Facebook
Twitter
RSS
![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
A Few Clouds ~ High: 48°F ~ Low: 29°F Friday, Feb. 10, 2012 |
|
TroikaPosted Wednesday, October 29, 2008, at 4:34 PM
Imagine if you will, a troika made up of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in total control of the Federal Government! Imagine further the Senate is capable of evoking the Closure Rule at will and people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are leading, actually near total, voices for the direction and actions of their respective Houses. This along with the acquiescence of the mainstream media as to their Constitutional duties, and their avid willingness to act as the press section of an Obama Administration. If you doubt this, I refer you to the unarguable position the genesis of much of our present economic problems are, in 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act. It was protected and tweaked for years by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd even when Bush and McCain tried to institute some controls. Barney Frank stated publicly and nationally two weeks before the "crash" Freddy and Fannie were "fundamentally sound." I bet you have forgotten that. Now the press would have you believe Masters Frank and Dodd rode up on white horses and fixed the problem caused by those dastardly Republicans. Talk about the classic fox fixing the hen house. And this is a great demonstration of the propaganda power of the press. They have convinced many people of the laudable work of Frank and Dodd when they were at least 80% of the problem all along! If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, you are numb and need medical attention quickly!
As part of the bargain, Obama's avowed position of tearing down the Constitution by directing the Federal Court System from the lowest Courts to the highest, will fatally injure the Democratic Republic we have become and in so doing, became the envy of the World. Make no mistake. Obama has made statements like: Referencing the civil rights movement, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth."; The Earl Warren Court is thought of by most as "radical" but not so says Obama, "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were place by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution." (Please read this one again); Obama stated the tragedy of the civil-rights movement is it tended to, "lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."; "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." These are but a few of the statements of Obama's that demonstrate he has absolutely no respect for the Constitution of the United States! How can one make the statements above and then take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?" As if that is not enough, federal judges take an oath to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' Obama, by appointing them will by definition require they refute the oath they are required to take! I simply cannot imagine how any thinking American can promote this bastardization of Art. I,II and III of the Constitution. Here is outlined what has become known as the Separation of Powers Doctrine. This will exist no longer as the Executive, (Obama) the Legislative (Pelosi and Reid) and the Judiciary, as staffed, or is that stuffed, by Obama will become one and the same with no checks and balances what-so-ever. One can understand Castro in Cuba, Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy rising to power because they promised better days and hid their true designs, but here we, the American Public are willingly being led to the slaughter knowing the designs of the despot and that our way of life is over. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.
Hot topics Narcissism(5 ~ 11:43 PM, Feb 3)
Sentencing
Election 2010
Gambling Update
Gambling Sentence
|
Email link
Read comments (95)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
You have got to be kidding me ....... Do you truly believe the things you write or are you simply trying to stir the masses with drama imagined by those such as yourself. Can you give examples of these things you say? As for having empathy with the people , it does not violate anything other than the breeding of ignorance. I am referring to your written quote :
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Carl,
So true, its frightening to think of the power available to Obama if he wins the election. Pres Bush has laid alot of groundwork for a future regime, with things like the patriot act. There are also talks about a federal ID. If you combine all these things together with a man that almost all of his friends and acquaintances are racist, terrorists, or great haters of this country its scary.
Seems to me this could foreshadow the "one world goverment" that the bible talks about.
The sexes, races,and age groups deserve the complete rights of the government, gays should not be in the equasion.
Seems to me this could foreshadow the "one world goverment" that the bible talks about.
The sexes, races,and age groups deserve the complete rights of the government, gays should not be in the equasion.
This has been by fear all along. If the Dems get the 60 votes it needs to overcome any threat of filibuster, then these three entities can do as they will, regardless of what anyone else thinks. I just pray that the worse will not happen before the American people get some intelligence and vote some of these guys out in four years.
Carl, very well said. But very very frightening. I fear for our country that only 50% of us love. People are so enamoured of this so called demigod that nothing that is said will make any difference. If he was witnessed commiting murder, his mindless mob would just say, "they probably deserved it. In closing, a statement from 'The One's' own mouth. 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction', is a direct quote from Obama's own mouth. And I know that I have opened up a very large can of worms with this post. So be it. Will speak my piece for as long as we still have freedom of speech.
Carl,
Your best work yet.
Great observations. It is hard to believe the vast multitude that he has indeed been able to deceive and gather as followers. He is truly the best I have seen in my lifetime to come out of nowhere with enough charisma to mesmerize such a vast multitude.
I never witnessed these same qualities that Hitler was reported to also possess but have seen documentaries on the amazing willingness of people to follow him fervently as almost spellbound. They truly believed in him. Sad thing it took a major World War to get the followers out from under the spell.
I hope things turn out different for us with this newly arisen ??????.
PoppaJim.......I truly believe everything I write, else I wouldn't write it....thanks for flattering me that I can "stir the masses." What is it you don't understand that I said. I thought I did give examples and other allusions to well-known situatiions I thought needed no explaination.......You seem to believe the quoted statements are from me......This being so, your demonstrate much better than I could the herd mentality of too many people......In furthering your education, which I feel no compunction to do, I will tell you the quotation you singled out is verbatim from Obama's mouth at a Planned Parenthood conference in Jan. 2007.....The other quotes you will have to find another teacher to educate you since you seem not to have the ability to do so yourself.
It was no different from 2000 to 2006, when the Republicans had control of all three. What is the difference? Look at it from both sides instead of leaning to the right. I know you don't think Mr. John McCain could do any better. Just because Senator Obama has gain so much popularity and he will win the Presidency. There is no doubt about it. OH So Mr. Bush really cared about upholding the Constitution? You mean like how he declared war on terror but there is no official War. Please, if you are going to make contrasts. Really be fair about it.
So hug your Bible because the End is near. <== Sarcasm.
Evil Monkey..........Thanks for your comment.....I differ with your suggestion when Rs had control of all three. Firstly, they didn't have super majority in Senate. Secondly, Roberts and Alito are hardly radicals who will totally discard the Constitution..........I will not defend Bush's action in the areas you mentioned as Bush is now to be a product of history. I could mount an argument, but it is immaterial now as we have to deal with the reality of what is next because next is upon us. And I have said John McCain would not have been my pick, but nothing you can name, in my opinion, offers near the frighting prospects of a scenario as I have sketched here.
Also EM........It's late and I omitted a very important difference. Bush most definitely didn't have the mainstream press in his pocket.
I think we lived it from 2000-2006... Even though there was no super majority from 2000-2006, not one single bill was vetoed... because many Unconstitutional laws and acts were passed based on nothing but unfounded fear.
I don't necessarily like all the power being in one party's hands, and I highly doubt that will be the case come November 4th. There are many states that will vote Democratic in the presidency but retain their incumbent Republican Senators... The same could be said for the opposite scenario, and that by all intents and purposes is not a bad thing.
It is just ironic to hear the same people call something scary when we experienced the result of similar situations for six (or five) consecutive years... I hope to see the Senate remain more equally divided, and the House of Reps will definitely gain 20+ Democratic seats.
The only major difference between 2000-2006 and what could potentially happen this year, is the parties who control it. Checks and balances will still remain after Inauguration Day. ;)
Also EM........It's late and I omitted a very important difference. Bush most definitely didn't have the mainstream press in his pocket.
-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:28 PM
With all due respect, he most certainly did. A media that hardly questioned a single motive, bill, or law passed... a media that hardly got a press conference with the man, and when they did, they were confronted with new faces because media secretaries who questioned Bush and his messages were subsequently let go. If the media was REALLY unfair to Bush they would have NEVER helped sell a phony war. Does anyone realize who owns the media? Major corporations who have high stakes in every aspect of life. Many CEO's of these large conglomerates are staunch Conservatives and contribute heavily to their cause. As another poster mentioned in a blog about media bias, the only color they see is GREEN... Whatever garners large ratings and translates into profit.
"Seems to me this could foreshadow the "one world goverment" that the bible talks about.
The sexes, races,and age groups deserve the complete rights of the government, gays should not be in the equasion."
I CANNOT BEIVE THAT SOMEONE ACTULLY POSTED THIS... WOW!
I do not understand why someone whould feel this way. This is a point blank example of someone who lives in a small "po dunk" town. Like I say small towns = small minds.
Gays should (and DO) have rights. I cannot dunb down that fact any more. I do not know how to spell it out diffrently for you.
America shouldn NOT only be in the business of preserving the rights of hetrosexuals, we sould preserver the rights of EVERYONE.
hallaws,
You seem to be alright. How about the right of old farmer John to marry his beloved milk cow Bessy? They have been intimate 2-3 times a day for years. Are you willing to vote for him to be able to exercise his right to choice of mate?
He loves her so mooooch.
parkerbrothers:
are you trying to compare homosexuality with beastality?
I guess i should not have used the word "everyone" in my previous post. I just knew that someone would take that word and come up with some type of outlandish example.
The sentence should have read...
"America shouldn NOT only be in the business of preserving the rights of hetrosexuals, we sould preserve the rights of everyone. No matter their sexual orentaion."
I cannot dunb down that fact any more. I do not know how to spell it out diffrently for you.
America shouldn NOT only be in the business of preserving the rights of hetrosexuals, we sould preserver the rights of EVERYONE.
-- Posted by hallaws on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:43 PM
You did a good job at it. It needs to go no further.
I guess i should not have used the word "everyone" in my previous post.
The sentence should have read...
"America shouldn NOT only be in the business of preserving the rights of hetrosexuals, we sould preserve the rights of everyone. No matter their sexual orentaion."
-- Posted by hallaws on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:26 PM
hallaws,
So I guess you are just for the rights of a few and he should be denied his right?
Or did I misunderstand you? Do you think that Farmer John should also have his choice of sexual orientation?
parkerbrothers:
Please correct me if I am worng, but I do not belive that beaslity is a "sexual orentation".
And yes, I do belive that Farmer John "fundimental" rights should/need to be perserved.
parkerbrothers:
are you trying to compare homosexuality with beastality?
-- Posted by hallaws on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:26 PM
hallaws,
No, I have never been involved with either. However, you are welcome to give a comparison if you would like. Although I can add nothing to the conversation I think I would enjoy listening to your comparison.
No, I was hoping you would be able to provide a comparison for me...
Please correct me if I am worng, but I do not belive that beaslity is a "sexual orentation".
-- Posted by hallaws on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:52 PM
hallaws,
Not neccesarily trying to correct you but the Farmer does have two choices doesn't he? Depending on how he is oriented himself.
Either way it is good to see someone who does not discriminate against someone else.
I do not belive that someone "orientates" themselves. I belive that its embedded within ones self.
I do not know anyone who would choose to live a life full of condemnaion from their peers. That is just obsered.
No, I was hoping you would be able to provide a comparison for me...
-- Posted by hallaws on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:55 PM
hallaws,
Sorry, but my gate is only hinged one way and the cows' neck is too far away to kiss on her for me to give you a comparison. Besides I do well enough to sit in a chair, let alone stand on a 5 gallon bucket without falling off.
Ha Ha... this has been real fun debating this issue with you... you are a riot!
I do not belive that someone "orientates" themselves. I belive that its embedded within ones self.
-- Posted by hallaws on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 12:02 AM
hallaws,
So you think they are under the control of something or somebody that takes away their ability to make a choice as to even which end is up?
No one is taking away a choice.
Thank you for debating this with me... i must get away... HA HA... Thanks again!
hallaws,
I am going to bed. Carl McClanahan might have a calf himself in the morning when he gets up and reads all this on his blog.
Besides, I do not think I can take much more of it myself anyway. What a day.
Carl,
My apologies in advance for what will probably appear as a highjacking of your blog when you get up in the morning.
Please understand it has been a long day and I needed something to get over the seriousness of what I thought started out as your best topic yet.
I will try and help get it back on course tommorrow.
PoppaJim.......I truly believe everything I write, else I wouldn't write it....thanks for flattering me that I can "stir the masses." What is it you don't understand that I said. I thought I did give examples and other allusions to well-known situatiions I thought needed no explaination.......You seem to believe the quoted statements are from me......This being so, your demonstrate much better than I could the herd mentality of too many people......In furthering your education, which I feel no compunction to do, I will tell you the quotation you singled out is verbatim from Obama's mouth at a Planned Parenthood conference in Jan. 2007.....The other quotes you will have to find another teacher to educate you since you seem not to have the ability to do so yourself.
Carl,
Allow me to correct a few misconception you have.
I understood everything you mentioned in the opinion and was referring mmore to the final paragraph.
I did not believe the quotes were from you. I even typed "....your written quote..." I did this hoping to identify one you had referred to.
I don't think I demonstrated anything in regards to the masses I wrote simply with my own thoughts.
As for education. I am capable of learning. I attended school from kidnegarten through college and completed sucessfully each level.
I never requested that you be my teacher but if we allowed to expand on what represents teaching one could say we all are teachers. Others learn from the things we all do.
I have no ill will towards you and don't disrespect you. I am wondering though, why you found it necessary to throw out a few jabs insulting my intelligence level or ability. I read you opinoions routinely and simply found this one to be a bit unrealistic for me to believe .... notice I said me not the masses.
Now that I have seen how you respond and berate folks that might disagree with you, I'll not worry or value your efforts to develop unity across the board since you seem to be hell bent on your thoughts being the correct and only ones to have leaving no room for discussion unless someone agrees with you.
Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day.
While I believe this blog entry is filled with paranoia and tries to prey on various fears, I do believe that it has a valid point or two and that it is not in the best interests of this nation to have both Obama and Congress under Democratic control. I have always believed that government is best served when there is a system of checks and balances and when one party controls Congress while the other controls the presidency. This has been proven true the first six years of Bush's stay in office with some of the messes that were made and we definitely do not need it with the other party. Both sides should always be able to challenge the other and the needs and thoughts of all Americans should be represented whether it is the liberal hippie from California or the rural conservative minister from Tennessee. I am just worried that a fully Democratic controlled Congress will allow amnesty for illegal aliens and various issues they sometimes like to support(especially with someone like Pelosi at the lead). What has happened to the moderate Democrats that I use to like to support?
Carl,
Bush might be a product of history, but the laws that he had passed are still affecting us today and will continue to affect us for a very long time. So you cannot discount him because he will no longer be in office; just like you would not discount something back from 1977.
How can you accuse something that happened 30 years ago, then when someone else brings up something that happened in this decade that is far more sinister, it is just a moot point? That is biased. I know you won't agree because you don't like to be wrong, but really think about it.
I refer you to the unarguable position the genesis of much of our present economic problems are, in 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act. It was protected and tweaked for years by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd even when Bush and McCain tried to institute some controls.
Posted by cmcclanahan on Wed, Oct 29, 2008
Carl,
Good luck on trying to get some to see your valid points. You are correct in your statement that much of our present economic problems are in 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act. I would actually venture so far to say that almost all of our current economic problems and even our future economic problems are linked to effects of both short and long term ramifications to all programs that have an inkling of the same desired goals of any program like the Community Reinvestment Act.
Correct me if I am wrong but a lot if not all of your facts on this matter come from first hand experience in the Real Estate business over the a period of years. You probably have first hand experience in dealing with the very subject at hand and have watched the effects of some of these programs slowly erode away what was once a basically sound mortgage industry with good lending practices into shambles as they struggled to stay in compliance.
Take it from me, some people can never see the light of what has happened and will refuse to acknowledge the facts when they are presented to them. I sat with FHA with many hours devoted trying to convince them of what lay ahead 4-5 years ago and pleading with them to not become our biggest competitor in the years to come by forcing us to have to compete with all the foreclosures they were going to get. My exact words to them were..."The average builder can not afford to discount their houses down to what you guys are willing to let a foreclosure go for to get it off your books. Our pockets are not as deep as an agency like you. You are going to destroy this industry if you do not get back to the old way of doing business."
Hours of pleading only resulted in getting FHA to spend $80,000 investigating the industry in Bedford County and slapping the wrist of a couple of out of town appraisers with the requirement to attend 6-8 hours of an educational coarse on appraising. The last words I got from the spokeperson for FHA was...."I do not blame you for being frustrated. Everytime I carry your concerns up the ladder to my superiors they shun the conversation and seem to be more interested in sending me to another seminar on how to regain the 50% of market share we have lost to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last few years than investigating your concerns. They do not think it is in our best interest to do anything that will cause us to possibly loose more of the market share." This was all taking place over a period of time when the effects of pressure from other agencies such as ACORN was driving the market to watching their portfolios and make sure to include more and more of these risky loans so they could put everyone into a home they were entitled to. It seems they were hell bent on seeing how fast they could push this 2.4 trillion dollars down the throats of people who were just frankly "not ready for home ownership". My view is they were assisting and enabling in the financial suicide of many unsuspecting.
In essence I only wish people could see that there is a difference between actually helping a people and enabling financial disaster on a people. As long as the government engages in activities that present themselves as mommy and daddy they will continue to produce dependant children that are hard to wean. If you can not believe me check the DNA strand of our government.
Bush might be a product of history, but the laws that he had passed are still affecting us today and will continue to affect us for a very long time.
-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 7:45 AM
Evil Monkey,
Good to see you acknowledge some good things. Your above statement is at least something to give us a glimmer of hope. If only Congress would have listened to him more.
You know we tend to forget that the devil has the power to make people do things that is against God, that's the devil's purpose in our lives, to keep as many of God's people out of Heaven. A sin is a sin is a sin, it's all the same in God's eyes.
EM.........Again I appreciate your comments...I can only say that my allusion to 1977 was not related to an isolated act in 1977. This act had an active life until recently and with an Obama regime will surely live again......I agree some of the Bush moves are constitutionally suspect, not "clearly unconstitutional" as asserted by Darrick. But the difference is these moves have some legal support as not being unconstitutional, but the reality is, thankfully, we still have a diverse Judiciary that I am perfectly willingly to accept their ultimate findings. Our system demands an independent judiciary, not the judiciary as envisioned by Obama. Darrick, I can respect your feelings of some actions being "clearly unconstitutional," but such is not literally true until our judiciary has so said.
You know we tend to forget that the devil has the power to make people do things that is against God, that's the devil's purpose in our lives, to keep as many of God's people out of Heaven. A sin is a sin is a sin, it's all the same in God's eyes.
-- Posted by bellbuckletn on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 9:28 AM
bellbuckletn,
I agree. I have always thought and said that the power of Satan is severely underestimated by all. He prefers and desires to be underestimated. Most in fact will not even recognize him when he is standing in front of them. The preconceived idea of the red man with horns and pitchfork is none other than a work of himself to deceive. Eve herself had a hard time distinguishing him from others. She actually chose him over others. Rest assured he presented himself as a charming and easy likable being to her. She made the same mistake most if not all of us would have made under the influence of such a charismatic one.
I also agree that a sin is a sin is a sin and the all the same in God's eyes. I hope you agree though that He has provided a wonderful Appeasement for the coming wrath of His against each and every one of these sins?
EM.........Again I appreciate your comments...I can only say that my allusion to 1977 was not related to an isolated act in 1977. This act had an active life until recently and with an Obama regime will surely live again
Posted by cmcclanahan on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 9:39 AM
cmcclanahan,
All anyone has to do is carefully listen to Obama and you will see a proposed resurrection of the same basic ideas that got us to where we are today as you have predicted. He talks of change?
Maybe I am wrong but it appears to me that Obama believes all the calves need to stay on a little more tit for a while. The pastures could be growing over his head and he would still trample the good pasture down to get more milk for everyone.
Change? Turn the calves loose in the pasture and let them learn to care for themselves if you want change.
We need to send him down to the farm for a while to learn the basics of life. Maybe if he seen enough calves scowering on milk he would realize why the pastures are green and the calf no longer needs mommy?
What ever!!!!
Evil Monkey,
Good to see you acknowledge some good things. Your above statement is at least something to give us a glimmer of hope. If only Congress would have listened to him more.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 8:52 AM
Then our national debt would be $20 trillion? The Patriot Act would look nimble compared to the big government Bush wanted. We'd be fighting more than two wars and borrowing more than we'll ever be able to repay China...
Here is a grand idea, if you truly adhere to all the Bush policies then log off of your computer and sign up to serve in the armed forces. You talk all day about the great things he would have done, yet never saw fit to actually contribute to his cause.
The military is desperate for recruits so I'm sure they'd even accept you.
PoppaJim.......In your short paragraph, re first comment on this blog, you mentioned the personal pronoun "you" eight times. If you have followed my blogs you will know I have little time for personal attacks and have endured them so often I am a little sensitive. When I see a comment about me rather that the issues I raise, I consider it another "shoot the messenger" statement of one who cannot handle the issues. If I misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize but I only know what you say. Some on here have ESP and can discern you intentions. I am not one of those.
I will say again, one more time, I WELCOME disagreement. Just stay on the issues, leave personalities out of it, and support your position with other that platitudes. I would love to be convinced I am wrong and thereby learn something of value.
The military is desperate for recruits so I'm sure they'd even accept you.
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 2:40 PM
darrick_04,
I doubt it. They would not want a wore out old poot like me circulating around. Unless they needed target practice.
They had rather have young fresh meat. You are young and could do them some good. Have you ever thought about a career in the Armed Services?
If I could turn back the hands of time I would have entered the Service right out of high school. It is not a bad career. The fact that Uncle Sam would actually gets something out of us for keeping us up is also pretty fair.
Come to think of it, I wonder if he (Uncle Sam) has thought about letting (or perhaps requiring)people (to) serve in the Armed forces as an alternative to welfare? That would probably be a good option to quiten all parties down. The Army could meet their "needs" and all the complainers about welfare (me included)could not say anything about their mailbox checks since they were actually doing something for it.
Come to think of it, I wonder if he (Uncle Sam) has thought about letting (or perhaps requiring)people (to) serve in the Armed forces as an alternative to welfare? That would probably be a good option to quiten all parties down. The Army could meet their "needs" and all the complainers about welfare (me included)could not say anything about their mailbox checks since they were actually doing something for it.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 3:18 PM
Would you consider that a form of socialism?
To further my so called paranoia, Pres Bush, in all his infinite wisdom, has basically eradicated the posse comitatus act through executive order. Basically anytime the Pres declares a "state of emergency" they can use, and are already set up to use, the military for whatever he deems necessary. There was a dedicated unit put in place on Oct 1 just for this purpose. Notch another one up for ole "W".
To further my so called paranoia, Pres Bush, in all his infinite wisdom, has basically eradicated the posse comitatus act through executive order. Basically anytime the Pres declares a "state of emergency" they can use, and are already set up to use, the military for whatever he deems necessary. There was a dedicated unit put in place on Oct 1 just for this purpose. Notch another one up for ole "W".
-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 4:38 PM
I also believe that President Bush has set some very disturbing precedents that in future decades may cause us to be ruled by tyrants. I do not believe Obama is this person that will impose such harsh conditions on the American public, but the threat will always be there from now on.
Would you consider that a form of socialism?
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 4:28 PM
nathan,
I guess to answer that question I would want to know which way they were entered. Required or voluntary?
Really, with little thought given to either way at this time I believe I would say neither way is really what I would consider a form of socialism.
It would be nice if they volunteered to Serve their Country in lieu of welfare. I think they could also develop some good skills along with pride in doing something.
As I said earlier it would definitely be a way to quiten us vocal critics of the welfare system no matter which way they entered the Service.
I really have no experience in the Armed Services and most if not all of what I think, would have been gathered from limited reading.
It is more or less just an opinion rather than being any known facts but I would still have to answer your question as that I do not believe it is a form of socialism for welfare recepients to serve in the Armed Forces.
What do you think?
I think that there are people that receive welfare that would like to have the ability to provide a service of some sort. They would of course expect just compensation. This idea is not new however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Co...
Nathan,
That differs a little from what we were discussing but I think most vocals against welfare or unemployed would swallow something like that a little better than simply requiring someone to check their mail. I know I would.
For some reason though it does have a ring of socialism starting to barely chime in. Not loud but audible.
If you think there are people on welfare willing to do something similar to the link you posted why are they not willing to enroll in the Armed Services and give some relief to some of the one on repeated tours of duty. I am not for certain but I would think the Armed Services would pay better than these type jobs especially after you factor in the benefits of possible education and training provided in the Armed Services.
If they are not voluntarily enlisting for that what would cause them to want to work at a job as displayed in the link?
parkerbrothers,
Do you really think I was giving Bush kudos? If so, you are mistaken. Bush has single-handedly ruined the United States, AND if you believe otherwise then you live in Xanax land.
Evil Monkey,
No, I knew from previous blogs you are not a Bush fan. Where has your sense of detecting a little sarcasm gone? I think we can all have differences of opinions as to what has ruined and/or made America without having to live in Xanax land. I think I can and hope you also can.
I think it can agreed upon by anyone including me that one of the last remaining great things in America is we can have choice in who we think is best suited to be President.
Also great is the ability to make decisions on our own free will to stay or leave and live or do business elsewhere if we do not like how things are going and headed. There is really no reason for anybody to complain yet as long as those options are available to us all.
Then what is the point of going off on a tangent and trying to stir up crap? Oh are you not getting enough attention in Michael Bell's blogs?
Evil Monkey,
When did having a different opinion of you about Bush constitute a tangent.
I think you first made the derogatory comments about Bush before I offered a different opinion.
Should we then call it a tangent about a tangent?
Actually you are right. It has been rather quite on Michaels blogs here lately but in a good way. Not due to the lack of discussion among people who believe in the Bible but rather the lack of the ones that used to continually try to convince people the Bible was a sham. I thought you used to be on there some. Remember the guys who tried teaching that Paul the Apostle was a fraud and tried to convince people that Stargate was more believable than the Bible.
Those people do not frequent it much anymore and as I said, it has become quiter in a good way. Try it again one day soon and see the difference it has made.
There are still some characters on there with different interpretations of parts of the Bible but all in all it seems more filled with believers now and so many non believing hecklers as before.
Wow, still can't get over it, can you? You are sad, all that money and still miserable.
Evil Monkey,
I am actually a happy little chimp. What is there to get over? Have I got you confused with somebody?
You must have me mixed up with somebody. All that money???? I know you have me mixed up with someone else. My balance sheets show one of the toughest times I have seen yet with cash flow.
Evil Monkey,
I made a mistake. I did get you mixed up with someone else. There is another guy on here named greasemonkey and that is why I thought your comment was seemed so strange to me. It was not like him to make that kind of comment.
I see why you seemed aggravated at me. You are actually the one that used to come on Michael Bells' blog and tell everyone about how not to believe in the Bible and that Stargate was more beleivable than the Bible.
Even though you are probably aggravated at me for the earlier post when we were discussing his blog, keep in mind that just because we have totally different beliefs about the Bible does not mean that you are not wanted by me on his blog again. I was only commenting that is was somewhat quiter without the heckling from non believers. However, I think it is especially good for non believers to discuss the Bible and its many blessings with believers.
Again, you are welcome on my part, even though you do not need anyones' permission, to come back at anytime and learn with us.
If you think there are people on welfare willing to do something similar to the link you posted why are they not willing to enroll in the Armed Services and give some relief to some of the one on repeated tours of duty. I am not for certain but I would think the Armed Services would pay better than these type jobs especially after you factor in the benefits of possible education and training provided in the Armed Services.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 6:00 PM
Spend 3 months as a recruit at Parris Island, South Carolina and you will understand why everyone is not able to serve in the military.
Spend 3 months as a recruit at Parris Island, South Carolina and you will understand why everyone is not able to serve in the military.
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 1:37 AM
nathan.evans,
While I understand that everyone would not make it I still do not understand why they are not trying to make it by enlisting as the question I asked infered to.
You answer the question by telling me your opinion about the probability of their success rate???
Let me ask the same question again. Why do you think they are not trying to enlist and provide a service in lieu of welfare? You stated earlier that you believed people on welfare would like to provide a service of some sort.
parkerbrothers,
I think the reason you jump blog to blog is because you feel the need to impress your secretary. Just because I do not believe the Bible as being complete; does not place you above me in anyway. Just by you worshipping the Bible over God is a sin.
Why do you think they are not trying to enlist and provide a service in lieu of welfare?
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 7:33 AM
I have a friend that has three children. The middle child is mentally handicapped and is unable to perform any finely coordinated action (walk, talk, feed, potty). Basically he is a one year old in an eight year old's body. He currently takes two seizure medications twice daily. Despite the medication he still has seizures once or twice a month sometimes requiring hospitalization when the seizures just won't stop. Not long after her third child was born, her policeman husband started cheating on her while she was home with a newborn and a handicapped three year old. He left her and moved in with the other woman and they got a divorce. Now through no fault of her own she is stuck. No daycare will take her handicapped son for long periods because of his seizures and even if they did she would as often as once a month have to miss work to care for him when the seizures started. She did not ask for this situation. These are the cards that she was dealt. She wants to find a part time job, but those are almost non-existent. She cries all the time because of all the stress she is under. The crying gets much worse around Christmas. She has had to pawn her car a few times because she did not have any money for food or medicine for her son. Her life is not an easy one.
Nathan,
These are the people that truly need help and are not getting enough. For every person like this there are probably 10 taking adantage of the system. Its my firm belief that if someone is caught "playing" the system, they should be prosecuted and put in prison. On the other hand someone like you talked about here, should recieve eveything she needs and then some.
greasemonkey,
That is exactly what I have been saying.
I hope you do not get bashed for being rude and making racist comments like I would if I said it.
nathan.evans,
While again I understand and am sympathetic to another exception you give me to my question but why not just simply answer that question. You just can not seem to find the ability to do that.
The answer you are looking for does not exist when looking at the group as a whole because each case is different and involves a varied range of circumstance that come into play.
The answer you are looking for does not exist when looking at the group as a whole because each case is different and involves a varied range of circumstance that come into play.
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 2:00 PM
Nathan,
I am not asking you to give me the answer I am looking for. Instead I am looking for you to give me the answer for..... Totally opposites.
I assumed you were looking for the correct answer and that is what I provided.
Nathan,
My question was.....
"Why do you think they are not trying to enlist (Armed Services) and provide a service in lieu of welfare?"
That question came from your comment...
"I think that there are people that receive welfare that would like to have the ability to provide a service of some sort."
I have not seen an answer to it yet. Some exceptions but no answer.
Parkerbrothers,
He answered, but you don't seem to like the answer. What problem do you have understanding the answer? Did you serve in the Military?
Pipe down, you chattering bamboon. :):):):):)
The difficulty of the military has only been used as an excuse so far. I guess just because you served as mascot in the military you feel qualified to chatter? -----:)
You didn't answer the question.
The question was given to Nathan to answer,not me.
I was asking you. You never seem to answer the question. You feel the classification of people allows you to answer whom you feel is worthy. And for the life of me does not understand why you weren't charged with attempted voluntary vehicular manslaughter.
I was asking you. You never seem to answer the question. You feel the classification of people allows you to answer whom you feel is worthy. And for the life of me does not understand why you weren't charged with attempted voluntary vehicular manslaughter.
-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 10:43 AM
Evil Monkey,
Sorry Stargate, I did not notice you had asked a question. I had been thinking about the question Nathan can not answer and really did not notice your BS and Monkey Jive.
But to answer what I think is the question you were referring to I can so no, I have not served in the military. If I could turn back the hands of time I would have probably enlisted right out of high school though.
To help you with your curiosity that is getting to the life of you I can only recommend you study the law in more detail or go by and see the district attorney and see if he can explain it to you. I would try to explain it to you but after seeing how you can not grasp the mortgage crisis I think it would be a waste of my jaw, your ear and the time of both of us.
It's a wonder you are not still blaming the mortgage industry problems on the Realtor than sold you your home like you were not too long ago.
Are you an idiot? I never once blamed the mortgage industry, get your head out of the clouds and have fun in jail with bubba.
Are you an idiot? I never once blamed the mortgage industry, get your head out of the clouds and have fun in jail with bubba.
-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 9:40 PM
Evil Monkey,
I never said you blamed the mortgage industry. I said you blamed the Realtor who sold you the house you bought in Southside that some other builder had built.
Also if you had an inkling into just 10% of the what all the facts were that I know about the problem I am having to deal with you would realize you will be back in jail serving your duties as bubba's blow up doll again before I will ever in a lifetime meet this fun guy friend of yours that you like to reminence about. And just think, you would never have become so fond of your bubba if you hadn't dropped that bar of soap. ---:)
And Monkey. You should have known to drill a hole in the bar of soap and run a string through it and tied it around your neck in Washington D.C.
And Monkey. You should have known to drill a hole in the bar of soap and run a string through it and tied it around your neck in Washington D.C.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 10:13 PM
WTF are you talking about?
Ask your buddy Bubba. He was glad you dropped the bar of soap. -) _)
You're an idiot. I can't wait when we no longer see your posts.
They won't let you and Bubba have a computer with internet access in there together? -)
Tell them Obama says you are entitled to one in captivity. -))))
I really like you evil monkey, even when your lithium level falls off.
EM, You do know he is "Insane in the Membrane?"
The best thing to do is to ignore the Tempter. You will keep hearing chirp chirp chirp, but that's all it saids over and over again with an occassional tweet tweet. No matter how much you explain something it will keep chirping and keep tweeting even when you are talking to someone else. It will jump in and chirp chirp chirp, tweet tweet tweet. I imagine it will continue to do the same if it is actually captured and put in it's Bird Cage.....
Obama Wins!
Momof3&3step&1gran,
That is actually good advice you gave EM. It is a waste of his time and yours to explain anything to someone who absolutely beleives differently than you do.
He really has little chance if any to convince someone like me that "Stargate is more believable than the Bible". So why try to waste your time trying to get them to believe anything else of less impotance you say when they believe so differently about something of such great importance?
I do however understand the right of everyone to have their own opinion and hopefully you can understand my right also to have my own opinion of which I make my decisions that I live with. I believe the Bible is one of the only things to trust in and see no real value in even thinking about Stargate.
In my opinion Obama will make a good Commander in Chief of EM's Stargate. May it be a smooth ride for all on board.
Has to better than Bush... after all our "National Security" is not protected and/or defended by ONE person... learn to understand that.
Vindicated,
Bush does not believe in Stargate either....learn to understand that. -)))
parkerbrothers, you seem to be torn more about stargate and the bible since you bring it up all the time. Notice no-one cares what you think? LOL. Remember you need to have clout to be heard.
Momof3,
I agree 100%, did you go to the landslide victory party of Obama? He destroyed all the polls.
Vindicated,
I am pretty interested in seeing what could transpire, Hopefully with the support of the people that have shown interest in joining his cabinet it will be pretty fruitful.
I agree 100%, did you go to the landslide victory party of Obama? He destroyed all the polls.
Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Nov 5, 2008, at 12:40 PM
Evil Monkey,
You would of had to travel quite a distance to go to a landslide victory party of Obama. Nearly to a different side of the country to experience just a victory party, let alone a landslide victory party. I may be wrong but I thought Obama lost Tennessee by almost half a million votes.
A key point worth researching is my apparant belief that Obama carried mostly only States that were represented in their State government by a majority of Democrats and their State economies were not in as good a shape as the States that had been primarily run by a Republican majority. I think I noticed that most of the States that supported Obama seemed to be the most adversely affected by the current economy and are controlled by a Democratic majority. Maybe someone has the statistics?
McCain (to this point) won 22 states...
Obama (to this point) won 28 + D.C.
McCain lost a net of 8 states that Bush won in 2004. (Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, and New Mexico)
Many were effected heavily by the economic downturn, but he picked up absolutely nothing new, and only retained what everyone knew he would simply because of the "traditional" Conservative lean... However, most of the states he did win, he won by less decisive margins than in 2004.
McCain also won by just over 300,000 votes in TN. 1.5 million Tennesseans did not vote, and nearly 400,000 were newly registered.
darrick_04,
Who won the other 7 states that Obama was campaining in? You only mentioned 50 of the 57 States our new leader said we had???
He probably thought getting the number of States correct was a lot like tossing horseshoes or handgranades. Just get close?
Ok, I see... there were several provinces outside the U.S. that were allowed to vote (but most did not count in the primaries)... I am not sure of the exact quote he made, but there were more than 50 territories that voted.
McCain and Obama both call Virginia a state, however it is not.. it is a commonwealth. Not a big difference, but since we're getting technical we may as well mention all of the gaffes.
My,my,...my you have indeed become deceived. He has you defending his claim of 57 States whole heartedly with conviction now.
The power of and in mesmerizing charisma.
Momof3,
I agree 100%, did you go to the landslide victory party of Obama? He destroyed all the polls. -- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Nov 5, 2008, at 12:40 PM
No EM, I did not get to go to the Obama VICTORY party, I thought it was going to be an all nighter before we found out who won, and had to make sure my 3 children were going to bed. I did stay glued to the TV and enjoyed wathcing everyone else celebrate. He did indeed win by a "LANDSLIDE". I support Obama because I believe he will do more for the middle - lower class people (Majority of Americans), more so than McCain or the republican party would. But I do have concerns of too much govt. involvement and maybe abused programs. After his win, he told America he could not do it alone that he will need America to help get this country back on it's feet, he also said he will be working with McCain and McCain said something simialar. And Barack said he wants to listen to all including the Republican suporters. I believe if he knows that the people do not want "Too much Govt. involvement that he will listen, and be a little more conservative than too far left.
Regardless All Americans that were able to, and wanted to speak have spoken and gave their choice of which one they wanted to lead this Great Country, and the Majority of Americans chose Obama. I hope we all can get past our differences, and work together for the greatness of this country.
I hope we all can get past our differences, and work together for the greatness of this country.
-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Thu, Nov 6, 2008, at 1:49 PM
If all 57 States get behind Obama there is no end to where we can go.
But then again if Bush had just the 50 States that used to be here we might have already been there and on the return trip home?
No doubt in future years if Obamas' plans do work there will always be the issue that he had an unfair advantage with seven extra States behind him than Bush had.
Heee Heee, that is Funny.
Glad we agree on that. I too think it is funny that a man that thinks there are 57 states got annointed as leader of willing mesmerized subjects over the wishes of 48% of Americans in the 50 States that were merely trying to elect a president.
They fell just 8,000,000 short of success... Nice try.
Is that the population of the extra seven states that Obama knew about.
McCain might have won had he been knowledgable on the United States having 57 States.