Electric chair Bush

Too bad she doesn't have one for Cheney too.

 

There is something fundamentally wrong with that woman, aside from her missing tooth.

 

I like the guy who says, "Well that's a good place for him."

 

Well I hope everyone is happy that I spent 40 minutes of bandwidth to download a 1:35 second clip.

But it was funny. Where was this?

See, I could have sworn that was your Aunt that you didnt get birthday presents from. I thought the Hillary shirt that I bet was made overseas was a little trashy, but its her time to shine. She should be looking out for audit notice from the IRS soon.

Yeah that guy was good. I thought it a nice touch that even the guy who disagreed said it was still her right to do so.

 

Does this mean it's cool to hang a noose in the front yard when Obama gets elected?

 

No, certainly not. It is all in bad taste. As is the lady for the Bush example. At the same time they would or should be legal under free speech. At the same time, I would say it is fair to make sure that person is not a threat to the Presidents safety.

Personally I like Obama, I think he would bring a great new energy to the country and some real change away from the status quo. No candidate has managed to do what he has in nearly 50 years.
If he were elected President, I am sure there would be a fringe group of dissenters who would go to such actions. Probably and very sadly this would increase because the color of his skin but I believe most of America is past the point where that matters.

I will be out Super Tuesday to support Obama.

 

I know, I know, it's just that I live in Frisco, so I have to deal with nasty, intolerant...(I guess they are Libs, but they don't seem so liberal)...types who make threatening or alarming statements all the time. My usual recourse is to flip the script on them.

It just irritates me that people old enough to know better denigrate the President like that. Respect the office if you can't respect the man.

But vote your conscience, that's your duty.

 

I can understand why you think this, but if you look at the Reagan campaign of 1980 you'll be struck by how much the Obama team has imitated it.

By the way, those who know me know how much of a Newt Gingrich fan I am -- he's been giving speeches about bringing about fundamental real change to our American political system for a while now. Obviously, Obama has jumped on the "change" bandwagon fairly recently but it's interesting to note.

I agree with both men that real change is required and the status quo "Washington as usual" is failing. The difference between the two, and this is where I disagree with Obama and side with Newt, is that OBama is seeking to bring "real change" from the top (the President) down.

Experience shows us that this isn't very likely to happen. Newt loves to point out that there are 513,000 elected officials in this country. The President is only one (albeit an important one). I think that if you want fundamental change in America, it has to come from the bottom up -- from the school boards, the local city coucils, etc.

 

I spent a great deal of my life in the Bay area. You should know, IF you really live there, that people from the area never refer to SF as "Frisco"

 

Guess you don't ride a motorcycle my friend.

But what do you think about flipping the script on whichever democrat gets elected? I don't think that would be appropriate either. Like I said, respect the Office if you can't respect the Officeholder.

 

Hey there Jarhead, Ill bite on this one.
Firstly, I think you are the first person I have ever conversed with that made a legit connection between Newt and Obama congrats on that.

Obviously you have a generational difference between the two. Now, Newt, while I may not like his policies or his tactics, is a very smart man. I will give him the due credit for most often being the smartest person in the room and certainly is a good policy wonk.

Obama is different, he is a visionary and inspirational, young and full of energy without the baggage of decades in Washington.

Now you know that I am involved in local politics, so I will gladly expand on the notion of political change coming to this country from the bottom up simply isnt possible to do peacefully or without potentially very harmful economic downfalls.

City councils the nation over pass all sorts of resolutions on issues that effect the local community but are being discussed at higher levels ie State or Federal levels. Those resolutions, especially those that regard something on the federal level arent worth the paper that its printed on. Congress most times, simply doesnt care.

If I get into my stories of dealing with my Congressional delegation of which there are only three and compared to most delegations are very available to thier constituents. It could get ugly.

 

Like I'm sure you respected the office when Bill Clinton was president. The Republicans and their hatred of the Clintons was way overboard, I didn't hear people of your ilk speaking up then.

 

You're not going to get an argument from me there. He is inspirational and a good talker and all that stuff which is fine, so long as he surrounds himself with smart, experienced, analytical thinkers.

Someone in another thread called the "Fundamental Flaw in American Politics" or something talked about how the President doesn't really need to be that smart of experienced or whatever, and to a degree I concur. Someone like Barack is what the Republicans desperately needed instead of Bush. Someone (like Newt or Reagan) who can clearly, articulately, and plainly explain big and complicated ideas.

The President doesn't necessarily have to be that smart, but should be surrounded by those who know what they are doing and have concrete ideas, not just general platitudes.

You live in Alaska -- that doesn't count. Getting serious for a second, this gets into the whole debate over federalism and state's rights and the role of the federal government.

I don't think it's reasonable for people to expect the federal government to solve their local/regional problems. The federal government can be expected to defend you from foreign invasions (sometimes) but that's about it. Anything from making sure you have money for retirement to healthcare to your child's education is just unreasonable to expect of the federal government.

In my opinion, the local and state governments are where problems are truly solved.

 

I opposed the bringing up of impeachment charges against Clinton back then and still think it was a mistake. Every president from Clinton onward is going to subject to talks of impeachment for nothing but partisan bickering.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Clinton was a very good president but I still respect the Office of the Presidency and the President's powers as the Commander in Chief.

 

Ah Jarhead, Im going to let the Alaska comment kinda slide for now. But only because I like you, and I know you are somehow related to the lady with Bush on her porch I just know it.

As for the role of the feds, surely they cant be expected to solve regional and local issues, but the very least they can do is not make it more difficult for us, or to at least listen to the folks on the local level rather than acting in a heavy handed manner with total disregard of local wishes. In my home state, look no further than ANWR, Bridge to nowhere, endangered polar bears, Izenbeck NWR road, the natural gas line.

If you want the feds to only delve into those few areas of funding, than it would be fair to ask them to pay full value of property tax at state and local levels. Now that would be some serious influx of cash for my state.