ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Some of us are talking about 9/11. And the entire Senate did vote w/ a thumbs up for the first coa after that terrible day. If Obama had been a Senator at the time of 9/11, he too would've voted yes. If he was a Senator back then and voted no, Obama would not have been a Senator in the next election and he probably wouldn't be President today. People would've viewed him unpatriotic. I totally agree. Afghanistan is were the enemy was. I think Obama would have voted yes after 911. That is not where Bush went wrong. He went wrong with the personal grudge againist Iraq and nation building in the Middle East. You get no argument from me with regards to this. Like BuffainATL said... It is time to let it go... Now the following leaders have to clean up this clusterphuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Let it go and move on boys....Bush is out of office and the new era of "hope" & "change" is now upon us. Turn the page....you are really coming across as petulant little whiners. There has been enough damage done by the mistakes of the past Administration - no disputing that. Sorry for coming across that way. You are totally right and that was not my intention. Just talking about the things... Again, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Providing for those in need, ending a meaningless war and preserving individual rights. Wow, that is nonsense. What was I thinking. Microscope? That is another difference between the W and Obama. You don't need to look at the W through a microscope to see his flaws. They are visible with the naked eye. Hell, they are visible from space. We'll see how "classy" the "non-liberals" are after four years. I'm sure by that time their law suits to stop Obama from being president will be a distant memory. Good thing Obama re-took the oath. I'm beginning to think that Roberts screwed up on purpose to give non-liberals a chance at another law suit. Oh, you mean extending the welfare state, cutting refund checks for those who pay NO taxes, and funding international abortion groups, oops, I mean planned parenthood...yes DeLuca, that's the nonsense I'm talking about. Since it seems you are so charitable and think government should be the benevolent monolith that will become bigger and more pervasive in our lives, then why don't you start by opening your own wallet to help "provide for those in need"? And the Left is talking about pursuing legislation to force talk radio to give "equal time" to views espoused by conservative radio (because liberal radio is lame and can't compete for market share on its own merit - pathetic)....so now Big Brother will intervene and promote "competition" through intervention and regulation? sounds like socialist state planning to me. PATHETIC !! My point with the microscope analogy is that the liberal media will NEVER grill Obama with the same hateful fervor it did with Bush. You're right, Bush's flaws were obvious for all to see. The lunatics who have talked about lawsuits to challenge Obama's inauguration are a fringe group and nothing more, so get off your soapbox. So Roberts screwed up on purpose? Ahh, the paranoid conspiracy theory again. Like he really wanted to embarrass himself that much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Sorry for coming across that way. You are totally right and that was not my intention. Just talking about the things... Again, sorry. Thanks for a reasonable and intelligent reply - no need to apologize, but thank you. At least there is a modicum of good will here after all..... :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Careful. He'll give you his phone number. :thumbsup: I shoulda known better than to get drawn into that one..Keyboard jockey and pizza delivery boy..What was I thinking.. :thumbsup: And it way 716..Wasnt hiding and still am not.. Sorry for all the bantering Mark(deluca)..I was just stating my opinion and was slammed for it..Maybe It came across as a personal attack but it wasnt intended..But when someone questions my "true colours or states my wife is third on my list I will defend myself..On the board and in person if I am pissed enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Ah yes.. The famous vote she made to become President that ultimately doomed her presidency And the first part of the" I voted for it before I voted against it" statement that led to Kerry's downfall I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 ..Keyboard jockey and pizza delivery boy.. Why that dynamic duo was never as popular as batman and robin; I'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 pizza delivery boy :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 But when someone questions my true colours...I am pissed enough I had only meant that you had kept your political views hidden much better than some of the other more boisterous posters here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Why that dynamic duo was never as popular as batman and robin; I'll never know. It was the costumes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Keyboard jockey and pizza delivery boy.. This was our vehicle, it didn't go over too well either: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I had only meant that you had kept your political views hidden much better than some of the other more boisterous posters here. Stupid me..Sorry..I owe you an apology....I was rubbed the wrong way and thought you were hopping on..I choose to keep my views to myself because this happens...Then when someone attcks my line of priorities i get a little off the edge..I owe you one..Sorry again..I took the words "true colors" as an insult to your train of thinking if I can explain where my thoughts were coming from.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Oh, you mean extending the welfare state, cutting refund checks for those who pay NO taxes, and funding international abortion groups, oops, I mean planned parenthood...yes DeLuca, that's the nonsense I'm talking about. Since it seems you are so charitable and think government should be the benevolent monolith that will become bigger and more pervasive in our lives, then why don't you start by opening your own wallet to help "provide for those in need"? And the Left is talking about pursuing legislation to force talk radio to give "equal time" to views espoused by conservative radio (because liberal radio is lame and can't compete for market share on its own merit - pathetic)....so now Big Brother will intervene and promote "competition" through intervention and regulation? sounds like socialist state planning to me. PATHETIC !! My point with the microscope analogy is that the liberal media will NEVER grill Obama with the same hateful fervor it did with Bush. You're right, Bush's flaws were obvious for all to see. The lunatics who have talked about lawsuits to challenge Obama's inauguration are a fringe group and nothing more, so get off your soapbox. So Roberts screwed up on purpose? Ahh, the paranoid conspiracy theory again. Like he really wanted to embarrass himself that much? Id like you to quote the bill where this is proposed or at least say what person is sponsoring such legislation? ? there is in fact no such thing being proposed or in the works at any governmental level. youve been duped. Im sure you never even bothered to see if it was real or whether you just believed talk radio. Your ignorance of the facts is quite fascinating. Foxnews isnt legitimate news you know. What republican president has actually made govt size or spending decrease? BOTH parties increase spending and the size of goverment. Regan and Bush I and II did. the only difference is they are fiscually irresponsible. Lifting the funding ban on groups that preach safer sex in AIDS ridden areas is funding abortion? be rational for a minute or is abstinence and jesus going to keep the spread of AIDS down in these areas?? no its not, they do not effectively lower pregnancy rates or AIDS in africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Thanks for a reasonable and intelligent reply - no need to apologize, but thank you. At least there is a modicum of good will here after all..... :thumbsup: You are right. It is nicer on this board, seems like people can put their diffferences aside... Just give us a SC in BFLO and I will scream from the hilltops your message! ;) ;) I know it bothers some people... I just like to talk and argue! :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 How 'bout them Sabres! :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I shoulda known better than to get drawn into that one..Keyboard jockey and pizza delivery boy..What was I thinking.. :thumbsup: And it way 716..Wasnt hiding and still am not.. Sorry for all the bantering Mark(deluca)..I was just stating my opinion and was slammed for it..Maybe It came across as a personal attack but it wasnt intended..But when someone questions my "true colours or states my wife is third on my list I will defend myself..On the board and in person if I am pissed enough... :lol: I can just hear the talking caller ID if you guys actually started to take calls! "Call from: stenbaro" "Call from stenbaro" :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Stupid me..Sorry..I owe you an apology....I was rubbed the wrong way and thought you were hopping on..I choose to keep my views to myself because this happens...Then when someone attcks my line of priorities i get a little off the edge..I owe you one..Sorry again..I took the words "true colors" as an insult to your train of thinking if I can explain where my thoughts were coming from.. No problem. :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 How 'bout them Sabres! :unsure: Who? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I shoulda known better than to get drawn into that one..Keyboard jockey and pizza delivery boy..What was I thinking.. :thumbsup: And it way 716..Wasnt hiding and still am not.. Sorry for all the bantering Mark(deluca)..I was just stating my opinion and was slammed for it..Maybe It came across as a personal attack but it wasnt intended..But when someone questions my "true colours or states my wife is third on my list I will defend myself..On the board and in person if I am pissed enough... In the words of Sargent Hulka "Lighten up Francis". If you stare long enough at my comment you will realize it had nothing to do with "your list." I could explain it further but it takes away from the joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Id like you to quote the bill where this is proposed or at least say what person is sponsoring such legislation? ? there is in fact no such thing being proposed or in the works at any governmental level. youve been duped. Im sure you never even bothered to see if it was real or whether you just believed talk radio. Your ignorance of the facts is quite fascinating. Foxnews isnt legitimate news you know. What republican president has actually made govt size or spending decrease? BOTH parties increase spending and the size of goverment. Regan and Bush I and II did. the only difference is they are fiscually irresponsible. Lifting the funding ban on groups that preach safer sex in AIDS ridden areas is funding abortion? be rational for a minute or is abstinence and jesus going to keep the spread of AIDS down in these areas?? no its not, they do not effectively lower pregnancy rates or AIDS in africa. [/ Before I reply to your demand for a cited source, let me explain that I consider myself a literate reader of news from multiple sources: print, TV, Internet, and, yes, even evil conservative talk radio..... :nana: What I am not is a knee-jerk who only reads Blog rumors or opinions on the radio; so before you keep implying this, the source of this proposed Democratic legislation is the original Fairness Doctrine, which was revoked as unconstitutional.... "In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[11] The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional." While there has been no successful legislation passed to overturn this ruling, there have been key members of the Democratic Majority who have expressed their interests in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine - Nancy Pelosi & Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder are two prominent names I can cite. There HAS BEEN attempted legislation proposed contrary to your claim that "there is in fact no such thing being proposed or in the works at any governmental level" "In February 2005, U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (Democrat of New York) and 23 co-sponsors introduced the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (H.R. 501) [14] in the 1st Session of the 109th Congress of 2005-7 (when Republicans held a majority of both Houses). The bill would have shortened a station's license term from eight years to four, with the requirement that a license-holder cover important issues fairly, hold local public hearings about its coverage twice a year, and document to the FCC how it was meeting its obligations.[15] The bill was referred to committee, but progressed no further.[16] ( In the same session of Congress, Representative Maurice Hinchey (another Democrat from New York) introduced legislation "to restore the Fairness Doctrine". H.R. 3302, also known as the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005" or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.[17]" So, before you say I am ignorant of the facts, these are the facts I have cited. The talk of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is alive and well. So you are the one who looks ignorant after I have have presented the facts. I did spend the time researching these facts to ensure I wasn't just "believing talk radio". On what grounds is FoxNews not "legitimate" news? Just because they dare to not preach the liberal slant of the other networks? Because they present viewpoints of yours and MSNBC's? You are full of shiite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 sorry, a correction on my last point: On what grounds is FoxNews not "legitimate" news? Just because they dare to not preach the liberal slant of the other networks? Because they don't emphasize viewpoints of yours and MSNBC's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 sorry, a correction on my last point: On what grounds is FoxNews not "legitimate" news? Just because they dare to not preach the liberal slant of the other networks? Because they don't emphasize viewpoints of yours and MSNBC's? you are referencing an article from 2005 as somehow refuting me? Hoyer said just this month there will be NO vote on the fairness doctrine. THe president said this past summer he does not support the Fairness Doctrine and Pelosi also stated this past summer the bill will NOT be presented on the floor. so good job with a 4 year old article trying to call me out. Like i said there are no current sponsors of any bill regarding the fairness doctrine. A bill from 4 years ago ? You are prob well off in GA with the rest of your types. You want to talk about entitlement? the South takes in about $1.40 for every $1.00 in taxes they pay, thats entitlement, GOP country. Also have more per capita teenage mothers, high school dropouts, and welfare recipients. Right its just the liberal media that hates the US. you hatred and vileness are just representative of the modern conservative movement I feel better with an intelligent person in charge of the country instead of some #%^$#!up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 you are referencing an article from 2005 as somehow refuting me? Hoyer said just this month there will be NO vote on the fairness doctrine. THe president said this past summer he does not support the Fairness Doctrine and Pelosi also stated this past summer the bill will NOT be presented on the floor. so good job with a 4 year old article trying to call me out. Like i said there are no current sponsors of any bill regarding the fairness doctrine. A bill from 4 years ago ? You are prob well off in GA with the rest of your types. You want to talk about entitlement? the South takes in about $1.40 for every $1.00 in taxes they pay, thats entitlement, GOP country. Also have more per capita teenage mothers, high school dropouts, and welfare recipients. Right its just the liberal media that hates the US. you hatred and vileness are just representative of the modern conservative movement I feel better with an intelligent person in charge of the country instead of some #%^$#!up. I hope those who are against helping those who have hit hard times never find themselves in need of help. As the economy continues to falter (68,000 jobs lost today according to reports) we are all finding ourselves closer to that poverty line. I guess it's just easier for people to sleep thinking that those on welfare are because they want to be. To believe they are lazy and just looking for handouts. Not to say those people don't exist. I would be willing to bet there are far more Corporate Tax cheats that remain a drain on the American tax payer than those who commit welfare fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 I hope those who are against helping those who have hit hard times never find themselves in need of help. As the economy continues to falter (68,000 jobs lost today according to reports) we are all finding ourselves closer to that poverty line. I guess it's just easier for people to sleep thinking that those on welfare are because they want to be. To believe they are lazy and just looking for handouts. Not to say those people don't exist. I would be willing to bet there are far more Corporate Tax cheats that remain a drain on the American tax payer than those who commit welfare fraud. I am all about helping my fellow man, as I have mentioned before on this Board - I have volunteered my time for the homeless. I am all about people working to improve their lot in life but fully understanding of the tough job market we are in. I am also grateful for the great career that I do have. If you would be willing to bet there are far more Corporate Tax cheats that remain a drain on the American tax payer than those who commit welfare fraud, and not have a source or statistic to back it up, one could in fairness easily bet the inverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 I am all about helping my fellow man, as I have mentioned before on this Board - I have volunteered my time for the homeless. I am all about people working to improve their lot in life but fully understanding of the tough job market we are in. I am also grateful for the great career that I do have. If you would be willing to bet there are far more Corporate Tax cheats that remain a drain on the American tax payer than those who commit welfare fraud, and not have a source or statistic to back it up, one could in fairness easily bet the inverse. And that's fine with me. That's why I said it as more of an opinion than a statement of fact knowing no such statistics exist. You would have to have access to IRS and Social Services records to compare. Being a betting man I would put my money on the Corporate Cheats. Politics aside, the number of people in need is going to continue to grow. Providing help to those people doesn't create a "welfare state". Ignoring them or telling them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps isn't going to feed them. They have to be provided for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.