Limbaugh: Obama a "classic case of affirmative action rearing it's ugly head" - Page 8

7960 · 09-02-2008, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Are you serious? You would rather have an unrepentant terrorist that says, "He wish he could have done more" involved with any presidential administration?

Until you get us that evidence I'm not going to assume they are actually friends.

And Resco? Come on, even Fox says that's not a story and if anyone would be going after it, it's them.

Donkey® · 09-02-2008, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

I'll get some later, it's late.

I am sure it will come from a reputable source.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

And that was the first terrorist attack against american interests?

Who cares about "US interests"? If our "interests" weren't in places they shouldn't be in, we wouldn't have our "interests" attacked.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Yeah, they are called employees. Of course their needs to be oversight and exploitation is wrong. But are you going to tell me that because someone works for someone else they are being used?

No, they are not called "employees". In order to make money in this country, you have to take the money of others.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Then why didn't they immediately start an income tax, take all the powers away from the states and mandate things from the federal government? Seriously. It is my money, it's your money. You earned you should decide how it's used, not the government. If you want to give it away on your own free will, that's fine. But it's not fine for the government to redistribute wealth. Can you show me where that's constitutional?

When you show me where it's NOT Constitutional.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

That's a little different then converting an entire country off of oil. Do you have any feasible solutions for it? Does Obama? And please don't say, "Alternative energy". Give details.

No, it's no different. Obama does have a plan. My thoughts on the subject are along the lines of wind, nuclear and solar energy for our normal electricity and alternatives to fuel such as natural gas. But I am not running for office so my thoughts really don't matter.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Ok, imagine Katrina never happened. I'm saying that there are MANY people in New Orleans living way below poverty level and having a hard time making it. Since the democrats have been running that city for so long, shouldn't it have been an example of what their policies can do?

And California seems to be doing just fine with all those "liberal policies." You can't just pick and choose a single "example" as a reflection of anyone's policies.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

We have that, it's called the ER. I mis-spoke a bit earlier. I meant to say universal health insurance. This goes back to my argument earlier to which your justification was that if we could spend money on defending ourselves from nukes we could spend money on universal healthcare insurance. I did rebut that but I don't remember a response.

ER? How about you try going to an ER and see how much it costs? People have filed for bankruptcy for going to the ER.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Oh, what do you have against rich people? They all can't be evil. So why such hatred?

I don't have hatred for rich people. I hate the MANY people in this country - rich and poor - that are greedy and don't give two shits about their fellow citizens. Capitalism fosters greed and hate.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

So you're willing to except no change for yourself even though Obama promises change in Washington. Interesting.

The "change" is the fact he's a new breed in Washington. He's promised all sorts of changes but I am not going to take his word for it. I want to SEE him do it for myself.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Clinton was a change. But I'm quite sure you're going to say change for the better.

Which Clinton? Bill? He was not a change.

Swift-Bass · 09-02-2008, 11:08 AM

[quote=Donkey®;201268]

Who cares about "US interests"? If our "interests" weren't in places they shouldn't be in, we wouldn't have our "interests" attacked.

LOL, so you care about everyone in the country. But our military and even civilians that come into harms way are just losses?

No, they are not called "employees". In order to make money in this country, you have to take the money of others.

This is ridiculous. If I sell you an apple that I grew and you buy it of your own free will, how is that taking your money? When someone buys a car from a car dealership, how is that taking money? I don't understand how you can generalize all income generation as someone taking money from someone else.

When you show me where it's NOT Constitutional.

Whoa, this is not a science class where the objective is to disprove a theory. You want to fundamentally change the economic base of this country. I asked you to show me where that's constitutional and your response is, "Where is it NOT Constitutional"? You're the one that wants this incredible shift, the burden of proof is on you.

No, it's no different. Obama does have a plan. My thoughts on the subject are along the lines of wind, nuclear and solar energy for our normal electricity and alternatives to fuel such as natural gas. But I am not running for office so my thoughts really don't matter.

He doesn't want Nuclear. solar energy is not even close to up to par yet. Wind needs to be backed up by traditional sources, when the wind isn't blowing. You're not running for office, but you're not even sure of the plan of a candidate you so passionately support. We can't just stop the economy and wait for these new sources to come around.

And California seems to be doing just fine with all those "liberal policies." You can't just pick and choose a single "example" as a reflection of anyone's policies.

Really? Have you seen their debt? They are radically in the red. I'm picking something as a reflection of a party's policies. Not just Obama's.

ER? How about you try going to an ER and see how much it costs? People have filed for bankruptcy for going to the ER.

right now, I have a few thousand dollars of medical bills even WITH insurance. But that's much better then dying from a burst appendix and liver problems.

Those people you mentioned, they still get the treatment they need to save their lives. I'm not saying the current system is perfect. But it's better then having the government take the whole thing over. Would you call Great Britain's system a success.

I don't have hatred for rich people. I hate the MANY people in this country - rich and poor - that are greedy and don't give two shits about their fellow citizens. Capitalism fosters greed and hate.

Greed and hate? I care a lot about other Americans. I give to plenty of charities and causes. But I don't want the government taking from me or others and giving it away without my consent. How does that make me greedy and hateful?

Oh, capitalism fosters competition and ingenuity. So much of the great technologies and inventions we have wouldn't even be here without the free market system.

If you hate capitalism so much, why not move to another country that's socialist?

The "change" is the fact he's a new breed in Washington. He's promised all sorts of changes but I am not going to take his word for it. I want to SEE him do it for myself.

We've heard it before. JFK had a very similar message. I dare say Washington wasn't cleaned up. Granted, his administration was cut short in a horrible fashion. But it's not like Washington was radically different after his assassination.

Which Clinton? Bill? He was not a change.

Well at least we agree on something

Donkey® · 09-02-2008, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

LOL, so you care about everyone in the country. But our military and even civilians that come into harms way are just losses?

Not what I said at all. Our civilians CHOOSE to go into harms way. Our military is put into harms way, which is wrong. They shouldn't put there in the first place. It's not their fault but the governments fault for that.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

This is ridiculous. If I sell you an apple that I grew and you buy it of your own free will, how is that taking your money? When someone buys a car from a car dealership, how is that taking money? I don't understand how you can generalize all income generation as someone taking money from someone else.

With capitalism it's all about profit. So not only are taking what the product costs, you're taking extra...sometimes a massive amount extra. All because it's about making yourself a profit. That's how it's taking.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Whoa, this is not a science class where the objective is to disprove a theory. You want to fundamentally change the economic base of this country. I asked you to show me where that's constitutional and your response is, "Where is it NOT Constitutional"? You're the one that wants this incredible shift, the burden of proof is on you.

What are you talking about? There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. You asked "where does the Constitution say it's allowed?" If it doesn't prohibit something, it's allowed.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

He doesn't want Nuclear. solar energy is not even close to up to par yet. Wind needs to be backed up by traditional sources, when the wind isn't blowing. You're not running for office, but you're not even sure of the plan of a candidate you so passionately support. We can't just stop the economy and wait for these new sources to come around.

He is NOT against nuclear. I don't know where you people keep getting that from. He said he would NOT be AGAINST nuclear power...but believe there are better alternatives. Solar energy not up to par yet would take an effort to bring it up to par. Wind is the same. We don't have to stop the economy and nobody said that...but we can direct some misguided resources to these things which are more important.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Really? Have you seen their debt? They are radically in the red. I'm picking something as a reflection of a party's policies. Not just Obama's.

And our whole country is in the red to the rest of the world based on your conservative buddies policies.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

right now, I have a few thousand dollars of medical bills even WITH insurance. But that's much better then dying from a burst appendix and liver problems.

And you can afford to pay those bills off now can't ya? What about people who can't?

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Those people you mentioned, they still get the treatment they need to save their lives. I'm not saying the current system is perfect. But it's better then having the government take the whole thing over. Would you call Great Britain's system a success.

Why do people always say things like "well look at GB or Japan" We are not GB or Japan. Universal Healthcare in this country can work if it's done correctly. The problem people on your side have with Universal Healthcare is that it would get in the way of profits.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Greed and hate? I care a lot about other Americans. I give to plenty of charities and causes. But I don't want the government taking from me or others and giving it away without my consent. How does that make me greedy and hateful?

Do you ever feel like you have enough money?

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Oh, capitalism fosters competition and ingenuity. So much of the great technologies and inventions we have wouldn't even be here without the free market system.

Right...and we seem to be falling behind the rest of the world in that ingenuity. We are so enthralled with capitalism that we just buy our shit from elsewhere instead of coming up with things on our own.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

If you hate capitalism so much, why not move to another country that's socialist?

I love this argument. If George Washington hated British Rule so much, why didn't he move to Mexico?

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

We've heard it before. JFK had a very similar message. I dare say Washington wasn't cleaned up. Granted, his administration was cut short in a horrible fashion. But it's not like Washington was radically different after his assassination.

I am no judging Obama on what he says he will do or on what has happened with other people in the past. I am willing to give him a change to prove he will make changes. If he doesn't, oh well...he won't get my vote next time.

Swift-Bass · 09-02-2008, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Not what I said at all. Our civilians CHOOSE to go into harms way. Our military is put into harms way, which is wrong. They shouldn't put there in the first place. It's not their fault but the governments fault for that.

So why do we then have the military?

With capitalism it's all about profit. So not only are taking what the product costs, you're taking extra...sometimes a massive amount extra. All because it's about making yourself a profit. That's how it's taking.

With a few exceptions, you have a choice. If you think someone is charging to much for apples, get them cheaper somewhere else. That will force the other person that's price gouging to either lower thier prices or go out of business.

What are you talking about? There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. You asked "where does the Constitution say it's allowed?" If it doesn't prohibit something, it's allowed.

s

From article I section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I can argue that a univeral healthcare insurance system is not for the general welfare of the American people.

He is NOT against nuclear. I don't know where you people keep getting that from. He said he would NOT be AGAINST nuclear power...but believe there are better alternatives. Solar energy not up to par yet would take an effort to bring it up to par. Wind is the same. We don't have to stop the economy and nobody said that...but we can direct some misguided resources to these things which are more important.

Obama said we should get off of foreign oil in 10 years. That's radically fast to do without getting more of our own. And as you said, he doesn't like nuclear. So, how is it going to happen?

And our whole country is in the red to the rest of the world based on your conservative buddies policies.

Bush is not a conservative. But I'm gathering that your argument is that since California is in the red do mainly to failed social programs that it's ok and being in the red for military operations and war isn't. Would that be correct?

And you can afford to pay those bills off now can't ya? What about people who can't?

Actually, I'm having a pretty hard time. I'm not rich at all. I make about 36K a year and live on my own. I'm not crying or whining. Just saying it's not as easy as you make it sound.

Why do people always say things like "well look at GB or Japan" We are not GB or Japan. Universal Healthcare in this country can work if it's done correctly. The problem people on your side have with Universal Healthcare is that it would get in the way of profits.

Because only idiots don't look at examples of what they are trying to do and learn from them. GB and Japan are smaller then us and they couldn't pull it off. How do you propose is the "correct" way to do it?

It would get in the way of profits? How about it would kill the pharmaceutical industry. It would set the prices for so many drugs that it would make the investment in new life saving medicines not worth it. So then the government would have to subsidize the pharmaceutical industry and ration money out to them for the development of new drugs. Drugs that so many people, that you claim to care about, depend on and are banking on for their future.

Do you ever feel like you have enough money?

If and when I come to the point where paying the bills isn't a concern, then yes. But until then I will work hard to get to that point.

Right...and we seem to be falling behind the rest of the world in that ingenuity. We are so enthralled with capitalism that we just buy our shit from elsewhere instead of coming up with things on our own.

Uh...no. Sure, we get a lot of goods from other countries. But look at our GDP and other countries GDP. We eclipse every other country on this planet. That's capitalism at work.

I love this argument. If George Washington hated British Rule so much, why didn't he move to Mexico?

Because it was worse then the US, it wasn't a "free" nation that he desired and travel wasn't half as easy then as it is now. But you are literally advocating what George Washington and the other founders fought against. A large government body telling the people what to do, how to live and taking their money while doing it.

I am no judging Obama on what he says he will do or on what has happened with other people in the past. I am willing to give him a change to prove he will make changes. If he doesn't, oh well...he won't get my vote next time.

That's the most logical thing you've said in this thread.

Donkey® · 09-02-2008, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

So why do we then have the military?

To DEFEND us. Not to defend South Korea. Not to play around in the Middle East. Not to be stationed in another country at one of the 100s of bases we have around the world.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

With a few exceptions, you have a choice. If you think someone is charging to much for apples, get them cheaper somewhere else. That will force the other person that's price gouging to either lower thier prices or go out of business.

Even if you find the lower prices you are STILL being charged extra for any and all products you buy just so the seller can make a profit.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

From article I section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I can argue that a univeral healthcare insurance system is not for the general welfare of the American people.

You could TRY to argue it but since the wording is so vague to begin with, you'd fail.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Obama said we should get off of foreign oil in 10 years. That's radically fast to do without getting more of our own. And as you said, he doesn't like nuclear. So, how is it going to happen?

Just because he doesn't like nuclear doesn't mean he is against it or wouldn't use it. So it's fast...so what? It's not like he is going to stop the flow of oil when there's no alternative method there waiting. But what's good is the fact that a massive amount of research, money and thinking will be going into it...which is what is needed. It could happen next year as far as we know...so 10 years isn't far-fetched at all. Besides, I would rather we concentrate on this as opposed space travel to Mars.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Bush is not a conservative. But I'm gathering that your argument is that since California is in the red do mainly to failed social programs that it's ok and being in the red for military operations and war isn't. Would that be correct?

You can say whatever you like...the whole argument is irrelevant to the thread as it is. MANY states, including your beloved "conservative" red states are in the red. I am sure you have excuses for them though...

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Actually, I'm having a pretty hard time. I'm not rich at all. I make about 36K a year and live on my own. I'm not crying or whining. Just saying it's not as easy as you make it sound.

But you're also not being forced to sell off all your possessions or move or find a third job or even file for bankruptcy because of your medical bills, right?

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Because only idiots don't look at examples of what they are trying to do and learn from them. GB and Japan are smaller then us and they couldn't pull it off. How do you propose is the "correct" way to do it?

First off, I am not sure where you get the information you're using to say Japan is a failure. Everything I have seen has shown it to be decently successful. No, not perfect, but not god awful like you make it out to be.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

It would get in the way of profits? How about it would kill the pharmaceutical industry. It would set the prices for so many drugs that it would make the investment in new life saving medicines not worth it. So then the government would have to subsidize the pharmaceutical industry and ration money out to them for the development of new drugs. Drugs that so many people, that you claim to care about, depend on and are banking on for their future.

The problem is there are TOO many people taking drugs they don't need to begin with. It isn't DOOMSDAY for the pharm industry...but however you want to see it is up to you.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

If and when I come to the point where paying the bills isn't a concern, then yes. But until then I will work hard to get to that point.

People that believe in capitalism believe that they NEVER have enough money.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Uh...no. Sure, we get a lot of goods from other countries. But look at our GDP and other countries GDP. We eclipse every other country on this planet. That's capitalism at work.

What does that have to do with the comments I made? We export shit that's been well established - rice, corn, etc. Sometimes our most innovative stuff is military hardware. Other than those things, we import most of the "innovative" stuff.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Because it was worse then the US, it wasn't a "free" nation that he desired and travel wasn't half as easy then as it is now. But you are literally advocating what George Washington and the other founders fought against. A large government body telling the people what to do, how to live and taking their money while doing it.

They were more against a large government from across the ocean telling them what to do...besides, you can have a small government that does all the necessary things while getting rid of all the unnecessary things. Anyway, let's call it a victory for you and move on. You've derailed this thread long enough.

Swift-Bass · 09-02-2008, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

They were more against a large government from across the ocean telling them what to do...besides, you can have a small government that does all the necessary things while getting rid of all the unnecessary things. Anyway, let's call it a victory for you and move on. You've derailed this thread long enough.

No, it's not a victory for me.

But whatever, you do live in Maryland, like myself, so we should be close to socialism soon enough.

motivez · 09-02-2008, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Are you serious? You would rather have an unrepentant terrorist that says, "He wish he could have done more" involved with any presidential administration? You would knowingly do this? That makes no sense. If the man has truly turned around he would say he's SORRY.

What are you talking about?

He's not involved in any Presidential Administration. Obama worked with him on some project, and I'm not going to damn him for wanting to be involved in a project to help people that happened to have some wackjob in it, especially since he has denounced Ares actions that happened WHEN HE WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD

Like I said, guilt by association is bullshit

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

And how many times do I have to say it's not guilt by association. It's a question about his JUDGEMENT! He has associated, willingly with people like Aires, Rev Wright, Flegger and Resco for a long time. And his justification for all three of the last people I mentioned was, "that wasn't the (insert person's name here) I knew". This is about his judgement of character, not about him being guilty of anything.

Sorry, your whole point is "guilt by association" whether or not you want to admit it. You're saying "Well, Obama knows this guy, and Obama got involved in an effort to help people that this guy was involved in as well, thus he must ascribe to Ares views

That's bullshit, and it's NOT true, as I said, he denounced it.

The same is true with Wright, etc.. you think Obama agrees with every position every person has ever taken that he's ever known or had a relationship with? It's down right ridiculous.

Swift-Bass · 09-02-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What are you talking about?

He's not involved in any Presidential Administration. Obama worked with him on some project, and I'm not going to damn him for wanting to be involved in a project to help people that happened to have some wackjob in it, especially since he has denounced Ares actions that happened WHEN HE WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD

Like I said, guilt by association is bullshit

Sorry, your whole point is "guilt by association" whether or not you want to admit it. You're saying "Well, Obama knows this guy, and Obama got involved in an effort to help people that this guy was involved in as well, thus he must ascribe to Ares views

That's bullshit, and it's NOT true, as I said, he denounced it.

The same is true with Wright, etc.. you think Obama agrees with every position every person has ever taken that he's ever known or had a relationship with? It's down right ridiculous.

And for the umpteenth time, I don't think Obama is guilty of anything except stupid policies. I'm just tryin to understand how it's new and fresh to have associations like this. Also, why would he even let Aiers help once he found out his history?

No it's not the same with Wright. He chose that man as his pastor for 20 years. He married them and baptised his children. You HAVE to share some of the views of a man's ministry that you sit under. Otherwise you would leave. Does that mean that Obama shares all his views? No, of course not. But if you don't question why he would stay in a church with a leader like that for so long, then I would say you're not doing your due dilligence in vetting a candidate.

motivez · 09-02-2008, 05:24 PM

You're assuming he's friends with these people, but if Obama sees some effort working to help the people he represents, but there's someone crazy also interested in helping people.. should he say "Well, I'd like to help you, but I don't want stupid people to think I support everything this crazy guy does, so I'm not going to help you." .. or should he say, "Politics be damned, this is a good project that's helping people, and I'm going to be involved."

It's obvious why he stayed in the church, that church is more than just a church, it's a political tool he used to help him integrate in the community there and get involved in other projects

He doesn't ascribe to his views on politics, he's not a "black candidate" like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, he's moved beyond that.. Wright is still stuck there, but Obama is not.

Swift-Bass · 09-02-2008, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

He doesn't ascribe to his views on politics, he's not a "black candidate" like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, he's moved beyond that.. Wright is still stuck there, but Obama is not.

But he was a close personal friend that led him to Jesus. And you're right, he wasn't a black candidate. Until the Rev Wright stuff showed up and Obama waited too long to take care of it.