Barack Hussein Obama

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by robinsre

You have a sudden attack of ADD there AZXD?

Who is talking about G.W. Bush? I thought this thread was about Obama. After all his name is on the top. Don't sit here and play this game with me, this is not a perfect dichotomy. Just because I oppose Obama doesn't mean I support Bush.

The sky is blue. I like happy things, and ..... What was I saying
I guess your words became the focus of anothers attempt to justify nothing by diverting attention to Congressional approval ratings.

"Just because I oppose Obama doesn't mean I support Bush" ... Whew, ya scared me for a minute

Originally Posted by robinsre

I'm thinking that you misinterpreted ENTIRELY what I was saying.

I'm ADVOCATING political action. I'm saying we CAN'T be complacent because if we start voting anti-gunners into the white-house....we WILL be up **** creek without a paddle.

So they can't arrest a whole country eh? They don't have to, just the small subset who want to use arms in self-defense.

Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany ring a bell?

I think you and I are on the same team, you're just too busy trying to bayonet me to figure it out.

Yea, well you can believe that. But I'm gonna stick to the idea that they can't arrest the whole country unless they declare martial law.

How many active duty/reservists/LE people do you know that are so dedicated to their position in life that they would go door-to-door using force to take away your possessions ???

If it goes that far ... Some will be labeled terrorist's by their government. While those outside the inner circle will call themselves crusaders.
So, how bad do you want to be an outlaw ??
Myself, I prefer to view the scenario as government out of control and ignoring the people.

As for voting anti-gunners into office .... While it is not a good idea (IMO) to intentionally put such an individual in a position of power ..... If the anti knows who is truly in charge, they will only become a problem if we allow them to become one.

"Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany ring a bell?"
Yep, a good lesson for all who have trouble comprehending what happens when you trust government, become complacent to its actions, and believe when met with force that doom and gloom is the result.
Afghanistan and Russia is another example of what can occur when a small group has the determination to stand up to an oppressor.

But, pay no attention to me ... I've got a case of ADD

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

How do you define "middle class"? Seriously, as a mental/political exercise define what you think is middle class. Considering the question and the venue I think any candidate would would be hard pressed to say concretely "this is the middle class". Our tax system makes it so hard to define anything because it is so hard to figure out.

I myself don't have one Kev. That was the point of the post. Who does have a solid definition? Most politicians, Obama in particular, keeps changing the definition of "middle class" and moving the goal posts based on today's political agenda. What is your's? 100K? Seems high to me, but if that's the accepted number I have a good starting point for further discussion.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

And your thoughts on continuing the status quo?

Is McCain really continuing the status quo? That's a popular slogan of lefties. Show it to me and we can talk Kev.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

Is McCain really continuing the status quo? That's a popular slogan of lefties. Show it to me and we can talk Kev.

I don't see any of the candidates as agents for change.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I don't see any of the candidates as agents for change.

I don't really either. There is Congress to deal with after all. My point went to the fact that it was asserted that we need to change, period. I might agree if I knew what direction that change was headed in. Since that's not going to happen until it's too late to reverse a damaging course to personal freedoms I'll stand pat for now until I hear more.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I don't see any of the candidates as agents for change.

I think I need you to clarify this statement. I think the things that Clinton and Obama want to work on make them agents of change.

Just seems like there isn't any faith .... a postive mental outlook for this country's future. The Dem's vilify the Repub's and vice versa. Is it possible that Congress is always in a state of loggerheads because the citizens that it represents are as well?

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

I think I need you to clarify this statement. I think the things that Clinton and Obama want to work on make them agents of change.

Just seems like there isn't any faith .... a postive mental outlook for this country's future. The Dem's vilify the Repub's and vice versa. Is it possible that Congress is always in a state of loggerheads because the citizens that it represents are as well?

Faith in what, exactly? Show me what to have faith in with these two and I might even get on board. So far, NADA. Just "Elect me, I'll change things" from them.

Blaming the bottleneck on everything in Congress on their constituency? Now I truly have heard it all. Best non argument I've seen so far for what the "change" mantra can get us? A Congress like we have right now! Good Lord.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

Faith in what, exactly? Show me what to have faith in with these two and I might even get on board. So far, NADA. Just "Elect me, I'll change things" from them.

Blaming the bottleneck on everything in Congress on their constituency? Now I truly have heard it all. Best non argument I've seen so far for what the "change" mantra can get us? A Congress like we have right now! Good Lord.

Not necessarily faith in the candidates but in the country itself. I think you may have misinterpreted my post a little. I'll see if I can clarify ....

Using healthcare as an example ... I think all three candidates have their ideas on what to do to try and make our healthcare system more affordable and accessible. If any one of them got in office and made some headway on the issue then wouldn't that candidate have become an agent of change?

This is where my "faith" in the country comment came to play .... seems like there isn't any faith that something good could come about from any one of the three candidates becoming president. Seems if you're on the right side of the fence then there is no faith in the candidates on the left side ... and vice versa.

XD ... seems you keeping hitting on the "explain the changes to me." I can't accurately and eloquently and apparently the candidates aren't doing a great job either ... from your perspective. All I can say is that part of running for office is striking a balance between giving enough info for people to get an idea for what you stand for but not so specfic on issues that you get pigeon holed. Truth is, until the person becomes president and gets filled in on all the things they don't know ... until they get in office they have to talk in generalities. I know sometimes some candidates seem to be quite specific on some issues ... Obama and the troop draw down as example. He may say that now but I think some realities will become very obvious and his plan to draw down as he has stated will be significantly changed. He'll take some criticism for it but seriously would you expect everything a candidate proposes be implemented just as it was originally proposed?

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Not necessarily faith in the candidates but in the country itself. I think you may have misinterpreted my post a little. I'll see if I can clarify ....

Using healthcare as an example ... I think all three candidates have their ideas on what to do to try and make our healthcare system more affordable and accessible. If any one of them got in office and made some headway on the issue then wouldn't that candidate have become an agent of change?

This is where my "faith" in the country comment came to play .... seems like there isn't any faith that something good could come about from any one of the three candidates becoming president. Seems if you're on the right side of the fence then there is no faith in the candidates on the left side ... and vice versa.

XD ... seems you keeping hitting on the "explain the changes to me." I can't accurately and eloquently and apparently the candidates aren't doing a great job either ... from your perspective. All I can say is that part of running for office is striking a balance between giving enough info for people to get an idea for what you stand for but not so specfic on issues that you get pigeon holed. Truth is, until the person becomes president and gets filled in on all the things they don't know ... until they get in office they have to talk in generalities. I know sometimes some candidates seem to be quite specific on some issues ... Obama and the troop draw down as example. He may say that now but I think some realities will become very obvious and his plan to draw down as he has stated will be significantly changed. He'll take some criticism for it but seriously would you expect everything a candidate proposes be implemented just as it was originally proposed?

I can go with the bolded above and beyond for that matter. I understand that candidates will never nail themselves down to the point that the finger can be pointed at them for not living up to specific promises. That is political reality.

To use your example about Obama and troop drawdowns, does anyone really know what the end result of this promise if kept hard and fast would be? If this turns out to be a mistake after all, would politics allow a change of heart? Or would he be villified for breaking a promise and in spite of all good sense continue draw downs in the face of realities that have become apparent?

The only real point I've been trying to hammer home is that change can go in two directions. Is it always good? IMO, no. It depends on the direction. That's it. I get frustrated with those that keep on with the
"change is needed" mantra without much further explanation. This mostly goes to the Obama campaign. Show me what you mean and I may even be there for it.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

I get frustrated with those that keep on with the
"change is needed" mantra without much further explanation. This mostly goes to the Obama campaign. Show me what you mean and I may even be there for it.

I understand your frustration ... you need more details. Would you agree that there are issues where change is needed but the method of change isn't known or at least for now can't be agreed on? I can think of many issues where there needs to be change but I can't say for certain how I get from where we're at now to what I conceive as the final outcome. I see change not so much as a destination but as a journey .... I know that is kind of a corny philisophical statement but that's how I wrap my mind around all the rhetoric of "change".