Of course they have their differences.

But both use the media - liberal and conservative - to gain a platform for thier greivance is my point.

The commander of the Cole voiced his differenaces, but you don't see him on Fox Noise bitching about it on air.

Honestly, mate, you need to loosen your belt and travel some. See that the world is a great deal more than what you've seen thus far.

What you enjoy here in America is unique. And we, as Americans, take it for granted. We have around the clock convience at our disposal, yet we squander it on trivial pursuits.

It warms my heart that you feel Ms. McDaniels has been been put out because the President chose to act before he consulted with her... but for me, Salior McDaniels chose to enlist in the Navy for good cause and tragically died because of a lowlife terrorist attack. His mother doesn't equate in how the US will prosecute this scum. My hopes is that we do finally do so and do so justly.

Personally, I feel Ms. McDaniels is being used by Fox Noise. Who cares if she voted for Obama. He's still our President for the next 4 yrs.

Mark my words - if they do succeed in prosecuting the man responsible - she'll be the first to praise her President and recant all this nonsense

 

AutoUnionFan, not to veer too far off the OP, but I have a question for you. What do the U.S.S. Cole, The attack on Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, The Twin Towers(9/11), Oklahoma City bombing and other "incidents" all have in common? If I were you, I'd be real curious.

Please spend some time researching the Burning of the Reichstag (**** Germany Feb 27th, 1933) here's one of many links you could look into http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...tler/burns.htm. Your an educated(?) man and I think you will find undisputable similarities concerning how our recent (if you consider +70 years recent)"terrorist" attacks and the Reichstag Fire scream inside job. For Christ's sake the Gulf of Tonkin documents have been declassified...it was an inside job. Read them for yourself here http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...ss20051201.htm.

Try this on for size, all those "attacks" come from Goerings playbook that Hitler used to rise to power. Here's a quote from Hermann Goering(Karl Rove?):

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want
to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering

Just like in **** Germany, our past administrations have committed horrible attacks on U.S. citizens and soldiers alike. They have been used to scare citizens into supporting our entry into various War's (the best one yet is the never ending war on "terrorism"). Come on man! Please, do not live under the backwoods, bible-banging, blissfully willful cloud of stupidity that the right-wing conservative movement desperately needs its subscribers to embrace in order to exist.

When phony "terrorist" attacks perpetuated by our government (or rather the central banking interests that really control our foreign and domestic policies) that cause our soldiers to kill or be killed there is no honor in their death or their actions or the "missions" that they are involved with. That's something to get upset about. There are soldiers dying because of these unjust causes. It's a tragedy anytime anyone dies fighting for what they believe in. It's an even greater tragedy when what they believe in are lies.

Do you consider yourself a patriot? When's the last time you read our United States Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights? If you have never done so, please stop with your argument to take the time to read them. How can you be a patriot if you don't know or remember what defines our nation? Not surprisingly, you will also discover exactly how Obama got elected (hint: it's in Article II, Section I of the Constitution and Article XII, XIV, XV, XVII, XIX, XX and XXVI of the Amendments to the Bill of Rights) Here they are for you:
The Declaration of Independence- http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
The Constitution- www.usconstitution.net/const.txt,
The Bill of Rights- http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html

If you haven't read these in awhile it's always a good idea to re-read them. It will certainly enlighten you as to why some have such high hopes with the current administration. Obama, from all I have been able to glean, lives and breathes by our founding documents. That is the best type of President this nation could hope for. He lectured at Chicago School of Law on Constitutional Law. So he may know a thing or two about what it stands for.

AUF, the only real problems with our nation and government occur when those great documents are subverted, not when a certain political party takes control. I think to be a true patriot you should be less concerned about whether it is a Republican or a Democratic administration running the country, and more concerned about them abiding our founding documents. You see our United States is only a country because of them and we are no different than a tyrannical dictatorship without them. When an administration seeks to decimate them (i.e. Bush/Cheney) that is where real trouble begins, hence the last 8 years of our country being destroyed by stupid, ignorant, arrogant policy after stupid, ignorant, arrogant policy. All of that going on, yet you feel compelled to complain of Obama's celebrity Status?

BTW John McCain's a loser. Read some actual history on him from guys that served with him and/or knew him well enough to speak about his character, not the trash put out by his resident blow-job giver Paul Alexander. Thank God McCain isn't in charge. I feel very lucky our country tuned out FOX Noise and used their powers of thought, common sense and gut-instinct to vote for Obama. I did vote for Obama AUF, and you should research substantitive material, not the talking points that Limbaugh, O'reilly, Lewis and Coulter spout out of their pseudo-patriotic, traitorous, lying mouths via the biased media. After that you can thank me, and the rest of us who did vote Obama into office. You're welcome.

P.S. +1 for Palindari.

 

Wow, Palindari, please tell me how much of the world I have seen becase I would love to know what you know about me? Maybe your open mindedness has led you to the conclusion that my views are based on a lack of "seeing the world." Let me shed some light into the dark corners of your mind. I am 50% Latvian, 25% British, and 25% American in the sense of blood heritage. My grandparents fled Latvia when it was invaded by the Soviets. I have spoken to them at length about the hardships that they went through and the sacrifices that they made to make my life possible. I have travelled to England, Wales, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Greece, and Turkey, and like nothing better than travelling and experiencing the great variety of culture that the world has to offer. I am finding my conversation with you to be increasingly pointless and insulting. You make loose analogies and vague conclusions such as, "both liberals and conservatives use the media as a platform for their greivance." I am becoming increasingly uninterested in what you feel personally about this topic or my own world experience. I could continue to argue against your points and respond specifically to the "new points" that you have stated, but I will no longer waste my time.


krystallblue - you may question my patriotism, or atleast ask the question - do I consider my self a patriot? But I know that your loyalty to Obama prevents you from seeing truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNJsTjblC-Y. If you would, focus on this quote from the man himself,

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasnt shifted."

To question my patriotism and to provide the quote from Georing is to speak out of both sides of your mouth. But to say that I dont support Obama because I dont know what defines this nation is something I find remarkable. Quite less remarkable is a lawyer looking to reinterpret the constitution to fit his view of right and wrong. "it doesnt say what the federal government...must do on your behalf." Seems like a gross oversight by the founding fathers or perhaps a shift away from the documents original intention. Perhaps you would like to argue in support of the former viewpoint, I would be interested to hear such an argument.

As for your comparison of the US to **** Germany, I feel sorry for you if you beleive that they are so similar. What I have heard during this last week is that Georing = Rove and Lincoln = Obama. My skepticism of these equations must be rooted in my education which you also questioned and which I have had to describe to more than one liberal on this forum. You accuse me a spitting talking points from people who I dont even listen to, at the same time you completely veer off topic to spit your own talking points. I'm glad that you read primary documents and attempt to base your viewpoint off of them, but that doesnt make you right. You say that Bush and Cheney wanted to decimate the Constitution while Obama wants to live and breath it. And yet all I do is complain about Obama's celebrity status? No I complain when people who vote for him and have no clue about current events. I complain when the media manipulates facts to misinform the public and then Obama invites these manipulators into his staff (Immelt) and into the white house press. So before you go patting yourself on the back, get off your high horse, and we can discuss these issues with humility.

 

How could I have made this any clearer for you when I said this:

"I think to be a true patriot you should be less concerned about whether it is a Republican or a Democratic administration running the country, and more concerned about them abiding our founding documents."

I honestly could care less if it was Obama or Captain Kangaroo as long as they abide our founding documents. I don't associate myself with any party based on the name of the party alone. So do not consider me a liberal. I would not consider myself a conservative either. Both parties occasionally offer things that I support. It's just that I like to think for myself which is why I'd never vote for a conservative. I know that conservatives typically take their orders and mindlessly obey them. I'm an individual and not a sheep. I'll never pledge blind allegiance to the commander in chief, were supposed to be his boss (read the constitution you can see for yourself). If the way I think for myself casts me into the realm of a liberal, I fully embrace the judgement.

I would rather not choose to focus on a single quote. Just imagine if you were judged that way. If I were to be so inclined I would focus on George W's quote:

During a meeting with Republican Congressional leaders last month, in which they expressed concerns about renewing the Patriot Act, President George W. Bush reportedly espoused a very low opinion of the Constitution, calling it “just a goddamned piece of paper.”

“I don't give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

^Seems a tad more important to me than anything you have provided thus far.



How so If you support the conservative agenda? An agenda that up to now has zero regard for the protections and freedoms provided for we the people. I included the quote not only for you but for anyone who will read this thread. It is more than a random quote, it has been policy for various administrations and the marching orders for our most recent. I believe even a person ignorant to politics would likely see the that we have been duped.

I didn't imply that the reason you do not support Obama is because you don't know what defines this nation. I said if you re-read the founding documents you will certainly be enlightened as to why some have such high hopes with the current administration . Whether or not you support him at least you'd know why many people do.

Throughout our history, judges, lawyer, and presidents alike interpret the Constitution. That is the way it was designed. To be able to evolve with society.

Don't worry AUF it never will. However, because our Government as designed by the Constitution to be a Government of, for and by the people. It definitely better start to do things on our behalf (it's been at least 8 years) and not on behalf of corporate or special interests.

Actually don't bother feeling sorry for me. I'm quite shocked that you being seemingly abreast of current events, have not been made aware of the striking similarities. That's why I included the link to the burning of the Reichstag, Goerings quote and the declassified Gulf of Tonkin documents. If after researching you do not draw the same conclusions I'd not only feel sorry for you, I'd lose a little faith in your intelligence.

Where was that? I compared Goering to Rove. Research them both you will obviously be quite surprised.

You have skills with expressing yourself through the written word. I assumed you are educated. I just question the substance of your education.

I wish every citizen of the U.S. read them more frequently or at the very least once in there adult lifetime. I feel if all citizens had a working knowledge of those documents, our history would be very, very different.

Wow! Did you pay any attention to what the past administration did to squash it? It should be very clear to anyone able to comprehend the founding documents who then compares Bush/Cheney policy to Obama's.

I said you felt compelled to complain about it, not all you do is complain about it. With the current mess the previous admin has left us in I thought more substantive complaints were in order.

Isn't that the only way the Conservative's get any votes whatsoever? It's the only logical conclusion I can draw. Also that's capitalism at work. Since when do conservatives have a problem with capitalism?
Maybe with all your world travels you have not lived in our country long enough to realize that corporate owned media is, was and always will be biased. They will always play up to the person signing their checks. I prefer independent media sources for much of my information. NPR is a great source of information to me. It's too bad their is no right-wing neo-con outlets to obtain unbiased info, as by their nature they are all run by special/corporate interest. Oh wait.. Yes there is, its NPR for you as well. See that's the beauty of independent sources. But I suppose you'll argue that NPR is liberally biased because they don't try to push fanaticsm. They don't attempt to convert their listening audience into fully-automatic weapon toting, pro-life, christian missionary wack-jobs. I guess maybe I have a natural ability to discern between Political bs and real issues. I vary my sources research on my own and try to get my meat straight from the butcher, not some cheesy vids from youtube.

Sure. Will do. As soon as you look into what I provided to you in my 1st post. Then you can show me how wrong I am. Although I have no doubt that you wouldn't have a leg to stand on....

 

AutoUnion - you got me all wrong, mate.

I'm not personally attacking you. Your heritage or your patriotism. It's this unexplained fixation on the trivial (you posted the link to Ms. McDaniels not I) as if it means something.

It doesn't. It would be nice to think it did - but it doesn't.

What gets me is that 8 yrs ago I found myself in the same mindset as I do now. But back then it was Democrats whining how the Supreme Court robbed America in the election. Endless months of scrutinizing Bush's every move, declaring him unworthy - posting all his verbal missteps (and there were quite a few).

That was until 9/11. Then the country quit squabbling and banned together as Americans. Over time the seperations reappeared and we're back to the old Red/Blue state bs.

Travelling abroad is one thing - try living in those countries. Spent three years in Germany - and 18 months in Korea. Both were eye openers. It's a completely different thing to adapt to their living practices than just to visit. While in Germany I too visited France, Greece, Italy, Nederlands, Sweden, Spain - the whole UK (want to go back to Ireland now that its calmed down a great deal more) - didn't get teh opportunity in Korea (would have loved to have seen Japan). So I've done both and there's a very distinct difference.

Whne you live and work there, you begin to shed some of your Americanized veiws and start seeing things a touch differently - not all mind you, just some and it becomes even more apparent when you return to the US how great we truly have things here. The freedoms and luxuries we enjoy even at the lowest income level it's amazing.

You have every right, mate, to continue to play the "Chicken Little" card - just as so many have the right to ignore it.

That's America, mate - God bless her!

Sorry KrystalB, but I'm not the type to embrace that 9/11 was an inside job - that's beyond the pale when it comes to reality.

 

You make some fair points and some not so fair ones. Your tone is good at times and arrogant at others. But you speak specifically to what I say and deserve a response from me for that.

I will begin with the reference to the intepretation of the constitution. I gave a quote from Obama which I still suggest you focus on, for the moment. I think it speaks to his idealogy. You can say that you choose not to focus on a single quote from anyone, but this quote is in its proper context and, I think worthy, of specific comments from you, instead of "it was designed to evolve." The real question for me is what our leaders would like it to evolve into. You bring up Bush, and I will not argue about his abuse of power. But I am past Bush now, he no longer makes decisions on my behalf. Obama is the one with the power so lets apply the same critical thought to his ideas. He is basically saying that redistribution of wealth was not acheived because the courts were bound by the constitution, adding "as it's been interpreted" and he calls this a failure of the civil rights movement. So it seems like Obama's dedication to the document is less than your own. His party supports the nanny state where the government controls peoples retirement, healthcare, trans fat intake, among other things. They want to tell me what charitable causes (welfare) I should give my money to and how much to give. Anyway, I will give you a chance to clarify your position on this before offering anymore of my own viewpoint.

It also appears tha Obama's dedication to independent news sources falls short of your own standard. His relationship with Immelt is obviously suspect. And as the President, he gives credibilty to media members with obvious agendas. You might think that this complaint lacks substance. But I would ask "what is more important than unbiased information?" You should be familar with the rise of Hitler. The success of his personal agenda was a direct result of propoganda and unprecendented popularity something he shares in common with Obama. When you have Kieth Olberman and Rachel Maddow posing as news people, then there is a problem. When you mix commentary with facts and pass it off as news, then there is a problem. The best medicine is a variety of sources and that is what I prescribe to everyone.

You characterization of conservatives is basically a charicature of Bush administration and misses the mark completely. You are free to call 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing an inside job or vast conspiracy. But the burden of proof lies with you and an article about the Vietnam war is not enough to convince me. You say that there is no honor in what our soldiers are doing in Iraq, right? Please tell me exactly what you meant by this, I dont want to mix your words.

 

sorry Palindari - didnt see your post when I was writing mine. From what I have read I beleive your a decent person with common sense. But when someone tells me that I need to travel the world because there is more to it than what I have seen and at the same time has no idea who I am or what I have done, I tend to get upset. It also speaks to you prejudices. But in fact I know a good deal about this world, above average you might say, and I dont need to live in Korea to become enlightened to how good it is in the US. You speak of my fixation with the trivial and spend most of your post trivializing things.

Let me explain things in terms that most can understand. Bush led us into this current war in Iraq. He used misinformation to manipulate public opinion. The media did not do its job and allowed the public to be persuaded. As I see things, Obama is using a very similar strategy. His goal is not war, but the advancement of liberal agendas. He is controlling media access and attempting to surround himself with "journalists" who have similar liberal philosophies. Immelt is a great example of what I am talking about. If you think that Obama's relationship with the media is typical of any President than you would be dead wrong and I can provide many examples to support this view.

I think that some of the criticisms here only support my argument. When we use the actions of Bush to justify the actions of Obama, we are asking to be fooled a second time. Shame on us.

 

Fair enough AutoUnionFan. I've watched the clip, yet I fail to see your point. Possibly you may be taking the term redistribution of wealth far too literally. I'm not sure how you are defining "redistribution of wealth". I'm pretty sure he's not insinuating that he's going to strip the wealthiest of our society of their money and mail it out in checks to the poorest of our society. I believe that he is speaking to a more sociological form of redistribution. Please forgive me, ordinarily I oppose citing Wikipedia as a credible reference, however in the context of this thread I believe its acceptable and accurately depicts Obama's idea for redistribution:


"The objective of a moderated income redistribution is to avoid the unjust equalization of incomes on one side and unjust extremes of concentration on the other sides. Today, income redistribution occurs in some form in most democratic countries, most commonly through income-adjusted taxes (in which the amount of tax paid is directly connected to one's income), some of which goes to fund welfare programs to assist the poor or to all of the society. progressive income taxes are a widely used method of income redistribution....All political and economic systems facilitate the transfer of wealth, including capitalism, communism and socialism; however the favored method of redistribution varies from system to system. Some methods of redistributing wealth are: welfare, nationalization, taxation and socialism. The tax system is another means of transferring wealth. A progressive tax on income and wealth means that the tax rate increases the more income or wealth that a person owns. The distribution is spread from high to low, with top earners paying the most in tax and the bottom earners paying the least."
-Wikipedia (redistribution of wealth)

What is the problem with that? I see no threat to our Constitution. If Obama wants to change it, it would have to be in the form of an amendment. That being the case I ask, where is the threat? In order to amend the Constitution there is a process. Here it is, Article V of the United States Constitution:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Notice how specific it is. There is no way Obama can singularly propose much less pass an amendment to the Constitution. Although should all steps be followed, it would imply the people support it by a large majority, if you trust that your legislators vote the concience of the people. That being said, when it comes to that form of redistribution, I support it. And truly, is what Obama discussed in a radio interview 2001, before he was even a senator, really the best that Fox Noise can use to incite panic? Where was Fox news when Bush signed the U.S. into the NAU?

If your worried about the Supreme Court, don't. Bush filled it with his appointments and there are no conservative justices leaving the bench. With no vacancies in the court, and it's by far one of the most conservative in our history, where's the threat?

What? Nanny state? Doesn't the government already tell you when you can retire (or pay the financial penalties)? Do you honestly think there is going to be legislation that determines what you can eat? Or whether or not you can throw a dollar in the Salvation Armies red kettle at Christmastime? The Healthcare plan I agree with, there is no reason anyone should die because they cannot afford health insurance. Maybe for you and I it's not a major concern but the family being provided for by minimum wage incomes, it's more realistic to select a funeral plot than to plan on recovering from what ails them.

That pales in comparison to what we had in the previous administration. Cheney's relationship Haliburtons no bid contracts. Bush's relationship to the binLaden family, Enron executives, Big-Oil, The Carlyle Group. etc. etc. I know you say your over the past administration but that's unacceptable to me. If no one answers to or is held accountable for the previous administrations corruption, what has been learned? And how can we prevent similar corruption in the future?

Wait a second. You think Obama's at the mercy of Immelt's whims? I think that's a bit of a stretch.

I could not agree with you more. You are spot on. However, I would be more inclined to worry about the pseudo-news people/commentators such as Bill O'Reilly, William Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Jason Lewis, David Asman, Brit Hume, Sean Hannity.

"If it hadn't been for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Trent Lott gushed after the Florida election recount (Washington Post, 2/5/01).

George W. Bush extolled Fox News Channel anchor Tony Snow--a former speechwriter for Bush's father--and his "impressive transition to journalism" in a specially taped April 2001 tribute to Snow's Sunday-morning show on its five-year anniversary (Washington Post, 5/7/01).

Andrew Kirtzman, a respected New York City cable news reporter, was interviewed for a job with Fox and says that management wanted to know what his political affiliation was. "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96).

Fair and Balanced you say? A reliable source? I beg to differ.

Not if the conservatives who supported him still support his idealogy. I'd say my generalization is dead-on.

Well I am not in a position to proselytize everyone individually. I planted some seeds in order to possibly pique your interest and hoped that you may see at the least there are things you are not aware of. When someone, yourself included, offers me information which I deem suspect, I will usually delve into research myself and not simply dismiss it out of hand. What I like to think I accomplish is to light a candle for the people in the dark. My approach may be rough at times but it's truly only out of genuine concern for our society and where it has the potential of heading.

First off thank you for not blasting me on this and allowing me to qualify my statement further. My Great Grandfather was in the U.S. Army WWI, Grand-father was U.S.Army fought in WWII(purple heart, died of a bullet wound 15 years after he was shot), my father 12 years U.S. Navy served during Vietnam (aircraft carrier no combat), my 2 younger brothers each did 4 year active duty with U.S. Navy no combat. I have nothing but the utmost respect for our soldiers. What I said I feel is quite clear, It's a tragedy anytime anyone dies fighting for what they believe in (yes our enemies included, maybe I have more respect fo mankind than other people). But my main point was It's an even greater tragedy when what they believe in (die for) are lies. Meaning the mission they are on is corrupt. How can there be honor when it's really a tragedy.

I apologize if I have come across as arrogant. I've been having this type of discussion with people since before Bush was selected for his first term and I find myself agravated at times. I admire your dedication to your beliefs and your ability to express them in a collected manner. There's honor in that.

P.S. Hey Palindari, no sweat man. I don't blame you. I wish I was still unaware of the facts myself, it's only been about 2 years since I thought the way you do. I've lost many hours of sleep and that knowledge has caused me great anxiety at times. This truth is really ugly. There is more information out there than you can imagine that backs me up on this. Also I just would like to say that there is such a thing as a conspiracy, and not every conspiracy should have the word 'theory' attached to it. The information? It's out there available for your discerning mind should you ever become curious.

 

This is what Obama said, ""I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isnt structured that way." Before that he said that the Warren Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."

To me it sounds like the Obamas goal of "major redistribution" of wealth is impeded by the constitution. He aware of this and thinks that redistribution must circumvent the constitutional constriants by operating outside of the court. Wether or not you agree with redistribution which in this case is another name for reparations, it is clear that Obama would like to bypass the constitutional guidlines in this matter. Just because Obama studied constitutional law, doesnt me that he "lives and breaths" in this way.

As for the nanny state telling you what to eat:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/
And I think that socail security is a scam. I dont need the government taking my money to pay for someone elses retirement. In any case these programs are bankrupting the country, http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscal.../Mandatory.htm , and are more costly than war. Few people will argue that Health Care needs to be affordable for all citizens. But is government control really the answer? Ron Paul was a practicing M.D. for many years and he adheres strictly to the constitution. He shares my feelings on nationalized health care, http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

The real issue here is the media. I never said that Fox is perfectly fair and balanced by I think they do a better job of distinguishing between commentary and facts. MSNBC has Olberman and Mathews hosting covergae of the political conventions which they were forced to apologize for after a sickening display of bias. Now they throw Maddow in the mix to recount the first 100 days of this administration. Atleast with Fox News you can understand their values:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491985,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKKUf...eature=related
I said before that Obama's relationship with the media is something that we have never seen since maybe Kennedy. But I would contend that with the internet and cable television, Obama's exposure is on a greater scale than JFK. I think this is obvious to most people. My concern with Immelt is that he controls media outlets unlike the groups connected to Cheney, and this whole thread is really about the media. But once again you use Cheney as the standard for Obama. I would say that Obama has already had many questionable associations in his short political career which I will not list at this time because I really want to focus on his media connections.

Your generlaiztion of the conservative movement is based completely off the Bush administration. Most conservatives are very upset with the direction that Bush took the republican party, namely expanding the role of government and increasing spending. I would suggest you look into conservative ideals with the same energy you use to construct conspiracy theories.

Your view on dying for a cause - "It's a tragedy anytime anyone dies fighting for what they believe in" - is a very narrow minded one. Most soldiers, activist, or principled minded people throughout history will say that it is an HONOR to die for what you beleive in. So to say that your view is rooted in your unusually high respect for people is once again arrogant. "Give me liberty or give me death" is one of the core ideas of the founding fathers. To beleive - "How can there be honor when it's really a tragedy." - is mind boggling to me.

The war in Iraq was obviously initiated on lies. But once the our tanks were rolling through the desert, there was no turning back and our soldiers were and still are committed to helping the Iraqi people live in relative peace and safety. I am glad that our generals did not follow the political rhetoric of Obama who was against the surge. I admit that this utube vid is "cheesy" but it is really nothing but interviews, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcIeoSHTyCI&NR=1

 

Ok AutoUnionFan I'll summarize what I feel should be more important than a policy that admittedly speaks to socialism. More important yet than your complaint of media bias, which was prevelant long before you or I were born (assuming your under 100+ years old).

First what I think is more important than the media bias is for our society to maintain a working knowledge of the constitution. People would not deped on the media to puppet them around. If that happened people would know for themselves what is just and what isn't when measured against the Constitution. Imagine that. If instead of an uneducated guess at what is constitutional and what isn't you can actually find out for yourself. You named this thread "how obama got elected", not me. That tells me that your not familiar with the document beyond the title. I know how he got elected once again it's in Article II, Section I of the Constitution and Article(s) XII, XIV, XV, XVII, XIX, XX and XXVI of the Amendments to the Bill of Rights.

Secondly I feel it's necessary if any of our soldiers are to die in uniform, they should die for an unquestionably just cause. If my brothers had died for our country it damn well better have been for the right reasons. You say "Most soldiers, activist, or principled minded people throughout history will say that it is an HONOR to die for what you beleive in." That's a little too sweeping of a statement for my comfort level. What if what I Believe in is killing innocent people, babies, parents, grand-parents, school teachers, police officers. If I died fighting for that I'm glad to know you would find my death honorable.

You admit "The war in Iraq was obviously initiated on lies." (yet you don't see it as a conspiracy? Interesting indeed) Glad you recognize that. You go on to say "But once the our tanks were rolling through the desert, there was no turning back". Which is a strange logic that does resonate with some in our society, but is absurd to me. If your closest friends or family were among the first deployment I have no doubt you would sing a different tune. Or maybe if you've really gone off the deep end you would think to yourself 'I know this war is based on lies and completely unjust but ohhh welll. Can't make an omelete without breakin a few eggs 'eh.' You then throw out this gem, "and our soldiers were and still are committed to helping the Iraqi people live in relative peace and safety." . Looks patriotic for you to say that but in reality I think we both know it's bull. Talk to some soldiers. I think you'd find out more are committed to getting home alive and truly could give a **** less about the RELATIVE peace and safety. Ha, I like that, RELATIVE peace and safety. No such thing my friend. You have peace and safety or you don't.

Why? First thing I'd do is recommend to you that before you add the label of 'theory' on to conspiracy you do some investigating. It's not just me man. Look into it or remain ignorant of it but the theory addition makes it much too easy to dismiss. I'm a skeptical person. I don't believe in aliens, ghosts, comapassionate conservatism, trickle-down economics the easter bunny, boogeyman, McCain being a war hero, santa clause, lochness monster or other such nonsense etc. etc. So it's not theories in my case AUF. I was posed a question a couple years ago on what exactly the federal reserve is. Do you know what the Federal Reserve is? Please answer me that. Back to what you suggested, me looking into conservative ideals. Give me a break man. Less regulation? Less oversight? Lunatics with automatic firearms? You been paying attention to the world lately? The stockmarket collapsed because of conservative policy. Corporate greed destroying the middle class. Food borne illness and diseases running amuck due to diminished power of the FDA. Dangerous medications being released and medications being prescribed off label due to less regulation. You really need to start paying attention to what's going on around you man. Ignorance is bliss they say and conservative ideals = ignorance. By the way, your big beef is media bias right? You think it's outta control now? Imagine a how bias it would be in a state where there is no regulation. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth..

I don't know what drives you AUF it's too bad your passion isn't used to a more constructive end. You've got much to learn, I hope that you do. Good Luck.

P.S you ever hear of a guy name Carl Sagan? I'm sure you must have, you are a physicist correct? He may have some interesting ways for you to look at things in a book he has called the Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark. Very interesting read. Not political, but it might open your mind a little.