The Nehor wrote:If I want to blame a President, I blame both Bushs and Clinton. I don't believe that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were needed.
We don't have to want to. Socialist plans always fail anyway because they reduce freedom and democracy without exception and at some point,
the leadership always recognizes that capitalism is the way to go as illustrated here. Some leaders make the realization, but their country is so messed up that chaging to capitalism (and hence, Democracy) is suicide. North Korea case in point.
The problem is momentum. Conservatives are defending freedom and Democracy because we love it.
We know from history that it hard to change back once slick left wing mobsters are in power and control the media.
Brackite wrote:The Nehor wrote:If I want to blame a President, I blame both Bushs and Clinton. I don't believe that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were needed.
I pretty much agree with you on Iraq, However, I strongly disagree with you on Afghanistan.
We needed to go into Afghanistan.
The Nehor wrote:
Why? Retribution?
Our freedom was compromised last year as illustrated by the crude attacks on WGN-AM's Extension 720 program in Chicago by the Obama campaign. The comments by Democrats about reimposing the so-called Fairness Doctrine are ominous. Let's hope that the following is only an incorrect rumor.truth dancer wrote:We don't have to want to. Socialist plans always fail anyway because they reduce freedom and democracy without exception and at some point,
Please state how your freedom has been compromised in the last six weeks.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread438318/pg1On February 16, the American Spectator reported on senior FCC staff working for Commissioner Michael Copps holding meetings with advisers to House Energy and Commerce More.. Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such. For Waxman and crew, however, radio talk is only the beginning.
According to the American Spectator:
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. “It’s all about diversity in media,” says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. “Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them.” (Emphasis added.)
Name a lie in this respect by GWB.Sam Harris wrote:I hope you never slip up on a word around people who will forget all your stellar qualities, while dwelling on that one incident.
Where were you when our last president was lying out of his butt so that he could take a Saddam trophy home to daddy?
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-broken-promises-were-entirely-predictable/That was then; this is now. President Obama has allowed seventeen exceptions to the no-lobbyist rule. And remember that “sunlight before signing” pledge, giving citizens enough time to read a bill — and offer their opinions on it — before it is signed into law? Well, that’s gone to the wayside, too.
Brackite wrote:The Nehor wrote:
Why? Retribution?
Yeap, Pretty Much.
The press has portrayed BHO as a genius. I live in a suburb of Chicago and have watched this guy since 2004 and can assure you that he's no genius. Off the teleprompter, he makes gaffe after gaffe.Dr. Shades wrote:Sam Harris wrote:Where were you when our last president was lying out of his butt so that he could take a Saddam trophy home to daddy?
"A Saddam trophy home to daddy." LOL, Sam! That's pretty good.
RichardMdBorn, regardless of the humorous way she phrased it, I think the essence of Sam Harris's question is a relevant one: If that's how you feel about Obama's comment, what are your feelings about the flood of similar comments from our last president? And did you cut him more, as much, or less slack than you just cut Obama, above?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/us/politics/06web-baker.html?_r=1&emPresidents have been using teleprompters for more than half a century, but none relied on them as extensively as Mr. Obama has so far. While presidents typically have used them for their most important speeches to the nation — an inauguration, a State of the Union or an Oval Office address — Mr. Obama uses them for everyday routine announcements, and even for the opening statement at his news conference.
He used them during a visit to a Caterpillar plant in Peoria, Ill. He used them to make brief remarks at the opening of his “fiscal responsibility summit.” He used them during a visit to the Interior Department to discuss endangered species, even as he recalled a visit to some national parks as an 11-year-old. “That was an experience I will never forget,” he said, reading from the teleprompter.