Yeah...I'm another AOL refugee

[CueUp]

and I'm grateful to be here.

I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.

 

[editec]

Oh great!

The Independent Libertarians with conservative leanings who came before you are growing listless and unresponsive from the abuse they're taking.

Three times since before the cock crowed they swore they never heard of Geoge W. Bush.

I think they're losing their religion.

 

[Sarah G]

Yeah, where'd those guys go anyway...

Anyway, welcome.

 

[Captain Ron]

That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.

 

[Barb]

That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.

[SIZE="4"] The good old days? Doll, when were those? [/SIZE]

 

[MaggieMae]

That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.

Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.

There are some things that have disturbed me about the incoming administration, but I suppose I take the more human position which is nobody's going to be perfect in that job even under the best of circumstances, and I am willing to give the man a chance to turn the country around. After all, that's why he was elected in the first place because of the loudly voiced public opinion that the country was headed in the wrong direction. Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.

And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.

 

[CueUp]

That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.

Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.

Funny. Those are the very sorts of "arguments" I've been used to getting from liberals not just where it concerns George Bush, but where it concerns just about any issue. It's rare that I've gotten anyone of that ilk to argue with me productively on much of anything. Maybe I'll get lucky here.

There are some things that have disturbed me about the incoming administration,

I'm curious...what things would those be?

but I suppose I take the more human position which is nobody's going to be perfect in that job even under the best of circumstances,

I've got to take issue with you. After 9/11, I thought Bush reacted quite well...speedily and decisively. The Obama administration has done no such thing. It has (while handling a situation that it knew was going to be there before the man took office), been ineffectual at best, and damned destructive of the economy and of our individual freedoms at worst.

and I am willing to give the man a chance to turn the country around.

By turning it toward socialism? Yeah, I know...you're bloody sick and tired of hearing about Obama and socialism, but I think the argument is a fair one. The policies he's been enacting, and the opinions he's been voicing are, indeed, socialistic in nature. Since you're not used to people who don't like Obama giving you cogent reasons for the "socialist" argument, let me try lobbing just a couple of examples at you:

-There’s abuse of power between the Gov and Private industry already. Take the attempts in Congress right now to cap salaries in companies that get bailout money (even banks that never wanted or needed it). Have you heard the latest...that Mr. Obama threatened the auto company execs with this statement "My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"?

-the fact that Geithner has already expressed a desire to wield the power to cap the salaries of *everyone* in a company receiving bailout money, and even to extend that power to companies which have NOT taken bailout money


-The overt adherence to the notion of "redistribution of wealth" which he is about achieving through oppressive taxation

After all, that's why he was elected in the first place because of the loudly voiced public opinion that the country was headed in the wrong direction.

No. He was elected in the first place because the media failed to do its job and let him have a pass: on his shady alliances with the likes of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et. al., , on his less than clear birth record; on his Illinois voting record as pertains to infanticide and sex ed for kindergartners; on his many gaffes; on who he considered to be mentors; on how he got elected in Illinois by getting his competitors kicked off the ballot, on his outrageous statements regarding the redistribution of wealth, on the way he planned to gut the coal industry and his prediction that energy prices would rise "astronomically" as a result of his policies, and on and on and on. Obama was protected from accountability. By and large, all that was seen by the mainstream public was coverage of the most fawning ("tingle up my leg") variety. Most people are too lazy and too complacent to bother to find out the truth for themselves, and so we got Obama (and McCain as our other useless candidate).

Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.

C'mon! Poor old GWB never caught a break for eight long years. And he didn't have the mainstream media on his side, either! And leave us not forget that the economic crisis Obama "walked into" (all innocent and everything!), was created by his Democrat brethren with the inception of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) under Jimmy Carter, its strengthening under Bill Clinton and the fact that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd acted as apologists for it when Bush and other Republicans tried to clean it up. Furthermore, this "crisis" was helped along considerably by the eight year long poor-mouthing of a pretty robust ecnonomy by the media and the Democrats. It's almost as if they *wanted* an economic crisis.

And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Oh please. Bush never caught a break. From the git-go he was referred to as the "unelected" President. And, as I pointed out before, Obama still has the mainstream media slobbering in adoration over him. Bush never had that.

 

[Meister]

That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.

Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.

Funny. Those are the very sorts of "arguments" I've been used to getting from liberals not just where it concerns George Bush, but where it concerns just about any issue. It's rare that I've gotten anyone of that ilk to argue with me productively on much of anything. Maybe I'll get lucky here.]






I'm curious...what things would those be?



I've got to take issue with you. After 9/11, I thought Bush reacted quite well...speedily and decisively. The Obama administration has done no such thing. It has (while handling a situation that it knew was going to be there before the man took office), been ineffectual at best, and damned destructive of the economy and of our individual freedoms at worst.



By turning it toward socialism? Yeah, I know...you're bloody sick and tired of hearing about Obama and socialism, but I think the argument is a fair one. The policies he's been enacting, and the opinions he's been voicing are, indeed, socialistic in nature. Since you're not used to people who don't like Obama giving you cogent reasons for the "socialist" argument, let me try lobbing just a couple of examples at you:

-There’s abuse of power between the Gov and Private industry already. Take the attempts in Congress right now to cap salaries in companies that get bailout money (even banks that never wanted or needed it). Have you heard the latest...that Mr. Obama threatened the auto company execs with this statement "My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"?

-the fact that Geithner has already expressed a desire to wield the power to cap the salaries of *everyone* in a company receiving bailout money, and even to extend that power to companies which have NOT taken bailout money


-The overt adherence to the notion of "redistribution of wealth" which he is about achieving through oppressive taxation




No. He was elected in the first place because the media failed to do its job and let him have a pass: on his shady alliances with the likes of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et. al., , on his less than clear birth record; on his Illinois voting record as pertains to infanticide and sex ed for kindergartners; on his many gaffes; on who he considered to be mentors; on how he got elected in Illinois by getting his competitors kicked off the ballot, on his outrageous statements regarding the redistribution of wealth, on the way he planned to gut the coal industry and his prediction that energy prices would rise "astronomically" as a result of his policies, and on and on and on. Obama was protected from accountability. By and large, all that was seen by the mainstream public was coverage of the most fawning ("tingle up my leg") variety. Most people are too lazy and too complacent to bother to find out the truth for themselves, and so we got Obama (and McCain as our other useless candidate).

Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.

C'mon! Poor old GWB never caught a break for eight long years. And he didn't have the mainstream media on his side, either! And leave us not forget that the economic crisis Obama "walked into" (all innocent and everything!), was created by his Democrat brethren with the inception of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) under Jimmy Carter, its strengthening under Bill Clinton and the fact that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd acted as apologists for it when Bush and other Republicans tried to clean it up. Furthermore, this "crisis" was helped along considerably by the eight year long poor-mouthing of a pretty robust ecnonomy by the media and the Democrats. It's almost as if they *wanted* an economic crisis.

And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Oh please. Bush never caught a break. From the git-go he was referred to as the "unelected" President. And, as I pointed out before, Obama still has the mainstream media slobbering in adoration over him. Bush never had that.

Looks like maggie had her ass handed to her

 

[Captain Ron]

That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.

Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.

Do I really need to explain socialism? Has BHO made any moves that didn't move toward socialism? I'm not in the swaying business. I pray every day that the US voter is smart enough to recognize a snake oil salesman.


There are some things that have disturbed me about the incoming administration, but I suppose I take the more human position which is nobody's going to be perfect in that job even under the best of circumstances, and I am willing to give the man a chance to turn the country around. After all, that's why he was elected in the first place because of the loudly voiced public opinion that the country was headed in the wrong direction. Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.

Every single thing BHO has done since taking office is a move toward socilaism. It would be easier for you to tell me what has he done that isn't a move toward more government control over business and the citizen.

And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.

That's not quite accurate. Every liberal I know carped about and is still carping about the 2000 election. The average citizen may not have but this country, as demonstrated by the last election, isn't smart enough to figure out in the short term what socialism means.

 

[Agnapostate]

Libertarians are necessarily anti-capitalists.

Just to make things more entertaining.

 

[editec]

Libertarians are necessarily anti-capitalists.

Just to make things more entertaining.

They won't get it, Agna.

Most of these so called Libertarians and conservatives honestly believe that Ayn Rand understood capitalism and socialism and human nature, too.

They're mistaken, but they're sincerely mistaken.

 

[Agnapostate]

Ayn Rand was nothing if not purely and dimly reactionary to her surroundings. If she'd been imprisoned in Siberia, she'd have wanted to swim in a volcano.

 

[MaggieMae]

That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.

Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.

Funny. Those are the very sorts of "arguments" I've been used to getting from liberals not just where it concerns George Bush, but where it concerns just about any issue. It's rare that I've gotten anyone of that ilk to argue with me productively on much of anything. Maybe I'll get lucky here.




I'm curious...what things would those be?



I've got to take issue with you. After 9/11, I thought Bush reacted quite well...speedily and decisively. Indeed he did. But he thereafter dropped the ball and chose to invade Iraq which may or may not have been a wise decision at the time because Bush redeployed troops from Afghanistan to Iraq AND used previously authorized war funding for Afghanistan for Iraq. Frankly, it was only then that I began scratching my head about the guy. The Obama administration has done no such thing. It has (while handling a situation that it knew was going to be there before the man took office), been ineffectual at best, and damned destructive of the economy and of our individual freedoms at worst. You're presuming an awful lot. Since no one knows how and when the economy will turn around completely, Obama has at least attempted to stop the recession from getting worse and at the same time investing in the future of this country. Don't you think that education, energy alternatives and health care are top priorities for the U.S. to remain in the game?




By turning it toward socialism? Yeah, I know...you're bloody sick and tired of hearing about Obama and socialism, but I think the argument is a fair one. The policies he's been enacting, and the opinions he's been voicing are, indeed, socialistic in nature. Since you're not used to people who don't like Obama giving you cogent reasons for the "socialist" argument, let me try lobbing just a couple of examples at you:

-There’s abuse of power between the Gov and Private industry already. Take the attempts in Congress right now to cap salaries in companies that get bailout money (even banks that never wanted or needed it). Have you heard the latest...that Mr. Obama threatened the auto company execs with this statement "My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"?

-the fact that Geithner has already expressed a desire to wield the power to cap the salaries of *everyone* in a company receiving bailout money, and even to extend that power to companies which have NOT taken bailout money
Any "capping" of salaries will be ONLY on those entities that have accepted government (taxpayer) bailouts. Tear yourself away from the Faux negatives for a change and you might actually get to see the whole story on something.

-The overt adherence to the notion of "redistribution of wealth" which he is about achieving through oppressive taxation
We have HAD "redistribution of wealth" with the tax cuts. Wealth has been "redistributed" to the top 2%. The middle class has remained stagnant in wages and benefits while basic living costs like fuel, heating fuel, groceries and, of course health care have skyrocketed.



No. He was elected in the first place because the media failed to do its job and let him have a pass: on his shady alliances with the likes of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et. al., , on his less than clear birth record; on his Illinois voting record as pertains to infanticide and sex ed for kindergartners; on his many gaffes; on who he considered to be mentors; on how he got elected in Illinois by getting his competitors kicked off the ballot, on his outrageous statements regarding the redistribution of wealth, on the way he planned to gut the coal industry and his prediction that energy prices would rise "astronomically" as a result of his policies, and on and on and on. Obama was protected from accountability. By and large, all that was seen by the mainstream public was coverage of the most fawning ("tingle up my leg") variety. Most people are too lazy and too complacent to bother to find out the truth for themselves, and so we got Obama (and McCain as our other useless candidate).
Each of those stories were campaign issues that may or may not have been valid and most were blown way out of proportion. The one about Bill Ayers is especially annoying to me because Obama and Ayers were most assuredly NOT "pals." Again, you obviously have tunnel vision based on your reading of right-wing news outlets ONLY.

Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.

C'mon! Poor old GWB never caught a break for eight long years. And he didn't have the mainstream media on his side, either! And leave us not forget that the economic crisis Obama "walked into" (all innocent and everything!), was created by his Democrat brethren with the inception of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) under Jimmy Carter, its strengthening under Bill Clinton and the fact that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd acted as apologists for it when Bush and other Republicans tried to clean it up. Furthermore, this "crisis" was helped along considerably by the eight year long poor-mouthing of a pretty robust ecnonomy by the media and the Democrats. It's almost as if they *wanted* an economic crisis.
Robust economy? Surely you jest. We as individuals only appeared to be "robust." In actuality, we were in debt up to our eyeballs.

And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Oh please. Bush never caught a break. From the git-go he was referred to as the "unelected" President. And, as I pointed out before, Obama still has the mainstream media slobbering in adoration over him. Bush never had that.
Undoubedly what you call "slobbering" was simple exuberance that SOMEBODY finally had a chance to get elected who was about to make some SERIOUS decisions on domestic priorities for a change.

And the charges of "socialism" against Obama are unrelenting, but untrue. The decisions to "bail out" our financial institutions instead of nationalizing them should be the first clue that Obama has no intention of having a true Socialist state. The hope is that credit will ultimately be freed up so that the private sector will begin employing again. How is that "socialism"????? Our education system is in the pits, with kids barely able to spell as they graduate high school. It is costing more money to have people uninsured than to subsidize insurance for those who can't afford either health care OR the insurance. There are a hundred issues that while you deem "socialistic" are simply necessities based on the needs of the American people in the 21st Century and beyond.

Again, you need to explore other areas of intelligent debate on all of these subjects. I'm not suggesting you are completely wrong in your opinions, but neither am I. We have become too big with too many diversified interests to have a one-size-fits-all nation anymore.

 

[MaggieMae]

That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.

Funny. Those are the very sorts of "arguments" I've been used to getting from liberals not just where it concerns George Bush, but where it concerns just about any issue. It's rare that I've gotten anyone of that ilk to argue with me productively on much of anything. Maybe I'll get lucky here.]






I'm curious...what things would those be?



I've got to take issue with you. After 9/11, I thought Bush reacted quite well...speedily and decisively. The Obama administration has done no such thing. It has (while handling a situation that it knew was going to be there before the man took office), been ineffectual at best, and damned destructive of the economy and of our individual freedoms at worst.



By turning it toward socialism? Yeah, I know...you're bloody sick and tired of hearing about Obama and socialism, but I think the argument is a fair one. The policies he's been enacting, and the opinions he's been voicing are, indeed, socialistic in nature. Since you're not used to people who don't like Obama giving you cogent reasons for the "socialist" argument, let me try lobbing just a couple of examples at you:

-There’s abuse of power between the Gov and Private industry already. Take the attempts in Congress right now to cap salaries in companies that get bailout money (even banks that never wanted or needed it). Have you heard the latest...that Mr. Obama threatened the auto company execs with this statement "My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"?

-the fact that Geithner has already expressed a desire to wield the power to cap the salaries of *everyone* in a company receiving bailout money, and even to extend that power to companies which have NOT taken bailout money


-The overt adherence to the notion of "redistribution of wealth" which he is about achieving through oppressive taxation




No. He was elected in the first place because the media failed to do its job and let him have a pass: on his shady alliances with the likes of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et. al., , on his less than clear birth record; on his Illinois voting record as pertains to infanticide and sex ed for kindergartners; on his many gaffes; on who he considered to be mentors; on how he got elected in Illinois by getting his competitors kicked off the ballot, on his outrageous statements regarding the redistribution of wealth, on the way he planned to gut the coal industry and his prediction that energy prices would rise "astronomically" as a result of his policies, and on and on and on. Obama was protected from accountability. By and large, all that was seen by the mainstream public was coverage of the most fawning ("tingle up my leg") variety. Most people are too lazy and too complacent to bother to find out the truth for themselves, and so we got Obama (and McCain as our other useless candidate).



C'mon! Poor old GWB never caught a break for eight long years. And he didn't have the mainstream media on his side, either! And leave us not forget that the economic crisis Obama "walked into" (all innocent and everything!), was created by his Democrat brethren with the inception of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) under Jimmy Carter, its strengthening under Bill Clinton and the fact that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd acted as apologists for it when Bush and other Republicans tried to clean it up. Furthermore, this "crisis" was helped along considerably by the eight year long poor-mouthing of a pretty robust ecnonomy by the media and the Democrats. It's almost as if they *wanted* an economic crisis.

And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Oh please. Bush never caught a break. From the git-go he was referred to as the "unelected" President. And, as I pointed out before, Obama still has the mainstream media slobbering in adoration over him. Bush never had that.

Looks like maggie had her ass handed to her

Ya think? Nothing CueUp said had any sway. When in doubt about any of my own opinions, I will fact-check first. Look, I understand the ideologies are polar opposite, but I stand firmly by my conviction that conservatives think in terms of "what if" instead of "what IS." It's really that simple. Would I like to see a perfect world as envisioned by conservatives? OF COURSE!!! But that world isn't real.

 

[xsited1]

and I'm grateful to be here.

I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.

Welcome!

Beware of self-loathing Libtards.

 

[strollingbones]

i really wished yall could break the large fonts and color habits..you dont need them on this forum

 

[CueUp]

Libertarians are necessarily anti-capitalists.

Just to make things more entertaining.

Nobody is "necessarily" anything. Are all Democrats "necessarily" in favor of big government and high taxes? Are all Republicans "necessarily" opposed to choice when it comes to abortion? What you can say, at best, about any species of belief (short of religion) is that there are certain predominanting tenets. The predominating tenet in Libertarianism is the cultivation of a healthy fear of government.

 

[CueUp]

There are some things that have disturbed me about the incoming administration,(maggie may)

I'm curious...what things would those be? (Cue Up)

You went to a great deal of trouble to double-talk your way through the whole rest of my post but quite deliberately left this little bit unattended to. Perhaps you'd like to now. I'm curious what things about the "incoming administration" have "disturbed" you.

 

[CueUp]

and I'm grateful to be here.

I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.

Welcome!

Beware of self-loathing Libtards.

Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect. Heck...I even used to be one.

 

[CueUp]

i really wished yall could break the large fonts and color habits..you dont need them on this forum

Oh...I'm all about anything that makes the post easier to see and read. I kinda like the colors.