Anyone notice "Osama" sounds like "Obama" ?

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee Another brilliant analysis.

Not an analysis really. Just a statement of facts.......

[BOBOT]

Oh man....
This whole thing just makes me think that we as a nation have just gone wacko - as in functionally diaabled = when more or less reasonable positions, right or left, are demonized the way thety are in are contemporarty "conversation"

I remember as a young(er) man snickering at my parents' reverence for Eisenhower, because he seemed so "far right conservative" (to my jejune point of view).

Now I wonder .. how would a proposal that the federal gov't build a nationwide system of highways, or Ike's warning about the incipient "military-industrial complex", play out in today's political climate?

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Not an analysis really. Just a statement of facts.......

Have the neo-cons redefined the word "fact"? Come to think of it . . . I guess they have.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee Have the neo-cons redefined the word "fact"? Come to think of it . . . I guess they have.

You miss the point sgeeeee. On your personal home turf, it's a struggle to gain Democratic election victories. You are either a neo-con or too lazy to defeat the neo-cons. Here, Dems win.

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet You miss the point sgeeeee. On your personal home turf, it's a struggle to gain Democratic election victories. You are either a neo-con or too lazy to defeat the neo-cons. Here, Dems win.

Well . . . there is a piece of reasoning that is hard to argue with.

Of course the reason it is hard to argue with is because there is no stated premise, no collection of facts, no logical analysis. How do you argue with that?

[Mr._johngalt]

Okay, so I spent about an hour "skimming" this guy's book
("The Audacity of Hope" - terrible title). I'd have to say he writes
pretty good. Much better than Nords, but that is faint praise indeed.

Obama is a liberal Democrat in The Senate. That is really all I need to know.

JG

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt Much better than Nords, but that is faint praise indeed.

A lot of people write better than I do, but I don't have my spouse logged into my computer to do it for me...

[Mr._johngalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords A lot of people write better than I do, but I don't have my spouse logged into my computer to do it for me...

Well I guess I solved that problem.

JG

[uncledrz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt BTW, my "dream team" to run would be Clarence Thomas and Ann Coulter. JG

That's quite an interesting combination. A conservative jurist saddled with a money lusting, liar who has advocated the killing of a member of Congress ("they should frag Murtha"--or something similar, if that's not exact), among her other qualifications.
The Republican party doesn't seem to be able to discern the difference.

Tio z

[Mr._johngalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tio z That's quite an interesting combination. A conservative jurist saddled with a money lusting, liar who has advocated the killing of a member of Congress ("they should frag Murtha"--or something similar, if that's not exact), among her other qualifications. The Republican party doesn't seem to be able to discern the difference. Tio z

Well, it's hyperbolic of course, but not really all that far off what would
(could?) get me interested again.

JG

[donheff]

Charles Krauthammer (neo-con Washington Post columnist) writes in today's Post that he believes Obama should run in 2008. This is not a tongue-in-cheek suggestion. He believes Obama would indelibly imprint himself in the national consciousness and set himself up as a future front-runner if 08' didn't pan out. Interestingly Krauthammer believes the majority of Americans (conservative as well as liberal) would like to see an African American President. I think he is right about that. It would be a huge symbolic step in overcoming our history.

[Mr._johngalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Charles Krauthammer (neo-con Washington Post columnist) Interestingly Krauthammer believes the majority of Americans (conservative as well as liberal) would like to see an African American President. I think he is right about that. It would be a huge symbolic step in overcoming our history.

You forgot the smiley.

jg

[azanon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt Partly. I see the guy as a far left socialist nut case. It's not racial. I would vote for a goldang Martian if he (she?) was ultra- conservative. I think bleeding heart libs are lower than pond scum (except for Martha of course). BTW, my "dream team" to run would be Clarence Thomas and Ann Coulter. JG

Not to stray too much, but JG, i'm curious what isn't redneck about being a NRA, gun loving supporter? Do you not realize that we already have armed police, the national guard, and the most powerful military in the world. Do you not realize that if the government "turned" against you, that your 12-guage isn't going to help you much when they come to get you?

Are you a hunter or something? I dont think the libs have ever went after banning a legitimate hunting gun. But it is a pretty sad thing that there are civilians out there that think they should have the right to own, say, a 50-cal.

But just being plain honest, when i hear someone delare they support the NRA, instantly the term redneck (or gangster, depending on the applicably) pops into my mind. Since you dont really strike me as the gangster type JG, then i guess you can deduce what I think....

You need to pick between genius and redneck, because they're not mutually exclusive.

[Mr._johngalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azanon Not to stray too much, but JG, i'm curious what isn't redneck about being a NRA, gun loving supporter? Do you not realize that we already have armed police, the national guard, and the most powerful military in the world. Do you not realize that if the government "turned" against you, that your 12-guage isn't going to help you much when they come to get you? Are you a hunter or something? I dont think the libs have ever went after banning a legitimate hunting gun. But it is a pretty sad thing that there are civilians out there that think they should have the right to own, say, a 50-cal. But just being plain honest, when i hear someone delare they support the NRA, instantly the term redneck (or gangster, depending on the applicably) pops into my mind.

Just briefly (gotta run). Gun rights/NRA/gun laws are my Number One
political hot button. Just one reason I have such distain for most
lib. dems. I am not a redneck nor a gangster and neither are the vast majority of gun owners/users, NRA members or not. As far as
"50 cal.". I firmly believe that properly screened (take out felons
and the mental ill) citizens should be able to own a whole collection
of weaponry far more powerful than the .50 cal. even if someone
decides there is no legitimate "sporting purpose". Furthermore, it's all
those armed governmentally controlled groups that I'm most worried about.
Far more than a mugger or burglar. Yep, I'm pissed off and heavily armed
so it's quite a package. Quite a package indeed.

JG

[73ss454]

I only know one thing about guns, and that is that nothing good will happen when guns are involved.

JG's motto is, one can never have enough guns. IMHO this is nuts!

[azanon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt Just briefly (gotta run). Gun rights/NRA/gun laws are my Number One political hot button. Just one reason I have such distain for most lib. dems. I am not a redneck nor a gangster and neither are the vast majority of gun owners/users, NRA members or not. As far as "50 cal.". I firmly believe that properly screened (take out felons and the mental ill) citizens should be able to own a whole collection of weaponry far more powerful than the .50 cal. even if someone decides there is no legitimate "sporting purpose". Furthermore, it's all those armed governmentally controlled groups that I'm most worried about. Far more than a mugger or burglar. Yep, I'm pissed off and heavily armed so it's quite a package. Quite a package indeed. JG

You didn't answer my charges. You talked more about wanting to have the right, and failed to give any reason why, except the silly suggestion that you could successfully oppose the government even if you were armed with a tank.

To own a weapon more powerful than a .50 cal, would mean an armed vehicle or airplane. If i'm not mistaken, there exist no higher calibur of gun than that, that can be fired without the aid of a serious mount.

So if you're not a redneck or gangster, then you just want the right, and you have no legitimate reason for needing that right. Now that makes a lot of sense * sarcasm *

One reason government employees like me exist is to help protect people from themselves. You're your own worst enemy sometimes.

JG, i'd not wish it in a million years, but i hope you dont learn this lesson the hard way, say, when a grandchild comes over, finds your loaded gun that's ready and waiting to take out those evil government workers, then accidentally discharges it into his chest.

[jeff2006]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt Yep, I'm pissed off and heavily armed so it's quite a package. Quite a package indeed. JG

Pissed-off about what? From your posts you seem to have the life that logically results from your expressed desires and reported actions. Just wondering . . .

[lets-retire]

I want the ability to own the firearm, because according to the Bill of Rights it is my right to do so, period. I see no place written in the Second Amendment where it says I can only be allowed to own firearms up to a certain caliber, so why can't I own the most powerful firearm. Arty, bombs, and other explosives are not included in this as far as I can tell.

[jeff2006]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire I want the ability to own the firearm, because according to the Bill of Rights it is my right to do so, period.

Well ...... good for you. Period.

[saluki9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Here in Chicago, if Osama Bin Laden would run as the Democratic candidate, he would definitely win. It isn't the candidate here, it's the party. And it's well under control!

He would have to of course promise to raise taxes on business, ban all guns, and raise taxes on tourists.

Then he would be elected for sure in Chicago (the only problem is I'm not sure he has enough relatives nearby to give jobs to.