CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 480
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:34 pm
 


I noticed that many of the people who were Bush supporters and were often saying things like "you should support the president" when anyone spoke critically of Bush.

Now those same people are so dead against Obama and just won't get behind him even though he is the president. Very hypocritical. The 'south' had interesting results in the voting too...still half a century or more behind the rest of the modern world.

Maybe much of Obama's 'dream' could have been realized if the hypocrites would have supported him.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1681
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:43 pm
 


What is Obama's dream exactly?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:55 pm
 


smorgdonkey wrote:
I noticed that many of the people who were Bush supporters and were often saying things like "you should support the president" when anyone spoke critically of Bush.

Now those same people are so dead against Obama and just won't get behind him even though he is the president. Very hypocritical. The 'south' had interesting results in the voting too...still half a century or more behind the rest of the modern world.


Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:
I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.


Hey, us Republicans are just listening to Hillary's advice is all. :wink:

smorgdonkey wrote:
Maybe much of Obama's 'dream' could have been realized if the hypocrites would have supported him.


Part of Obama's dream was, and I quote:

Barry Obama wrote:
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.


Forgive me if I'm not so enamored of a domestic military. :|


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5228
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:25 pm
 


You are forgiven.

I've a question tho. If it's a security force that's well armed and well funded, doesn't it almost by definition become a part of the military? Who gonna command it? I kinda don't see the point.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 480
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:23 pm
 


I think the 'dream' that he was selling or aspiring to was the 'America' of 60 years ago. The comment about the military is bizarre and sounds more like something Bush would have said.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 272
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:31 pm
 


smorgdonkey wrote:
I think the 'dream' that he was selling or aspiring to was the 'America' of 60 years ago. The comment about the military is bizarre and sounds more like something Bush would have said.


if he wanted the america of 60 years ago the last thing he would be doing is passing more laws, bailing out corporations, waging illegal wars, threatening soveriegn nations whihc pose no threat to the united states, trying to socialize anything etc etc and so on, and so on


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:34 pm
 


Unsound wrote:
You are forgiven.

I've a question tho. If it's a security force that's well armed and well funded, doesn't it almost by definition become a part of the military? Who gonna command it? I kinda don't see the point.


I've a better question; why does Obama think the USA needs a domestic military organization? :idea:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30043
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:37 pm
 


I think Hillary Clinton was referring more to reasonable and logical dissent between policies, and not to the sort of emotional insanity that the current right wing in the US is engaging in against President Obama. I've yet to see many cogent and passionless conservative deconstructions or critiques of Obama's policies. They may be out there but they've been drowned out by the frenzy of pure undistilled hatred that the FUX News, Palins, and Limbaughs there have been generating for over two years now.

If you want to find any sensible dissent from Obama, then these days you actually have to search out what's being written by the left-wing of the Democrats and by other American liberals. Conservatives in the United States right now aren't doing or saying much anything at all that any reasonably-informed adult should take seriously.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 883
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:39 pm
 


smorgdonkey wrote:
I think the 'dream' that he was selling or aspiring to was the 'America' of 60 years ago. The comment about the military is bizarre and sounds more like something Bush would have said.


Don't try to revise history.

Demian_164 wrote:
if he wanted the america of 60 years ago the last thing he would be doing is passing more laws, bailing out corporations, waging illegal wars, threatening soveriegn nations whihc pose no threat to the united states, trying to socialize anything etc etc and so on, and so on


Wars are illegal, thats why only governments are allowed to wage them.

As for socializing...

There was a lot of money in the middle class 60 years ago. A thick band of wealthy customers for a growing economy to sell stuff to.

Not so much money in the middle class now though. So how does a government shove money into the middle class without passing socializing something?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4183
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:39 pm
 


for the most part, that description doesn't fit me, I've supported Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush on their foreign policy, and don't know much about their domestic policy.

I don't know much about Obama's foreign policy, does he have one? :lol:


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 272
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:41 pm
 


Thanos wrote:
I think Hillary Clinton was referring more to reasonable and logical dissent between policies, and not to the sort of emotional insanity that the current right wing in the US is engaging in against President Obama. I've yet to see many cogent and passionless deconstructions or critiques of Obama's policies. They may be out there but they've been drowned out by the frenzy of pure undistilled hatred that the FUX News and Limbaughs out there have been generating for over two years now.

If you want sensible dissent from Obama, then these days you actually have to search out what's being written by the left-wing of the Democrats and other American liberals. Conservatives in the United States right now aren't doing or saying much anything at all that any reasonably-informed adult should take seriously.


go here campaugnforliberty.com

it makes YOU sound really ignorant when you say noone on the right is saying anything anyone should take seriously. what you should say is its nothing you personally take seriously. or due to your own personal prejudices it seems unreasonable.

you cant sit there and criticize people for not being able to criticize a president properly without criticizing these people properly either.

just saying, in a sense, that "they are all stupid" doesn't quite cut it


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 272
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:43 pm
 


Dragom wrote:
smorgdonkey wrote:
I think the 'dream' that he was selling or aspiring to was the 'America' of 60 years ago. The comment about the military is bizarre and sounds more like something Bush would have said.


Don't try to revise history.

Demian_164 wrote:
if he wanted the america of 60 years ago the last thing he would be doing is passing more laws, bailing out corporations, waging illegal wars, threatening soveriegn nations whihc pose no threat to the united states, trying to socialize anything etc etc and so on, and so on


Wars are illegal, thats why only governments are allowed to wage them.

As for socializing...

There was a lot of money in the middle class 60 years ago. A thick band of wealthy customers for a growing economy to sell stuff to.

Not so much money in the middle class now though. So how does a government shove money into the middle class without passing socializing something?



socializing healthcare, will do nothing but furhter increase the budget and tax burden on americans, who now collectively owe liek 30k or something like that? cashing cheques the government cant pay is not helping the middle class... eliminating market competition, and raising taxes will only hurt them.

american prosperity was not built with socialism. it wont be rebuilt with socialism either. when markets were left free america flourished


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 883
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:50 pm
 


50-60k individually.

Free markets created America's wealth. Free markets also created America's current problem.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 272
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:57 pm
 


Dragom wrote:
50-60k individually.

Free markets created America's wealth. Free markets also created America's current problem.


proof? i dont think anyone in the world would call america's market a "free" one. it is heavily regulated and continues to be more and more every year. mises.org has done extensive work on this issue.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 883
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:12 pm
 


So it has nothing to do with out of control market speculation over housing prices or the failure of the wages of the middle class to keep pace with the market?

Perhaps it is merely free and unfree in the wrong places.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.