Did you - and would you again ?

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
You say life is a right and I agree, but there is no way I will ever believe that the Democrats believe that life is a right, especially when they ardently support abortion. In fact, they feel so passionately about it, that they make me and a lot of other Americans pay for them and not only the ones here in America, but around the world. A little hard to enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness when you're dead.

With a statement like this, I could either go into the abortion issue and how it is actually necessary for a woman to have the right to choose, or I could make a snide comment about how the previous administration sent thousands of people looking to "enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to their deaths in the Middle East under false pretenses. But I won't.
 

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
I did not, I will not.

I would have infinitely preferred a Clinton/Obama ticket, but as mentioned above, it didn't happen. I don't give a flying fuck that the man is black, but evidently others do... and got swept away with the whole "We're gunna have a BLACK Prez!" hysteria. The man had ONLY two years as a US Senator prior to his run for President. That was nowhere near enough time to have become "seasoned" enough to lead this great country of ours.

Is he intelligent? Yes.
Is he well meaning? Probably.
Is he an effective leader? No.

He relies too much on Wall Street to advise him on our current financial mess, and THEY'RE the people who created the whole fucking crash. Why he keeps listening to "advisors" like Geithner and Bernanke (both with long and deep, deep connections to Wall Street, is beyond comprehension.)

Here's an interesting article about Bernanke for those who don't really know how deep his ties to Wall Street are... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/ben-bernanke-wall-streets_b_683290.html

Geithner's ties to Wall Street are are so flagrant that I presume everyone knows about them

Yes, he is only "one arm" of the government and yes, he has to contend with a fractious Congress, but tell me, what did he get accomplished when he had control of both the Senate AND the House? Nothing that helped Main Street... which is exactly why those idiot Tea Baggers are in Congress now.

Meaning well carries no weight and no benefit, if not married to the ability to govern well.

He has shown that he is not the man for the job.

I know, I know, if not him then who? To that I have no answer. I may, for the first time in my adult life, just not vote in the upcoming Presidential election.
 
Last edited:

B_blueonblue1964

Sexy Member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Posts
689
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
103
Location
U.S.A.
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm one of the few people in my state who supported and voted for Obama in the early elections. And, yes, I will vote for him again.
President Bush left President Obama two wars, a recession, and a country in heavy debt.
I cannot imagine voting for a Republican---they hate EVERYone who isn't white, wealthy, heterosexual, and Christian. I don't trust them.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
53
The man had ONLY two years as a US Senator prior to his run for President. That was nowhere near enough time to have become "seasoned" enough to lead this great country of ours.

I think we agree on more than we disagree. But there are a handful of things I'd like to point out-

Is governmental service really a qualification for anything other than continued governmental service? I'm fairly certain an ape with a typewriter would make a more effective member of Congress than most of the ones who are actually elected so what honest to god good does serving 25 years in the House or Senate really do except verse one in the art of bureaucracy (not overcoming it but how to get reelected in spite of not doing so)?

He relies too much on Wall Street to advise him on our current financial mess, and THEY'RE the people who created the whole fucking crash. Why he keeps listening to "advisors" like Geithner and Bernanke (both with long and deep, deep connections to Wall Street, is beyond comprehension.)

Here's an interesting article about Bernanke for those who don't really know how deep his ties to Wall Street are... Dean Baker: Ben Bernanke: Wall Street's Servant

Geithner's ties to Wall Street are are so flagrant that I presume everyone knows about them

It's more or less a given that if you didn't have ties to the shadowy wealth we all know runs this country before you were elected President, you certainly do afterward or you wouldn't have won. I think when phrases just that way most people would agree. Barack Obama's appointees ties with Wall Street are so much more palatable than the ties previous administrations have had.. but even if that weren't the case, I think it boils down to being very hard pressed to find a Presidential victor without some dubious ties somewhere. [/quote]

Yes, he is only "one arm" of the government and yes, he has to contend with a fractious Congress, but tell me, what did he get accomplished when he had control of both the Senate AND the House? Nothing that helped Main Street... which is exactly why those idiot Tea Baggers are in Congress now.


On this we completely agree. It was like watching two children play with a shiny red ball. The nice little boy tries to establish some friendly rules while he has the ball and he goes on at length to describe them just before he rolls the ball gently along the ground to the second little boy. The second little boy picks up the ball, laughs, and runs away with it.

The President's well meant intention to compromise and come to the table ready to negotiate with Republicans (rather than annihilate them) was taken a sign of weakness and they haven't let up since.

I know, I know, if not him then who? To that I have no answer. I may, for the first time in my adult life, just not vote in the upcoming Presidential election.

I can't not vote. If nothing else a ballot cast for Barack Obama could be read as a vote against the alternative and lets face it- President Bachmann is a nightmare I wouldn't wish on a local PTA let alone the United States. I'm not over the moon about the President's first term... but I'd rather that than under the bus during someone elses.





JSZ
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
343
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 and the only way he'd get my vote in the future is with my cold, dead hand.




You say life is a right and I agree, but there is no way I will ever believe that the Democrats believe that life is a right, especially when they ardently support abortion. In fact, they feel so passionately about it, that they make me and a lot of other Americans pay for them and not only the ones here in America, but around the world. A little hard to enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness when you're dead.

I think a little correction is needed here. 1) NO Federal money is spent on Abortions! Also Democrats DO NOT support abortion. What they support is a woman's right to CHOOSE to have an abortion that is safe IF that is her choice! For all the blabberjab about Constitutional freedoms I hear from the Republicans and the evil government staying out of individual's personal lives -- it seems a bit of double speak to me that they would have the GOVERNMENT mandate 1) a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body and B) WHO I am permitted to fall in love with!
 
Last edited:

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
343
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You say that some Republicans would vote for a goat if it was on the ticket. And you say you're going to vote party line no matter what. Isn't that the same thing on different sides?

2 points for you -- great perception!!! If any form of logic can't convince someone that red isn't really green -- well -- 2 can play that game. I'm just praying that there are more of "me" than "them!"
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
53
I think a little correction is needed here. 1) NO Federal money is spent on Abortions! Also Democrats DO NOT support abortion. What they support is a woman's right to CHOOSE to have an abortion that is safe IF that is her choice! For all the blabberjab about Constitutional freedoms I hear from the Republicans and the evil government staying out of individual's personal lives -- it seems a bit of double speak to me that they would have the GOVERNMENT mandate 1) a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body and B) WHO I am permitted to fall in love with!


Here's my thing;

Let's say the over turn Roe tomorrow and then enact a constitutional ban on Abortion. Bam- it's now illegal to perform and not unlike suicide, even an attempt can get you prosecuted. Fantastic.

Now... what do we do with all of these unwanted children? Where do they go? The first option is to keep them trapped in a loveless family, right? And what a great way to start a life; with parents who would have aborted you had they had the opportunity. The second option is that the child gets put up for adoption (or in the cases where the mother is blatantly unfit, becomes a ward of the state.) As though those agencies weren't already deeply inefficient thanks to the staggering numbers of children they're dealing with. We've now increased the burden on what is so lovingly called welfare.

Unless you're living in some sort of fantasy world where making abortion illegal suddenly turns the women who would have opted for it into June Cleaver the alternative simply isn't practical.




JSZ
 

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
I think we agree on more than we disagree. But there are a handful of things I'd like to point out-

Is governmental service really a qualification for anything other than continued governmental service? I'm fairly certain an ape with a typewriter would make a more effective member of Congress than most of the ones who are actually elected so what honest to god good does serving 25 years in the House or Senate really do except verse one in the art of bureaucracy (not overcoming it but how to get reelected in spite of not doing so)?

Be that as it may, but my point is that with all of the political gamesmanship in Washington these past couple of decades, it takes being more than "smart" to figure out how to get your agenda to be THEIR agenda. Obama would have benefited greatly from some more time learning the ropes, and perhaps some tutelage from Bill Clinton- had Hilary won and Bill became the First Husband, on how to get shit done!

Like I said, I think he means well and yes, I do think he inherited a rotten cesspool of a situation, but I also think he had no clue how to handle "Washington" and therefore, even WITH control of the Senate and Congress, he got NOTHING substantial accomplished when it comes to the vital everything things, like, oh say, a JOB!

Yes, he gets major props from me for presiding over the end of DADT, but you know, much as I think everyone should be treated equally, and should be able to serve their country without fear of being kicked out just because they are gay, that is a hell of a lot less important to me than making sure that our economy doesn't crash and burn. I'd rather people have homes, and jobs so they can buy food to eat!

He has not done much, if anything about the lack of jobs, the foreclosure crisis, the downturn in the economy in general, and in fact, his lack of addressing the economy will likely turn him into a one-and-done President. Which is as it should be, IMHO.

It's more or less a given that if you didn't have ties to the shadowy wealth we all know runs this country before you were elected President, you certainly do afterward or you wouldn't have won. I think when phrases just that way most people would agree. Barack Obama's appointees ties with Wall Street are so much more palatable than the ties previous administrations have had.. but even if that weren't the case, I think it boils down to being very hard pressed to find a Presidential victor without some dubious ties somewhere.

How is Tim Geithner "more palatable" than Hank Paulson? They're essentially the SAME GUY.

Went to Ivy League school? Check... in fact double check since they went to the same one! (Dartmouth)

Pushed and pushed and pushed to use tax dollars to "bail out" banks? Check.

Worked (hard) to bail out AIG? Check.

Has many "friends" on Wall Street? Check.

Here is an article that talks about Ol Timmy and his buddies at Goldman, who, by the way, he GAVE a 30 BILLION (yes, that's with a Capital B) interest free "loan" to, as part of a SECRET "Float" to the banks! (By the way, Goldman wasn't a "bank" until Timmy made them one.)

Robert Scheer: Geithner and Goldman, Thick as Thieves

Just reading this gets me boiling mad and your beloved President WANTS this scum sucking, lying, tax evading fool to STAY!

Obama urges Geithner to stay as Treasury chief - Yahoo! News

Seriously, I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama. I don't see anyone on the R side that I can tolerate, let alone "like"; so I may be FORCED to stay the hell home on election day.

Our country has gone to hell in a handbasket and the great black messiah, everyone was hoping for and voting for, didn't fix shit.

Oh, and before anyone jumps on me about calling the big O a " black messiah", here's a detailed examination of why some behaved as if he was indeed the Messiah.

Max Blumenthal: Obama, the Fallen Messiah
 

D_MastaBaiter

1st Like
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Posts
56
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
43
Sexuality
No Response
I think a little correction is needed here. 1) NO Federal money is spent on Abortions!

Well, you got me there and thankfully you're keeping track of federal dollars being spent by Planned Parenthood, because not even Planned Parenthood can account for all the money they've received from the goverment. I suggest you talk with them and straighten things out, because then they'll be able to explain what happened to the $1.3 billion they couldn't account for. That's right, they received $2 billion dollars from the federal government (taxpayer money) between 2003-2008 and they could only account for $657 million of it. Wish I could just "lose" $1.3 billion.

Also Democrats DO NOT support abortion. What they support is a woman's right to CHOOSE to have an abortion that is safe IF that is her choice!

Of course they don't, that's why they fight so ardently against proposed laws that would require a doctor to give a woman all the facts about their child's development in the womb. Which interestly enough, if a doctor withheld information from a patient that would be important to them in making a decision about any other operation, that doctor would be in a lot of trouble. I mean, if it's a right, shouldn't a woman have all the tools before them in order to make a decision? Apparently, the Democrats don't, they think things like ultrasounds are not needed in order to make a fully informed choice. Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that a high percentage of women will choose not to have an abortion after seeing an ultrasound of their baby.


For all the blabberjab about Constitutional freedoms I hear from the Republicans and the evil government staying out of individual's personal lives -- it seems a bit of double speak to me that they would have the GOVERNMENT mandate 1) a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body

Except it would have to be her body. When a person is conceived a unique genetic code is established which is different than the mother's or the father's. Thus the body being aborted isn't her's, but her baby's


and B) WHO I am permitted to fall in love with!

Well, first, you're assuming I'm a Republican, which I'm not, I'm third party, but that aside, I've never seen legislation from the Republicans that mandates who a person falls in love with. It's ridiculous. That's like trying to mandate somebody's thoughts. It's impossible. Show me this legislation they supposedly tried to pass.
 
Last edited:

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Yes, and in the primary, and definitely not.

I sincerely hoped we had enough of war. When Obama said he had to ask congress for the authority for military action, and would bring our trooops home "first thing" I believed him. Not only are our troops still there, but he has started another war that had less planning than G.W.'s wars, and absolutely no debate.

Gitmo is still wide open. All he has to do is lift his pen and close it.

For lying to my face on October 27th 2007, I am staying home Novermber 6th 2012.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes and yes. And it amazes me that people can talk about Obama as if he hasn't done anything. Yeah, right. How many presidents can you name who accomplished as much in their first two years in office? It's a very, very short list.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I've never seen legislation from the Republicans that mandates who a person falls in love with. It's ridiculous. That's like trying to mandate somebody's thoughts. It's impossible. Show me this legislation they supposedly tried to pass.

Pffffff . . . a technicality, and you know it. The point is, you tell someone they can't MARRY the person they love, you're intervening in their love life to an overweening and unacceptable degree.

And, yes, the restriction against same-sex marriage has been in place for most of recorded history. But that doesn't make it any less unjust (any more than the similarly long history of slavery justifies THAT institution).
 
Last edited:

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
343
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Here's my thing;

Let's say the over turn Roe tomorrow and then enact a constitutional ban on Abortion. Bam- it's now illegal to perform and not unlike suicide, even an attempt can get you prosecuted. Fantastic.

Now... what do we do with all of these unwanted children? Where do they go? The first option is to keep them trapped in a loveless family, right? And what a great way to start a life; with parents who would have aborted you had they had the opportunity. The second option is that the child gets put up for adoption (or in the cases where the mother is blatantly unfit, becomes a ward of the state.) As though those agencies weren't already deeply inefficient thanks to the staggering numbers of children they're dealing with. We've now increased the burden on what is so lovingly called welfare.

Unless you're living in some sort of fantasy world where making abortion illegal suddenly turns the women who would have opted for it into June Cleaver the alternative simply isn't practical.


JSZ

There's an important point you're missing. The real issue in abortion is the word "SAFE"! Before Roe vs Wade -- women who were hell bent on getting an abortion because it was THEIR CHOICE......had nowhere to go except to shady characters known as "back alley butchers" who oftentimes used a coat hanger to perform the act. THAT was the alternative for them THEN! And the 2nd point is that this is also VERY much a "class" battle. The alternative above was for "poor" women! Wealthy women just got on a plane and went to Canada or Mexico to have the deed done in one of their hospitals!!
 
Last edited: