.

What happens to all the donations O gets from his campaign? Won't that be considered income? You know darn well he's going to have a lot left over.

We will continue drinking Kool-Aid, and you can continue sucking on lemons. Who do you think will be happier? By the way, sucking lemons makes you a sourpuss!

Now that would be an improvement. This country was not founded on christianity or any other relgion. I agree that Obama was downplaying religion, but I also believe that that is exactly what he needed to do. Bush turned this whole mess into a big "us against them" mentality...."us" meaning christians. I believe Obama had to negate this idea by downplaying religion, thus deflating the whole notion that we are in a religious war (which is exactly what Bush wanted and subsequently turned it into.)

What I find really interesting is the idea that you insinuate that we MUST be identified as a nation by a specific religion. Since we are talking about this in the context of politics, exactly why is it you feel we MUST be seen by the world as a "god-fearing" nation? What would be the benefits of that?

oh hmmm i dunno maybe cause you called me racist?

Team Bush plans to party on

Inaugural Weekend Crime Levels Low, So Far