Obama's associations keep character suspect

Oslama Bin Taxama

Thankyou garyprimer! Nothing could be better than that!

Congratulations, you are the 1000th poster. Your prize is absolutely nothing.

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, I just thought it would be cool to be the 1000th post for this thread.

It will just be Clinton's third term. No change. The obamamaniacs had the wool pulled over their eyes.

They will say that it is all Bush and the Republican's fault, of course, and many of you will agree with them. As for people still posting on this blog, it is not compulsory reading and if you take a quick look in a mirror, you might be surprised by one of the posters. :-)

Daschel, Biden? Is this the change Obamanites were looking for?

Is this the thread that never dies? The election has been over for quite some time. Can't you people find something else to talk about?

WOW, nice that we have such informative posters, with such high intellect as justsaynotomath. All you Obama supporters should be happy such mental giants are on your side!
.
The real question is what will all these acumen minds be saying when the economy sinks into depression under the venerable Democratic leadership? It will be rather amusing to see how capricious their attitudes become then!

I agree term limits would be great. These people get into office and are there way to long they loose focus of what real people believe and want. Maybe a required retirement age of 72 could be enacted.

So my continued stance FOR term limits to rid our government of power brokers from the two party system is your view of my supporting republicans?

Because there has been so much rational thinking from both parties as of late.
Get with it, RetiredAirForce. You're constantly pissing and moaning about Democrats, but never take any responsiblity for your own party. If anything, they're just as much to blame. Your way of thinking is a big part of the problem.

justsaynotomath = the rational behavior many republicans expect from the incoming house/senate/administration leadership.

Yeah Obama the chosen one. Going to save the world. Well we had to have Jimmy Carter to get Reagan so I guess you take the good with the bad. We now have the most inexperienced President elect we have ever had. Well see how that works out. I bet Al Queda are licking their chops.

you LOST, your candidates sucked ! Obama won by a landslide ! Palin was a joke that put the nail in the coffin. McCain would have lost anyways but, Palin made it much easier. gas is cheap again and soon the war will be over. i hope your all crying in your beer. you probably didn't even vote because you would have to leave this blog to do that.

lakennedy...WMD was "a" reason not "the" reason. Again, if you read the Doctrine(s) you continually refer to you would know this. Revisionist history views does not change the true facts.

OMG people! HE WON! GET OVER IT...

Indeed they did. To find all of those WMD's. How's that going, by the way?

Your right Milan- The US congress gave President Bush the authority to go into Iraq.

whybesad-"President Bush also stated before we went in that there will be a regime change in Iraq."
Nobody not even God gave the U.S. the right to invade Iraq. Looking back on the 9/11 disaster the were more Saudis involve in attacking us than any other nationality. Why didn't the U.S. invade Saudi Arabia then?
Don't kid yourself Bush was a druggie too.

RetiredAirForce:
Are you suggesting that our second invasion of Iraq was in response to: "What country was firing at our warplanes from 1992-2002?"
Really?
So, what you're saying is that after being attacked by not ONE Iraqi on 9/11, in response to the horror of 9/11 we went into Iraq beause their country had been firing at our warplanes? Really? I never wrote that I was "so schooled on the Bush Doctrine", but at least I knew that there was only one, whereas you,yourself, wrote "Which of the MANY Bush Doctrines..." There are many facets of the doctrine, but just to remind you (again) there is indeed only ONE. Your comment is comparable to someone saying "Which of the many constitutions would you have had her spoke on"?

Obama is going to run this Country into the ground. He has proposed 10 trillion in new spending. I can't get behind a guy like that. And where is all this "change" he was talking about he is just recycling Clinton staff. The inexperience of this man is starting to show.

All of this talk is now HISTORY! Not to say it's not an issue that effects now. Here's the thing. Barack Obama is now the next president. The leader of the U.S. of America. The man who said he's going to lead this country into the future. Who's going swallow their "pride" (like me for instance) and get behind Obama and get this thing done like he claims can be done??? He said it himself during his acceptance speach. "I can't do this alone, I'm going to need your help" He's right. We need to get behind the man and move forward. It won't happen if we're constantly bickering with each other about the past! We can't change it....however, we can certainly LEARN FROM IT! The effectiveness of our next president and the things we can do as citizens of this country will hinge on ALL OF OUR abilities to LEARN FROM THE PAST and clean up the mistakes that have gotten us to where we are today. We can argue until we're dead and it won't get us any closer to where we need to go. I choose to be part of the solution! I pray all of us can come to a common ground and get this done. I believe in all of you.

At least we have a President-elect who knows what a coke line is and how to roll a joint.

This is so absurd "No Iraqi's attacked us". Well, I am pretty sure they all were not Afghani, yet you don’t seem to be complaining about our military in Afghanistan. Question: What country was firing at our warplanes from 1992-2002? Answer: Not Afghanistan. For someone that is so schooled on the Bush Doctrine the thought process behind the invasion of Iraq should not be so hard to understand.

Zoom- He was a threat to our allies. He invaded Kuwait before he would surely do it again. He had twelve years to comply to the UN resolutions. He didn't comply. President Bush also stated before we went in that there will be a regime change in Iraq.

Zoom,
You're right, and I never noticed that point. When discussing the war and the motivations behind going to it, everyone always says "What, would you rather that we just let the Iraqi's live under that dictator"? But you're right, we didn't go over there to liberate anyone, we went over in response to an attack on America. Guess how many Iraqi's were involved in that attack?
+
What I find interesting is the denouncing of Russian invasion of Georgia. Sure, it's not a good thing, but what business does the U.S. government have denouncing that? I mean, what exactly did we do in Iraq? We invaded it, without having been attacked by anyone from Iraq.

Those weapons were no threat to the U.S., or even Iraq's neighbors. The reason given to invade Iraqi was NOT to liberate the Iraqi people. We invaded on a threat to the U.S. and the world that did not exist.

Zoom he did have WMD's and used them on his own people. That's why he is dead now because the Iraqi people put him on trial for his actions against his own people.

I stated "what if" being a hypothetical question. You didn't answer it at all.

Zoom…it is very naive to think “the whole world” only had intelligence we supplied.

Bush was convinced to go to war by Chaney and Rumsfeld. The "whole world" only had the intelligence we showed them, which was weak. Not all countries wanted to invade (remember the "coalition of the willing", of which only the U.K. and Australia committed troops?), because they were not convinced there were WMD's, and there was no strategy for what we would do once we invaded...turns out they were right.

"...what if we didn't go into Iraq with the same intelligence we had at the time and 5 years down the road Saddam used those WMD's..."

THERE WERE NO WMD'S!!! If we didn't invade Iraq, we wouldn't be spending $12 billion a month on a war, we wouldn't have almost 4,200 U.S. military deaths and over 30,600 casualties (not to mention the tens of thousands of civillian deaths, and the untold mental costs to our soldiers coming home), and Bush wouldn't be viewed as the worst President in recent history, which is how this whole discussion started in the first place.

Zoom- It's real easy to play Monday morning quarterback and point out what went wrong and why they did this and not that. President Bush didn't have that luxury when deciding to go into Iraq. He had the intelligence given to him just as the whole world had. He had to make a decision in the best interest of our Country. The whole world thought Saddam had WMD's. I guess you could play Monday morning quarterback on the other side and question what if we didn't go into Iraq with the same intelligence we had at the time and 5 years down the road Saddam used those WMD's on one of our allies or us. Would you still think it was a good thing to not go into Iraq and disarm Saddam? Our mindset changed after 9/11/2001 we couldn't wait and see anymore. We had to react to intelligence that we had to threats. Saddam had plenty of time to come forward and let the UN inspectors do their jobs. I think if it wasn't for the Oil for food scandal things may have been different. As for Democrats raising the price of oil I don't think you can really blame anyone party for that. I do think we should have drilled for oil in our own County years ago. Just look at our culture and where it has gone. Our population has risen and more people are driving cars. Fifty years ago the average home had a one car garage. Now homes are being built with 3 and 4 car garages. But, yet we didn't see this coming? The democrats have blocked us from drilling here. The excuse is well it wouldn't make an effect for 10 years. Well, with that reasoning we would never get anywhere. So what in 10 years we will have more oil and be better off in the future. Until we can replace our need for oil we should be able to drill for our own resources and look for alternatives. I also think GM and the other auto companies are to blame. They saw the price of oil and gas rising but, still continued to make the big SUV's. The demand for those vehicles didn't fall overnight. It has been in the works for a long time. Not the average person can afford a $50,000 vehicle that costs $100 to fill up every week. I guess they figures that if they got into trouble uncle Sam and the taxpayers would bail them out. Well here we are.

On a side note, the day after Obama won, the IL pick 3 numbers were 666.
.
WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

Some of our conservative bloggers feel the need to cut and paste. Hey dubber, if you cannot say in your own words, don't bother. Billie, Kleej, and Whybe, I may disagree with your viewpoints, but I respect your original thoughts. Thank you for sparing us from cut and pastitis.

I don't know. Maybe it’s just me, but I find it to be so sad that some of the “extremists” here can’t even speak for themselves. They seem to have a need to steal the words of others, read that as plagiarism, because they can’t think on their own. In this Blog that never seems to end, can somebody please give these people a dumb-slap and wake them up? All “Conservatives” are not “bad” and all “Liberals” are not “bad”. Hey! We live next door to each other. We have our differences in politics, religion, race, education, health care, taxes, places where we shop, favorite restaurants, who delivers our newspapers, even who we can even fart in front of, (sorry about that one) but we are all in this together. Different points of views are crucial to our existence but there comes a time when we have to decide if we are just part of the problem or if we want to work toward the solution. I understand that there is a lot of anger and I have some myself, however constant bickering and the refusal to coexist will not solve the problem.
…
Just my opinion.

And what's with this new fad of cutting and pasting entire articles, without summary or reference? Are you folks trying to look smarter than you are, or is it just laziness?

whybesad: The RESULTS of poor decisions and greed by many people took years to crash the housing market and the economy. The Democratic majority were not responsible for the spike in fuel prices that effectively killed the SUV market. The Democratic Congress didn't trigger this calamity the second they took the majority. I wish your simpleton explanation for things were true, because then they would be much easier to solve.

It is now widely known that Saddam wanted IRAN to think he had WMD's. Once again, you really don't know what you're talking about.

"(CNN) -- Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

According to a CBS report, Hussein claimed he didn't anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, agent George Piro said on "60 Minutes," scheduled for Sunday broadcast.

"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," said Piro."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam....

Oh, and in my previous post I mentioned you had a gift for writing. Apparently I should have written a gift for stealing.

By the way, proudfighter, either your name is John Yuma, or you are one hell of a plagarist. Here is a direct link to your last post copied and pasted. WTF?
+
http://www.newshorn.com/forums/viewthrea...
+
Whatever you have to say about the liberals on this page, at least they're not thieves. If you want to quote someone, do it. Don't steal their work and put it off as your own.
+
If you are John Yuma, nevermind.

Proudfighter: He did win. Perhaps one or all of those reasons are why. Perhaps you need to realize that those ideas, or a portion of those ideas sound pretty appealing to the majority of people who voted. Unless, of course, you are more comfortable with labeling those who voted for Obama as being ignorant. Perhaps you need to take a long look at your fellow countrymen and listen to what the majority of them are saying. Listen to what they want. While their viewpoints may differ from yours, they still matter. The way I see it you have two options: One, you can continue to contemplate and question why people voted for Obama, or two, you can start becoming an active participant in what the newly elected government plans to do. If you aren't happy with the proposed legislation, call Congressman Ryan, call Tammy Baldwin, etc. to let them know. You do have a voice, and a gift for writing, why not use it?

You decide which option you think is more proactive.

Would Obama have won if people believed he might well nationalize health care, unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons, push the Global Poverty Act, appoint judges to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, pass legislation banning handguns, greatly increase federal spending by euphemistically disguising it as a stimulus package, increase taxes on producers and expand "redistribution," impose limitations on private executive salaries, empower labor unions, further nationalize public education with the leftist indoctrination agenda of the National Education Association, further open our borders, ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty, abandon Israel, retreat and surrender in Iraq, dramatically reduce the defense budget, possibly reinstate the draft in the name of racial equity, nationalize our private 401(k) funds, abuse governmental power to target and investigate dissent from ordinary "Joes," and implement the Fairness Doctrine to shut down political dissent from his talk radio critics?

Similarly, despite our problems in Iraq, we are clearly winning there now, but the media are suppressing the good news, just as they have refused to credit Republicans for their wisdom on the surge and protected Democrats from their reckless opposition to it.

The only arrow left in the Democrats' Iraq quiver is to perpetuate their "big lie" that Bush led us into war with lies about WMD. Through stunning and numbing repetition broadcast by a conspiratorial media, they have succeeded in making this the majority narrative, even though anyone who lived through this period knows Democrats supported this policy as long as it was politically expedient, having had access to the exact same intelligence. They've also convinced people, contrary to the facts, that Saddam Hussein didn't have ties to and wasn't abetting our terrorist enemies. And they've completely ignored the many other compelling reasons justifying our bipartisan decision to attack Iraq, including Saddam's persistent and ongoing violations of some 17 U.N. and postwar resolutions and treaties.

Democrats and the media, instead of condemning recalcitrant European nations for not joining the coalition against Iraq despite endless diplomatic overtures by President Bush, falsely indicted the Bush administration for its "unilateral" action against Iraq.

They colluded to publish the slander that the Bush administration sponsored abuses at Abu Ghraib, created inhumane conditions at Gitmo, and routinely tortured enemy prisoners. Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama have all blithely and falsely accused our troops of atrocities, from systematic torture and prisoner abuse to raping Iraqi civilians to air raiding Afghan villages. They have mischaracterized our essential National Security Agency monitoring of international terrorist communications as domestic spying on little old ladies.

They have portrayed the Bush administration's phenomenal accomplishment of preventing further attacks on our soil since 9/11 not as an administration success but as proof that we no longer face a serious threat.

All of these factors could coalesce to give Obama a mandate to fundamentally move our economy toward socialism in the name of economic fairness and emasculate our war on terrorists in the name of restoring our international image.

I fear now, that the checks and balances incorporated into our Constitution may not be enough to prevent a radical and irreversible diminution of our individual liberties because a confluence of factors has emerged to create a climate conducive to fundamental change.

These factors are: a shockingly unknown candidate, whose mysterious past and numerous shady alliances are deliberately left unexplored by a corrupt, supportive media; the candidate's charismatic qualities that inspire a cultish loyalty; his intellectual trappings that create a fascination and allure among the intellectual elite, including some hypnotized conservatives; a major financial crisis that exacerbates the people's fears and uncertainties; a largely manufactured cloud of negativity placed over America by the media and a grossly partisan Democratic Party that places its self-interest above the national interest; and an apparently discredited Republican Party and conservative movement that have been blamed for our actual and perceived problems.

All of these could lead to entrusting this man with unprecedented power, giving him a license to operate with minimum scrutiny and an opposition party effectively impotent to oppose his radical blueprint for America.

More than ever, perception is trumping reality. An unprincipled Democratic Party, aided by a morally decadent media, has demonized President Bush, the Republican Party and America itself with distortions and polarizing propaganda designed to dispirit and divide Americans on the bases of race, class and gender. Just look at the domestic and foreign policy picture they have painted the past eight years.

While we are having serious financial problems now, we had a strong economy for most of President Bush's two terms, but the media pushed the Democrats' critique that it was in perpetual recession. As for our real financial crisis, objective observers understand Democratic programs and policies primarily caused it, but Democrats have successfully blamed Republicans for it.

Zoom when was the economy going so bad? It has only been the last 2 years. How about the whole WMD thing if he didn't have any why did he ignoe the resolutions for 12 years if he had nothing to hide and was so innocent? Come on zoom wake up. That kool-aid is not working for you.

The idea that the economy was sound right up to the second Democrats took control of the Congress is silly. It took years of bad desisions and greed to snowball into an avalanch.

And you forgot about the whole WMD thing, of which there were none. That was the lie that our unintelligent President and VP sold to everybody.

Another Epic Fail by whybesad.

Mooshoo again I have to show you that the economy started to go in the "toilet" as you like to say about two years ago. The same time the Democrats took control of the congress. It's just going to get worse but, I'm sure you will still blame President Bush for it. That's pretty much you lefties know how to do.

MooooShooo- You may want to look at why we went to war in Iraq. It was because Sadam made an agreement in 1991 to end the first war in Iraq. Maybe your to young to remember this. The US made an agreement with Saddam to end the war. He failed to meet those agreements for 12 years. The only one to blame for the war is Saddam Hussein himself.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/...

whybesad - I am really glad you are "stayin the course" with with W. I assume you are refering to the tax cut where he squandered millions to send us a letter telling us we are getting a rebate? Oh yes, you also refer to the pre-emptive war policy, know as the Bush Doctrine. Its the same doctrine that Sarah dumb as dirt Palin did not know anything about. Presidents like George W. Bush need to make up doctrines like that in order to legitimize going to war when there lying and deceit do not work. And don't wrap yourself in the flag over Iraq and claim to be humanitarian when there is dozens of tin pot dictators all over the globe maltreating their citizens. Where was George to protect those poor souls? And I know you are joking about the steadfast leadership comment. He lost track of what 9/11 was all about. He forgot about Bin Ladin!!! Furthermore, in case you have not noticed, the economy is in the toilet thanks to George Worthless Bush and his cronies. You say he "made a few mistakes"? That is the understatement of the century. Your dellusional if you think history is going to be kind to Bush.

Zoom: He also gave no credit to the original author either, even though at the bottom of the original article it states, "COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC."

ProuFighter11 said: "To answer your question, I will stand behind my President no matter what. Regardless of how bad it gets."

Then cuts and pastes an entire article from this nutcase:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-li...

mooshoo- never mind the 7 million jobs the Bush administration helped business create. Never mind the tax cuts that helped every single working American who paid federal income taxes. Forget the millions of people freed by grasps of a brutal dictator. Forget the steadfast leadership of this man during the worst terrorist attack on American soil. Forget that Iraq is having free and fair elections and is now a democracy. Forget that there hasn't been a terrorist attack since 2001. Forget that freedom is taking roots in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan where nobody though that could ever take place. Sure he has made his mistakes just as Obama will. I'm sure history will be kind to President Bush.

President Grant was far worse, way more corrupt and genocidal.

George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst of the worst Presidents. He squandered the cold war peace dividend, surrounded himself with right wing ideologues and never understood as President, he needed to govern. Instead, he bullied the country with his right wing extremist views and tinkle down economics. That was just the beginning. His A.G. peed on the constitution, he lied to the nation in order to go to war, he declared mission accomplished on an colossal trillon dollar failure, he spent federal dollars like a drunken sailor, he turned his back on New Orleans in a time of unprecedented disaster (Nice job Brownie!), and he presided over the meltdown of the economy of epic proportions. His party was bought and paid for by K-Street lobbyist. If some conservatives wish to blame Democrats and Barak Obama for the lack of leadership and failures George W. Bush, keep it coming. It will guarantee that the Republican Party retains its rump status for many years to come.

With his ideas about spreading the wealth, entrepreneurial selfishness, the ongoing "original sin" in our Constitution, the inherent evil of corporations, nationalized health care, and the civil rights movement not doing enough to bring about "economic justice" -- a euphemism for "Marxism" used by radicals, such as Bill Ayers, who still hate America -- are you not concerned at just how far Obama might go now that he's got a nearly veto-proof Democratic majority at his back?

With his known discomfort with American exceptionalism, his naive mindset about good and evil in the world, his reckless underestimation of threats to America, his stated intention to disarm our nuclear weapons unilaterally, his open-borders extremism, his willingness to relax our intelligence monitoring, and his misguided concern for terrorists' rights, how can America be as secure under his watch?

With his sordid background in "community organizing" and his symbiotic relationship with an organization that is engaged in a systematic effort to steal this election, his thug tactics to investigate and silence his critics, and his Democratic colleagues' willingness to use government to shut down conservative talk radio, are you not worried about our liberties under an Obama administration?

The propaganda triumvirate -- Democrats, the liberal media and leftist bloggers -- have portrayed President Bush, Vice President Cheney and America as dark and evil forces and have whipped the country into a frenzy of desperation, setting the table for a charismatic leader to deliver us from the despair they've manufactured with relentless precision. Barack Obama, with his mysterious past and messianic aura, then burst upon the scene with the focused purpose of capitalizing on the public's perceived woes by offering dramatic change and unspecified hope. As if the script had been written just for him, he stepped right into his role, expanding on this theme of despair. He stressed how bleak conditions are, how unfair America is to the less fortunate and middle class, how ugly America is in foreign affairs, how the values of average Americans are warped (bitter clingers), how hardworking producers who oppose confiscatory tax rates but who contribute more to charity than Obama and his running mate even contemplate are selfish, and how America is a global environmental menace.

With all respect, almost everything about Obama's campaign is fraudulent. He masquerades as a uniter while dividing, polarizing and alienating us. He denies he's liberal, when objective sources score him as the most liberal senator. He says he barely knows militants and radicals with whom he has spent his lifetime cavorting and whose worldviews -- horrifyingly -- he shares. He brazenly disguises welfare redistributions as tax cuts. He and his surrogates keep changing his tax plan.

The prospect of a Barack Obama presidency makes me very nervous.

Obama's entire campaign has been based on the need for radical, transformational change, which implies there is something very wrong with America.

It's hardly surprising, then, that he has painted the bleakest picture of America instead of acknowledging, as a starting point, that we are still the greatest nation in the world.

For the past eight years, Democrats have slandered America as an imperialistic country that always prefers force to diplomacy; that attacks nations without provocation to enrich itself and to project its power; that intentionally targets civilian lives; that encourages sadistic torture of enemy prisoners, as opposed to tough interrogation techniques to extract information to save the lives of its people; that eavesdrops on private conversations among its citizens rather than monitoring terrorist communications into its borders; and that abuses rather than goes out of its way to accommodate the savages in Guantanamo's prison. None of it is true.

For eight years, Democrats have poor-mouthed the mostly growing economy. They've lied that Bush's tax cuts for all income groups were only for the wealthy and that the cuts reduced revenues. They pretend to be deficit hawks, when Obama's new spending plans alone will make Bush look like Scrooge. They said Bush wanted to destroy Social Security, when he's the only one in the past 20 years who had the courage to try to reform it. All lies.

They've preached bipartisanship while exhibiting the nastiest partisanship in my lifetime, calling Bush "King George III," "Hitler," a "murderer," a "war criminal," a "reckless cowboy," a "moron" and a "Christian throwback." They've caricatured Bush as an unbending partisan who wouldn't reach across the aisle, in the face of his countless and mostly rebuffed bipartisan overtures and legislation. More disinformation.

They've deliberately divided this nation on the basis of race, class, gender and religion while telling us, falsely, that conservatives are racists, greedy, sexists, homophobes and religious bigots.

Just to be clear, I -- as a conservative -- am not saying that Barack Obama should govern to the center for the sake of bipartisanship. He won. I assume he will try to pursue his agenda. I don't happen to believe that policy harmony among elected officials is the be-all and end-all. Rather, each side should pursue its agenda, fairly and energetically.

In the first place, we know that liberals are always going to pursue their agenda with ferocious tenacity. Republican efforts to reach across the aisle result in pulling back bloody stubs. Ask President Bush and, the left's formerly favorite Republican, John McCain.

Leftists in the Democratic Party and the media will vilify you as a right-wing extremist almost no matter how accommodating you are. At least one side in this eternal struggle knows it is in a war. And that side, while demanding bipartisanship from the other, is plotting to silence it, beginning with talk radio. We pooh-pooh that promise at our peril.

All this talk about bipartisanship is promoted either by well-meaning types who are ignorant of the system our Framers devised or by liberals who calculate they can shame us into rolling over for their planned radicalism.

Let me first say that we conservatives should be gracious in defeat because it's the right thing to do. That does not mean, however, that we should for one minute abandon the vigorous pursuit of our ideas. The left never does, and we cannot afford to.

We mustn't be sucked in to demands for bipartisanship from those who wouldn't practice it if their lives depended on it, lest we continue down the perilous path of unilaterally surrendering our ideas in the misguided hope that getting along is our highest aspiration.

Remember in 2001, after liberals had already bludgeoned President Bush for 36 days and accused him of stealing an election they'd tried to steal, when they demanded he show bipartisanship? That is, those who lost insisted that those who won reach out to them. They said Bush didn't have a mandate and should voluntarily dilute his conservative policy proposals in the interest of getting along.
In that case, bipartisanship meant that conservatives should become more liberal on their own instead of the two factions fighting for their respective programs and letting the votes fall where they may.

Now the liberals have won, and again, they are calling for bipartisanship. But they're not demanding from themselves, as the victors, the same standard they demanded of President Bush in 2000 or 2004. They aren't counseling themselves to moderate their own positions to make them more palatable to congressional conservatives; they're saying that congressional Republicans should move toward Obama in a spirit of "bipartisanship." Heads I win; tails you lose.

Thanks for speaking up on my behalf Proudfighter, but I could care less what Nvgrf thinks. This person is obviously one of the many who hate conservatives.
I served my country for the people who work hard like I do, not self serving losers who wish to better themselves with someone elses elbow grease.

Who are you Nvgrf, to call anyone here unpatriotic? Just because our views about the good of our country are different from yours? We should all be the same huh? How wonderful that would be!
If you were referring to me or Crafty, I am ashamed for you. It is pure ignorance to call someone who fought for you in two wars unpatriotic! Shame on you!
To answer your question, I will stand behind my President no matter what. Regardless of how bad it gets.

Oh yeah, He is going to put gas in my car and help pay my mortgage, said one exited supporter before the election. Good luck!

Retired Air and Boston Bill~
Amen my friends. Spoken like two people with great wisdom! I'm lock step with both of you. President elect Obama is OUR next president and regardless of my feelings either way towards him, I will respect him and rally behind him. I want this country to win! God bless President Obama and the United States of America!

Bill, you are correct, "United we stand, Divided we fall." It is just shameful for those on both sides that do not truly understand this. Political dissent of ideas is what this country was founded on, but dissent of ideas is far from what our country has witnessed during many (during the past 2 decades) Presidential elections. The attitude of those on both sides stating “he is not my President” or “I hope he fails” proves party politics is what drives this country…shameful is the nicest word I can say.

There are so many legitimate concerns in these posts from both “sides” regarding the recent election and where we may be going as a country. There have been some posts that could be considered out of line concerning the race of our President-elect, but I refuse to address that ignorance. I WILL say that regardless of our political affiliations, we are truly blessed with the right to vote for whomever we want to vote for. In every election, one candidate wins and one candidate loses. The constituency who wins is happy. The constituency who loses is angry. No surprise there. My point is that we, as citizens and believers in the USA, must put our differences aside and work together to rebuild our nation. I know that may sound somewhat cliché, but it is truly important for all of us, probably now more since the Great Depression, to unite once again and get through this trying time. Please, whatever your feelings are at this moment, DON’T give up on the United States of America. Please support our new president-elect and God Bless America.
…
United we stand, Divided we fall.
…
Just my opinion.

lovetoscrap...Heres some numbers for you to ponder
Wisconsin
whites..4,859,689
blacks328,376
New York
whites 4,859,689
blacks 2,990,260
Ill.
whites 9,074,653
blacks 1,898,346
These are just a few of the states that I looked up.
You can look for yourself and see your way just doesn't make sense,numbers don't add up.
Could you explain your way of thinking because more blacks voted this year that's how he won ???
www.factfinder.census.gov

How well do you think Sarah Palin will do on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?"
She may need help in Geography.

Nvgrf: It's obvious (after every election) that some people are upset, some elated. The beauty of our government is that it is ever changing, it runs on a cycle. All of us here have been on what we feel was the "losing" side. I was there the last eight years. Lovetoscrap, Retiredairforce, etc. are there now. And I want to let them know that we all have been there. While we have all been disappointed in the outcomes of certain elections, I truly believe that when the proverbial s**t hits the fan, everyone one of us will support America. Lovetoscrap, Retiredairforce already have. I know that our posts were heated during the election, but know that although I am happy that this election went the way I hoped it would, I have no desire to see America remained as divided as it was during the election. I hope everyone here would agree with that.

Sarah Palin can't do anything right. Those cowards who anonymously attacked her are complete losers.

At least I didn't vote for black guy solely because he's black.

So will these unpatriotic Republicans snap their yaps and support their new President come January?

So, what did everyone think of Sarah Palin yesterday with the "jerk" comment?
She really felt the heat about her lack of knowledge about Africa being a country..

Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 because voters no longer saw Republicans as the party of limited government. They have since rejected virtually every opportunity to recapture this identity. But their failure to do so must not be misconstrued as a rejection of principles of individual liberty by the American people. The evidence suggests we are still a nation of pocketbook conservatives most happy when government has enough respect to leave us alone and to mind its own business. The worrisome question is whether either political party understands this.

Such incomparable wit, Minan!
The economic collapse was the Democrats’ fault. Yet John McCain never bothered going after them on that. He let the burglars walk away with the loot because those were his friends, and with George Bush failed to point the finger of blame at the people who caused the financial collapse that has plunged the nation into a certain recession. Bush had the bully pulpit but failed to use it, and the Democrats walked away scot-free.

Shockingly, John McCain failed to use the most potent weapon in his arsenal -- the culpability of Barack Obama and his friends in the wholesale looting of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current debacle. McCain had the goods, but wouldn't exploit them.

The McCain campaign made inadequate use of Gov. Sarah Palin, who had enormous crowd appeal. A lot of people voted for John McCain because of Sarah Palin. There were bigger crowds because of Sarah Palin. Yet some of the functionaries in the McCain campaign are trying to point the finger at her for McCain's defeat.

John McCain lost because of his lack of a clear message. He needed more than the fact that he is a maverick. His answer to the economic crisis was a $300 billion bailout for delinquent mortgagees. He was offering welfarism, while Barack Obama was offering socialism.
Finally, I hope that when Barack Obama was making elaborate and extravagant promises about what he was going to do, he was flat-out lying.

I hope Barack Obama will not be what he has promised to be. I hope he doesn't have a civilian security force. I hope he doesn't raise my taxes. I hope he doesn't spread the wealth. I hope he doesn't raise taxes on corporate America. I hope he looks at nuclear power. I hope he allows us to drill. I hope that there will be no revival of the fairness doctrine.

I thing most of you need some cheese with your whine!

It's quite obvious lovetoscrap cannot relate to anything or anyone non-WASPR (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, and Republican)
.
There's a great big world out there that she's missing out on.

lovestocrap: Did your childs teacher really say that record numbers of minorities don't know what Obama stands for, or did you just draw that conclusion yourself? Where is your evidence to back up that claim?

The ratio of non-white to white voters increased only 3% from 2004 to 2008 (non-whites were 23% of the vote in 2004, and 26% in 2008).
Of that 3%, 2% were African-American, and 1% were Latino.

"Comparing exit polls from 2004 and 2008 makes the breadth of Barack Obama's victory clear. Obama received a larger share of the vote than John Kerry among voters of ALL genders, races, education levels, and income classes, and virtually all religions. The only groups with whom he underperformed Kerry were older (65+) voters, and gay and lesbian voters.

Conversley, there is a hidden source of strength in this table that hasn't been talked much about before: Obama markedly overperformed Kerry among parents. In a sense, it was those people who have most reason to be concerned about the future who voted for Obama: people who are young themeslves, or people who have young children at home."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

My point and the point of her teacher was this...without record numbers of minorities coming out to vote...those who didn't bother to vote in the past and have no idea what obama even stands for...he never would have won. That is something to be proud of. Racism at it's best! Voting for someone on the basis of one's skin color. Maybe the blacks in this country need to quit pointing fingers and accusing others of racism and look in a mirror.

Lovetoscrap, what is your point? Its not area that votes, it is people. If 6 out of 10 rural voters are "red" and 6 out of 10 urban voters are "blue", then "blue" wins every time because the majority of people in this country live in cities, or if you prefer, urbanized counties.

Lakennedy, seriously, I hope the Republicans give Sarah the nod in 2012. I plan on giving her my vote in the Primary (as should all Democrats) just to watch the train wreck and implosion if she gets the nomination.
*
As far as viable Republicans, Romney and Huckabee would have to be the front runners. Guiliani will be too old, angry and tired to run in 2012. There likely will be other Governors out there that can catch some national attention. I don't see anyone coming out of the Senate.
*
Paul Ryan is a dark horse for President. He is probably a better VP candidate, especially paired with a southern Governor. He is smart, has savvy, connected, knows how to debate, and does not need $150,000 of new clothes to establish street cred with America.

Translation: The parts of the country with the most people voted for Obama.
+
He carried 28 states, McCain 22.
+

Yesterday in my daughter's sociology class, her teacher went over how Obama won the election. She showed them a map of the country broke down based on how counties voted. While the country was prominently red, the high concentration of blue in highly urban areas determined the outcome of the election.

Here is a link to the map of the election broken down by counties.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/elec...

Consider. In California, where a liberal judiciary had ordered the state to recognize homosexual marriages, voters, by 52 to 48, slapped the judges across the face and ordered the ban reimposed and placed in the California constitution. Arizona and Florida also voted to outlaw gay marriage, by landslides.

The New York Times deplored the "ugly outcome" of these three referenda and said voters were "enshrining bigotry," thus calling the majority of Californians, Arizonans and Floridians bigots and their Bible-rooted Christian beliefs nothing but bigotry.

Good to know what they think of us. Yet, McCain, who might have been out front on these moral and cultural issues, paid only lip service -- and lost Florida, and California by a landslide.

In Missouri, where McCain eked out a victory, a proposal to make English the official state language carried six to one. In Nebraska, a proposal to ban affirmative action carried 58 to 42, but lost in a 50-50 tie in Colorado.

Parental notification won 48 percent support in California, a far higher share of the vote than McCain got, while a measure to outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother got 45 percent in South Dakota. Had McCain made an issue of Obama's support for a Freedom of Choice Act that would eliminate all state restrictions on abortion, he could have forced Obama to defend what yet remains a radical and extreme view in America.

While Barack was locking up black America, McCain failed to hold onto Bush's share of the white working class, though Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate and long associations with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and '60s bomber William Ayers.

Perhaps fearful his "good guy" reputation with his old buddies in his media "base" would be imperiled, McCain ruled Wright off limits and seemed hesitant even to go after the Ayers connections. Lee Atwater would not have been so ambivalent. Leo Durocher put it succinctly: "Nice guys finish last."

Ultimately, however, the Beltway Republicans are losing Middle America because they are ideologically incapable of addressing two great concerns: economic insecurity and the perception that we are losing the America that we grew up in.

Economic insecurity is traceable to NAFTA-GATT globalization, under which it makes economic sense for U.S. companies to close factories here, build plants in China and export back to the United States. Manufacturing now accounts for less than 10 percent of all U.S. jobs.

Social insecurity is traceable to mass immigration, legal and illegal, which has brought in scores of millions who are altering the character of communities and competing with U.S. workers by offering their services for far less pay.

These are the twin causes of death of the Reagan coalition, and as long as the Republican Party is hooked on K Street cash, it will not address either, and thus pass, blissfully addicted, from this earth.

Right on Proudfighter and Lovestoscrap.

The president of the United States, the leader of his party, was at Nixon-Carter levels of approval, 25 percent, going into Election Day.

Sixty-two percent of the nation thought the economy was the No. 1 issue, and 93 percent thought the economy was bad. Two-thirds of the nation thought the war McCain championed was a mistake, and 80 percent to 90 percent thought the country was on the wrong course.

As a political athlete, measured by charisma and communications skills, McCain is not even in the same league with Barack Obama. He was outspent by vast sums, and his political organization was far inferior.

It is a wonder McCain was even competitive, dealt such a hand.

Yet, by Sept. 10, McCain, thanks to Sarah Palin, whose selection had proven a sensation, had come from eight points behind to take the lead, and Joe Biden was wailing that maybe Hillary would have been a better choice for Obama.

Then came the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the bailout of AIG, McCain's assertion that the economy was fundamentally sound, and his panicked return to Washington to assist Bush and Hank Paulson push through a wildly unpopular bank bailout -- using 700 billion in tax dollars to buy up rubbish paper the idiot bankers had put on their books.

The Establishment's Man had come to save the Establishment.

Suddenly, it was McCain who was down 10 points, as the feline and feral press went on a wilding attack on Sister Sarah. He never recovered, though the McCain-Palin final push left egg on the faces of pollsters who were predicting a double-digit triumph for Obama.

Perhaps no Republican, in these circumstances, could have won, especially with that month-long bloodletting on Wall Street that wiped out $4 trillion to $5 trillion in stock and bond value, ravaging IRAs and 401Ks, portfolios and pensions alike.

Yet, McCain might still have won had he not, like his three fellow establishment Republicans Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, been inhibited by the Mainstream Media and his own Beltway beliefs.

AMEN. and AMEN!

Proudfighter11...thank you for those words! You are right. This should strengthen us, not make us bitter. There is always hope, even if it is hard to see right now.

What I'd like to know is where have all of you dems that want us to unite as one been for the last eight years? Nothing but bashing our president. Now you want us to climb on board and support the most liberal, socialistic pres this country has seen? NO WAY! Will not happen. I see this as doing nothing but dividing us even more. I cannot, willnot, support a man like that. He makes my stomach turn.

Keep your heads up guys.
It’s worth raining on the Obama parade by looking back -- a direction they never want to go unless it’s framed by “the past eight years” -- to a speech given in 1976.

Ronald Reagan, without notes, without a teleprompter, as Peggy Noonan describes in When Character Was King, spoke to his supporters after losing the bid for the presidency.

“It’s just one battle in a long war, and it will go on as long as we all live...Don’t give up on your ideals …And don’t for heavens’ sake, having seen the inner workings of the watch, don’t get cynical.”

This is why Reagan accomplished so much. Rejection should not make conservatives cynical; it should make them fight harder. After all, the only real reason to be a conservative is because you believe in something, or some things. And those things inspire you. They don’t make you bitter. But they do make you want to take a stand.

I’m not propagating Reagan nostalgia (that’s not Reagan’s style, anyway). But I appreciate his message.

So did the American people.

And so, apparently now, does the GOP.

Obama may have awakened a sleeping giant.

That's what it's about winning or losing? Shame on you.
What about being united as a country? The Democrats have been distancing themselves for years now. You got it. You won "we" lost. We will now bow at your holy feet. and lay down and take it like a...

I have voted straight party Democrat since I was eighteen. After going to Iraq and hearing the MEDIA and left wing tear our president to shambles, and disrespect our fighting brave, I changed my outlook on things. I also don't believe in big Govt., or giving my hard earned money to some lazy scum smart enough to fake a nervous breakdown!
Sounds like you think Liberal is a put down. I DO NOT WANT ANY PART OF THIS COUNTRY TO FAIL. That doesn't mean it won't happen. We need a little more than "hope". Just watch your trusted savior over the next few months, he will change. How did he look at his press conference today? He looked like he has aged ten years.
Believe me buddy, that is not "all I've got".

Crafty. Take a deep breath and hit the caps lock. The election is over and your guy lost.

Obama will cut defense by more than any 25%. We will pay more than the current 77% of every tax dollar collected by City, County, State and Federal Taxes, going as handouts to people who won't work. He's out to confiscate guns like Australia, Burn Christian Churches and build Abortion Clinics on their ashes. (not literally)
We will have unbelievable taxes and outrageous "Affirmative Action". has anyone looked at the state that Chicago is in? A total Disaster... now the Dems (I used to be one) made him President, the most Liberal Extremist they could even FIND ! PEOPLE We Elected.

WE HAVE SEEN THE RESULT OF PAST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS TO SLASH DEFENSE PROCUREMENT . I THINK WE ARE ON A PATH TO RUIN WITH OBAMA AT THE HELM . THE UNITED STATES ABSORBED INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT A FAR FETCHED POSSIBILITY . RUSSIA HAS MADE ITS INTENT KNOWN WITH ITS DEPLOYMENT OF ASSETS TO THE SOUTH . CHINA IS READY TO POUNCE . OSAMA BIN LADEN IS A CORNERED AND WOUNDED ANIMAL . IRAN IS POISED TO STRIKE . NORTH KOREA IS PLAYING US LIKE A FIDDLE . THE LIST GOES ON AND ON . WE NEED A CHURCHHILL NOT A CHAMBERLIN IN COMMAND .

Crafty. Is that all the best you got? You seem to take a certain glee that Obama will inherit one hell of a mess. A.) Do you care more about your precious Republican party than the country itself? B.) You're happy that the Republicans royally screwed things up so you can discredit the liberals? Take note, people, of the absolute bankrupt moral position of modern Republicans. All they have are empty and tired epithets like "liberal," "commie," and "socialist." This from the party that essentially says, "Vote us into government offices because we don't believe government can work!" And set out to prove it. And people like Crafty fall for it. Too stubborn to vote their own economic self-interest.

It can be anticipated that over the next 8 years, 10’s and 10’s of millions will pour into the US. Perhaps as much as 100 million will be in the US to take active part in the state welfareism.

ACORN and the new civilian militia that Obama wants to build, will be central to this massive organizational effort to create a permanent voting majority leading to a bullet proof 270 electoral votes.

The tens of billions to support the tens of dependent millions will come from the bitter Americans who will now fund the new Democratic permanent majority of state dependents as their patriotic duty.

Forever and ever, the new President will be selected by the Democratic Party. Whomever they decide will be President will be President. A Democratic totalitarianism of sameness will be institutionalized in the schools and across the land.