If this doesn't piss you off, nothing will!

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2262461/posts

 

HOW DARE HE?? THIS SUCKER IS GOING TO BE THE END OF US.

 

 

Obama Ignores Soldier's Murder at Recruiting Center; Reacted Quickly to Abortionist's Killing

Monday, June 1, 2009 | Kristinn

 

Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 5:24:35 PM by kristinn

 

In another slap to America's men and women serving in the armed forces, Barack Obama has ignored the fatal shooting attack on an Army-Navy recruiting center in Little Rock this morning that killed one serviceman and wounded another.

 

Yesterday, Obama issued a sharply worded statement condemning the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller withing hours of his murder and Obama's Justice Department has ordered U.S. Marshalls to deploy at abortion clinincs to give them protection.

 

Seven hours after the attack on the recruiting center, the same length of time it took Obama to issue a statement on the Tiller murder, there has been no statement from the commander-in-chief of the slain and wounded servicemen.

 

One of Obama's core constituencies is radical abortion supporters, not Americans in uniform. The contrast in his reactions to the two murderous attacks is chilling for those who support our fellow Americans in our armed forces.

 

Tiller was killed at 10 a.m. CDT Sunday, Obama issued his statement about seven hours later at 6 p.m. EDT.

 

The attack on the recruiting center happened around 10 a.m. CDT today. As of this writing at 6 p.m. EDT, there are no news reports of any statement by Obama on the murderous attack on our military.

[dancapostagno 0]

in what way does this pertain to me that you felt the desire to include me by name?

[bigj480 203]

Got to hand it to him, he knows who his supporters are and, more importantly, aren't.

[gunman1 1,753]

Change you can believe in, gonna be a long haul folks.

[PinkFloyd 63]

Honestly some days I don't know if I can go on... :/

 

This country has REALLY let me down, it's fucking depressing. Both McCain and obummer were hackjobs... all politicians are... theyre just in it for money and power.

 

I think the States like Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, the Dakota's and Montana and Texas and Alaska should succeed from the union. I'd totally move there in a heartbeat, especially Texas. I've lived there once and moved... worst mistake of my life. I miss it.

[BronCobraJet 80]

Nebraska already took the carrot handout money, so they are beholden to the Feds now. It is really odd, people that I've talked to don't even seem concerned with whats happening to the country. I know Nebraskans are well known for their stoic reserve and politeness, but really, what does it take? I've lived in Tx for 12 years and moved back here about 16 yrs. ago. Kinda (a LOT) miss the fiery Texans, too. They aren't shy about letting you know how they feel about things.

[Cobra 76 two 2,677]

in what way does this pertain to me that you felt the desire to include me by name?

 

 

???

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

in what way does this pertain to me that you felt the desire to include me by name?

 

 

???

You and a few others have been persistent in the mantra of "Things aren't as bad as you think, give peace a chance, obammy ain't that bad, yak yak yak". This in particular has nothing to do with you. The overall view that the direction our country is being taken is somehow O.K. and not so bad is why I have attached your name to this. Things are bad and going to get a lot worse. A moderating of discourse is not what is needed for change we can believe in. A bold statement of "ENOUGH, BACK OFF" is needed. Lines in the sand need to be drawn and defended.

Edited June 3, 2009 by 1911

[rd99fxdl 17]

Unfortunately you can plainly see Obongo dont give a shit about us.

Look at the idiot parading around the world telling them how bad we are and its all our fault.

[dancapostagno 0]

in what way does this pertain to me that you felt the desire to include me by name?

 

 

???

You and a few others have been persistent in the mantra of "Things aren't as bad as you think, give peace a chance, obammy ain't that bad, yak yak yak". This in particular has nothing to do with you. The overall view that the direction our country is being taken is somehow O.K. and not so bad is why I have attached your name to this. Things are bad and going to get a lot worse. A moderating of discourse is not what is needed for change we can believe in. A bold statement of "ENOUGH, BACK OFF" is needed. Lines in the sand need to be drawn and defended.

 

chances are that your opinion of Obama was drawn in the sand before he was even President. (and from the looks of it, you have a very particular view of me that i don't know if i particularly agree with.) there is a chance that nothing he can do or say will ever please you, and you know what, that's still OK. it's not uncommon to not like the cut of someone's jib, and that goes double for public officials. i'm not even going to try and make an argument to you (and those who share in your particular view) about why you SHOULD like anything he has to say, or shaking-up the direction of the country, or whatever. because no one ever has that universal of an appeal, and in a nation as large and as diverse as ours, it would be an unusual sight.

 

HOWEVER: here is what i have been urging, and judging from some of the posts on this topic i will have to continue to stress- people need to stop taking their personal opinions out on their fellow countrymen. none of this bullshit about "red states seceding" and saying absolute nonsense like "i used to like America, but now it's not America anymore." It boggles my mind to see guys who were flying our flag on a pole mounted to the bed of their truck turning around and saying "well, my party lost the election, so now America is over..." liberals have been elected before you know, and we're still here. Why was it when, during the previous administration, the mantra amongst conservatives was "America, love it or leave it" and now those very same people are turning-coat and running rebel because they no longer belong to the party and ideology in power? Was the dedication really that superficial? (and i won't even get into the part about democracies having elections so we don't have to have revolutions...)

 

Part of having freedom is extending it to others, that whole thing about your hand extending towards someone else's face. The impression i seem to get is that people these days talk freedom, but then recoil at the idea of someone not believing in the same thing as them, and for conservatives that definition is reworked to "exact same thing." Most of the talk i hear strikes me as inappropriate outside of the dinner table setting, but maybe that's just me. Now, everybody wants to not only wear it on their sleeves, but they want to whittle down a universe of nuance and other people's personal feelings to two black-and-white camps with a great deal of othering. That is what i think is uncalled for, you can decry a politician, but unless you yourself are a politician, it's probably a waste of your time (at least for 3 out of any given 4 years.) Keep working hard to make America great at the individual level (that universe particular to YOU; that you control) and stop taking it out on everyone else, because that is an un-necessary misery. It accomplishes nothing.

 

Some can call that "happy talk", I call it "not acting like an asshole talk". not that you're being an asshole 1911...

[Sly 233]

LOL!!! A democracy?

[dancapostagno 0]

a democratic republic, as opposed to a feudal republic, like the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth for example. (Or like in Iran, provided that you see the mullahs as boyars instead of theocratic figures.) We -and the nations who emulate our political tradition and practices- while not direct democracies, are about as democratic as it comes, short of the Swiss (who, ahem, are not exactly a direct democracy either, despite being the closest to it.)

 

any other words you would like to parse?

[Paladin 37]

Headarmorer has it right.

 

The republican party has been asking itself why it's getting spanked. IMO the reason is that they have a serious "with us or against us" attitude. They are being exclusionary of anyone who deviates the slightest from their hardcore "god, guns & gays" positions. Their "the sky is falling" mantra is because the world is indeed changing, and instead of making the change work for them they just work harder excluding themselves.

 

I'm a perfect example.

 

I love my guns obviously and am VERY pro 2nd Admin.

 

I think we should lock the freaking borders down. Its ridiculous that so many IE's can just walk across the border, screw their girlfriends and boom, another "American" is born. At our expense.

 

I'm very pro military and a tad hawkish when it comes to foreign relations. If it was up to me the Middle East would already be a sheet of glass.

 

BUT...

 

I am an atheist, I don't beleive in mythical beings, gods, devils, ghosts, unicorns, etc.

 

I couldn't care less if gay people get married. Protecting the family unit? sanctity of marriage? The divorce rate in this country is over 50%. Ha!

 

So to the Rush Limbaughs of the world I'm undermining America. Even though I'm a hardcore supporter of the Constitution.

[superA 289]

Headarmorer has it right.

 

The republican party has been asking itself why it's getting spanked. IMO the reason is that they have a serious "with us or against us" attitude. They are being exclusionary of anyone who deviates the slightest from their hardcore "god, guns & gays" positions. Their "the sky is falling" mantra is because the world is indeed changing, and instead of making the change work for them they just work harder excluding themselves.

 

I'm a perfect example.

 

I love my guns obviously and am VERY pro 2nd Admin.

 

I think we should lock the freaking borders down. Its ridiculous that so many IE's can just walk across the border, screw their girlfriends and boom, another "American" is born. At our expense.

 

I'm very pro military and a tad hawkish when it comes to foreign relations. If it was up to me the Middle East would already be a sheet of glass.

 

BUT...

 

I am an atheist, I don't beleive in mythical beings, gods, devils, ghosts, unicorns, etc.

 

I couldn't care less if gay people get married. Protecting the family unit? sanctity of marriage? The divorce rate in this country is over 50%. Ha!

 

So to the Rush Limbaughs of the world I'm undermining America. Even though I'm a hardcore supporter of the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, too much about personal choices relating to religious moral preference and not enough about pure politics and sticking to the constitution . I don't ever want or expect the Fed. to be a moral authority on anything. Not that I have anything against against Christians or Muslims or Gays or whatever it's just that those things do not belong in politix. These are the areas that we should be trying to keep the Gov. out of as much as possible.

[Ruffian72 548]

Ok, new administration for almost 6 months. Not ounce has taken a proAmerica stance abroad. Have began position us to go against any allies not controled by brute force/fear. In order to get along. Rule of law in business world has become, what the administration feels redistributes wealth to pay off cronies, and push further their political agenda. Gay marriage, don't care, except NEVER has it been voted in. Only put in by Judges or Legislation after rejected by vote. Same will happen with your personal property/childrens indoctrination, and so many freedoms that need to be federally controled. So, 1911 original post gets to the heart of the administrations values and core beliefs. So what if a Muslim kills our soldiers, it's the lone wack job killing a sacred idol (person who is willing to kill a child as it's born) the real threat to everyday Americans. Less than 6 doctors nationally would preform this procedure.:smoke

[Bayoupiper 738]

a democratic republic, as opposed to a feudal republic, like the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth for example. (Or like in Iran, provided that you see the mullahs as boyars instead of theocratic figures.) We -and the nations who emulate our political tradition and practices- while not direct democracies, are about as democratic as it comes, short of the Swiss (who, ahem, are not exactly a direct democracy either, despite being the closest to it.)

 

any other words you would like to parse?

 

 

 

 

While we are at it, I got a problem with you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......A VAN DYKE???????????????????????????????

[gunman1 1,753]

in what way does this pertain to me that you felt the desire to include me by name?

 

 

???

You and a few others have been persistent in the mantra of "Things aren't as bad as you think, give peace a chance, obammy ain't that bad, yak yak yak". This in particular has nothing to do with you. The overall view that the direction our country is being taken is somehow O.K. and not so bad is why I have attached your name to this. Things are bad and going to get a lot worse. A moderating of discourse is not what is needed for change we can believe in. A bold statement of "ENOUGH, BACK OFF" is needed. Lines in the sand need to be drawn and defended.

 

chances are that your opinion of Obama was drawn in the sand before he was even President. (and from the looks of it, you have a very particular view of me that i don't know if i particularly agree with.) there is a chance that nothing he can do or say will ever please you, and you know what, that's still OK. it's not uncommon to not like the cut of someone's jib, and that goes double for public officials. i'm not even going to try and make an argument to you (and those who share in your particular view) about why you SHOULD like anything he has to say, or shaking-up the direction of the country, or whatever. because no one ever has that universal of an appeal, and in a nation as large and as diverse as ours, it would be an unusual sight.

 

HOWEVER: here is what i have been urging, and judging from some of the posts on this topic i will have to continue to stress- people need to stop taking their personal opinions out on their fellow countrymen. none of this bullshit about "red states seceding" and saying absolute nonsense like "i used to like America, but now it's not America anymore." It boggles my mind to see guys who were flying our flag on a pole mounted to the bed of their truck turning around and saying "well, my party lost the election, so now America is over..." liberals have been elected before you know, and we're still here. Why was it when, during the previous administration, the mantra amongst conservatives was "America, love it or leave it" and now those very same people are turning-coat and running rebel because they no longer belong to the party and ideology in power? Was the dedication really that superficial? (and i won't even get into the part about democracies having elections so we don't have to have revolutions...)

 

Part of having freedom is extending it to others, that whole thing about your hand extending towards someone else's face. The impression i seem to get is that people these days talk freedom, but then recoil at the idea of someone not believing in the same thing as them, and for conservatives that definition is reworked to "exact same thing." Most of the talk i hear strikes me as inappropriate outside of the dinner table setting, but maybe that's just me. Now, everybody wants to not only wear it on their sleeves, but they want to whittle down a universe of nuance and other people's personal feelings to two black-and-white camps with a great deal of othering. That is what i think is uncalled for, you can decry a politician, but unless you yourself are a politician, it's probably a waste of your time (at least for 3 out of any given 4 years.) Keep working hard to make America great at the individual level (that universe particular to YOU; that you control) and stop taking it out on everyone else, because that is an un-necessary misery. It accomplishes nothing.

 

Some can call that "happy talk", I call it "not acting like an asshole talk". not that you're being an asshole 1911...

Don't worry, be happy......bammy, joe, nancy, and harry have everything under control

 

God 1911, quit being such an ashole man

[dancapostagno 0]

a democratic republic, as opposed to a feudal republic, like the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth for example. (Or like in Iran, provided that you see the mullahs as boyars instead of theocratic figures.) We -and the nations who emulate our political tradition and practices- while not direct democracies, are about as democratic as it comes, short of the Swiss (who, ahem, are not exactly a direct democracy either, despite being the closest to it.)

 

any other words you would like to parse?

 

 

 

 

While we are at it, I got a problem with you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......A VAN DYKE???????????????????????????????

 

 

HAHAHAHA

 

It can be spelled both ways. The original Belgian [Flemmish] spelling is "Van Dyck" but it was later Anglicized to "VanDyke". Both are correct. I had just come back from Brussels at the time, so I was more inclined to use the former.

Wiki article on VanDyck, with "other uses for name" at the bottom.

[dancapostagno 0]

Headarmorer has it right.

 

The republican party has been asking itself why it's getting spanked. IMO the reason is that they have a serious "with us or against us" attitude. They are being exclusionary of anyone who deviates the slightest from their hardcore "god, guns & gays" positions. Their "the sky is falling" mantra is because the world is indeed changing, and instead of making the change work for them they just work harder excluding themselves.

 

I'm a perfect example.

 

I love my guns obviously and am VERY pro 2nd Admin.

 

I think we should lock the freaking borders down. Its ridiculous that so many IE's can just walk across the border, screw their girlfriends and boom, another "American" is born. At our expense.

 

I'm very pro military and a tad hawkish when it comes to foreign relations. If it was up to me the Middle East would already be a sheet of glass.

 

BUT...

 

I am an atheist, I don't beleive in mythical beings, gods, devils, ghosts, unicorns, etc.

 

I couldn't care less if gay people get married. Protecting the family unit? sanctity of marriage? The divorce rate in this country is over 50%. Ha!

 

So to the Rush Limbaughs of the world I'm undermining America. Even though I'm a hardcore supporter of the Constitution.

 

 

Headarmorer has it right.

 

The republican party has been asking itself why it's getting spanked. IMO the reason is that they have a serious "with us or against us" attitude. They are being exclusionary of anyone who deviates the slightest from their hardcore "god, guns & gays" positions. Their "the sky is falling" mantra is because the world is indeed changing, and instead of making the change work for them they just work harder excluding themselves.

 

I'm a perfect example.

 

I love my guns obviously and am VERY pro 2nd Admin.

 

I think we should lock the freaking borders down. Its ridiculous that so many IE's can just walk across the border, screw their girlfriends and boom, another "American" is born. At our expense.

 

I'm very pro military and a tad hawkish when it comes to foreign relations. If it was up to me the Middle East would already be a sheet of glass.

 

BUT...

 

I am an atheist, I don't beleive in mythical beings, gods, devils, ghosts, unicorns, etc.

 

I couldn't care less if gay people get married. Protecting the family unit? sanctity of marriage? The divorce rate in this country is over 50%. Ha!

 

So to the Rush Limbaughs of the world I'm undermining America. Even though I'm a hardcore supporter of the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, too much about personal choices relating to religious moral preference and not enough about pure politics and sticking to the constitution . I don't ever want or expect the Fed. to be a moral authority on anything. Not that I have anything against against Christians or Muslims or Gays or whatever it's just that those things do not belong in politix. These are the areas that we should be trying to keep the Gov. out of as much as possible.

 

 

big +1 for the both of ya right here. Where's the love for the Rockefeller Republicans? Ike, HW Bush, Powell, Tom Ridge... that's not a record to run from, it's just not the cup-o-tea for the angry gasbags.

[RangerM9 1]

Probalby no surprise to anyone....i'm in the camp with Headarmorer. Personally i found both deaths to be senseless, both committed by extremists, both perpetrated on innocents (i know some religious folks take issue with that, but in the eyes of the law they were innocent.)

 

1911, i respect you for your will to discuss your beliefs openly.....but dude.....short of Obama pulling a large sword from the Resolute desk of the oval office, shouting "there can be only one!" and lopping off the heads of pelosi, reid, both clintons, and biden you will never be pleased with anything the man does. It just aint in ya!

 

Just as Obama shows some bias in focusing on one death, you show bias in focusing on the other. The doctor performed some abortions that were legal though objectionable to some, he was also a physician who helped women in need of medical attention. He did not deserve to die, and being a controversial figure shot to death in his church is going to get some damn attention in the press. I find it unsurprising that the president who openly support pro-choice would spend more time on a the response to one of the MOST controversial topics in the country, than the shooting a recruit. I in no way wish to diminish the death of the recruit.

[Sly 233]

a democratic republic, as opposed to a feudal republic, like the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth for example. (Or like in Iran, provided that you see the mullahs as boyars instead of theocratic figures.) We -and the nations who emulate our political tradition and practices- while not direct democracies, are about as democratic as it comes, short of the Swiss (who, ahem, are not exactly a direct democracy either, despite being the closest to it.)

 

any other words you would like to parse?

 

 

Read the documents of our heritage. Study on this one a bit. We're a representative republic. Where do get democratic from? Not the founder's.....

Edited June 5, 2009 by Sly

[dancapostagno 0]

a democratic republic, as opposed to a feudal republic, like the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth for example. (Or like in Iran, provided that you see the mullahs as boyars instead of theocratic figures.) We -and the nations who emulate our political tradition and practices- while not direct democracies, are about as democratic as it comes, short of the Swiss (who, ahem, are not exactly a direct democracy either, despite being the closest to it.)

 

any other words you would like to parse?

 

 

Read the documents of our heritage. Study on this one a bit. We're a representative republic. Where do get democratic from? Not the founder's.....

 

yes, and if you read past the first page in the history book, you will notice how the Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, and Civil War Eras greatly changed the mechanics of the representative nature of our country. Suffrage was extended from white, landowning males to all white men, to all men, to all citizens above a certain age. There was also an amendment (the 17th) that replaced nomination of Senators by the State Governors with direct election of Senators. In fact, roughly 1/4 of the Constitutional Amendments enacted involve making the processes more democratic than it was in during our earliest days (which by the way, were only made that way for a reason completely relative to the circumstances of that period.)

 

I don't have a book in front of me or anything, but just off the top of my head I can think of ~7 that are relative to this point:

24th- prohibition on restrictions of voting rights by a poll tax

19th- women's right to vote

26th- establishment of 18 as the voting age (from 21)

15th- lifting of racial restrictions on suffrage

17th- direct election of Senators

23rd- increased representation in the Electoral College (DC)

and depending on how you look at it, the 12th- regarding clarifications to the election of the President & Vice President (since 1804.)

[Sly 233]

a democratic republic, as opposed to a feudal republic, like the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth for example. (Or like in Iran, provided that you see the mullahs as boyars instead of theocratic figures.) We -and the nations who emulate our political tradition and practices- while not direct democracies, are about as democratic as it comes, short of the Swiss (who, ahem, are not exactly a direct democracy either, despite being the closest to it.)

 

any other words you would like to parse?

 

 

Read the documents of our heritage. Study on this one a bit. We're a representative republic. Where do get democratic from? Not the founder's.....

 

yes, and if you read past the first page in the history book, you will notice how the Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, and Civil War Eras greatly changed the mechanics of the representative nature of our country. Suffrage was extended from white, landowning males to all white men, to all men, to all citizens above a certain age. There was also an amendment (the 17th) that replaced nomination of Senators by the State Governors with direct election of Senators. In fact, roughly 1/4 of the Constitutional Amendments enacted involve making the processes more democratic than it was in during our earliest days (which by the way, were only made that way for a reason completely relative to the circumstances of that period.)

 

I don't have a book in front of me or anything, but just off the top of my head I can think of ~7 that are relative to this point:

24th- prohibition on restrictions of voting rights by a poll tax

19th- women's right to vote

26th- establishment of 18 as the voting age (from 21)

15th- lifting of racial restrictions on suffrage

17th- direct election of Senators

23rd- increased representation in the Electoral College (DC)

and depending on how you look at it, the 12th- regarding clarifications to the election of the President & Vice President (since 1804.)

 

 

True. And problematic at that. And this is how they are planning to dilute the system further. I cant get into this now, yet there is more.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23350.html

 

make any sense?

[dancapostagno 0]

well to a certain degree, everybody wants to have it both ways these days. When Jefferson wanted greater enfranchisement, even he knew that there had to be significant groundwork laid to make sure that the people who were bestowed the right to vote would be worthy of that responsibility, and to that end he fought hard to establish a public school system so that the common man might be educated in the way that was previously only open to the political and social elites of the day. While it's interesting to note that from the quotes in the article that Sen. Reid lays some groundwork for what prospective citizens NEED as a basis for being able to take a more active role in American society, the further enlargement has always come hand-in-hand with greater requirements to define what being a "citizen" means. For example, with the greater influx of the Irish, the Union instituted enlistment as a fast track towards enfranchisement, which we extend to prospective citizens from the Hispanic community today. The proposed "citizenship service" program, while decried by many on this forum may be another way for us to compensate for a swelling influx of prospective citizens in the future, especially with regards to making citizen voting rights mean something more to future generations. It should still be an option, but I think if you opt-in to the system you will have a more active role in participation, which may be a solution to the social and political apathy of younger generations (even those who are native born.)

 

...just a thought.