PDA

View Full Version : 2nd American Revolution ?



Franco
07-30-2010, 10:36 PM
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=542171&p=2

We haven't been this divided as a country in 150 years. Just look at the fighting we have amongst retriever folk!

I've said before that we may not survive 4 years of Obama and I was serious about that statement.

We are on the verge of not being the country of our forefathers. DC is lacking leadership on both sides of the isle.

Where are we headed?

We are on a course to financial bankruptcy. Baby boomers who have been contributing all thier working life into SS may not recieve the benefits they have paid into, because the goverment has given the money away. The working class has just had the best health system in the world taken away from them.

Cost of energy will skyrocket over the next two years because of the hostility of the current administration towards energy producers.

Now leadership is considering taking in via Amnesty another 11 million to burden the tax paying citizen. And like Amnesty of the 1980's this will further open the door to more illegal migration to the USA. The Feds are spending money like there is no tomorrow buying votes. We are in two wars where we have no idea what victory would look like unless we killed a majority of thier poplulation.

We are in debt past our eyeballs and continue to grow or debt.

What do we need to do? Both parties are hostile with one another. Is it time we divorced? It may be better for the children if we did.

BonMallari
07-30-2010, 10:58 PM
in many ways that revolution or the seeds of it have already been planted, but will this revolution be about

race - legals vs illegals...

class-

political affiliation

so many of us fall into so many different categories, how would you decide what group to fight with...it might come down to the HAVES vs the HAVE NOTS

Franco
07-30-2010, 11:14 PM
in many ways that revolution or the seeds of it have already been planted, but will this revolution be about

race - legals vs illegals...

class-

political affiliation

so many of us fall into so many different categories, how would you decide what group to fight with...it might come down to the HAVES vs the HAVE NOTS

I would think that it would mostly be about ideology. Folks may have to really prioritize what is most important to them because not many will agree with everything on a platform.

I see it as more Capitalist vs Socialist.

BonMallari
07-30-2010, 11:44 PM
I would think that it would mostly be about ideology. Folks may have to really prioritize what is most important to them because not many will agree with everything on a platform.

I see it as more Capitalist vs Socialist.


I agree with you on that, but capitalism as we know it seems to be crumbling from within, and then you a govt saying that "maybe you have made enough"..

Am I my brother's keeper (figuratively speaking)...does some poor penniless person deserve part of what you have worked hard for, just because they exist and have put forth no effort to sustain themselves..I know someone will bring up the "no man is an island" or its for the greater good BS..but if times were tough and you hand to hunt/fish/trap food for your family and then someone said you need to give up part of your catch so john q lazybones down the road who sat on his couch and didnt do a thing but wait for you to be successful, would you give it up without a fight..

dnf777
07-31-2010, 06:25 AM
in many ways that revolution or the seeds of it have already been planted, but will this revolution be about

race - legals vs illegals...

class-

political affiliation

so many of us fall into so many different categories, how would you decide what group to fight with...it might come down to the HAVES vs the HAVE NOTS


Kind of like another French Revolution? I would agree. I think most actually agree more on immigration than disagree. Both major political parties have had ample time to do something, but the rich congressmen (R and Ds) have done nothing, while all of us agree something needs to be done.

Too much of anything is bad. I think that recently, capitalism has evolved into a detrimental extreme, with the likes of Soros and Ken Lay representing the absolute worst of greedy capitalists. Multinationals that have become entities unto their own, who can avoid any legislation that tries to maintain fair competition.

William Cohen, former republican SecDef said it well yesterday in an interview regarding the Afghan war and security leaks. The level of corruption, incompetence, and greed that has rooted itself amongst our politicians and our corporations is what is giving us wars that nobody understands, oil spill disasters, and will result in our demise if we don't do something to change it.

I think we were much closer to our demise 1-1/2 years ago than we are now. Financially, at least. Not to pile that on Bush, although he certainly shares some of the blame, but the corporate culture that has been fostered starting with the dismantling of legislation from the FDR era under Reagan, really set the tone for the corporate monsters we have running loose now. AIG, BearStern, BoAM...all resulted directly from relaxing banking regulations under Reagan, that temporarily allowed profits to skyrocket, and many CEOs retire with Billions. Not mere millions. And in this regard, Obama is acting just like a republican, and not lifting a finger against corporations. I'm sure he knows who butters his bread as well as the last guys.

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 06:39 AM
I think our country is suffering from some severe fractures and one of the things pushing us toward even greater problems is the number of people who underestimate just what a full separation might entail. There is no easy divorce. Support for the positions of the extreme right runs around 20%. Support for positions of the extreme left runs around 10%. The other 70% just want all the wing-nuts to shut up. Obama's positions tend to sit pretty near the center of that 70%. So do McCain's, and so will the next President of the United States.

Franco
07-31-2010, 07:35 AM
First, I don't see Capitalism crumbling from within. That is because we haven't had it in the last 60 plus years. What we have had is a bunch meddling career politicians creating an artificial economy. True Capitalism is where we let the Free Market reign. With the mess we are in now, I am all for giving real Capitalism a shot.

Second, many of our career politicians act only in thier self interest. They are the ones that have gotten us in trouble and not the citizen tax payer. They have led us to needless wars, created policy that has undermined our financial stability and have failed to uphold The Constitution Of The United Sates Of America. They have created too many self-interest groups, have continuelly lied and mismanged our affairs. Our electorate because of the over-controlling government has been dumbed-downed and today the great majority of voters would never pass a simple civics test. Our dysfunctional public educational system is turning out students that can not read, write or function in today's world. The government has become too big as many now expect the government to do what was once the responsibility of the family.

Third, our government today is nowhere near center. Obama is not in the middle but far left, in that 20%! He completely ignores the laws of the land and the will of the people to further his agenda. GW Bush was completely out of control too as was Clinton, Reagan and LBJ. We can't get the right people elected because both party machines are controlled not by the prople but by special interest. Compound that with a largley uneducated electorate and we are screwed! Screwed by our own politicians because most middle and upper America has become too apathetic and both parties have been growing the poor uneducated class through pandering and entitlemnets.

Gerry Clinchy
07-31-2010, 08:52 AM
Obama's positions tend to sit pretty near the center of that 70%.

If O's positions are pretty near the center of issues of the voting public, I don't perceive his implementation to reflect that central position. Just my perception, so maybe that's why I read this forum ... to at least observe others' perceptions.

road kill
07-31-2010, 09:07 AM
I think our country is suffering from some severe fractures and one of the things pushing us toward even greater problems is the number of people who underestimate just what a full separation might entail. There is no easy divorce. Support for the positions of the extreme right runs around 20%. Support for positions of the extreme left runs around 10%. The other 70% just want all the wing-nuts to shut up. Obama's positions tend to sit pretty near the center of that 70%. So do McCain's, and so will the next President of the United States.
Does 70% of the public favor;

The Healthcare bill?
Amnesty?
Cap & Trade?
Stimulus money?
Afgahnistan?
Terrorist trials in NYC?



Just curious where that 70% number came from, since we are all concerned with the FACTS and all, I would like to read about this.




RK

road kill
07-31-2010, 09:24 AM
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=542171&p=2

We haven't been this divided as a country in 150 years. Just look at the fighting we have amongst retriever folk!

I've said before that we may not survive 4 years of Obama and I was serious about that statement.

We are on the verge of not being the country of our forefathers. DC is lacking leadership on both sides of the isle.

Where are we headed?

We are on a course to financial bankruptcy. Baby boomers who have been contributing all thier working life into SS may not recieve the benefits they have paid into, because the goverment has given the money away. The working class has just had the best health system in the world taken away from them.

Cost of energy will skyrocket over the next two years because of the hostility of the current administration towards energy producers.

Now leadership is considering taking in via Amnesty another 11 million to burden the tax paying citizen. And like Amnesty of the 1980's this will further open the door to more illegal migration to the USA. The Feds are spending money like there is no tomorrow buying votes. We are in two wars where we have no idea what victory would look like unless we killed a majority of thier poplulation.

We are in debt past our eyeballs and continue to grow or debt.

What do we need to do? Both parties are hostile with one another. Is it time we divorced? It may be better for the children if we did.


I read that scathing commentary as well.
It's interesting that any time we (the people) stand up and take notice the progressive elitests just tell us we are over reacting, and really there is nothing.

I use that word, progressive, to make a point.
And it too has been summarily dismissed as an over reaction.

But take note, there are progressives in the government, and they have an agenda.
And that agenda is not about you and me, it's about them.


Sorry for the over reaction.
But I long for a simpler time.
A happier time.

I know this for sure.......if we continue to spend more than we have, disaster will follow.
It can not continue and a revolution must occur (peaceful, Susie Q;-)).

If we do not do something NOW--(starting in Nov elections) and we lose and the progressives continue, America is over as I know and LOVE it.

It may be that the time has come where there are simply too many votes to overcome.



Thanks for the box Mr. Ken........



RK

gman0046
07-31-2010, 09:52 AM
It's not just capitalism vs. socialism. It's Obongolo, Holder, Jesse Jackass, Al Sharpton, Charley Rangle, Maxine Waters, Rev. Wright, Black Panthers, the NAACP and others of such ilk that are setting back race relations in this country for decades. How in Gods name can the Congressional Black Caucus support Rangle after his being charged with thirteen ethics violations? That type of support on strictly racial lines defies reasoning. Don't these people have any reasoning power? How many other Americans are tired of this type of behavior?

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 10:03 AM
Does 70% of the public favor;

The Healthcare bill?
Amnesty?
Cap & Trade?
Stimulus money?
Afgahnistan?
Terrorist trials in NYC?



Just curious where that 70% number came from, since we are all concerned with the FACTS and all, I would like to read about this.




RK
The 70% comes from Gallup polls where people rate themselves as very conservative or very liberal.

dnf777
07-31-2010, 12:23 PM
If we do not do something NOW--(starting in Nov elections) and we lose and the progressives continue, America is over as I know and LOVE it.RK

The beginning of the end came under Ronald Reagan, and has been continued by every president ever since, including our current one. The idea of spending whatever it takes to make ouselves comfortable, and passing the bill on to our kids and grandkids is not an Obama revelation. We havent begun to pay off Reagan's debt, let alone the Bush's or Obama's. (we actually did start to pay it down under Clinton, but that lasted about 90 days into Bush II)

Not to say Clinton was all peachy with matters economic! He solidified NAFTA, which seems to have done almost as much damage to our economy as the repealing of banking regulations by Reagan et al.

Al VanHoey
07-31-2010, 12:27 PM
Obama's positions tend to sit pretty near the center of that 70%.

Wow!!! You can't be even close to serious!!! I don't follow politics nearly as close as many that post in POTUS Place, but even a casual follower such as myself has to call bu!!sh!t on that comment!! LMAO!!!

road kill
07-31-2010, 12:31 PM
Wow!!! You can't be even close to serious!!! I don't follow politics nearly as close as many that post in POTUS Place, but even a casual follow such as myself has to call bu!!sh!t on that comment!! LMAO!!!
He thinks it's middle of the road because it's not FAR enough to the LEFT for him!!




RK

road kill
07-31-2010, 12:38 PM
The beginning of the end came under Ronald Reagan, and has been continued by every president ever since, including our current one. The idea of spending whatever it takes to make ouselves comfortable, and passing the bill on to our kids and grandkids is not an Obama revelation. We havent begun to pay off Reagan's debt, let alone the Bush's or Obama's. (we actually did start to pay it down under Clinton, but that lasted about 90 days into Bush II)

Not to say Clinton was all peachy with matters economic! He solidified NAFTA, which seems to have done almost as much damage to our economy as the repealing of banking regulations by Reagan et al.

No, the big change started on 9/11.

Frankly they gave us a staggering blow and have not and may never recover.

Obama has hastened the decline, because the fools that elected him didn't do their homework.

The "Dumbing Down of America" has occurred and continues.

The is such a thing as "secular progressives" and at this moment they are swaying the direction of this country dramatically.

Look closely, you will see it.
But if you choose not to, you won't.


More later......


RK

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 12:53 PM
Wow!!! You can't be even close to serious!!! I don't follow politics nearly as close as many that post in POTUS Place, but even a casual follow such as myself has to call bu!!sh!t on that comment!! LMAO!!!
There are several ways to test this. If we accept my estimate (based on Gallup polls over the last year) that extreme liberals represent 10% of the population and extreme conservatives represent 20%, then the extreme liberals plus 35% (half of 70%) would total 45% who would be expected to favor Obama in a direct election. His actual job approval ratings, according to Gallup, is currently 46%. That seems pretty close, but actually hides the fact that about 10% of those who disapprove of his job performance belive he is too conservative. . When assessments of opinion are done by views concerning so-called "wedge" issues, the percentage of the population favoring positions consistent with those favored by Obama also tends to run around 45-50%. In my view, that sounds like he in running pretty close to the center.

Elections are decided by relatively small fluctuations around the center and the swing votes come from those least interested in the outcome. The noise comes from those who feel most strongly and take positions that are more extreme. The strategy of those at the extremes is always to attempt to portray their opposition as being more extreme than they really are.

In Pennsylvania, Toomey is running as the Republican candidate for Senate. When he speaks at tea party events, he takes a straight tea party line. When he speaks to other audiences, he takes very moderate positions. The reason is simple -- Pennsylvanians tend to be very moderate and tend to reject both extreme liberals and extreme conservatives. There is nothing at all moderate about Toomey. Sestak tends to be a little more moderate. However, the leadership in the Democratic party did not want him to run because he was seen as being too liberal for Pennsylvania. They supported Specter instead. Sestak won because he was more attractive to the left wing of the party. So now, both candidates are running campaigns where each pretends to be more centrist than he actually is and the winner may simply prove to be the better liar.:rolleyes:

Franco
07-31-2010, 03:06 PM
There are several ways to test this. If we accept my estimate (based on Gallup polls over the last year) that extreme liberals represent 10% of the population and extreme conservatives represent 20%, then the extreme liberals plus 35% (half of 70%) would total 45% who would be expected to favor Obama in a direct election. His actual job approval ratings, according to Gallup, is currently 46%. That seems pretty close, but actually hides the fact that about 10% of those who disapprove of his job performance belive he is too conservative. . When assessments of opinion are done by views concerning so-called "wedge" issues, the percentage of the population favoring positions consistent with those favored by Obama also tends to run around 45-50%. In my view, that sounds like he in running pretty close to the center.

Elections are decided by relatively small fluctuations around the center and the swing votes come from those least interested in the outcome. The noise comes from those who feel most strongly and take positions that are more extreme. The strategy of those at the extremes is always to attempt to portray their opposition as being more extreme than they really are.

In Pennsylvania, Toomey is running as the Republican candidate for Senate. When he speaks at tea party events, he takes a straight tea party line. When he speaks to other audiences, he takes very moderate positions. The reason is simple -- Pennsylvanians tend to be very moderate and tend to reject both extreme liberals and extreme conservatives. There is nothing at all moderate about Toomey. Sestak tends to be a little more moderate. However, the leadership in the Democratic party did not want him to run because he was seen as being too liberal for Pennsylvania. They supported Specter instead. Sestak won because he was more attractive to the left wing of the party. So now, both candidates are running campaigns where each pretends to be more centrist than he actually is and the winner may simply prove to be the better liar.:rolleyes:

His approval rating hasn't changed among blacks and Hispanics. That's 32% of the population. Add another 12% from the white population and I don't see where your arguement has any merit.

They man ran from the middle and is governing from the extreme left.

dnf777
07-31-2010, 03:14 PM
So now, both candidates are running campaigns where each pretends to be more centrist than he actually is and the winner may simply prove to be the better liar.:rolleyes:

Nice summary. And it probably applies to the majority of races in this country, when you're looking at true purple states, and not the solid red or blue.

dnf777
07-31-2010, 03:21 PM
No, the big change started on 9/11.

Frankly they gave us a staggering blow and have not and may never recover.

Obama has hastened the decline, because the fools that elected him didn't do their homework.

The "Dumbing Down of America" has occurred and continues.

The is such a thing as "secular progressives" and at this moment they are swaying the direction of this country dramatically.

Look closely, you will see it.
But if you choose not to, you won't.


More later......


RK

I think 911 did usher in a big change. It brought the erosion of our civil liberties and individual rights out into the open. No longer are such provisions snuck into bills....they ARE the bills. In the name of safety, we are now called upon to allow more and more gov't surveillance and intrusion into our lives. Only it happened in 2001, not 1984.

Back in 1984, we began a change also. It was the blatant and open shifting of power and wealth into a smaller and smaller cadre of the ruling class and multinationals. This has been continued under every president since. Now the supreme court is wholly a part of the move also. In fact, the recent rulings regarding the taking of private property for private use, and granting to corporations individual rights and the ability to spend on elections almost in far greater amounts, has rendered the voter, you and me, almost negligible.

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 03:27 PM
His approval rating hasn't changed among blacks and Hispanics. That's 32% of the population. Add another 12% from the white population and I don't see where your arguement has any merit.

They man ran from the middle and is governing from the extreme left.
Are you suggesting that blacks and Hispanic don't count in defining the political center for the country? White males are uniformly more conservative than the rest of the population. From a political perspective they are also less and less important.

As I noted in my post, running from the center and then governing from a more extreme position has become the norm. Reagan did it, Bush 2 did it, and Obama is doing it as well. Bush 1 and Clinton did not do that. Both governed more from the center and lost support in their own parties as a result. Obama is also losing support from within his own party because he is considered to be too conservative. He is not losing support in his own party other than that. The real loss for him, as it was for the Bushes and for Reagan in his first midterm election, is from losses of independent voters. It seems they don't like to see their preferred candidates move toward the left or right extremes.

road kill
07-31-2010, 03:35 PM
So now, both candidates are running campaigns where each pretends to be more centrist than he actually is and the winner may simply prove to be the better liar.:rolleyes:

That has already happened!!;-)


RK

dnf777
07-31-2010, 03:48 PM
That has already happened!!;-)


RK


By my estimate, it has happened every 4 years as long as I can remember.

depittydawg
07-31-2010, 06:33 PM
[QUOTE=Franco;652944]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=542171&p=2

We haven't been this divided as a country in 150 years.

I'd have to disagree. In my lifetime we were much more divided in the 60's and 70's than today. Also the 1930's were much more turbulent than anything we are experiencing today. None of the issues mentioned here come close to inciting people to kill each other. If you think so, then I'm afraid you're way out their on a limb.

The next clash in my opinion, will be the same as the last clash. That being of class. The gap between the haves and have nots is huge and getting worse with each passing year. I'm not talking about upper or lower middle class here. I"m talking about Wall Street tycoons who have fortunes that Kings can't compete with, while breaking the backs of workers in this country. Not to mention undermining the workings of our government.
Working men and women have so far allowed themselves to be duped into this nonsense of Political difference, when the issues are almost all economic. Sooner or later things will get bad enough for enough people that they simply won't care about the political nonsense anymore. It will come down to some pretty basic struggles. Very similar to the 1930's.

charly_t
08-01-2010, 01:02 AM
Quote
I'd have to disagree. In my lifetime we were much more divided in the 60's and 70's than today. Also the 1930's were much more turbulent than anything we are experiencing today. None of the issues mentioned here come close to inciting people to kill each other. If you think so, then I'm afraid you're way out their on a limb.

The next clash in my opinion, will be the same as the last clash. That being of class. The gap between the haves and have nots is huge and getting worse with each passing year. I'm not talking about upper or lower middle class here. I"m talking about Wall Street tycoons who have fortunes that Kings can't compete with, while breaking the backs of workers in this country. Not to mention undermining the workings of our government.
Working men and women have so far allowed themselves to be duped into this nonsense of Political difference, when the issues are almost all economic. Sooner or later things will get bad enough for enough people that they simply won't care about the political nonsense anymore. It will come down to some pretty basic struggles. Very similar to the 1930's. [/QUOTE]

If you don't mind my asking, Dippitydawg, how old are you ?

M&K's Retrievers
08-01-2010, 01:12 AM
If you don't mind my asking, Dippitydawg, how old are you ?

Old enough to know better.

Franco
08-01-2010, 10:37 AM
[quote=Franco;652944]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=542171&p=2

We haven't been this divided as a country in 150 years.

I'd have to disagree. In my lifetime we were much more divided in the 60's and 70's than today. Also the 1930's were much more turbulent than anything we are experiencing today. None of the issues mentioned here come close to inciting people to kill each other. If you think so, then I'm afraid you're way out their on a limb.

The next clash in my opinion, will be the same as the last clash. That being of class. The gap between the haves and have nots is huge and getting worse with each passing year. I'm not talking about upper or lower middle class here. I"m talking about Wall Street tycoons who have fortunes that Kings can't compete with, while breaking the backs of workers in this country. Not to mention undermining the workings of our government.
Working men and women have so far allowed themselves to be duped into this nonsense of Political difference, when the issues are almost all economic. Sooner or later things will get bad enough for enough people that they simply won't care about the political nonsense anymore. It will come down to some pretty basic struggles. Very similar to the 1930's.

I disagree. The big controversy on the 60s and early 70s was Vietnam. By 1973 that controversy was laid to rest.

The controversy today shakes us to our very core of what the USA stands for;

Capitalism vs Socialism
Our heritage vs a new order
Freedom vs a huge Federal Government

It is a battle of what has made us great as opposed to we are the evil of the world.

dnf777
08-01-2010, 10:42 AM
George H. W. Bush, March 16, 1991:

Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.

What party do we turn to for Capitalism, Heritage, and Freedom? I'm sure none on here would say the Democrats....and recent events would dictate that it sure as hell ain't the republicans......

Franco
08-01-2010, 01:26 PM
What party do we turn to for Capitalism, Heritage, and Freedom? I'm sure none on here would say the Democrats....and recent events would dictate that it sure as hell ain't the republicans......



Certainly not the Democrats.

I said on here a few years ago that Bush43 would set the GOP back to the point it may never recover. That may hold true and I am not convinced they have learned from Bush's mistakes. We'll have to wait and see who they run in 2012.

I think both party platforms are broken, the Dems more so.

I am hoping for a strong Independent as it may be our only hope before our government becomes even bigger.

depittydawg
08-01-2010, 04:36 PM
[quote=depittydawg;653227]

I disagree. The big controversy on the 60s and early 70s was Vietnam. By 1973 that controversy was laid to rest.

The controversy today shakes us to our very core of what the USA stands for;

Capitalism vs Socialism
Our heritage vs a new order
Freedom vs a huge Federal Government

It is a battle of what has made us great as opposed to we are the evil of the world.

I'd say race was the biggest conflict of the 60s. And certainly the consequences of the Race issues of the sixties are stilling having major political ramifications today.

depittydawg
08-01-2010, 04:43 PM
What party do we turn to for Capitalism, Heritage, and Freedom? I'm sure none on here would say the Democrats....and recent events would dictate that it sure as hell ain't the republicans......

Historically it has been the Democratic Party. Credit goes to FDR for saving capitalism in America if not the world. The FDR legacy was continued in earnest by Isenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and began to unravel during Carters Presidency. Reagan put the nation on a course 180 degrees opposite the New Deal and we are still on that course.
In todays political climate, both political parties are still firmly entrenched in Reaganomics. We will continue to decline until one of our parties becomes strong enough to break that trend.

BonMallari
08-01-2010, 04:52 PM
I said on here a few years ago that Bush43 would set the GOP back to the point it may never recover. That may hold true and I am not convinced they have learned from Bush's mistakes. We'll have to wait and see who they run in 2012.

Absolutely correct in your analysis

I think both party platforms are broken, the Dems more so.

cant speak for the Dems but the Republican platforms is fragmented and in disarray

I am hoping for a strong Independent as it may be our only hope before our government becomes even bigger.

just dont think there is enough infra$$$tructure to sustain an indy...and I am starting to see the residual affects of the Tea Party, they may have shot their *** and may hurt more than help and have aided in that party fragmentation

Julie R.
08-01-2010, 10:10 PM
Working men and women have traded their jobs for government handouts and entitlement programs and people who can't even read at the 6th grade level dupe themselves by voting for whoever offers the biggest handout without any understanding or concern of political difference or basic economics, when the issues are almost all economic. How can they get their handouts and a flat screen TV, SUV with spinning rims and a fancy cell phone, too? Sooner or later things will get bad enough for enough people that they simply won't care about the political nonsense anymore. It will come down to some pretty basic struggles. Very similar to the 1930's.


There, fixed it for ya. And no, not at all similar to the 1930s, although no one expects 24 yr. olds to really understand anything about that era.

depittydawg
08-01-2010, 11:10 PM
There, fixed it for ya. And no, not at all similar to the 1930s, although no one expects 24 yr. olds to really understand anything about that era.

First of all, to write something that is knowingly false, and attach someone else's name to it is against the law and I'll be abliged if you never do that again. Secondly, take your petty insult and shove it where the sun don't shine. Now, If you have anything intelligent to say, go for it. Otherwise just ignor my posts please.

M&K's Retrievers
08-02-2010, 12:08 AM
First of all, to write something that is knowingly false, and attach someone else's name to it is against the law and I'll be abliged if you never do that again. Secondly, take your petty insult and shove it where the sun don't shine. Now, If you have anything intelligent to say, go for it. Otherwise just ignor my posts please.

Why don't you grow up and get a grip? Perhaps you should have stayed gone longer. As far as ignoring your posts, it is something we all should consider.

Julie R.
08-02-2010, 05:55 AM
First of all, to write something that is knowingly false, and attach someone else's name to it is against the law and I'll be abliged if you never do that again. Secondly, take your petty insult and shove it where the sun don't shine. Now, If you have anything intelligent to say, go for it. Otherwise just ignor my posts please.

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/WAAAAAaaaaahh.gifhttp://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/queen.gif
Actually, I believe my version of today's working class is much closer to the truth than yours so how can that be knowingly false? Can't we all just get along? http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/Rodney.gif


So in that spirit little guy, let me "ablige" you; I'll step right up and apologize for hurting your feelings. http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/SARCASM.gif

Dude. This is the internet and this is a forum for airing political opinions, don't take stuff here too personally. If benign jabs like what I posted gets you this worked up, here's a little tutorial: you have an ignore button, too.
http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/abigrofl.gif

badbullgator
08-02-2010, 06:15 AM
First of all, to write something that is knowingly false, and attach someone else's name to it is against the law and I'll be abliged if you never do that again. Secondly, take your petty insult and shove it where the sun don't shine. Now, If you have anything intelligent to say, go for it. Otherwise just ignor my posts please.



Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

Julie 24 year olds know every thing http://forums.floridasportsman.com/sites/all/modules/smileys/packs/IMOsmiley/roflmao.gifhttp://forums.floridasportsman.com/sites/all/modules/smileys/packs/IMOsmiley/roflmao.gif

road kill
08-02-2010, 06:19 AM
First of all, to write something that is knowingly false, and attach someone else's name to it is against the law and I'll be abliged if you never do that again. Secondly, take your petty insult and shove it where the sun don't shine. Now, If you have anything intelligent to say, go for it. Otherwise just ignor my posts please.


2 things jump out at ya here.

#1--Ever read your post in regard to posting something "knowingly false??"
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D


#2--Could you post a link to this law you speak of??
(or is this a "knowingly false" post??;-))

Rhetorical question.......:rolleyes:



RK

troy schwab
08-02-2010, 07:56 AM
Third, our government today is nowhere near center. Obama is not in the middle but far left, in that 20%! He completely ignores the laws of the land and the will of the people to further his agenda. GW Bush was completely out of control too as was Clinton, Reagan and LBJ. We can't get the right people elected because both party machines are controlled not by the prople but by special interest. Compound that with a largley uneducated electorate and we are screwed! Screwed by our own politicians because most middle and upper America has become too apathetic and both parties have been growing the poor uneducated class through pandering and entitlemnets.

Well Said Franco..... I agree 100%

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 08:09 AM
...
Third, our government today is nowhere near center. Obama is not in the middle but far left, in that 20%! He completely ignores the laws of the land and the will of the people to further his agenda. GW Bush was completely out of control too as was Clinton, Reagan and LBJ. We can't get the right people elected because both party machines are controlled not by the prople but by special interest. Compound that with a largley uneducated electorate and we are screwed! Screwed by our own politicians because most middle and upper America has become too apathetic and both parties have been growing the poor uneducated class through pandering and entitlemnets.
What "radical" parts of Obama's program were not part of what he said he would do during his campaign? What laws has he ignored more than his predecessors? Is the will of the people that he should be following the will expressed at the ballot box, or in political polls often commissioned by partisans? And should he be following those polls whatever they might be today, or only what they are when you happen to agree?

I agree that our elections and our polls are unduly influenced by special interests. However, those seeking to supplant an elected government without the bother of an election, are simply one more special interest too lazy to bother trying to win the support of the voters for their cause. Given my choice, I'll stick with the democratic process.

zeus3925
08-02-2010, 09:09 AM
I see a lot of political geniuses here that seem to have their own better idea for running the country. Step up to the plate, Wunderkind. Get your name on the ballot and RUN, BABY, RUN. Only failures talk about revolution.

Franco
08-02-2010, 10:36 AM
I see a lot of political geniuses here that seem to have their own better idea for running the country. Step up to the plate, Wunderkind. Get your name on the ballot and RUN, BABY, RUN. Only failures talk about revolution.

So, Thomas Jefferson was a failure? I don't think so.

The failures are those that support those that would undermine what once made this a great and proud nation. You know, those loosers that support Obama as his Apology Tour and welcomed illegal invasion of the USA.

road kill
08-02-2010, 12:25 PM
I see a lot of political geniuses here that seem to have their own better idea for running the country. Step up to the plate, Wunderkind. Get your name on the ballot and RUN, BABY, RUN. Only failures talk about revolution.
Read the Consttution, seems like a solid plan to me........:D





RK

zeus3925
08-02-2010, 01:51 PM
So, Thomas Jefferson was a failure? I don't think so.

The failures are those that support those that would undermine what once made this a great and proud nation. You know, those loosers that support Obama as his Apology Tour and welcomed illegal invasion of the USA.

Franco, I don't know if you noticed or not but the illegal immigration problem has been with us a long time--long before Obama. It exists because there are American employers here that don't give a rat's patoot about their fellow countrymen and hire those illegals. It is also a long chain of administrations that have been permissive toward promiscuous immigration. It was NOT Obama, however, that was negotiating with Mexico, Canada and several Central American countries to create a multi-national economic union much like the EU where people would be free to migrate across borders without restriction. Guess who it was. (Hint:He was a Republican. )

I also take issue with characterizing those who voted for Obama as failures. They may have not voted for your boy, but that is their prerogative as Americans. I was fully ready to vote McCain, but when it was obvious he did not have a clue on the current economic crisis, I switched to Obama. I do not regret that choice one bit.

One thing about good ol' Thomas Jefferson--he had a vision and he had a plan. One of his visions was to create a governing plan where the people could participate in government with the credo that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. I don't see that credo active in today's would be revolutionaries. They are mad because they got spanked in the last election. They have little tolerance for any other view point other than their own. They strive to disenfranchise those who are not in agreement with them.

This bunch has no vision for the future. They have no real plan. If they rise up in arms against this great nation, what may happen is nothing like America we have known. We may very well get a collection of fiefdoms governed by local warlords or the emergence of another Hitlerian gang.

Thomas Jefferson and his compatriots gave you a plan to periodically revolutionize your government--at the ballot box, not at the ammo box.

david gibson
08-02-2010, 02:12 PM
First of all, to write something that is knowingly false, and attach someone else's name to it is against the law and I'll be abliged if you never do that again. Secondly, take your petty insult and shove it where the sun don't shine. Now, If you have anything intelligent to say, go for it. Otherwise just ignor my posts please.

you'll be "abliged" to do what? and what does that word mean? even if you meant the closes misspelling it still makes little sense. :confused:

Franco
08-02-2010, 02:12 PM
Franco, I don't know if you noticed or not but the illegal immigration problem has been with us a long time--long before Obama. It exists because there are American employers here that don't give a rat's patoot about their fellow countrymen and hire those illegals. It is also a long chain of administrations that have been permissive toward promiscuous immigration. It was NOT Obama, however, that was negotiating with Mexico, Canada and several Central American countries to create a multi-national economic union much like the EU where people would be free to migrate across borders without restriction. Guess who it was. (Hint:He was a Republican. )

I also take issue with characterizing those who voted for Obama as failures. They may have not voted for your boy, but that is their prerogative as Americans. I was fully ready to vote McCain, but when it was obvious he did not have a clue on the current economic crisis, I switched to Obama. I do not regret that choice one bit.

One thing about good ol' Thomas Jefferson--he had a vision and he had a plan. One of his visions was to create a governing plan where the people could participate in government with the credo that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. I don't see that credo active in today's would be revolutionaries. They are mad because they got spanked in the last election. They have little tolerance for any other view point other than their own. They strive to disenfranchise those who are not in agreement with them.

This bunch has no vision for the future. They have no real plan. If they rise up in arms against this great nation, what may happen is nothing like America we have known. We may very well get a collection of fiefdoms governed by local warlords or the emergence of another Hitlerian gang.

Thomas Jefferson and his compatriots gave you a plan to periodically revolutionize your government--at the ballot box, not at the ammo box.

I think Thomas Jefferson would be puking in his grave if he were around to see how The Constitution has been so abused over the last 60 years.

Just the fact that the current administration would file a law suit against a state tying to protect itself from illegal migration is an abuse of power. Going against a state the current administration knows would never vote for him and pandering to what they hope will be voters in the near future once Immigration Reform (code name for Amnesty) gets shoved down tax payers throats.

Many illegals will be coming for the free healthcare, education and other government handouts. Amnesty will create a new wave of illegal migration. I do NOT want to pay for thier Health Care, education nor do I want to give them SS benefits that others have paid into!

Or his punishing the Gulf States that he knows would not vote for him anyway, with his Oil Drilling Moratorium.

The illegal migration mess has gone on for too long and the current traitors are more interested in protecting them than legal citizens.

The split is there and it will only get wider. Those that treasure our heritage will not let it go for a new order in this country. You can take that to the bank!