jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (85 posts)

We're gettin' hammered from all sides.

  1. tobey100 profile image61
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    Everybody and their brother is touting their candidate, their philosophy, their ideology, their politics.  Myself included as well as many others in this forum.  Driving to work this morning, well, actually, stuck in traffic this morning, I put a lid on my own views and tried to look at the upcoming elections from an outsiders point of view.  Calmly and logically, if that's possible.

    With what's going on in our current political environment, with the failures and problems Europe is dealing with, and thinking about the foundation of this country I've drawn no conclusions other than what the numbers reveal.

    I looked up the latest Gallup Poll and found the United States breaks down as follows:

    Conservative 42%
    Moderate 35%
    Liberal 20%

    Doing the math, how do you think it's going to turn out?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, given those stats, IF everyone votes the way their conscience dictates, then we will have a Republican majority in Senate and House, and our liberal "President" might have to actually practice what he preaches about listening to the people.
      But God only knows what's up the progressives' sleeves, besides their usual manipulations and lying ways.   Libs don't always go by "math";  they often try to make 2+2 equal 5, like they did in the 2008 Election, and look what we got then.  And by the way, the remaining 3% may be in the shadows actually pulling the strings on the so-called "moderate" percentage anyway.  You know, those who straddle issues like fence-straddlers do.  So I'm....praying.  And voting Right.

    2. junko profile image80
      junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Tobey: I believe that the Democrats will win by land slide.

      1. tobey100 profile image61
        tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Seriously????   hmm

    3. dramatis personae profile image60
      dramatis personaeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe those GOP in Congress should practice what They preach for a while.  That'd be refreshing.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Brenda,
    What do you mean by making 2+2=5 like in the 2008 election?

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Probably former Bushite. Bad math permeates the breed. Go to war, slashing taxes as we go isn't the best exercise in any kind of economic theory.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Where do I start?......

      ACORN's registering of illegals.
      Obama's non-disclosure of some of his Campaign sources.
      His use of the race card to sway people.  Right off the bat, people learned they couldn't question his integrity nor his patriotism without being ostracized or ridiculed or insulted or accused of racism.
      His deliberate addition of special "rights" as legitimate civil rights.
      His success at mainstreaming socialism into our vocabulary.
      His straddling the fence on admission of both his national loyalty and his religious loyalty.

      Those, and other things, stacked the deck in his favor.  What should've been a legitimate run based on his experience (or lack thereof) and his intentions, turned out to be a game.  At stake was the future of America.  Really bad odds fell to the honest population.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I assume by special rights, you are referring to gay rights.  Why should gays have fewer rights than...

        OK, I'll humor you - normal people.

      2. Rasman1 profile image60
        Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You lie!!!

      3. Rasman1 profile image60
        Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You Lie Brenda D!!

        Prove it I dare you

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh my.  haha
          I noticed in other posts you said I'm not racist, so thanks for that.
          Now I'm just a liar according to you!  Gee...that is so much better! roll

          Well, my list of reasons you're referring to are legitimate reasons from what I've seen as I watched the whole Campaign unfold and proceed.  I suppose I can't prove it to your satisfaction, but it's been proven to my satisfaction (and to many others) by the results of the whole thing.  I'll never forget Hillary Clinton debating Obama's intentions and actions, and then turning around after he got the Nomination and backing him up!  I understand that Democrats (like Republicans) will back one of their own Party's candidates;  but I'll just never forget how she so robotically told the audience of whoever had been aimed to vote for her, to then throw their votes toward Obama's campaign.  It was like she was a zombie or something, rather creepy I thought; like she had no mind of her own anymore and just wanted an agenda put in place no matter who put it there.

          ...When the Black Panthers who stood at the voting poll place intimidating people were basically ignored, when Joe the "Plumber" was harrassed because he spoke against socialism, when...so many things happened that Obama's agenda could no longer be ignored,  I could tell that the "deck was stacked"..
          I'm sorry if you still think that's lying, but it's so obvious to me that yes, it is the truth.  People have the ability to put 2 and 2 together to make 4 sometimes even if there are no literal mathematical facts right in front of them.

          Or...there is the slight possibility that enough people actually WANTED a socialist tyrant in Office that they legitimately elected him.......

          Would you rather I think that the majority of America allowed themselves to be hypnotized by Obama's personality and promises??

          1. Rasman1 profile image60
            Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Brenda that is my point you did not prove anything.  Hillary did what she needed to stop McCain from getting into office. So that is a null point. The Black Panthers you are talking about the 2 and only 2 idiots that were STANDING outside a polling place in a predominantly black neighborhood. Now I challenge you to find any and I mean any witnesses that said they were intimidated, better yet told they could not vote. Seems to me in the video there were white people behind them. Also if you read the actual transcripts of the hearing. Those that claimed that there was voter intimidation could not produce ANY witnesses. The video showed no intimidation. Who was intimidated? The one idiot with the billy club got an injunction against him and the other guy was a poll worker. Google the hearing and judge for your self ok. I am no fan of the New Black Panther Party they are frauds and taint the true meaning of the true Black Panther party of the 60's. These guys are racist idiots period.

            What did Obama do to Joe the Plumber? I do know please post some proof of what you say. Do you even know what a socialist is? Please produce facts and not just theoretical rhetoric. Let's have an honest discussion.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think brenda needs to "prove" it.  How do you prove something like that?

              I think it would be much more appropriate for us to just read the constitution and understand that 90% of what our government does is unconstitutional.

        2. dutchman1951 profile image60
          dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Rasman1, read the paper, please! You want Proof read the NY Times, the Chicago Trib, just to name two of them.

          Look man, this is the highest office on the Planet, when you take that oath, you are in it up to your ears, like it or not. There is no one to ask if you do not know how to be President.

          Every President gets left bad, so what. It is time for this idealistic radical child to stand up, grow up, and get going. His Chicago speech stated he would be the president for all of us, not just his special interest's. "ALL"

          he knew it when he ran, you and I knew it when we both punched the button that said  Democratic candidate Obama  in that voting booth.


          Now. he needs to live up to it.

          If he can not do it in all conscience, then he needs to get out. At that level you can not "ask some-body" And personal anger from his child-hood is for a Psychologist to fix, not let it be dumped on the U.S. population.

          Colonialism has been dead for a long time, and it has been already proven by FDR, Russia, the Cuban economic Model, Some China failures, and the fact we have sent our factories to China to show them how to make product, so to make them more friendly through economic power, and now the failures of the EU, that none of this garbage works.

          You can not Tax and borrow, you have to build and sell and provide oppertunity, then take your hands off of it. Factual history has a real place here.

          He is following along, miss-applying history, for his own Glorification of his fathers memory. Well, Daddy is dead, he needs to get on with it. We need a President for all People in this country, not a slight few.

          1. Rasman1 profile image60
            Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What the hell are you talking about. Obama did not know his father. Or any of his fathers feelings or beliefs.

            Bush got left with a surplus damn that was just horrible wasn't it?

            Obama has done alot for this country. In fact he has kept many of his campaign promises.

            What are you talking about colonialism? ( scooby doo say HUH!!)

            Bush shipped jobs overseas Obama wants to stop this. He is getting blocked by the right.

            I guess Bush was looking out for the working man right? I guess Bush built a strong middle class? In fact it was decimated by his administration.

            I think Obama is trying to do for the Middle class and the big Cororations and the Republicans that work for them are doing their best to stop him.

            1. Rasman1 profile image60
              Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Dutchman Please post a link to a Ny times article stating the witnesses. Post a link that has proof that people were turned away from voting. I guarantee you wont find it. I read the transcripts of the hearings buddy and they could not produce witnesses. PERIOD!!!

              1. dutchman1951 profile image60
                dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I will look Rasman1 and if you are correct, I will say so
                smile

                1. Rasman1 profile image60
                  Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  If you proof contrary to my statement I will gladly conceded

            2. dutchman1951 profile image60
              dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Ok Rasman1, to clarify, where or what I was into thinking, is his background, his books, the things in those books about him, what makes him. maybe I am reading way to much here, not sure

              I am honestly trying to understand him, what he is about, I can not get to real government facts, I see CBO figures, I can read the laws etc, but can not see real reasons why it had to be that way, some of it really does not seem truthful to me.

              so I went the other way, his personality, him, why he thinks like he does. I am trying because  I feel we are being duped on both sides. I do not want to, this time, strike a vote in the booth, and find out I am way off in my reasoning for it.

              I do not dislike Obama, and some of the stuff I can see real reasoning, but some of it has me floored, and I am questioning. The Thing about his past is coming from his two books about it, and several other ones about him.

              Dreams from my father and The Audacity of hope, other parts from other books.

              I was Tying to get in his head so to speak. He may have answers, but to me he seems a bit axiomatic right now, and To me you need to be sure at the level he is working at.  That's why the comments

              if that makes sense. 

              I try not to get caught in the News on TV as much as the written journalism, and some of the better talk shows, (Not Beck etc..) but the more un biased ones to see a clear picture of him if I can

              maybe I am way to deep here and missing it. I see the seeds for radical thought, he grew up influenced by older adults, people who were anti-Brit, anti colonialism, and the arrogance he has. And I will admit some of it necessary for him to use


              I stopped my hub writing for that very reason, I am changing, but to be sure- before I do any more.

              1. Rasman1 profile image60
                Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I respect you dutchman. I will say this though my friend. Obama was raised by a white family first in Kansas and then in Hawaii. I am not sure if his grandparents that raised him were anti-colonial. From the perspective of a black man Obama was raised as a white man. He was not raised in a Black American home. He was influenced by the white family he grew up with. People have forgotten that Obama is Half white. What gets me is that People (including Black People) look at him and see a black man forgetting that he is 50% white. I look at him and I see a dark white person. I have never been able to grasp why people look at black/white offspring and considered them to be black not once do they considered them to be white. So all this rhetoric that he is a racist and that he is playing the race card is plain dumb and ignorant. People are literally saying that Obama hates his family.

                You stated that you got Ideas from his book, yet never referenced anything. Just speculation if you will.

                CBO has said that many of the policies he is TRYING to implement will reduce the deficit. The only reason we see high deficit numbers is because the Obama Administration listed the 2 unpaid wars and the unpaid prescription drug program in his budget. Bush did not.

                I trust this president I think he is working for the working  and middle class and that is why he has so much opposition. For the last decade this country catered to the rich and the middle got destroyed in the process. Obama comes from a humble background. If you really read his books you would know this.

                1. dutchman1951 profile image60
                  dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I hope this will explain it more:

                  I am not looking at it from a race prospective though. he is Black and wants to be so and will tell you so, but that's not the concern here. The country and the direction is

                  The concern is his influences, he has thoughts, and both books bring them out, I have some highlighted and will bring them in, but I am writing from work, so its in between...grab a line here and there.

                  For me, its the statements he makes; "The constitution is flawed", another statement. "We need judges to "Legislate" from the bench. 

                  Congress and the Senate Legislate, the courts Judge from the Law and moral president. 

                  The Idea of the Czars having any Judicial Powers what-so-ever. The cabinets do that

                  Things like that are raising my alarms. Not anything to do with his race, color. I honestly could care less about it. I have traveled way to much now and seen to much to think race is a basis for anything except Birth parents.

                  I work nights in a computer room as an operator, so I will have to do it from home tomorrow. The ideas, mine,  coming from thoughts as I was reading. Not just his books alone. I will write out some of them and the book used when I can.

                  Its the legal maneuvering he does, he is one smart cookie. he knows Congressional law and Fed law well, and he is no fool.

                  I think he is moving the Executive Office away from check and balance, for more control. I think he thinks he can not succeed by going through Congressional procedure at all, but he does it to appease.

                  I watch his reaction to rejection, and I can see his words about his Mothers description of his Fathers arrogance, when she told him in the book that He was just like him, and that they would not get along at all, and argue all the time.

                  But I do not see that as bad, I honestly see it as passion for the belief.
                  But I think he needs to show that to the People first,  say what he is seeing and why, not just force it.

                  As far as the CBO I was referring to the costs of the programs, and how to pay them back. I see taxes, because I do not see us with a high GNP, high enough to fill the coffers, so to speak.

                  I see us sense Regan depressing our job market, shipping it over seas across border, and see a splintered factory sub structure that has no world market to sell to.

                  I see small business not capable of handling the load to hire. We have to be competitive on a world market, open up trade route's.   

                  I do not see him making preparation for that or in-roads for it.
                  We need reliable rail crisscrossing this country, passenger and freight, good electric rail. High speed. every state city to city, with hiring going on in every state to support. build and maintain it.

                  We need raw goods, tariff free at port for export to be competitive. The jobs we need are those that can hire 1000 or 5500 at a time, not small business, it can not make the growth we need.

                  That's what I do not see for him, is effort to assist it. I see TARP to Investment bankers, asking for more and more. But we are in a depressed market, what monies are needed, they are not loaning at all. They are re-possessing?

                  I keep looking for the macabre (meaning comedy) to this. that he really is trying to re-posses all the homes, then let the banks start lending at lower mortgages to all.
                  but who will be the all, what qualifying criteria, will in fact race be a decision in that?  Do we really need that?

                  Its things like that, that's where a lot of my concerns come from. Will the policy be for all people, Old, young, college, kids...."all Americans" no color, just for all period. No hidden ajendas.

                  as for race, we would all do well to learn to drop the qualifiers.
                  There is no need to describe a Man as a "Black man, or a White Man"

                  Just say Man, that's it. we all bleed red, we all have hopes and dreams.
                  and I am not sure the next guy would have any better answers than Obama has in truth.

                  This world is collapsing. The EU, Russia, England, the U.S., Iran with the capability, who the hell could even predict that, so the Guy is not totally wrong here. I see it

                  and from the Books I can see the I did not fit in growing up thing also, and the radical influences. And that's what bothers me. I am being as open as I can be here to make this a civil discussion for real.


                  so this is where my head is, and I want more facts than I have. It is not fear it is passionate concern.

          2. kkgifts profile image60
            kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Amen!!

            1. kkgifts profile image60
              kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Amen Duchman

      4. I am DB Cooper profile image68
        I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Right off the bat, people learned they couldn't question his integrity nor his patriotism without being ostracized or ridiculed or insulted or accused of racism."

        Oh, that's rich! You've really got a way of manipulating history! I remember Obama being referred to as "B. Hussein Obama" and people claiming he was born in Kenya despite the fact that there were birth announcements in multiple Hawaiian newspapers and the Republican governor of Hawaii certified that Obama's certificate of birth on file with the state was authentic.

        How did those attacks against Obama have anything to do with the issues? These attacks were based entirely on the man's race and his name. You can't say things like "that secret muslim B. Hussein Obama is going to ruin this country" and still make the argument that your view isn't based on race. That's how the GOP lost the votes of so many people under the age of 30 in 2008. They drifted away from the issues and made attacks on Obama that might have worked 30 years ago but today we just recognize as shielded racism.

  3. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    I'm curious.....you really had no problem with the Bush years, did you Brenda?

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Of course not - Bush was white.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Perfect example of the false accusations I was referring to.
        You didn't even give me time to answer the question about the Bush years before you lobbed that big chunk of falsity at me.   If this is the kind of mindset that most Obama-lovers have, then no I didn't have any problem with the Bush Administration, because he didn't bring the race controversy into the mix, and it should've never been brought into the current political system.  Bush was fair on all counts.  It's shameful to see people bring his name up just because they don't have an honest answer to the Obama Administration's corruption.

        1. Rasman1 profile image60
          Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't read one once of racism in your statements. I only read misinformation. I don't think you are a racist. So people back off Brenda. She is just misinformed.

        2. I am DB Cooper profile image68
          I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly, race shouldn't have been brought into this. Who was using the name "B. Hussein Obama" instead of just "Barack Obama" or "Mr. Obama"? Who was claiming Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii despite a certificate of live birth that was certified authentic by the Republican governor of the state and multiple birth announcements in newspapers in the weeks after his birth? It wasn't Obama's campaign.

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ummm....Obama was using that name.  It's his name, after all, isn't it?  Why wouldn't it be okay for other people to call him by that name?

            1. Rasman1 profile image60
              Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              no one is saying you can't use it but it is the context it is used. The right uses it as a way to promote fear and intimidation. To try to associate President Obama with Saddam or with terrorist. That is the problem Brenda can't you see that. Don't fall for the rhetoric. Be a free thinking conservative. Do not allow those that have Hijacked the conservative movement fool you.

              Prove your statements. If you can't than you lose this debate and discussion.

    2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
      JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      you know she didn't! bush or any republican can take every dime she has or be the cause of it, send her kids and get them killed in war. so they can introduce coca cola and mcdonalds into another country. she is unable to see the forest for the trees. if a democrat does anything, she cannot see any good in it and if a republican wrecks everything she can see no bad in it. she has become politically challenged ha ha ha.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Oh. I think I see what you're saying.
    Obama, backed by the liberals, put 2 and 2 together and got 5, and was able to persuade a huge majority of Americans to vote for him... 
    The huge swing in reported numbers (emphasis on REPORTED) to conservative is a direct reaction to people being angry and scared -- rightfully -- about their own economic futures.
    The huge swing toward conservatism either will or will not play out in the actual elections on November 2nd.
    I don't think the Teabaggers are going to score the huge coups they think they are.

    I could address point by point your allegations against Obama but what is the use. *sigh*

  5. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Oh what the hell. I simply can't let this go unanswered.


    Voter registration irregularities were not new. Are you aware of the current scandals of Republican operatives paying registrars to register Republicans?
    Are you even remotely aware of the voter tampering that occurred with the Bush election in 2000?


    Interestingly, we now have a Supreme Court ruling that opens the floodgates for contributions from corporations, including overseas companies. Do you really think every other politician is being 100% truthful about where their funding is coming from?
    Dream on.


    About damned time the US broke the white male mold. One way or the other, the Democrats were going to make history in 2008. Their candidate was going to either be a woman or a black man. I don't care to split hairs about 1/2 black. He is black. And it was not Obama who played the race card.


    Wow. That sounds a lot more like Bush's policies to me than Obama's. Although Obama's patriotism was barraged from the start.


    What are you talking about here?

    I believe the word socialism was already in the dictionary and is a political form of government practiced by many European countries. At the same time, accusations of "communism" and "fascism" were leveled at Obama. Which is really weird, given his actions to restimulate the economy!

    Say what? If his national loyalty isn't to the US, who is it to?
    If his religious loyalty isn't Christian, then what is it?
    And please spare me with the Muslim crap. Obama is not Muslim.


    Yes, the other things being that the country as a whole could not wait to oust Bush and his evildoers out of office. We were ready for a fresh start,something completely new. McCain and Palin did not offer that.

    Ha ha! Like ALL politics isn't a game? Read your sentence. If this is the criteria for electing our officials, how can you possibly support ANY teabagger candidate? Christine O"Donnell? Sharron Angle? Joe Miller? If experience is the most important quality, then we should continue reelecting insiders!

    I don't understand this last sentence at all.Really bad odds of what? Honest population? Who do you mean by this "honest" population? Are you talking about the entire country?
    I am confused.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      At the risk of being completely obvious:  "honest" means "white" to people like Brenda.

      When white people engage in voter fraud, it's not an issue - but when a primarily African American run organization registers voters, it's fraud and treason.  When a white president starts two wars and drives the nation into a ditch, it's OK because he's the "Commander in Chief" - the "decider" if you will - but when an African American president tries to give all Americans access to health care, it's "tyranny". 

      When corporations get billion dollar subsidies to rip off working Americans and send jobs overseas, that's "patriotism".  Likewise, when a CEO drives his company into bankruptcy, lays off thousands of workers, and then retires to his yacht with a huge golden parachute, that's "personal responsibility" at its finest.  But when poor black people get a small pittance in foodstamps and housing assistance, that's "laziness" and "indolence". 

      See how simple it is?  Brenda and the rest claim they're not racist because they use code words. But it just takes a second of reflection to understand what's really going on.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda is not a racist.

        1. kkgifts profile image60
          kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree she hasn't made a racial remark

        2. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, I'll accept that.  Brenda is not a racist.  But my points still stand. 

          Why is it that:  When white people engage in voter fraud, it's not an issue - but when a primarily African American run organization (ACORN) registers voters, it's "fraud" and "treason"?  When a white president starts two wars and drives the nation into a ditch, it's OK because he's the "Commander in Chief" - the "decider" if you will - but when an African American president tries to give all Americans access to health care, it's "tyranny"?

          Why is it that when corporations get billion dollar subsidies to rip off working Americans and send jobs overseas, that's "patriotism"?  Likewise, when a CEO drives his company into bankruptcy, lays off thousands of workers, and then retires to his yacht with a huge golden parachute, that's "personal responsibility" at its finest?  But when poor black people get a small pittance in foodstamps and housing assistance, that's "laziness" and "indolence"?

          Why is that?

          1. kkgifts profile image60
            kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            hmm i thought Al Gore was white..seem like there was some voter fraud on that  Flo. election.... and private companies..can't answer for them, but why are you so racially motivated your white. do you hate whites? why do you continue to try to put race into everything?

            1. kkgifts profile image60
              kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              well let me say...are you white.... i am not a races.. but i am getting vibes that you are

            2. Rasman1 profile image60
              Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Al Gore lost and the Supreme Court appointed Bush to the Office of President. So who won the voter fraud? By the way Bush's brother Jeb was Governor at the time. Quite a coincidence if you ask me.

              1. Rasman1 profile image60
                Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Also K, William is only asking a question. Is it wrong for him to question the action of a white man when that white man has committed horrible offenses. He is making a point.I ask the same question where was the outrage when Bush Bailed out the banks, the auto industry, and AIG. Where was the outrage when under Bush corporations got tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. Where was the outrage when we illegally invaded Iraq. Where was that outrage for 2 unpaid wars and a huge unpaid prescription drug program under Bush. Remember the largest Job loses happened under Bush and ran into the new Presidency. It would have been like that even if Obama lost the election. Use the internet and find the facts.

                William is pointing out the unfair criticism of Obama. Can you believe that only 1/3 of Americans know that it was Bush that did the bailouts. That means 70% of Americans are so misinformed. This is the problem

              2. dutchman1951 profile image60
                dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I agree here, who really won? And why did Gore not sue for solution, instead of accepting it?  it is suspicious at best

          2. Anesidora profile image82
            Anesidoraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            By honest people Brenda doesn't mean whites, she means christians. (But I wouldn't be surprised..)

      2. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's a load of carp.
        There are many honest black people just like there are many honest white people.
        And as far as blacks who refuse to cater to Obama, there are many of those too I'm sure.  But liberals have also falsely accused them.
        Your argument only shows your own mindset, which is set to "attack mode" apparently.

    2. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Obama lovers? Is that on the menu at Pizza Hut? Don't like him much either, Color not an issue, but I do know that Obama is where he is because of the policies of the Bush team, and none of it is possible w/o the american mindset that follows the mistaken idea that we can maintain a high standard of living without paying a price.

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't pick up that Brenda is racially motivated in her remarks. I don't feel that she is. To accuse her is pretty slummy, wouldn't you say?

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you Druid Dude!
          I didn't see your remarks before I posted mine.  It's good to see someone stick up for me against false accusations.

          Ron too!  ..except...I never know when Ron is serious.

          1. Druid Dude profile image60
            Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sounded serious.

        2. junko profile image80
          junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think Brenda leans to the right.

      2. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        On one point I can agree with you.  Obama should not have followed the policy of the bailouts.  But hey, he COULD have stopped at the "Bush bailout", couldn't he have?   He could've said no more.  But what did he do?----he went for even MORE bailouts and kept pushing a socialist agenda.  So I believe that was his agenda all along;  Bush's act simply gave him an "excuse" to push the agenda.

        1. Rasman1 profile image60
          Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wrong Again Brenda. You need to listen to Kent  about where the country was in the fall of 2008. I quote " The country was on the verge of an economic meltdown. I was there in the Bush White House when we were getting the reports. I beleive that the Bailouts and the Stimulus helped this country from going over the edge.

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#39756918

          Do you disagree with him?

          1. dutchman1951 profile image60
            dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Rasman1 I agree some of the bailout was necessary, but not the Investment bankers. The banks that deal in small Loans, cars, etc.. deposits, checking, yes by all means, do not let people's savings and such fall.

            But the Wall street speculators.....NO

            I also agree the laws to control wall- street speculation were necessary, but to create no fail Supper banks, not good.

            he is bailing out the Speculators that caused the real estate crash. Not Good at all.

            1. Rasman1 profile image60
              Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Please site your references. I am a man that respects facts. Which Speculators did he bailout? What bill are you talking about?

              Please read my hub on this matter. You will get more facts and insights.

              http://hubpages.com/hub/Misinformed-Ame … g-politics

              1. dutchman1951 profile image60
                dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Try this link; http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101006/pl_ … sures_bill


                Bank foreclosure cover-up seen in bill at Obama's desk
                           

                By Scot J. Paltrow Scot J. Paltrow – Wed Oct 6, 7:15 pm ET
                WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

                The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents.

                The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

                Questions about improper notarizations have figured prominently in challenges to the validity of these court documents, and led to widespread halts of foreclosure proceedings.

                The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

                The White House said it is reviewing the legislation.

                "It is troubling to me and curious that it passed so quietly," Thomas Cox, a Maine lawyer representing homeowners contesting foreclosures, told Reuters in an interview.

                you really have to wounder what is the real reason here?

              2. dutchman1951 profile image60
                dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                An Article from the Wall Street Journal. Obama's ideas not looking to good at all here.


                Team Obama is wrestling internally over the bank bailout supposedly to be introduced next week. We naturally are on the edge of our seats.


                APBut let's understand something: The taxpayer already stands behind the banking system, and is on the hook for its losses in one sense or another. Moreover, that guarantee has become more and more explicit in recent months -- which is not an unmixed blessing, since such explicitness has tended to create new uncertainty among those stakeholders not specifically included in the safety net.

                The main uncertainty lately has been whether the safety net includes bank shareholders as well as depositors and creditors. That uncertainty is why we have crazy gyrations in bank share prices, and yet don't have bank runs. Citigroup's shareholders only account these days for a measly $20 billion, in a bank with liabilities of $2 trillion -- yet market speculation over their fate has seemed to be driving government actions.

                The Opinion Journal Widget
                Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
                Here we see the downside of explicitness. By committing specific sums to given banks, policy makers only ended up inviting new speculation about what happens when those cushions are exhausted by fresh accounting writedowns. And now Team Obama seems about to recapitulate this folly with another round of explicit guarantees.

                By current leakage, their plan will consist of explicit government insurance for certain bad assets and explicit purchases of other bad assets to be held by a so-called bad bank. For the months or years, then, that it takes to put the plan into effect, the market will have to speculate anew about how each bank's assets will be valued for bailout purposes.

                Yet there is a solution better than trying to finalize a division of losses whose size won't be known for years to come. That solution is time, the healer of all wounds.

                Remember, this is not the S&L crisis of the 1980s, when hundreds of small banks were incentivized by poor regulation to try to gamble their way out of self-made holes. Today's problems are concentrated on the balance sheets of the biggest, most visible banks. Little banks are relatively easy to close or force into mergers. Banks that are "too big to fail" aren't too big for government to manhandle in a crisis; it's just that the solution is not the same as for a small bank.

                Which raises the question: Why not just leave Citi and BofA's bad assets where they are, albeit with regulators sitting at management's elbow to make sure their losses are being conservatively worked off and no wild gambles on resurrection are being taken? The losses would stay with bank shareholders, even if it took 15 years of cash flow to work them off. There'd be no perplexing muddle over how to value assets for bailout purposes. And because the shareholders' stake (much diminished) would remain intact, there'd be every incentive to manage the assets well while minimizing the risk of a bottomless mess like government has made of AIG.

                In Today's Opinion Journal


                REVIEW & OUTLOOK

                Tom Daschle's WashingtonFlorida's Unnatural DisasterSecretary of What?

                TODAY'S COLUMNISTS

                The Tilting Yard: Wall Street Bonuses Are an Outrage
                – Thomas Frank

                COMMENTARY

                My Economic Wish List
                – Alan S. BlinderWashington Could Use Less Keynes and More Hayek
                – Dick ArmeyWe Can Do Better Than a 'Bad Bank'
                – George SorosThe Stimulus Package Is More Debt We Don't Need
                – Tom CoburnBut now we come to the most dangerous assumption underlying the rumored Obama approach -- the idea that we need something called Citi and BofA quickly liberated from their past mistakes so they can go back to serving as the engines of the economy.

                They aren't the engines of the economy -- we have a vast and diversified financial sector. Today's real problem is a shortage of reliable borrowers, especially given the uncertainty about house prices. Washington's misguided goal, if you listen closely, seems to be turning these giant banks into public utilities to "jumpstart lending" under political duress. That is, shoveling money at an overleveraged private sector in hopes of stopping the economy from shrinking and markets from clearing.

                We should keep in mind that Japan's "lost decade" wasn't so much an accident as a deliberate decision to avoid a rash of foreclosures and bankruptcies and layoffs that might disturb a somnolent "harmony." Whether or not that was the right choice for the Japanese, the U.S. is a different country, and would probably react differently, and not well, to a prolonged government-sponsored stagnation. Yet that's where the Obama bailout may be leading us.

            2. William R. Wilson profile image61
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              TARP - which bailed out the big banks - was a Bush program.  Not Obama.

    3. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Voter registration irregularities were not new. Are you aware of the current scandals of Republican operatives paying registrars to register Republicans?"

      Is paying someone to register someone else to vote not allowed?

      Thats a serious question by the way.

      1. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Correct jim, it is not allowed, you can not accept pay for that service, and the other person must be present. they must verify all who register.

  6. kkgifts profile image60
    kkgiftsposted 6 years ago

    I am so tired of the he said she said stuff. Tired of the rase issues. WHAT TRULLY MATTERS IS WE THE PEOPLE OF THE USA OR IN THE SHITTER. IF SOMEONE DOESN'T DO SOMETHING SOON WE ALL LOSE,PERIOD. UNLESS YOU MAKE AT LEAST 250,000/YR,THE NEW TAXES INCREASES WILL BREAK US ALL.

    1. kkgifts profile image60
      kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      race- miss spelled- oops my bad

      1. kkgifts profile image60
        kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I also agree with Brenda and Druid Dude

        1. kkgifts profile image60
          kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think if the bail out money had have been given to the people of this contry it would have been better. some could have gotten out of debt. but most would have spent it. which would have jup started the economy. but goverment would never give us back our own money....that would just be too simple.

    2. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Except that Obama cut taxes for 95% of all Americans.  Like he said he would.

      1. kkgifts profile image60
        kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        no he hasn't, it is increasing in 2011 for everyone unless they change it before dec 31 2010...

        1. Rasman1 profile image60
          Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Correct K but Obama is advocating to continue the cuts for everyone making less than 250,000yr. The Republicans don't like that at all so the want to obstruct. I am sorry but a person 20,833 a month is doing much better than the average working class person. So I do not care if thier taxes are raised another 4%. By the way that is 4% of 250,000 do the math. Are they in the poor house I think not

          1. Rasman1 profile image60
            Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Excuse me

            I meant a person making 20,833 a month.

      2. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Great way to bail a boat...drill more holes. Nobody will be happy when we're all selling chinese pencils on the street corners. To pay bills and maintain a happy house requires MONEY. The US owes a lotta bills, and our happy house is in bad need of repair.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Tax the richest 5%.  That will pay for everything.

          1. kkgifts profile image60
            kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol true

        2. kkgifts profile image60
          kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree

  7. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago


    Are you saying that you really didn't have any problem with the Bush Administration? Or are you saying that you are saying you didn't because someone accused you of that opinion?
    Saying that the reason you didn't have any problem with Bush is BECAUSE he didn't bring the "race controversy" into the mix and "it should've never been brought into the current political system" on the face of it sounds extremely racist to me. But I admit I may be reading it incorrectly.


    Fair? Fair to who? To the American people he LIED to about there being WMDs in Iraq to justify attacking that country? Fair to the soliders and the Iraqis who died as a result?
    Fair to the people of New Orleans?

    Or maybe you mean he was "fair" meaning not exemplary or stellar, more like "fair to middlin'" in his grade as a president?


    It's virtually impossible NOT to bring Bush up. Don't you see that without Bush there never would have BEEN Obama! Bush is DIRECTLY responsible for getting Obama elected.
    The American sentiment pendulum swung as far in the opposite direction from Bush/Cheney as it possibly could.
    Without those goons to be reactive to, Obama would never, ever have gotten where he is.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Now who is underestimating the black man?

      1. kkgifts profile image60
        kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I hope we aren't headed in the direction of .if you don't grow it or kill it you dont eat it. if you can't make it you don't have it..1800's here we come

        1. kkgifts profile image60
          kkgiftsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          just what they are spending on this year elections would bail us out alot

          1. Rasman1 profile image60
            Rasman1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed the Supreme Court Screwed us over. Where is the outrage on that issue.

            1. lovemychris profile image81
              lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              They're too busy being outraged that Juan Williams got fired!

              Why....Why....this has never happened in the history of broacasting *cough* Thomas, Sanchez,Stern!!!

              Besides, Kathryn Harris got a BIG promo out of stealing the election for Bush wink wink...not ONLY a beauty make-over, but a gd Judgeship or something!

              Wow...the benefits of lieing, cheating and stealing....who says crime doesn't pay?

              But man...gotta get that Obama...never mind all that OLD news. getObamagetObamagetObama.....and the Dems wink

            2. Druid Dude profile image60
              Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What we need are BREAKAWAY states

  8. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Don't you people know it's unAmerican to question the Supreme Court? It's aok to lambast the POTUS on any and all trumped up charges, but the Supreme Court is ALWAYS RIGHT (meaning their rulings are always 100% fair and correct and perfect - not that their rulings are "right" vs. "left.")

    Besides, why should there be outrage? I mean, the ruling is about free speech, isn't it? Isn't that what we all want protected?

  9. Jim Hunter profile image60
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    "Interestingly, we now have a Supreme Court ruling that opens the floodgates for contributions from corporations, including overseas companies."

    Uh that is a ruling overturning a ban on that activity.

    Its nothing new.

  10. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Rep. Peter DeFazio Investigating Impeachment For Chief Justice John Roberts

    "I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They've opened the floodgates, and personally, I'm investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn't be a judicial activist, and he wouldn't overturn precedents."

  11. 0
    ralwusposted 6 years ago

    Well, since someone fairly quickly put 'God' into the equation we'll all go to hell in a handmade Gullah basket come election day. wink

  12. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    We could go race by race, backwards, forwards, and every which way from Sunday.
    The bottom line is there are a lot of decent Republicans out there who do not consider the teabaggers any more representative of them than you or I.
    Just sayin...

 
working