|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 2, 2009 8:55:55 GMT -5
Information.. Knowledge.. Facts..Historical evidence.. Communication.. Democrats fear Information Being Communicated to the voters..or to the general public. Why? Because KNOWLEDGE is the key to set one free. They want stupid voters voting on fear,division,race and lack of credible facts. They FEAR RUSH, ANN,All Bill's..  Why? Has Rush ever won a single election? Has Bill ever ran for any office? Ann C ? When you see a anti conservative post here on VT..look VERY closely at how liberals attack someone.. DO They attack on style..image or on substance? We attack on conservative ideals...and on positions we feel are bad for America..and use Historical evidence to support our positions. Want to raise taxes to stimulate a economy?...good, show us how and why it worked before. Want to create a welfare state..bail out every loser out there? Shows us how it worked in other countries,regions or states. Show us economic reports to back up your stuff. When we as loyal Americans point out how this president has lied and dismissed voters questions as non starters... or point out how he led voters during the campaign and does another in office. The Democrats did no different...and I only challenged them all along to be the same during their presidents run. OBAMA will not bring all the troops home and end the war in IRAQ. The same one REID cried was a lost war. He will not lower taxes for 90 % of Americans. and when voters realize the emperor has no clothes they will throw him to the wolves. The turnaround starts less than 1 year away... and Democrats truly fear that also...They fear the voter, ever wonder why? I just told you so.. Power ...money and influence corrupts all. The system must be changed. who is best to change it? Bill,Rush or Ann? No... ROMNEY.  |
|
|
|
Post by rhinovb14 on Mar 2, 2009 10:52:34 GMT -5
It's been a while since I've been on here.
My view ....Politicians (either party) are in it for themselves....to remain in office, to maintain power, to get into pockets. They BOTH pedal to their respective voters and make promises they can't keep. So, I vote on strictly the
issues that matter most to me and my family. When I vote, in no way do I bank on those issues being dealt with as promised. That would be naive. I am hopeful every time I vote. I admit, I voted for Bush. At the time, I believed he was the better choice. I don't think he was an evil man. I don't think he meant ill will when making decisions. As far as the war, there are always things we don't know nor will ever know. Frankly, I don't want to know.....too scary.
I have a hard time choosing a party because not all issues are black and white. As I get older, I find some of my views moving more to the right, but some stay firmly on the left. Admittedly, I probably don't keep up on issues as well as I could. I try to watch multiple news stations to hear different perspectives, but damn real life, just so many responsibilities.
My belief is that presidents don't have as much pull as most people think. Cycles ebb and flow and if a president just happens to be in office during prosperity then people praise them and vice versa. I always felt the New Deal wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. I think it was a last effort to try something....anything to create change. Was it the best idea? Probably not, but doing nothing couldn't have worked out any better.
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 2, 2009 11:17:01 GMT -5
wow ..a credible and non attacking reply.
See it can happen!
We all agree the system is broke..politicans promise and don't deliver.
Now we need to come up with a fix..
They wont fix it..it is not in their best interest to do so.
We need term limits. ( I used to be against this)
We need a Flat tax Rate and do away with the IRS..
We need to convict white collar criminals...not house arrest them.
We need to have a free and open press inform the public nightly on how our elected officials actually voted.
(no more cream puff stories about doggie parks and girl scout cookie sales...)
We need the public to become more informed..so they can make better decisions. ( just as we should have a professional jury system)
We need real debates and MONEY limits and NO matching funds to get elected.
The press and commercials would pay for time...just as in the real world.
We need people of all walks of life to get involved and run for public office..not just lawyers and career politicians.
We need rules in place to insure equality of political advertising for all candidates.
Then we need a balanced budget amendment.
We need to have a energy policy that doesn't bankrupt the country now...no country now..no kids later.
See...we can all save ourselves..one itty bitty step at a time.
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Mar 2, 2009 12:27:04 GMT -5
Information.. Knowledge.. Facts..Historical evidence.. Communication.. Democrats fear Information Being Communicated to the voters..or to the general public. Why? Because KNOWLEDGE is the key to set one free. They want stupid voters voting on fear,division,race and lack of credible facts.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 21, 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Act
A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.
The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.
All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.
The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.
I direct the Attorney General to issue new guidelines governing the FOIA to the heads of executive departments and agencies, reaffirming the commitment to accountability and transparency, and to publish such guidelines in the Federal Register. In doing so, the Attorney General should review FOIA reports produced by the agencies under Executive Order 13392 of December 14, 2005. I also direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to update guidance to the agencies to increase and improve information dissemination to the public, including through the use of new technologies, and to publish such guidance in the Federal Register.
This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 21, 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.
Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of
Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.
I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
|
|
|
|
Post by cardcounter on Mar 2, 2009 13:10:14 GMT -5
Bill: I agree with you that the reason Reid and Pelosi want to reinstate the "fairness doctrine" has nothing to do with fairness or hearing all viewpoints. It is 100% partisan politics. They want to stifle conservative speech as much as possible. But I don't think the Republicans are much better. Given the opportunity, Republican politicians would also take as much unfair advantage of a situation as possible. The country has dissolved into partisan politics to the point that both parties only want power and they can not see any further than that.
I completely agree with you that Obama is not going to bring the troops home in the way he said he would in his campaign. The plan I am now reading about is that he will have some of the troops home by August 2010 and maintain a sizable force in Iraq to "maintain security". Obama's policy now isn't a dime's worth of difference from what President Bush was planning at the end of 2008. Obama also plans to greatly expand the number of troops in Afghanistan.
I was against the war in Iraq since day one and continue to strongly be against having troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. If the heat gets too much for terrorists in Afghanistan, they will simply move back to the Iraq/Pakistan border or go somewhere else. It is a futile effort to keep invading countries with the hope of conquering the population and controlling bad guys. It just won't work.
Now that Obama is in power; where is Code Pink?. Where is Cindy Shehan? Where is John Murtha? Where are all Bush's critics that were calling him a warmonger and liar? Why aren't they applying the same pressure to Obama to bring the troops home now? They seem to have a double-standard and seem to me to have betrayed their cause.
I
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 2, 2009 15:26:46 GMT -5
O and U..
What is the role of a minority party?
To be steam rolled by the majority ...or to get true be partisan language that all sides agree with..
That is from your RAW story I actually read.
OBAMA and his cronies can blame the republicans for everything.
After a while it wears really thin.
Leadership from the top down..not sideways through press releases.
Now why didn't OBAMA say he would keep 50,000 troops in IRAQ for years to protect our interest?
Especially in debates with Hillary..?
Why didn't OBAMA allow for the stimulus bill do be debated and even read?
Because even stupid voters will see the bad PORK.
Why cant Calif..be more like Nebraska?
Because Democrats cant control any budget and lie about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardcounter on Mar 2, 2009 15:59:38 GMT -5
O and U.. Why didn't OBAMA allow for the stimulus bill do be debated and even read? Because even stupid voters will see the bad PORK. This is correct. Absolutely no politician read the stimulus bill before they voted on it. The Democrat leadership and the Obama administration insisted on an immediate vote because they knew if the public found out the truth about the bill it would not have passed. Obama didn't sign the bill until four days after it was voted on. Why didn't the dems allow the bill to be read and debated during that time? I am not a Republican. If I had time I would explain why I was against almost every important action taken by President Bush during his eight years as President. But why can't the Democrat partisans who follow these threads at least acknowledge when Bill is correct? Don't agree with him when there is area for debate, but at least credit him when he makes an accurate statement. |
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 3, 2009 10:07:37 GMT -5
There is common ground between liberals and conservatives.
It starts with our love of country.
Our love of family and kids.
as a FISCAL conservative I don't care who you love or worship...
until I need to fund it.
Conservatives didn't like the BUSH years either..and while I vote Republican I do cross over and vote Democrat if I feel the guy is better than ours.
I wonder how many feel Frankin is better than Coleman in Mn.?
Really?
I wonder how many DEMOCRATS now wonder if their vote for OBAMA was wise...
He was UN tested...young..and ignorant.
Democrats fear failure.
They wont admit wrong doings..they actually rise to power in it.
Look at all OBAMA appointees.
Would you elect them ,knowing they didn't pay their taxes.. received lobbyist $$$ ?
Would you have elected OBAMA now?
Liberals asked if we could have a soccer mom as VP?
No..she was / and still is a successful Governor.
OBAMA was only a success full candidate.
He ran a great campaign...on image.
He is still running that campaign..on IMAGE.
Not substance..
he still uses words like HOPE and FAITH....as well as inherited and crises and BUSH is evil.
He allows for 25% more printed money to pay off campaign promises...money that can never be re paid..inflation..job loss and
national debt that even R and liberals didn't vote for.
a Military presence in IRAQ he claimed would end.
Something liberals and conservatives all want.
Common ground indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Mar 3, 2009 15:19:32 GMT -5
I admit that I am having some Buyer's Remorse about Obama now and I think, based upon many I have talked to the past few days, there are many middle-of-the-road Democrats harboring similar thoughts. Since he will be our President for the next 4 years (at least), our best hope is get him focused on the critical problem at hand, namely the economic death spiral. On CNN last night I saw Democratic political experts asking for this very same thing. They were also questioning why Obama was bringing up the idea of phasing out/excluding charitable deductions and mortagage deductions on wealthy people (families making more than $208,500 per year) when the economy was so bad.
I always like to refer to the Standard Normal, or Bell Shaped, Curve when thinking in terms of taxes and benefits. The SNC provides a sanity check on whether taxation and benefit policies are practical. So that means that roughly two thirds of US Families should be within one standard deviation of the mean regarding salary average, tax rates, and their benefits. Those tax rates should be somewhere around 10 percent, and their benefits should be near zero. It is only people who are at least two standard deviations from the mean that start to receive benefits or are taxed more. But those benefits and taxation rates need to a truncated reverse bell shaped curve for two reasons: Those who are very poor need to have incentive to remove themselves from being 100% beneficiaries of public monies and the very rich need to keep some of their money so they can provide the capital for expansion and economic growth, and like the very poor, they need incentive for risking their money.
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 4, 2009 10:57:18 GMT -5
My personal feelings are that DEMOCRATS FEAR they ONLY GET ! shot at this before the public finds out OBAMA was a puppet for the more extreme left.
They could never get elected on their own and get these things approved.
So the backed and financed and supported OBAMA.
They use the fear factor in rushing without vetting the stimulus ..the the economic bills..the auto and bank bailouts.
All things on their 30 year support and wish list.
Double funding for the arts.
while your house value plummets.
.. while up to 10 million roam here illegally ..taking jobs that Americans want..and a drug war rages at our border...
No Democrat attacks the issue about getting them out and our jobs back.
While our schools and hospitals are under funded ...NO DEMOCRAT MENTIONS THE MANY MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS THAT PLAY THE SYSTEM ,one that tax payers support.
While welfare fraud and entitlement abuse are at a all time high...
NOT 1 DEMOCRAT hold hearings on the subject.
Democrats fear REPUBLICANS..I wonder why?
It's not Republicans ..my fellow sheep..it's conservatives.
Democrats know the window of opportunity is small.
Thats why they focus on abortion.
Getting another vote in congress in DC for themselves.
and the main kicker ..
They go after BUSH now in hearings that he didn't follow the rules...
as if OBAMA and their political hacks follow them.
Democrats fear Knowledge about GLOBAL warming..they have always wanted to tax COAL more...and increase gas tax.
They want to be more like Europe...and fear Americans will wake up and really smell what PIG manure studies show...
PIGS STINK.
Especially in Washington.
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Mar 4, 2009 18:19:48 GMT -5
My personal feelings are that DEMOCRATS FEAR they ONLY GET ! shot at this before the public finds out OBAMA was a puppet for the more extreme left. They could never get elected on their own and get these things approved. On the contrary, the support Obama enjoyed was: anti-war, pro-choice, pro-government health care, pro-social services, pro-civil liberties. I don't know how anyone can look at that and talk as though it's a big secret that Obama is a "leftist". Because you can't imagine anyone agreeing with "the Left" on these issues, you fail to recognize that these are the REASONS he was elected. They are also the reasons I didn't vote for him, but nevertheless the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters I've talked to have known exactly what they were getting in regards to "leftism". He in fact did get elected on the basis of Euro-style social democracy. If he had run on that platform at the peak of the dotcom bubble, he wouldn't have been elected by a CLEAR majority, just like Al Gore. |
|
|
|
Post by cardcounter on Mar 4, 2009 21:53:00 GMT -5
I totally disagree that the typical voter knew they were voting for Euro-style social democracy when the voted for Obama. I don't think the conservative voters in the Iowa caucuses had any idea about social democracy. They just wanted change; anything but George Bush.
I remember during the Democrat nomination and during the campaign for the general election, countless reporters went into the crowds and asked people why they were voting for Obama. All they could come up with is that they wanted change. It was embarrassing and almost comical that these people could not articulate a single accomplishment of Obama, had no clue what his positions were on any issues, and could not give one specific reason why they were voting for Obama. I saw reporters ask person after person why they had so much passion for Obama and it was either "I want change" or "Bush is bad". That was the extent of their knowledge of the issues.
Combine a generally clueless public with 1) Democrat partisans who will always vote for the Democrat nominee regardless of what he says 2) Union members who are instructed to always vote Democrat 3) People that just got swept up with the historic nature of a minority nominee 4) People who would vote for anyone opposing the party of George Bush with Obama being the only viable alternative in our two party system.......And you get a winning recipe for a President whose substance remained a mystery to the majority of the public voting for him.
I am starting to think the two party system, as well as it has worked for this great experiment in freedom, needs some modification to allow representatives of more viewpoints to be included in the major elections. It just isn't feasible right now and I do not have the answer.
While I think our country is headed in the direction of going off the cliff, I hope Obama can somehow be successful. He is our only President and his success means everyone's success in these troubled times.
From previous posts, I know you (O and U) are a very intelligent person and probably have very intelligent friends. I can understand that you and your friends understood the issues between the two candidates. But everything I have seen is that the vast majority of the American public had no clue they would be getting a Euro-style social democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 5, 2009 11:17:29 GMT -5
To all..
Of course I have a small level of intel..
But I love debate..and I don't always take the easiest or most popular position.
I love to get others to see holes in their arguments WITHOUT pointing them out..but sometime you must.
IF IOWA truly wanted a change..why was ROMNEY leading every poll until Sharpton and Huck commented about MORMONS on the eve of the IOWA primaries?
Then their election became a religious one.
EVEN OBAMA was seen as a safer RELIGION vote.
I wonder how many IOWANS that are down 30 % in net worth since the election feel the same way now?
Each and every state had it's own concerns..but the war was the topic of the day..NOT ECONOMY.
Hillary and ROMNEY both cleaned up on that topic in EVERY DEBATE..but image and HOPE won the election.
I do wonder since OBAMA RAN on the anti war left what they must feel about leaving 50,000 troops in IRAQ ..just as McCain said was necessary?
That was not much Change there..and I will always use History to back up statements..you can run ,but history will you not hide from.
OBAMA ran as a centralist during the campaign..every Republican called him the most liberal in the Senate..more liberal than Hillary..yet the voters rejected historical voting records.
I doubt if they really knew the cost of Nationalized health care,banking,auto and UNIONS.
They expected Change for the better...not a 30 % decrease in Net worth.
They expected an open and Bi partisan effort to unite America as promised.
Not a railroading of legislation with comments like" WE WON..get over it."
They expected NO PORK ..because they knew McCain could deliver it..but they wanted more.
They wanted the color barrier broke.
FACT.
Now I will always judge OBAMA on deeds..not race or color.
That barrier was broke for me many years ago.
I do wonder if 90% of the colored vote will ever stop supporting him always ..or will he be like OJ..a hero no matter if the country suffers mightily?
The White voters got over it..can the colored voters do the same?
Or are we always subject to IMAGE as a #1 topic for voting elections.
Does History say other wise?
|
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Mar 5, 2009 15:59:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure if the color barrier was really broken in the last election. Obama was/is not a product of a typical American inner city neighborhood or the Deep South. He is half white and grew up in Hawaii where a multicultural society is the accepted standard. So in some respects he can be all things to all people and does not represent as big a leap of faith as (say) a Jesse Jackson.
|
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Mar 6, 2009 1:47:59 GMT -5
... Would you have elected OBAMA now? ... Don't under-estimate the stupidity of the American voter. After all, they re-elected Bush didn't they? |
|
Why?
